Who cares? You may think, “Where is Point No Point anyway, and I’ll never use that ramp so who cares?”

The park and ramp project are owned by WDFW. It’s public land-- it’s YOUR park. It’s designed as a public access point for launching small watercraft. The advocates for the ramp are Attorney Generals Office, WDFW, Puget Sound Anglers, Coastal Conservation Association, Northwest Marine Trade Association, The Poggie Club, Bremerton Sportsman’s Club, Kitsap Park Advocates, and the local community supports it too. They are involved FOR YOU, because this decision will apply to every boat ramp in Puget Sound.

One Tribe has opposition, and their most recent objection is that “tribal fishermen set crab pots in as little as 12’ of water…where the proposed ramp would physically occupy…. (so) this will eliminate the use of a geographic area where tribal crabbing occurs.” (So the pots are dry at low tide??)

SO… if the US Army Corps rules the tribal claim is valid, then any tribe can use this same claim on any boat ramp in state marine waters. Legally, this January decision sets a state-wide precedent. This means ANY Corps permit for in-water repairs or modifications on ANY ramp can be contested and automatically denied, thereby taking the public right to access marine surface waters by eliminating launch sites over time as permits requests are submitted.

The tribe can crab anywhere, anytime, in any U & A areas, which means ANY marine waters in WA. Why such strong tribal focus on a single lane ramp in the obscure reaches of North Kitsap county? Because it’s not about the ramp itself (which is about 10 miles off the tribe’s reservation area), it’s about taking control of assess to the water. If the Corps rules the complaint to be valid, then the ruling applies to “the launches nearest to YOU” as well.

OK, OK, more strategic political theories, enough already! But you gotta ask, Why would the tribe care about a single lane beach ramp at remote Point No Point, when there isn’t even a dock? The Tribe nearest Point No Point (S’Klallam) did not see any opportunity at this ramp, and to avoid conflict, applied for and rapidly received theirown permit for new, private commercial ramps at Port Gamble. (The advocates applaud the S’Klallam’s solution and welcome their new launch!) Why don’t the Suquamish do this as well, and not try to control a Fish and Wildlife ramp that they are not even paying for, and that has no commercial use anyway (as determined by the S’Klallam)?

I welcome your input. Try to find fault in this theory, and let me know. We hope you are all tracking this decision, as it will have direct impact on your ability to launch and access the Sound going forward.

01/05/2021

No doubt, you could be correct.....

Oh for the "old days" ...... Pre 1974, many on here remember those days !!!!!!

This may be an "apples to oranges" comparison, but the CoE recognizes the legal implications of granting or denying a permit for the PNP ramp.

See the link:


https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-new...t-cherry-point/

The permit for the PNP ramp (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) is likely the same type of permit the CoE denied at Cherry Point.

Again, the comparison may not be appropriate (a coal terminal vs a boat ramp) but the legal implications are clear.

The litmus test for the Corps is whether any impact to tribal rights is de minimus. If the PNP project doesn't fall within de minimus (if any) impacts virtually nothing will be permittable in the face of a tribal objection.

By the way, this is the second work day in January.....counting down.

I have never seen a tribal or even a recreational pot in that area. Ever!

Rhetorical:

Since the tribe has developed its crabbing capacity subsequent to Rafeedie have Suquamish crabbers failed to harvest their 50% within their U&A?

From the CoE guidance on di minimus rulings: "If a decision to deny a permit was based soley on U&A rights, the Corps would need conclusive facts to support an established treaty right is being interfered with above a di minimus effect. The record must show the interference with a treaty right has reached a level of legal significance that is above di minimus effect."

Considering the quote in the first post is from the Tribal attorney's letter , the question becomes:

Will the square footage area of a small ramp, with 95% of that area being too shallow to hold crab, decimate the tribal crab fishery to an extent that requires denying the public water access on public lands, and also deny other future permits in that vast U&A?

(Keep in mind that this tribe's crabbing U&A of about 400 sq miles goes from Seattle to Canada, or Marine Areas 7, 8-1, 8-2, 9, and 10)

You're applying logic to a situation involving the Tribes.

