Originally Posted By: Lucky Louie

Originally Posted By: Smalma
Salmo g. an excellent point!

There is a couple other interesting twists to these tribal fisheries. I read in news release that the BIA had approved the Skagit spring Chinook season. Wonder why an agency in the Department of Interior is doing NOAA's (Department of Commerce) job by approving fisheries with potential impacts of ESA listed stocks.

In the case of the Skagit fishery there are both hatchery and wild spring Chinook present in the Skagit thus the rationale for the fish (to harvest abundant hatchery springs). On the Skagit the Cascade hatchery fish tend to return earlier than wild stocks (Cascade, Suiattle, and upper Skagit) so by fishing this early in the spring they can harvest more hatchery fish/wild impact than later in the spring. In sense this is an example of a selective fishery where the fishers take advantage of the timing difference to harvest more hatchery fish with lower wild fish impacts. On the Nooksack for several years the Lummi's have been using tangle nets to target abundant hatchery fish; again another example of a selective fishery where un-clipped wild fish can be released. The Tulalip Bay Chinook fish (which started at least 3 weeks earlier than past seasons) by fishing in a location (in or near Tulalip) can target hatchery fish with minimal impacts on nearby wild stocks; again another example of a selective fishery.

Yet some how the tribes have significant problems when the recreational fish selective (mark selection fishery) to access abundant hatchery stocks and limit/reduce impacts on wild stocks. Interesting that using selective approaches to access hatchery stocks seems OK for tribal spring Chinook stocks but not in recreational fisheries.

Curt


+1


+2

To add to this, the tribes have repeatedly stated they are actually going to be TARGETING COHO this year "in a few terminal areas with harvestable returns of fish." (http://nwtreatytribes.org/habitat-hatcheries-equal-fishing/). They are either for or against selective fisheries, as it suits them.

Somewhat unrelated but equally as irritating is the tribes justification of their quasi-permitted netting of spring chinook in the skagit. They are basically saying that recreational fisherman have been fishing for chinook all winter and spring, and now it's their turn (http://nwtreatytribes.org/tribal-statement-may-fisheries/)

This is purely preposterous, as the blackmouth season was agreed to (by them) at LAST YEAR'S north of falcon and was duly permitted by NOAA. The skagit netting wasn't agreed upon by anybody and not permitted by NOAA.

I'm going to venture a guess here, let me know if this holds water. The tribes were going to go forward with the netting, permit or not. NOAA wasn't going to issue an "express" permit because they haven't had enough time to come up with something that would protect them from litigation. So BIA pulled a rabbit out of a hat and all the sudden... voila, tribal fishing permitted!

As JustBecause can attest, I am not a expert on the pervue of each and every federal agency...but I'm gonna guess the BIA has as much of a right to authorize a fishery as the IRS does. Whatever legal gymnastics were behind this seriously need to be challenged.