I dont care who says what about 50/50 or whatever. Indians dont give a crap about sportsfisherman. If you think they do why in gods name are they decimating the fishing runs. Nets across the river 6 days a week give me a frigen break. This crap has been going on for years and nothing has been done.
I know Im not the only one absolutly sickend by what these people are getting away with. Legal rape. Sometimes the truth hurts but thats just the way it is. Until all nets are banned this problem will not be solved. There is no other solution You can sit and put band aids on this problem year after year
but until the real problem is adressed we are all gonna suffer.
Ed

Take one stick insert it into the middle of a pile of poop and stir briskly

Somebodys gotta stir up the s--t. I for one am fed up with this onslaught of crap. This insanity has gotta stop. These people are playing god in our rivers and it is all so wrong!
Ed

Before you generalize, think of the Quinault. It has to be one of the most netted rivers in Washington yet it has one of the best sport fisheries also. It is managed by the Indians! So is the problem with the Indians on the other rivers or those who manage them? Sure there is a lot of money that goes into the hatchery program, but it also has a healthy wild run. I don't think it is fair to blame the Indians for all the problems. My .02

Hi Ed,

Well now, why don't you tell us how you really feel? Just kidding. I think you're right that most treaty fishermen don't care about sport fishermen. Why should they? It's not like we've done much for them besides disenfranchise them of just about everything they ever had as a people. Frankly, I don't expect them to care about me. However, I hope they care enough about the resource to sustain it so that it might sustain them in the long run. Unfortunately, I think we've taught them well to value short time gains over long term resource sustainability. We reap what we have sown.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

SALMO G , SORRY YOU ARE SO FULL OF LIBERAL GUILT,GET OVER IT AND ENJOY LIFE TO THE FULLEST OK? LET ME GUESS? GORE VOTER? WELL GET OVER THAT TOO :> )

Potter every year you hear about chums that are netted and stripped of their eggs then left to rot. Who do you think is doing that? If am not mistaken the Quinalts have a contract with a Japanese importer to provide them with eggs and they are the ones that are making most of that mess. The Quinalts net mercilessly on several other systems and carefully manage their own. I am sick of it too, as far as I am concerned the tribes are no better than the buffalo hunters of the late 1800's. The tribes will be the first ones to say that they respect the land and the resource. Well prove it!!! STOP FISHING SYSTEMS THAT HAVE THREATENED RUNS OF SALMON AND STEELHEAD DURING THE PEAK OF THE RUN!!!

Last time I checked the Tribes were COMANAGERS of the fisheries has that changed?

CnF,

Liberal guilt? I doubt it; just rational and objective. I wouldn't want to get over that. I think I am living life to the fullest. I fish, and that provides me endless satisfaction. And I also find amusement, perverse I suppose, in the endless rantings about Indian fishing.

You must admit; Potter's got a point. The Quinault Tribe gillnets the Queets, Quinault, and Humptulips Rivers, and all these rivers have, in general, healthy wild runs of salmon and steelhead. If treaty Indian gillnetting were inherently inconsistent with fish conservation requirements, how could this be?

The facts are different than what some of us prefer to believe. Treaty Indian gillnet fishing is not inherently at odds with fish conservation. - - As long as the requisite number of adult spawners escape the fishery to successfully reproduce. Treaty Indian gillnet fishing is directly at odds, however, with the maximum possible sportfishing opportunity and success that would be possible in the absense of the nets. That is a key difference in impact. The impact that seems to have many of you upset is the impact to the sport fishery, which is reduced by the amount of the treaty catch, moreso than any impact to fish conservation.

I fish rivers that are gillnetted by treaty fishermen, and I catch some fish. Do I think I might catch even more fish if the nets weren't there? Of course I do! But we're a nation of laws, and the law protects treaty fishing. Just as it allows dimwits like Shrub to become president (small political editorial). So accept it.

Actually, I rather suspect that as long as there are any adult salmon and steelhead lost to causes other than an angler's hook, there will be ranting on this and other bulletin boards. It's human nature. It's so much easier to look outward for the cause of all the problems we perceive. Not so pleasant to turn inward and discover that each one of us contributes, in some way, to the causes associated with the abundance, or lack thereof, of fish.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

[This message has been edited by Salmo g. (edited 12-21-2000).]

Good reply again Salmo. I got a question though why dont the Indians use more fish wheels. I saw one on Antons bar on the puyallup this last year and was just wondering why more dont use them?

Tight lines

Kevin

QUESTION FOR POTTER? i was wondering how the tribe nets the lower quinault.it is true the quinault has a great fishery.but is it netted 6 days a week?.salmo g. you have good points also.

