Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,850 Posts
Chucker -
This is a high profile issue and having the correct information is and will be important. The Swinomish regs are for fishing the lower Skagit (Blakes) not MA 10.

Curt
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,165 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Chucker -
This is a high profile issue and having the correct information is and will be important. The Swinomish regs are for fishing the lower Skagit (Blakes) not MA 10.

Curt
Chucker -
This is a high profile issue and having the correct information is and will be important. The Swinomish regs are for fishing the lower Skagit (Blakes) not MA 10.

Curt
Thanks, I had been given bad info. corrected it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
694 Posts
The feds have to have known this was happening by now. Aren't the feds bound by the treaty to ensure the tribes get whatever they have coming? As well as the esa impact issues. Seems kinda like a conflict of interest to me. I would be pleasantly surprised if anything is done about it.

I'm at the point I think the smartest thing we as a state can do is shut down all the salmon hatcheries we legally can, then we will have some clout at the bargaining table. We should also be unwilling to agree to the use of gill nets in any treaty fishery that is co-managed.

I'm also for legalized gambling, why should we let the tribes end up with that money? Also we should stop contracts by cities or counties to provide fire ems or le to any reservation affected by the treaty.

This is just going to continue to get worse until we hit them in the wallet. JMHO
 
G

·
well there's some kind of protest planed on the 5th of may in lacey at the feds headquarters, it will be interesting to see what develops.
 

·
Triploid, Humpy & Seaplane Hater....Know Grizzler
Joined
·
14,857 Posts
Sg,
Does NMFS approval supersede a NOAA permit required to fish?
Thanks,
SF
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gone’r

·
Registered
Joined
·
647 Posts
Is there a way that the State can tell the buyers of the fish that these are Illegally ESA listed fish and not allow them to sell them in the stores. If they don't have an avenue to sell them it might put the pressure on them. I just spoke to a PSA representative and they are indeed netting today.
 

·
Triploid, Humpy & Seaplane Hater....Know Grizzler
Joined
·
14,857 Posts
Sg,
Thanks for the reply in the other thread.
It seems BIA is also now involved with giving the tribes the OK to fish.
Two questions....
Does BIA have the right to do so?
If yes, then who rules supreme over who in regards to NOAA, NMFS and BIA?
Thanks,
SF
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,555 Posts
Stonefish,

The BIA is not a fishery management agency; it's a federal agency charged with fulfilling the various trust responsibilities of the federal government to Indian tribes. Under the 4(d) limit rule (as best I can figure at this time), a party can apply for incidental take coverage of ESA-listed species while undertaking an otherwise lawful activity. Since the BIA is a federal agency, it has a "federal nexus" and can apply under the rule for Section 7 consultation with NMFS. Section 7 is more straight forward and usually quicker than Section 10, which is used by non-federal entities. (I think this is why it's been said the tribes can get an approval faster than WDFW, which is non-federal and has to use Section 10.)

Although BIA is not a fishery manager, it works for tribal governments who are fishery mangers, or co-managers with the state. The existing PS Chinook management plan was first submitted by the BIA on behalf of the PS tribes, and WDFW rode the coat tails of that plan for the convenience of getting in on the easier Section 7 consultation.

About federal hierarchy: In the president's cabinet there are several Secretaries. Under Dep't. of Commerce there is NOAA, which includes the nat'l. weather service, nat'l. ocean service, and nat'l. marine fisheries service, or NMFS. The Deparment of Interior includes the BIA, along with nat'l. park service, BOR (Reclamation), BLM (land management), USGS, USFWS, etc.

So BIA is the federal nexus and figurehead submitting a Fishery Management and Evaluation Plan (FMEP) to NMFS under Section 7 of the ESA. After NMFS reviews the plan for sufficiency and offers it to public and technical review and comment, if found OK, then NMFS writes a letter of approval to the federal action agency, the BIA in this case, and the plan and the fisheries it covers are good to go.

The statements that NMFS sees the Swinomish spring Chinook fishery in the Skagit as OK, or has given preliminary approval is total horse pucky. (And let me add, I have no personal problem with this fishery. It is consistent with what the Tribe has been doing in recent years, except for having an approved plan for 2016. Further, I have friends and acquaintances in the Swinomish Tribe.) However, there is no such thing as a verbal approval nor preliminary approval of an FMEP at law. At law, there is a written letter or there is nothing. Just like the salmon and steelhead hatcheries, there is a NMFS approved HGMP, or there is nothing.

Oh, and a letter from the BIA approving the Swinomish fishery equals nothing at law under the ESA. If such a letter exists, it is meaningless at law if brought into court.

Sg
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top