New Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan

Dipnet

The wanted posters say Tim Hartman
Even though this is quite a blow to those of us who've spent most of their lives involved in recreational fishing, I too add my thanks to Baywolf (among others) who work so hard on these issues!
 
Its a bullshit deal. Serious question you guys didn't realistically think the outcome would different did you? I am ashamed of my attitude, but I gave up on activism a couple decades ago. To think there will be any equity for the common sports fisher is just naive. It saddens me that I think this way but I do.
 
Good thing the state is so underfunded and lacking enforcement. The chances of getting caught for my upcoming Robin Hood-esque CNR beach fishing is much lower.

Thanks to everyone involved with this. It turned out poorly but some serious effort was made by folks like Baywolf
 

Stonefish

Triploid, Humpy & Seaplane Hater
Casino dollars go to WA politicians and ever since the WDFW has lost leverage. Next step = public shaming
Or legalize non tribal gaming.
I see no reason for the tribes to have a monopoly on certain types of gaming.
Their sure as hell wasn’t anything in the treaties giving the tribes exclusive right to gaming, or even 50% of it.
The state is already in the sin business.
They got out of the state liquor store booze business, but still tax the shit out of it. Same for weed and already run gaming themselves with lotto games as well as having a gaming commission.
It seems like a logical next step since they are always claiming their aren’t enough funds to go around.
SF
 
Or legalize non tribal gaming.
I see no reason for the tribes to have a monopoly on certain types of gaming.
Their sure as hell wasn’t anything in the treaties giving the tribes exclusive right to gaming, or even 50% of it.
The state is already in the sin business.
They got out of the state liquor store booze business, but still tax the shit out of it. Same for weed and already run gaming themselves with lotto games as well as having a gaming commission.
It seems like a logical next step since they are always claiming their aren’t enough funds to go around.
SF
I completely agree. Legalizing non tribal casinos would be the best thing for the way our fisheries are managed. Which is weird to say. I think the reason why it has not happened and probably won't is because the politicians that could make it legal are already on the pay roll of the tribes.
 

JayB

Active Member
Seems like the obvious next step would be to petition the WDFW commission to direct the WDFW to pursue its own license, come what may.

If that's a complete, multi-year shutdown of all non-tribal fishing in the Sound, at least we'll arrive at the endpoint that the political vectors in WA are all pointing to quickly - and without any pretense that there's anything other than the peculiar hybrid of paternalism and patronage that defines the political consensus in this state that got us there.

There's a slim chance that a complete shut-down would inspire an opposition that's vocal and potent enough to challenge that status quo, but I'd sooner put my life savings into Bitcoin than take that bet.
 

DimeBrite

MA-9 Beach Stalker
I completely agree. Legalizing non tribal casinos would be the best thing for the way our fisheries are managed. Which is weird to say. I think the reason why it has not happened and probably won't is because the politicians that could make it legal are already on the pay roll of the tribes.
Initiative 892 to allow nontribal gambling in Washington lost in Fall of 2004.
62% No to 38% Yes
Making NOF transparent would be an easier task.
 

Stonefish

Triploid, Humpy & Seaplane Hater
Initiative 892 to allow nontribal gambling in Washington lost in Fall of 2004.
62% No to 38% Yes
Making NOF transparent would be an easier task.
I'd like to see someone make another effort on it, backed by business interest just like Costco did to get the state out of the liquor business.
People voted to get the state out of the booze business.
People voted to legalize weed.
This all happened within the last five years or so.
It seems the political climate has changed a bit since 2004.
It might be time to test the waters again.

Due to the McCleary decision, use proceeds from gaming to fund schools and lower property taxes.
I would think the people in King, Snohomish and Pierce counties that just got the shit jacked out of their property taxes might have interest in voting yes this time around.
SF
 

JayB

Active Member
Initiative 892 to allow nontribal gambling in Washington lost in Fall of 2004.
62% No to 38% Yes
Making NOF transparent would be an easier task.
The composition of the electorate has also changed in ways that would make even getting to 38% less likely these days.

The only mechanism that has even a remote chance of overcoming that would be to structure the initiative so that - whatever the nominal purpose - all of the gambling revenues would be available to fund the maintenance or expansion of the existing suite of pay and benefits for public sector employees.

I'm not sure which would prevail in a contest between the advancement of tribal interests or, say, a significant reduction in health insurance premiums for all state employees, but at least it might not be a foregone conclusion from the outset.
 

JayB

Active Member
There's an interesting comment on a Tidal Exchange posting that addresses the transparency/observer issue:
https://tidalexchange.com/2017/03/14/tribes-continue-obstruct-open-meetings-next/

"Phil| March 18, 2017 at 11:54 pm |
Many fail to realize that the abundance of the resource should “dictate” the process. Not politics, not the pocket book.
The tribes provided an opportunity for observers in the room for years until Norm Dicks office met us outside the door after a meeting. And asked point blank questions to issues discussed in that meeting.
You fail to realize that you, the user groups were not deemed “co-manger” by the courts.
The bottom line.
Tidal Exchange Staff | March 19, 2017 at 3:47 am | Reply
  • (Editors Note: Phil is a member of the Muckleshoot Tribe Fishery Council)."
Very interesting that an accurate summary of what transpired during the meeting was so upsetting and provided the pretext for holding the meetings in secrecy.

IMO the next move should be to push for a separate permit. If that fails, I can't see any justification for the state to fund salmon production through hatcheries for the sake of commercial fishermen. They can obtain the permits and foot the bill for the hatcheries since they have de-facto control over the resource.
 
Last edited:

TJ Fisher

Active Member
"observe but don't question" this was after a meeting not during so I fail to see what the issue is. While the "user groups" were not deemed "co-managers" we the "user groups" are invested in this fishery and it's future and that entitles US as the "user groups" to questions any and all policy, rules, and regulation in regards to this fishery tribal or not.

WDFW has allowed themselves to be placed under the thumb of the tribes and now are faced with the difficult challenges of making things right. Co-Management shouldn't be difficult but it's appearing the WDFW has no balls to stand up to the tribes in the NOF meetings and simply not agree to the tribal regulations they put forth however the tribes have no problem telling the WDFW to modify their policies to allow more fish for them.

This is an article I found while doing some research some/most of you have probably already seen it but I'm going to put it out there anyway.

http://centralpt.com/upload/560/Advocacy/19637_201605-20CoManagementPerspective.PDF

While the issue of transparency is huge, ultimately my main issue is concessions that the WDFW allow to the tribes. We as recreational anglers give up our fish for the sake of profit to the tribal fisheries and the WDFW allows this to happen. That's my issue.

and gillnets tribal or not. they should be banned in the US completely.
 

Latest posts