Ok, Im relatively new to this state and the sport (first year in the rivers) so Im not gonna try and act like an expert on the subject. Im sure tribes like the Quinalt do a better job than others, but that does not dismiss the fact that runs are dwindling, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out gillnetting takes out a large number of these. I can see both sides and know this is a delicate subject, Im trying not to offend anyone, but ensuring the tribes can fish the rivers the same as there ancestors did is ludicrous. Obviously the general sport fishing population can't reap the numbers of fish from the rivers that our ancesters did 100 yrs ago, so the same should go for the tribes. To me it just seems as if the rules do not apply to them. Im sure Im coming across as ignorant to a few of you, but all I know is Ive spent many a day on the river without so much as a bump, only to see boat after boat of tribal fishers empty out 25 fish at a time. Anyway you cut it, its wrong. Coming from the southeast US, I never could imagine such a practice could still exist. I believe as long as this is a local (NW) issue, things will stay as they are...or at least until there are no more fish to argue over.
My two cents.
Chris

Scotty, the fishermen usually set in on the Quinault on Sundays, up-river fishermen. Down river set in on Mondays. Nobody fishes above river mile 7. Pull out is Friday during the hatchery run. As we get into more wild timing the days are cut back. The stub dorsal percentage is looked at each week along with coded wire tag recoveries. 25 percent or more of the catch is sampled each week for all fisheries. No drift netting is allowed and an open channel is left at all times.

I have heard of chum carcasses left in the Puget sound region but not locally. The enterprise buys the chum whole from the Quinault fishers.

[This message has been edited by potter (edited 12-21-2000).]

The problem is they seriously abuse their 50/50 and there is noboby but to oversee what they take. This subject could be argued
for eons but the bottom line is our precious
dwindling run of wild chromers is being raped! Strong words but the truth speaks for itself.
Ed

I think it's time to take the tribes back to court. I don't think anyone can argue that there has been an equal 50/50 split of steelhead in the past 5 years in tribal rivers. I believe the tribes probably approach 75/25 percent in numbers of fish in their favor and can set their net size to take the larger fish so the disproportion is even greater. On the Quinault the split is probably 95/5 in favor of the tribe because they have the river "sewn up" (unless ya got an extra $100 bucks in your pocket). I can only hope that someday some pissed-off steelheading lawyer with some extra time on his hands takes back "our" steelhead fish share from the tribes....or we can wait til hell freezes over and the tribes embrace a voluntary equal share plan. Tribes should not be able to catch more than 25% of their run predicted share until the sportsmen have caught their 25%, once both are at 25% then the cap moves to 50% until both sides are there and so on. This avoids the tribes hammering the early part of the run only to find out that the run-size is now downsized. The split now is not fair and there's no-one to oversee that the sports share is equal. I have nothing against tribes in general but I have huge issue with the Boldt decision and steelhead equity.

Here's a thought. Yank the nets completely, get the required number of hatchery fish needed to spawn and let the Indians have the remaining fish that make it back to the hatcheries. What the sportfisherman catch are theirs to keep. That would certainly eliminate the "incidental" killing of nates, the sportfisherman would have their shot, and the Indians would theoretically get to kill more than they do now. Probably too easy, never mind.


------------------

Rich,
But then what would we complain about. jk
Good call

Ed,

You're probably wishing I would go away by now. But Indian fishing is a subject I've put a lot of time and subsequent thought into, so I just can't seem to let it alone.

You allege that the Indians abuse the 50:50 catch sharing. I think they catch more than 50% of the harvest of some runs, particularly steelhead, but that doesn't necessarily constitute abuse. I think they do what the law allows them or what they have been able to derive from agreements with WDFW. How does fishing according to the law or and agreement with the state become abuse? Unfair or unjust it may seem, but I don't think it is abuse to do what an agreement allows. Maybe we need more factual information about the agreements.

As for nobody overseeing, I'm not sure what you mean. The treaty catch gets more overseeing by state and tribal fish samplers than does the sport catch. I've found it humorous that sport fishermen believe the Indians don't report all their catch, and the Indians believe that the sportfishermen report all their catch. Based on my personal observations, I think both are correct.

As for the allegation that our "dwindling runs of wild chromers being raped," I think I'm beginning to get it. If a wild steelhead is caught in a treaty gillnet, it is being raped. If a wild steelhead is caught on your hook, it is, let's see, it is being . . . seduced? Sorry. That's sarcastic, and I couldn't resist. I assume you mean that the gillnet caught fish results in mortality, and your hook and line caught wild steelhead would be carefully released to resume its spawning migration. If my assumption is correct, we agree on that much.

Actually, I have no problem with the treaty Indians taking some wild steelhead for their use (even if that means selling them) provided enough are allowed to spawn such that each river basin is achieving its potential steelhead productivity. That is a direct opposition to MSH as a fish management policy.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo G,
I generally respect your posts and enjoy reading most of them.To use the Humpltulips as even a general example of a river that has not been affected by netting is false.

The Hump was known for a river of great size and quality steelhead and salmon.Who hasn't talked about the once great run of late returning coho or kings.

The Hump was one of the last rivers in this state to go away from a three fish kill because of the numbers it produced.

It is now one of the first rivers to close for kill on a yearly basis for lack of returning fish.

This river has only been opened once in the last four years for kill on kings.

What has caused such a demise of a great traditionally producing river?

Is it habitat degradation?Poor ocean cycles?If these were the only reasons why aren't the nearby watersheds affected the same?

The timing of the demise of what was once such a great river is to coincidental.

sincerely ReiterRat.

Wednesday---Elwah---nets-100 fish
anglers-3 fish
50/50?