Legal Challenge to Co Management Sharing

bk paige

Wishin I was on the Sauk
It may be technically legal right now. However, Non treaty fisherman have a right to 50% of the allowable harvest of salmon. That is not happening and is one of the issues that needs to be rectified. Bottom line is the WDFW should not be allowed to forfeit that right with out the consent of Non treaty fisherman.


We do have access to the other 50%, in AK and BC.
 

Garin

New Member
This topic is one of my hot buttons. How the state bows down and absolutely wastes money. Let the tribes foot 100% of the hatchery bill and I would vote to shut down any state or federal hatchery and they wouldn’t open again unless everyone has 100% access to ALL waters that those hatchery fish come out of and into. Having hatcheries where anyone outside of a tribe can not go let alone fish in the same manner is insane.
 

Zak

Active Member
My ancestors used to sacrifice people to the sun god for rain and sun to grow food, can I sacrifice the Indians because it's part of my heritage? Those people need to get over it and quit singing the same sad ass shitty song. They only take because they can and are "entitled" to the fish for something you nor I had anything to do with. Their culture and the way they did shit is over. Drugs and alcohol and broken shit in the yard is the main concern these days, the state is just feeding their bullshit addictions.
United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

(emphasis added)
 

NRC

WFF Supporter
My ancestors used to sacrifice people to the sun god for rain and sun to grow food, can I sacrifice the Indians because it's part of my heritage? Those people need to get over it and quit singing the same sad ass shitty song. They only take because they can and are "entitled" to the fish for something you nor I had anything to do with. Their culture and the way they did shit is over. Drugs and alcohol and broken shit in the yard is the main concern these days, the state is just feeding their bullshit addictions.
Ew. Can you do that somewhere else please?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zak

JayB

Active Member
United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

(emphasis added)
Don't think anyone actually involved in this litigation is contesting that, or Boldt's determination that "in common with" means 50%. This is just about compelling the state to honor the terms of the treaty and the Boldt decision that both the State and the tribes are bound by.
 

VMP

Active Member
My ancestors used to sacrifice people to the sun god for rain and sun to grow food, can I sacrifice the Indians because it's part of my heritage? Those people need to get over it and quit singing the same sad ass shitty song. They only take because they can and are "entitled" to the fish for something you nor I had anything to do with. Their culture and the way they did shit is over. Drugs and alcohol and broken shit in the yard is the main concern these days, the state is just feeding their bullshit addictions.
Sadly, I couldn't find a "dislike" option in this forum and the extremely offensive and non-sensical question/suggestion about "sacrificing the Indians", claiming some analogy to human sacrifice of your purported ancestors is not funny, not appropriate, not helpful and sadly apparently not offensive enough for the moderators to do something about it. Healthy discussions are expected and encouraged in a free society, and apparently also in this forum. However, focusing the discussion on denigrating any race, culture, traditions and history while ignoring historical and ongoing systemic racism and its impact on the people being denigrated is WRONG and must be called out. I hesitated about replying, and I have no interests in personal attacks, but not saying anything made me feel like whoever may be reading some of the posts so far might get the wrong idea that people here only care about themselves. If anything, it seems ironic to read denigrating posts about "Indians" in a website whose logo is a Native-American inspired salmon with some forum members proudly displaying Native American inspired avatars...

Management of fisheries in Washington State, particularly in Puget Sound and even more so of salmonids, is widely considered the most complex in the world. As is it the case with most complex systems, complex problems often require complex, nuanced and honest involvement of all interested parties. The human tendencies for polarization, blaming the other side, futile attempts at simplifying complex issues and spinning information to suit one's biases do not help solve the problems and often make them more difficult (not only in fisheries!). A number of the earlier posts inquired about simplifying the legalese of the "Motion to Intervene", I am no lawyer but over simplifying an issue often times results in biases and perceptions of whoever is doing the simplification (such as the appreciation of the level of WDFW "cojones" or lack thereof). Same applies to the science and the decision making. A well known quote in fishery sciences if that "counting fish is like counting trees, except they are invisible and they move", yes salmon are easier to count (particularly in freshwater) than most fish but still there are questions about who is doing the counting, how reliable they may be, etc. and that is not even getting to forecasting the numbers of fish upon which the discussions and decisions of the sharing are made. There is no way to simplify this into an easy solution mutually aggregable to all parties and their constituencies at all times. That's why there are dialogues and discussions every year: yes, it would be desirable to have more transparency about the decision process, a clear commitment of all parties to long term salmon recovery, etc. But all comes with respecting each other and not boiling down the complex issues to "us" vs. "them", nor denigrating "the other side".