There should be no question under a purely analytical basis that this proposed single lane ramp without floats will have zero adverse impact.

Now, the 800 pound gorilla is whether the Corps will apply an apolitical analysis.

It should also be noted (again) that this project has already removed a deteriorating structure and creosote pilings that had a much bigger footprint/environmental impact than the proposed ramp. Put another way, even with the ramp the project will result in less impact to tribal treaty fishing.

Mr. ned, I applaud your sticktoitiveness on this topic! I himmed-n-hawed before I decided to respond, as I only can provide conjecture as to how the permitting processes proceed for new/replacement launches.

All of my experiences have been in freshwater construction on the mid/upper Columbia. I hypothesize that the tribal influence is less dramatic in this instance, as there is less dough to mine in freshwater (assumed), as compared to saltwater applications. But I will say that in the last 15-20 years, it appears that the pendulum has really turned in the favor of the tribes when it comes to favorable legal decisions, fish/game season setting/self-regulation, as well as "off rez" government document review also.

In this new age of "Woke, Hyper Sensitivity, and Celebrate-Individualism" the NW Native Americans/Indians/Tribes are aligning to really own The State of Washington's natural resources, with little resistance from our own WDFW. The Federal Gov has designed the system already by setting up the payouts for past dirty deeds in regards to habitat loss on the Columbia as restitution (BPA and every PUD get's hammered every 10-20 years by Tribes for more cash). Who can fault anyone if they get a chance to capitalize financially due to any of these circumstances, but when will it ever end??? What travesties have taken place in the last XX (50) years to keep these moral and racial divides continuing? That's what bothers me, as when does the money stop being paid out, and the speciality treatment end? Will there ever be a sunset clause to any of these race issues (and no reservations), regarding the resources? Ie-Natives get to fish/hunt like their ancestors, yet their ancestors were doing it how many 100's of years ago, and the tribes are lowering the % to be considered a "native" (really, seems like follow the money to me??)? It just can't self sustain, in my logic?? Am I asking the question nobody want's to ask, because then you're a RACIST??? IDK..sorry for the rant guys..

Don't be too quick to look at it that way...if the tribe thinks that recreational crabbers will have easier access to crabs in that area due to the boat launch, then I guarantee you they will consider that an adverse impact.

In any event, the impacts are, at worst, de minimus, in my opinion, so hopefully the Corps stands up to the tribe and makes them prove otherwise.

Fish on...

Todd

If their concern is easier recreational access to the resource (crab or others) then that argument is DOA given that those resources have been or should have been divvied up before each season begins. Also, as for crab the recreational crabbers in that MA (2W) haven't taken the State's 50%; a NT commercial regularly occurred to "mop up" the State's share.

Snit - Your questions have been debated on this BB for years, so you are not alone.

Perhaps I can lend some perspective on your concerns, without hijacking the thread.

The Tribes signed numerous Treaties back around 1855 or so. Many of them were negotiated by Isaac Stevens so they are known today as the Steven’s Treaties. The Tribes gave up much of their ancestral land they ‘owned’ (loosely defined) in exchange for the right to continue to live on the land as they had for centuries. They didn’t want to be shuffled off to a distant reservation.

They also did not give up their right to hunt and fish in their usual and accustomed places. Since they lived a subsistence lifestyle, they had to hunt, fish, and gather roots and berries for sustenance (no other choice in 1855). But take note, the Treaties did NOT give the Tribes the right to hunt and fish in their usual and accustomed places. The Treaties acknowledged that right existed BEFORE the Treaties were signed. Signing the Treaties ensured that right would continue into the future, up to and including 2021. Thus, the Treaties did not provide the Tribes with anything they didn’t already have, including the right to hunt and fish in their usual and accustomed places. That remains so today.

In the intervening 160+ years, lots of things have happened in the PNW, including building lots of dams on the Columbia and its tributaries. This had the effect of facilitating human development throughout the PNW to the detriment of the fish and wildlife resources that live there, and which the Tribes rely on for both subsistence and ceremonial purposes. We all know the Tribes no longer live a subsistence lifestyle. They go to the grocery store just like everyone else. But the Treaties have not changed. The Tribal rights reserved by the Treaties still exist.

