Tribal netting

Big E

Active Member
#76
Just out of curiousity, what is the penalty for cutting/removing a net?

I'm in no way an advocate of it but I'm sure it happens.

Also, in MI we fished the Great Lakes and every so often would run across abandoned gill nets left by the tribes...is that a problem in the PNW as well?
 
#77
Just out of curiousity, what is the penalty for cutting/removing a net?

I'm in no way an advocate of it but I'm sure it happens.

Also, in MI we fished the Great Lakes and every so often would run across abandoned gill nets left by the tribes...is that a problem in the PNW as well?
It depends who catches the person cutting/removing it.

Abandoned gear is a major problem in the PNW as it is everywhere commercial fishermen have historically been.
 
#78
Nobody here has a concern with Indians personally or thinks they have a cushy deal what so ever.

This is purely about salmon/steelhead getting a shitty deal, as in, extinction.

I do not understand why so many of you defend netting on our rivers. Go watch them fish the Nooksack. It will make you sick! I will bet you 100$ it will make you sick!

Watch them throw seal bombs at structure to spook hiding fish into their nets! Watch them dredge the rivers with their nets! Watch them put nets 20 miles above tidal influenced areas in riffles you would like to swing a fly through.

It is insane to defend this pratice in any way if you want wile steelhead and salmon to survive.

The only place you can realistically catch an entire race of fish to extinction is by stringing nets or traps across their spawning rivers.
No one, in thier right mind would drift a gill net through a riffle I'd like to swing a fly through. You would hang up and rip the lead line right off the net.
I've live in Bellingham all my 52 years, and fished for most of them,I've never witnessed any of that. This kind of retoric is counter productive, and fans the flames of resentment!
 
#79
No one, in thier right mind would drift a gill net through a riffle I'd like to swing a fly through. You would hang up and rip the lead line right off the net.
I've live in Bellingham all my 52 years, and fished for most of them,I've never witnessed any of that. This kind of retoric is counter productive, and fans the flames of resentment!
You are absolutely right. They don't dredge up high in the river. The dredging is lower down. Up high they place their nets right on the slow side of seams and pound rebar into the river to anchor it or attach it to trees. It is often in very secluded areas and you may not notice it until you are right on top of it. They do this to hide it from fisherman who would cut it.

Last year I was fishing the Picnic Table Hole at Eagle Park for a couple hours and lost some flies on a snag. I crossed the river and walked up and low and behold there was a sneaky net fishing just under the riffles, suspended under the surface.

The guys that fish the rivers with nets aren't idiots. Their nets are expensive. They know how to rig them so you don't notice. They also know how to fish them at night when nobody is around and they also know that it is probably better to fish stretches that are closed to sports angling.

If you haven't seen any of that in all your 52 years than you need to pay attention.

I keep hearing these words: resentment, selfish, et cetera.

What the hell is wrong with you guys?

You think all some of us care about is hating on Indians and catching more meat for the freezer? This is a fly fishing site for God's sakes. We care about the fish's survival and cherish every one we catch.

You guys are the ones on your duffs talking about how it is all peachy is what it sounds like to me.

Go down to the red barn in the bird hunting place by Marieta. Walk the dike up and down the river and watch the Indians fish......go see for yourself! Like I said, higher in the system you will have to look closer to see the nets.
 

SpeySpaz

still an authority on nothing
#80
I'm thinking the same thing here too Jason...
I'm back in late...almost regretting dropping back in.

clearly, we are not as well organized as the tribal and nontribal netters....and a single unified message doesn't seem to be here. No wonder sport fishermen are PAYING FOR the fish, and others are CATCHING them.

to an old point-the treaties were negotiated in the Chinook trading language, which consists of only three hundred words. Let's say nuance was not a factor. I'm not a starry eyed dope, I just posed a hypothetical. What if the treaty had to be negotiated today, knowing what we know now?

Chris J, as far as getting swept...It happens to me frequently. :mad: when the sled will come around the corner, damn near run over my spey line, and drop a net in to sweep the hole I'm standing in. The piles of gutted chum hens in the woods add a certain ambiance to the experience, as do the piles of unspawned bucks on the beaches at other spots.

...and I'm out there in my fancy waders with a fishing outfit you could trade for a used car, waving a string tied to a cat toy...no, I'll guess I'm not exactly the taker in this scenario. Yes, I have a personal interest as an outdoorsman. But uppermost in my mind are steelhead, the spirit of the Northwest, and salmon, the basis of the entire ecosystem, being wiped out for short-term profit so some guy can buy his kid a wii.

Hey, nothing against the tribes and their fishing rights, but some of the stuff I've seen is irresponsible and wrong no matter who's doing it. There has to be some accommodations made, and I don't think giving up flyfishing for steelhead will do anything but give me an excuse to feel like a little disempowered victim, and I don't wear that well.
 

