New Puget Sound Chinook Resource Management Plan

Bob Smith

Active Member
#46
That's an interesting interpretation by the Muckleshoot tribal attorney marklarson and thanks for sharing. I guess I feel fortunate that (at least for the time being) the Yurok and Hoopa Tribes have collaborative working relationships with the state and federal agencies and recreational stakeholders. Our tribes took their cuts just like the rest of us when the Klamath shut down both inriver and ocean chinook fisheries between Cape Mendocino, CA and Humbug Mountain, OR.

In California, tribes have used their clout to secure water for fish, fund restoration projects and help remove dams. I'm okay with their 50% share... at least while they are part of a large team with sharing common goals.

As _W_ states above - if the WA tribes are insisting it's their treaty right to take their share of a depressed stock then they are contributing to the problem... not the solution. What a mess...
 
#47
Exactly, and also, if they are co-managers, they are responsible for the plans and approving them as well. And what about the Gill Nets, which catch indiscriminately. If the season is shut down because Esa Wildfish survival is low, how can the co-managers claim that is our fault, which flashes me back to the Muckleshoot attorney's statement. ..
 
Last edited:

_WW_

Geriatric Skagit Swinger
#48
Once upon a time I went to a Grateful Dead concert. We set up about fifty feet from the stage and started to party. Directly in front of us there were three or four girls with their blankets spread out claiming their space. The closer it got to showtime, the smaller their space became. Somehow a gallon jug of finely mixed liquor was spilled and...they got wet. This was the last straw, "We were here first!"

My staggering friend decided to give them a status update. "Hey lil' hunney, you may have be here first," then spreading his arms wide, "but we're all here now!"

Working the lawsuit and blame game will make some attorneys extremely rich and I'm sure it will be their first choice when it comes to giving the tribes advice. Lawyers are about the law and winning first. Any conservation concerns they might have will take a back seat.

"We're all here now!" Eventually, habitat loss will become an issue in the courts. The tribes will blame development etc. by the state and it's citizens for habitat loss and demand either monetary settlements, habitat concessions or both. The irony of it all is that the tribes and their attorneys will travel the very roads they are blaming for habitat loss to get to court. They will file reams and reams of paperwork produced from forests in the ruined habitat. All of this paperwork will be produced on hi-tech state of the art equipment made from things found in this ruined habitat. A lot of this will be funded by casinos, with hotels, built on ruined habitat, advertising on media using electricity generated in the ruined habitat.

And they will show up in court grinning from ear to ear from winning the game that was rigged in their favor.

Don't shoot me.
I didn't make the world, I'm just observing it.
 

Bob Smith

Active Member
#50
Interesting Brian - thanks for sharing. As I read through the NOF Policy... my immediate thought was that it wasn't specific enough in providing guidance for how to conduct public outreach/input. I know this from my own experiences dealing with water and resource issues down this way - the Klamath Settlement (removing dams) comes to mind.

From my perspective, a well thought out collaborative process involving agencies and stakeholders will take a lot of time and money. When/if the Commission provides direction to WDFW - I'm guessing it had better include some additional positions and a decent budget.
 

JayB

Active Member
#51
Bob:

http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/.../980541/1/CORPS_inability_to_function_is.html

The link above will take you to an overview of the "Point No Point Boat Ramp Saga" that's been going on for 15+ years. It's very difficult for me to explain how re-building a basic boat ramp could face such significant hurdles and take over a decade-and-a-half in the absence of some public officials and/or departments acting in a less-than-impartial manner.

If someone can provide a credible explanation that involves something as benign and straightforward as incompetence I'd welcome the correction.

For a sense of perspective, it's worth keeping the fact that it took ~10 years to re-build the Narrows Bridge after it collapsed, only two of which involved the actual re-construction, and during the first half of that decade the country was engulfed in WWII....
 

Stonefish

Triploid, Humpy & Seaplane Hater
#52
The PNP ramp will get build someday once the price is met for supposed infringements on usual & accustomed fishing grounds.
The problem is, nobody knows the price because the project is a complete circle jerk between WDFW, the Army Corps of Engineers and the tribes.
SF
 

Bob Smith

Active Member
#53
Thanks JayB and Brian. Not long before I retired, the California Legislature passed AB 52 which requires tribal review of any project which could potentially impact tribal interests or a tribal cultural resource. At the time, I thought it would be a potential deal breaker on some good wildlife and fisheries restoration projects. Instead, it appeared as if the tribes were not really prepared to deal with the new law and a well prepared archaeological report was all that was needed (required under CEQA anyway).

This discussion has been a real eye opener for me. What's happening in Washington is FAR more complicated and appears to be aided and encouraged by years of government enabling...
 
Last edited:

JayB

Active Member
#55
This new PS Chinook harvest plan has the real potential of eliminating much of the conflict between treaty and non-treaty fishers in the PNP area. Maybe the launch will get built; it could be come a monument to what Puget Sound fishing once was!

Curt
Just like on the Stilly. The carnage that fly-fishermen pursuing SRC's with their 12 reverse-spider's inflicted on threatened chinook stocks was appalling, and I'm relieved that we finally have a management plan in place that put an end to it once and for all.
 

_WW_

Geriatric Skagit Swinger
#56
Just like on the Stilly. The carnage that fly-fishermen pursuing SRC's with their 12 reverse-spider's inflicted on threatened chinook stocks was appalling, and I'm relieved that we finally have a management plan in place that put an end to it once and for all.
And don't forget the Skagit! I recall once that I spooked a coho from it's lie while I was lanuching my boat for some SRC fishing. I don't think I'll ever recover from the guilt I experienced at that moment! Fortunately for me, counseling is available and I should be okay in a few more years...
 
#58
Back to the top.
If you like fishing Puget Sound, please get active and make some call, send emails etc.

Let WDFW know they seriously fucked up in negotiating this agreement without the WDFW commissions knowledge and no public input.
SF

https://tidalexchange.com/2018/01/04/wdfw-gives-up-puget-sound-fishing-for-nothing/
As stonefish said if you fish the salt in Washington it is imperative that you write and or call the WDFW, the commission and your legislators to tell them that this plan is absurd. Also, it is important to voice your displeasure that the commission was illegally circumvented and should have been involved in the entire process of formulating this 10 year management plan.

I have sent emails and made phone calls and urge everyone else to do the same. It is time for these back door deals between the upper management of the WDFW and tribes to end. Transparency and public records of these secret meeting at NOF and all others that we do not know about must take place in order to protect the fish and our fisheries.
 

Dizane

Coast to Coast
#59
I've contacted the commission and let them know what I think. As said above, I encourage everyone to do the same.

The conspiracy theorist in me thinks this plan has as much to do with NOAA's goals for killer whales as it does chinook. Using the Stillaguamish to potentially close Areas 5/6/7/9 allows the Feds to say not only are we working to save Stilly chinook (10-12 per year), we're also keeping some boats off the killer whale's feeding grounds and leaving more fish for them to eat in those areas, both of which are Fed goals for killer whales.
 

Latest posts