Apologies for the digressions, long day at work, couldn't boil it down to a shorter post.

For those interested in learning more about this complex issue, this could be an option (sorry, no intellectual handouts):
 

Mark Kadoshima

Active Member
Sadly, I couldn't find a "dislike" option in this forum and the extremely offensive and non-sensical question/suggestion about "sacrificing the Indians", claiming some analogy to human sacrifice of your purported ancestors is not funny, not appropriate, not helpful and sadly apparently not offensive enough for the moderators to do something about it. Healthy discussions are expected and encouraged in a free society, and apparently also in this forum. However, focusing the discussion on denigrating any race, culture, traditions and history while ignoring historical and ongoing systemic racism and its impact on the people being denigrated is WRONG and must be called out. I hesitated about replying, and I have no interests in personal attacks, but not saying anything made me feel like whoever may be reading some of the posts so far might get the wrong idea that people here only care about themselves. If anything, it seems ironic to read denigrating posts about "Indians" in a website whose logo is a Native-American inspired salmon with some forum members proudly displaying Native American inspired avatars...

Management of fisheries in Washington State, particularly in Puget Sound and even more so of salmonids, is widely considered the most complex in the world. As is it the case with most complex systems, complex problems often require complex, nuanced and honest involvement of all interested parties. The human tendencies for polarization, blaming the other side, futile attempts at simplifying complex issues and spinning information to suit one's biases do not help solve the problems and often make them more difficult (not only in fisheries!). A number of the earlier posts inquired about simplifying the legalese of the "Motion to Intervene", I am no lawyer but over simplifying an issue often times results in biases and perceptions of whoever is doing the simplification (such as the appreciation of the level of WDFW "cojones" or lack thereof). Same applies to the science and the decision making. A well known quote in fishery sciences if that "counting fish is like counting trees, except they are invisible and they move", yes salmon are easier to count (particularly in freshwater) than most fish but still there are questions about who is doing the counting, how reliable they may be, etc. and that is not even getting to forecasting the numbers of fish upon which the discussions and decisions of the sharing are made. There is no way to simplify this into an easy solution mutually aggregable to all parties and their constituencies at all times. That's why there are dialogues and discussions every year: yes, it would be desirable to have more transparency about the decision process, a clear commitment of all parties to long term salmon recovery, etc. But all comes with respecting each other and not boiling down the complex issues to "us" vs. "them", nor denigrating "the other side".

Apologies for the digressions, long day at work, couldn't boil it down to a shorter post.

For those interested in learning more about this complex issue, this could be an option (sorry, no intellectual handouts):
Interesting read coming from the Native American side of the co-management issue. Thanks for sharing.
 

dustinchromers

Active Member
Sadly, I couldn't find a "dislike" option in this forum and the extremely offensive and non-sensical question/suggestion about "sacrificing the Indians", claiming some analogy to human sacrifice of your purported ancestors is not funny, not appropriate, not helpful and sadly apparently not offensive enough for the moderators to do something about it. Healthy discussions are expected and encouraged in a free society, and apparently also in this forum. However, focusing the discussion on denigrating any race, culture, traditions and history while ignoring historical and ongoing systemic racism and its impact on the people being denigrated is WRONG and must be called out. I hesitated about replying, and I have no interests in personal attacks, but not saying anything made me feel like whoever may be reading some of the posts so far might get the wrong idea that people here only care about themselves. If anything, it seems ironic to read denigrating posts about "Indians" in a website whose logo is a Native-American inspired salmon with some forum members proudly displaying Native American inspired avatars...