James Mello

Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"
#81
i am very famaliar with the various theories of salmon wandering, think of the bell shaped curve here with the mid point being the natal eco system. those studies started in ernst in the 60's and have been elaborated upon ever since. of course in that time frame, the UofW fisheries folks were in the dark regarding migration and fish returns, '...too complicated they proclamed...'. it was an interesting time with light shined on the subject by 2 comparative psychologists from the university of WISCONSIN, kind of an embarassing moment for the fisheries program, to say the least. i have to say, i don't think they have gotten ahead of the knowledge curve to this day.

hood canal was a central focus in the salmon wars of the 80's it was indian vs non-indian to see who could catch the most fish. one group or the other wiped out all the last of the wild fish in the canal. what you find there today are a very few wandering fish + the huge dog salmon hatchery harvest for the total benefit of the indians. the canal does not represent a 'crash' of fish in an eco system as the tootle did, it is an example of overfished to extinction.
Err, before suggesting things are simply just based on Gaussian distributions, you may want to read the text.... The curve is actually a shape in which the lower population values show a very static recruit to spawner (nearly a level curve) until a "minimum" threashold is reached. Then from there, the value becomes asymtotic to a maximum carrying capacity. The neat thing about the curve is the resiliance of the population to mortality, yet it's complete crash and stasis below the critical threshold. I believe the specific values you are talking about are the MSY and MSH curves which are quite a bit different than what I was talking about.

I think the biggest thing about this should be noted. I didn't disagree for the orginal cause of the Hood canal crash. Insteady I suggested that the ability of the fish to rebound in the "habitat intact" areas around hood canal was a poor example.
 

James Mello

Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"
#82
Hey, nothing against the tribes and their fishing rights, but some of the stuff I've seen is irresponsible and wrong no matter who's doing it. There has to be some accommodations made, and I don't think giving up flyfishing for steelhead will do anything but give me an excuse to feel like a little disempowered victim, and I don't wear that well.
I think that you're missing the point. Nobody said that nets don't have an affect, and I think that all folks will agree that irresponsible fishing is irresponsible.

What was stated that is we have only a couple of options.

1) Fix our problems associated with the 3 H's (hatcheries, habitat, hydro) in sum total and watch fish rebound.

2) Fix our problem associated with harvest with a complete moratorium on any kind of mortality and take it back to the courts and see if the fish rebound

In either case, since this is a federal issue the state doesn't have a lot of options, and they tend to begin with *US* doing something first.
 

Dan Page

Active Member
#83
Yes, a unified message is not here. The tribes have to become part of the solution. Don't know how that can happen. I get pissed also when they sweep over the run I'm swinging through. I've have had to back out of the water to avoid them. I could really go on about this. :rofl:
All I know is to is get involved with organizations I can align with. If you can't align with any groups then write, email, phone, visit the ones who can change things--your legislators, members of the WDFW Commission, the Senate Natural Resources Committee, and others. Let's give our anger and frustration to them. :D Only takes a couple minutes to express yourself. Do it often.

It's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.

Senate Natural Resources Committee--
http://www1.leg.wa.gov/Senate/Committees/NROR/membersstaff.htm

Phil Anderson, Interem WDFW Director
http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/staff/director/index.html

WDFW Commission
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/index.html

WDFW Commission members
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/members.html
 

Jake Bannon

nymphs for steelhead....
#84
I know that I am not nearly as educated on this subject as many of you guys but since everyone is on the topic......I thought Id might ask a quicky.

I think it was gt who claimed that habitat degredation was minimal on a few select rivers on the OP (Duck, Dosy, Hamma Hamma), and then one stated that those particular rivers do not get netted by tribes which is logical. Well my question is more pointed toward rivers such as the Queets for example. I mean, most all of the river flows through the National Park causing NO habitat degredation, yet the tribes are able to net 6 days a week at times! What else could be desimating the wild steelhead poulation on that system besides the tribes??? The Quinaults broodstock program, those fish interfering with the true wild fish?


Jake
 

SpeySpaz

still an authority on nothing
#85
Jake, every expert you talk to can agree on one thing, they have for me so far-
besides the 4 Hs there's also high seas and inshore interception, instream poaching, and some mystery variables like ocean acidification, feed availability issues, and shifts in ocean current patterns all having possible effects on fish returns.
They aren't able to truly quantify the effects of any of these things because they're not able to measure them for obvious reasons. This also provides a handy excuse for inaction...but in my mind should provide the opposite. Because we don't know, harvest should be curtailed. Along with a BUNCH of other interventions.

I agree with Mr Mello in that there's a lot of things to be done, but disagree with the idea that this is a Federal only issue- I mentioned that it's a hideously complex issue; complex because these fish fall under perhaps 30 different local and Federal Gov't jurisdictions, hideous because there isn't very good communications between them.

