WDFW will not release 'early winter' hatchery steelhead this spring unless legal issues are resolved

#31
For the last 4 years the state has closed all or part of the Nooksack in order to get enough fish back ( about 130 fish ), to get eggs for the program. They plant 99,000 and get a fraction of a percent back. Why should tax payers continue to pay for such a wasteful program? Obviously the wdfw is not going to change the way they do things without some incentive, ie the law suit.
 

TomB

Active Member
#37
I like it. This could advance the question of whether the state and or federal governments are on the hook to provide hatchery fish for treaty fishing when natural populations are too depressed to do so. So are they, or aren't they?

Sg


Very good point, Sg! While we are answering that question, let me ask another: "If we are on the hook to provide hatchery fish for treaty fishing when natural populations are too depressed to do so, what happens when doing so adversely affects the very populations that are depressed, and which legal obligation, ESA or treaty rights, takes precedence?"
 
#38
...and if the state is obligated to provide hatchery fish for tribes to catch, and hatchery steelhead adversely effect native steelhead, can they completely isolate them from the native fish?
 

freestoneangler

Not to be confused with Freestone
#39
This will take the "Flight of the Phoenix"... circling around and around in circles of ever decreasing diameters...until it eventually flies up its own ass. What a stupid waste. 1146.gif
 

_WW_

Geriatric Skagit Swinger
#40
This could advance the question of whether the state and or federal governments are on the hook to provide hatchery fish for treaty fishing when natural populations are too depressed to do so. So are they, or aren't they?
The state and the feds are co-managers with the tribes. As a consequence they are only 50% responsible, morally and financially. :)
 

Salmo_g

Well-Known Member
#41
Very good point, Sg! While we are answering that question, let me ask another: "If we are on the hook to provide hatchery fish for treaty fishing when natural populations are too depressed to do so, what happens when doing so adversely affects the very populations that are depressed, and which legal obligation, ESA or treaty rights, takes precedence?"
My observation is that the feds prefer to think that the ESA takes precedence, but the US Constitution describes treaties as the supreme law of the land. And treaty tribes don't hesitate to point that out. Based on how the gov't has acted, a reasonable conclusion is that the gov't doesn't have the cojones to go to the mat on the issue, and will make a policy decision that mutually exclusive outcomes are possible.

Sg
 

Chris Bellows

Your Preferred WFF Poster
#42
My observation is that the feds prefer to think that the ESA takes precedence, but the US Constitution describes treaties as the supreme law of the land. And treaty tribes don't hesitate to point that out. Based on how the gov't has acted, a reasonable conclusion is that the gov't doesn't have the cojones to go to the mat on the issue, and will make a policy decision that mutually exclusive outcomes are possible.

Sg
i get why the government does not want to tangle with the tribes, but imo the worst thing is to have unsettled law and management trying to interpret ideas not codified into law. whether it is being on the hook for hatchery plants or foregone opportunity, we deserve to have these things be settled so we can manage with certainty, even if that certainty ends up sucking and being bad for wild fish.
 
#43
It's not as simple as ESA v treaty rights. Both the federal govt and the tribes are obliged to follow federal law. That is, they are both required to comply with the esa. The neither the state nor the feds owe the tribes fish, they owe the tribes just compensation, when there is an infringment on their treaty reserved rights.

So, if the compensation that either is providing is in violation of fed law, it is likey that a court would order the parties to agree on a legal form of compensation. Or the court might enjoin and order remidiation the action that is harming fish, as was the case w/wsdot culverts.
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
#44
My observation is that the feds prefer to think that the ESA takes precedence, but the US Constitution describes treaties as the supreme law of the land. And treaty tribes don't hesitate to point that out. Based on how the gov't has acted, a reasonable conclusion is that the gov't doesn't have the cojones to go to the mat on the issue, and will make a policy decision that mutually exclusive outcomes are possible.

Sg


then the steelhead of Puget Sound will go away because of the greed of the tribes that is to say the greed of the tribal commercial fishermen, not the greed of the tribal members themselves, just the ones who rape the Puget Sound and it's rivers with nets in such a way their ancestors would have taken them out behind the tee pee and scalped them. ok not the tee pee but the longhouse.
 

James Mello

Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"
#45
then the steelhead of Puget Sound will go away because of the greed of the tribes that is to say the greed of the tribal commercial fishermen, not the greed of the tribal members themselves, just the ones who rape the Puget Sound and it's rivers with nets in such a way their ancestors would have taken them out behind the tee pee and scalped them. ok not the tee pee but the longhouse.

It sounds like you know little to nothing about the tribes in the Skagit area. They are truly co-managers in every sense and should serve as a model on how the relationship should work between tribal fishermen and their rights and how the WDFW manages.
 

Latest posts