Management of fisheries in Washington State, particularly in Puget Sound and even more so of salmonids, is widely considered the most complex in the world. As is it the case with most complex systems, complex problems often require complex, nuanced and honest involvement of all interested parties. The human tendencies for polarization, blaming the other side, futile attempts at simplifying complex issues and spinning information to suit one's biases do not help solve the problems and often make them more difficult (not only in fisheries!). A number of the earlier posts inquired about simplifying the legalese of the "Motion to Intervene", I am no lawyer but over simplifying an issue often times results in biases and perceptions of whoever is doing the simplification (such as the appreciation of the level of WDFW "cojones" or lack thereof). Same applies to the science and the decision making. A well known quote in fishery sciences if that "counting fish is like counting trees, except they are invisible and they move", yes salmon are easier to count (particularly in freshwater) than most fish but still there are questions about who is doing the counting, how reliable they may be, etc. and that is not even getting to forecasting the numbers of fish upon which the discussions and decisions of the sharing are made. There is no way to simplify this into an easy solution mutually aggregable to all parties and their constituencies at all times. That's why there are dialogues and discussions every year: yes, it would be desirable to have more transparency about the decision process, a clear commitment of all parties to long term salmon recovery, etc. But all comes with respecting each other and not boiling down the complex issues to "us" vs. "them", nor denigrating "the other side".

Apologies for the digressions, long day at work, couldn't boil it down to a shorter post.

For those interested in learning more about this complex issue, this could be an option (sorry, no intellectual handouts):

First, I'd like to thank you for the nuanced, intelligent, and duly sophisticated response to a complex situation. I sense you are someone who I could have a productive discussion with on a great many issues. You are well written and your points are well constructed. I agree with the vast majority of what you state. I do however stand by my statement that the wdfw and the state has no balls. Yes it's a tough and complex job but at some point you have to say no to some or all user groups. Fifty percent of virtually nothing is nothing. At what point do we come to terms with the fact that we are debating on who gets to kill the last one. I've routinely excused myself from such debates as I find it distasteful to divvy up the last sliver of pie. Either way some leadership and balls are needed by a few parties if we are to have salmon in any form for the future. Wdfw, the state, the tribes, and the feds are doing what is easy while a great ecological travesty unfolds and is well underway. There appears to be no real desire to stop it. If fishing in kind means we all don't fish then so be it. A decision needs to be made by those charged with leadership. Decisions take "balls" or whatever other term you prefer sometimes and are unpopular. That is the burden of leadership. Those unable to accept that burden should step off and stand aside. The time is long past for action and arguing semantics won't change that. Again, I mean you zero offense and thank you for a thoughtful response and I'm heartened someone spoke up to a response that I too found unproductive and distasteful. I wanted to gather the words myself however your statements captured my sentiments well enough for the most part.
 

Charles Sullivan

Active Member
I truly believe that the state has no balls in large part to having no leverage.
If the state went for their own ESA permit for PS Chinook, it would be either not be granted or the impacts would be reduced to essentially zero. The tribes permit would remain the same through BIA.
Sport anglers, especially in the salt would get less, approaching zero fishing.
In pursuing a joint permit, they are trying to keep some salt water salmon fishing in place. Salt anglers are the wealthy elite of the fishing world. They would not likely appreciate it if they could not fish in their big expensive boats.
I do not believe that separate permits would benefit sport anglers in the salt or reduce NA harvest.

Go Sox,
cds
 

JayB

Active Member
I truly believe that the state has no balls in large part to having no leverage.
If the state went for their own ESA permit for PS Chinook, it would be either not be granted or the impacts would be reduced to essentially zero. The tribes permit would remain the same through BIA.
Sport anglers, especially in the salt would get less, approaching zero fishing.
In pursuing a joint permit, they are trying to keep some salt water salmon fishing in place. Salt anglers are the wealthy elite of the fishing world. They would not likely appreciate it if they could not fish in their big expensive boats.
I do not believe that separate permits would benefit sport anglers in the salt or reduce NA harvest.

Go Sox,
cds

Can you expand on the premises underlying your conclusions a bit more explicitly here? In a hypothetical world where truly impartial public servants are simply following the law as it is written, why would NOAA immediately grant the tribes a permit in a matter of a few weeks but either explicitly deny Washington a permit or engage in a de-facto denial by pretending that it would take several years to assess the impacts of a non-tribal fishery that involves the same populations of fish? We're not exactly talking about a new fishery on Mars here. PS salmon are amongst the most intensively and continuously studied populations of fish in the world. Didn't the WDFW apply for and secure its own permits annually, as recently as 2012?