Totally agree with Dan-
the time we're spending posting on this would be better spent typing a simple note to our elected and appointed officials. All we're doing here is getting a little wound up, spinning wheels, maybe feeling a bit impotent.
Hell, send you representative a link to this string!
 

gt

Active Member
#86
thanks for your insights mr mello. if the work you mentioned is available on-line, please post a link i would be interested in reading as out here we really don't have access to any university library.

extinction is a harse word. but that is exactly the reason why the fish are not present on the canal. habitat in tact, no fish. someone actually caught that last wild fish. combine that with taking the fish population below sustainability, and there you have it what we all can clearly see today, extinct runs of anadramous fishes.

with the current harvest methodologies and quotas, extinction is coming to your own favorite eco system, take it to the bank, and it will happen very suddenly and it's over at that point. shuffling your feet waiting for someone like CCA to 'lobby' there way into saving fish is a total joke.
 
#87
While I don't want to defend irresponsible netting in rivers, or any netting in rivers where runs are endangered, it has been suggested by salmon conservation-minded biologists (eg, David Montgomery, whose fine book was cited by Kent above), that the best way to have a commercial fishery on anadromous fish is to restrict harvest to river mouth fisheries. That is the only way that individual river stocks can be managed, since the stocks comingle in the saltwater.

Sport anglers invest an inordinate amount of negative energy towards in-river commercial fisheries, because they are visible to them and they share the same waters that the sport anglers visit. Most say little (witness this thread) about the fact that the majority of commercial harvest is in the salt water. Out of sight - out of mind. Only a small proportion of that take is by tribal commercial fishermen.

However, as several others have pointed out, habitat degradation, both in spawning rivers and the salt, are responsible for a significant, yet unknown portion of the problem. Quantifying that part of the problem is made substantially more difficult, because of the variable that commercial fishing puts into the equation.

The experiment that I would like to see is a commercial fishing moratorium - before it is too late, as it may be in California. We then could start to quantify the effect of commercial fishing vs. habitat destruction on individual fish stocks. Once we start to get a handle on the habitat (and hydro, which is really a habitat issue) side of the problem, assuming we see a recovery of stocks, we could re-establish commercial fisheries on a river by river basis with harvest permitted only in estuaries and river mouths where the fish are already committed to their natal river, thus avoiding impact on other stocks.

I have no confidence that such an experiment will ever be conducted, however. We have seen too many generations of fisheries management, where commercial harvest is so far ahead of ecological health (or sport fishing) in determining policy that those issues essentially carry no weight, for me to believe that will ever change. Even ESA status for our Puget Sound salmon and steelhead stocks has not led to substantive changes in that regard. It is the nuclear fission management strategy; with each half-life decrease in stocks we keep reducing our harvest at a rate that guarantees a continued "managed" decline.

Dick
 

James Mello

Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"
#88
thanks for your insights mr mello. if the work you mentioned is available on-line, please post a link i would be interested in reading as out here we really don't have access to any university library.

extinction is a harse word. but that is exactly the reason why the fish are not present on the canal. habitat in tact, no fish. someone actually caught that last wild fish. combine that with taking the fish population below sustainability, and there you have it what we all can clearly see today, extinct runs of anadramous fishes.

with the current harvest methodologies and quotas, extinction is coming to your own favorite eco system, take it to the bank, and it will happen very suddenly and it's over at that point. shuffling your feet waiting for someone like CCA to 'lobby' there way into saving fish is a total joke.
Lemme see what I can dig up, but it's copyrighted material so I don't think I can just fotocopy and post... The book I read was in the Tacoma Public Library, so I'm hoping that you can find yours in a local library too. In all seriousness, this book completely changed the way I viewed fisheries, my impact, and the impacts of industry...

Here's the title:

The Behavior and Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout Thomas Quinn
ISBN: 9780295984575
 

Bob Triggs

Stop Killing Wild Steelhead!
#89
Lemme see what I can dig up, but it's copyrighted material so I don't think I can just fotocopy and post... The book I read was in the Tacoma Public Library, so I'm hoping that you can find yours in a local library too. In all seriousness, this book completely changed the way I viewed fisheries, my impact, and the impacts of industry...

Here's the title:

The Behavior and Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout Thomas Quinn
ISBN: 9780295984575
Without a doubt this is one of the most contemporary and seminal works on the state of thes fish to date. iagree
 

gt

Active Member
#90
thanks, as soon as the library finishes their remodel and reopens, i'll go down and search it out.

river mouth netting??????

how about river mouth fish traps from which: a) an accurate count of allowable quota can be obtained and b) from which unclipped fish can be released unharmed and untouched.

nets kill everything, no matter where they are set.
 

Latest posts