So when will it end? In short, it won’t. The Treaties remain as they were negotiated. The Tribes still have their reserved rights. This is not racism. It’s just a product of the negotiations that occurred in 1855. The Columbia River Tribes will be somewhat satisfied when the Columbia River once again produces a similar number of adult salmon that existed when the Treaties were signed (~ 10-15 million). The current production of salmon in the Columbia is around 1 million, so we have a long way to go.

In the meantime, the Tribes use whatever leverage they have to ensure the Federal government lives up to the expectations of the Treaties they negotiated and signed in 1855. If that means negotiating with government agencies such as BPA, the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, or WDFW, that is what they will do. They are acting in the best interests of their Tribe. Which is exactly what we would expect them to do.

Hope this helps.

Mr. Cohoangler

Your basic description was probably covered in Wash State History, but that was 30+ years ago! Thanks so much for taking the time to dumb it down and oversimplify the treaty situation for me, much appreciated! Reminds me why I dropped Calculus in school also..gick!

"hate the game, not the player" comes to mind.

Yeah, this has nothing to do with race. It's contract law. It's both sides trying to maintain their sovereign rights. Everyone in the aformentioned advocate group supports the tribes right to harvest their share as designated by Boldt as recognized in our contract (also known a Treaty).

Speaking for myself, I am interested in preserving my ability to enjoy the water. I don't think the waters are too crowded that anyone's ability to boat/kayak/swim/fish/crab/waterski is hamered. I think there's plenty of room for everyone. I would promote and be in favor of the tribe putting in 1, 2, or 10 boat launches. What does it matter as long as we're all observing the harvest guidelines?
However, the tribal claim is that a launch will add to marine traffic and create unsafe marine conditions, and therefore hamper their ability to harvest their half. To each their own opinion; that's what the Corps has to rule on.

If I were to oppose a tribal harvest, it would be seen as a racist objective. Yet the tribe may be able restrict my ability to harvest my share by limiting water access ...this is where it gets into the contract law part of it, and departs from both logic and "co-management".

When US laws are based on the constitutional concept of being equal under the law,then our own contract (we wrote it) deviates and creates a super-citizen group that has rights others don't have, things eventually go sideways. Stevens/ US govt made the contract, and I respect that. Boldt was legally sound. In this case, I have a legal and sovereign right to access any federal waterways, and the AG and advocates agree. It's a govt vs govt sovereignty contract issue. Has nothing to do with race.

"the tribal claim is that a launch will add to marine traffic and create unsafe marine conditions, and therefore hamper their ability to harvest their half"

They of course don't truly believe that themselves but are throwing up any argument they think may stick. When we rule in their favor on such a ridiculous argument it only sets bad precedent and encourages the craziness.

What do you think the true reason is they don't want it? Spite? They want the Sound all to themselves? (that ship has sailed and never coming back to port).

Heck, pay them $1,000/lb for the 12 crab a year they may not catch because of the launch as mitigation.

Crazy Town!

If you were to dig through all of the related correspondence you would locate a letter from the tribe cancelling a scheduled meeting with WDFW which was to include PNP. The reason it was cancelled was that WDFW stood fast on its position regarding tribal hunting on private lands which infuriated tribal leaders. If there had been any potential for resolving PNP it went away right then.

Way of the world right now I guess - we're all better at making enemies than working together...

With all there casino money, lobbyist and lawyers and our spineless WDFW and Gov. does it just make sense to just have them manage the whole thing and we get our half? Kind of a joke now. As I understand it we can't get a breakwater in West Seattle because of the tribes and I imagine its only a matter of time before that the rest of the central sound deals with these same things.

Might as well sell the boats and get Kayaks to fish. Then they will have something to complain about. 500 kayaks fishing the point will make them wish they had just STFU and let the few folks who use the launch for the tiny window area 9/10 are open.

First work week of January 2021 has come and gone - without a decision.