I'm willing to be persuaded here but I can't see how the striking dichotomy on display here is anything but the staff at NOAA publicly declaring that they've abandoned any pretense that they're impartial administrators who are simply faithfully following the law as written, and have all but openly stated that their interpretation of Boldt enshrines the supremacy of tribal harvest. In this framework, the WDFW's stance at least makes sense, because they know there's zero chance that Federal bureaucracy will give non-tribal fishing rights equal standing irrespective of what the law says.

IMO the WDFW would be doing their constituents a service by confessing that the system is rigged, there's nothing they can do about it, and formally handing over control of all anadromous fisheries to the tribes instead of engaging in a costly and frustrating kabuki dance that leads to the same outcome.
 

Charles Sullivan

Active Member
Can you expand on the premises underlying your conclusions a bit more explicitly here? In a hypothetical world where truly impartial public servants are simply following the law as it is written, why would NOAA immediately grant the tribes a permit in a matter of a few weeks but either explicitly deny Washington a permit or engage in a de-facto denial by pretending that it would take several years to assess the impacts of a non-tribal fishery that involves the same populations of fish? We're not exactly talking about a new fishery on Mars here. PS salmon are amongst the most intensively and continuously studied populations of fish in the world. Didn't the WDFW apply for and secure its own permits annually, as recently as 2012?

I'm willing to be persuaded here but I can't see how the striking dichotomy on display here is anything but the staff at NOAA publicly declaring that they've abandoned any pretense that they're impartial administrators who are simply faithfully following the law as written, and have all but openly stated that their interpretation of Boldt enshrines the supremacy of tribal harvest. In this framework, the WDFW's stance at least makes sense, because they know there's zero chance that Federal bureaucracy will give non-tribal fishing rights equal standing irrespective of what the law says.

IMO the WDFW would be doing their constituents a service by confessing that the system is rigged, there's nothing they can do about it, and formally handing over control of all anadromous fisheries to the tribes instead of engaging in a costly and frustrating kabuki dance that leads to the same outcome.
Brian hit the nail on the head. The tribes get their permit through BIA. Non-tribal fishermen have been piggybacking on their permit as it is easier and quicker etc. If the non-tribal fishermen went on their own, then their permit goes through NOAA. The state does not have access to the BIA permit pathway without tribal agreement.
I have gotten the feeling that id it was all up to NOAA, all salt water fisheries may well be shut down for the benefit of the whales.

Go Sox,
cds
 

bk paige

Wishin I was on the Sauk
Brian hit the nail on the head. The tribes get their permit through BIA. Non-tribal fishermen have been piggybacking on their permit as it is easier and quicker etc. If the non-tribal fishermen went on their own, then their permit goes through NOAA. The state does not have access to the BIA permit pathway without tribal agreement.
I have gotten the feeling that id it was all up to NOAA, all salt water fisheries may well be shut down for the benefit of the whales.

Go Sox,
cds


If we can't get AK and BC to stop taking our fish I think we will be shut down, especially in PS.
 

JayB

Active Member
I wish there was a flow chart out there to diagram out the paths that the tribal and non-tribal permits have to take through the bureaucratic machinery. I can remember that the tribes have recourse to something called "Section 7" that allows the BIA to expedite their approval process on their behalf.

I can't remember if this is something that the BIA does in tandem with NOAA, with NOAA's tacit approval, that circumvents any say that NOAA has in the process, etc. It's hard to fathom how issuing judgments on the scientific merits of harvest plans under ESA listings could possibly fall within the purview of the BIA, so my default assumption is that this is purely a political arrangement that NOAA has very little say in or rubber stamps when/if necessary after the BIA issues a ruling.

In any case, it's not clear to me how much of this process is determined by the law as it's written and how much is determined by the political sympathies and allegiances of the career staff inside NOAA and the BIA.
 

Support WFF | Remove the Ads

Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works. Info

Latest posts

Top