I agree with your assessment of Mr. Warren's track record, bobr.

The good news is that the courts appear to be upholding the work that's been done to right the wrongs. That's the best friend we could hope for.

Ah ........... or another way to say it is he followed orders.

Ron will follow orders. He will also listen. But still will follow orders. He also will do his best to support and care for staff, a quality that is often lacking in WDFW.

Some people work for the resource. Ron works for his people. At least from my experience.

High marks from me for his impeccable people skills. He is an approachable warm fuzzy which works well in terms of engaging the public for the agency.

Managing fish? Well that's a whole 'nother story.

From R - 6 update.


I want to let everyone know that there may be a need to adjust the schedule or regulation next week to the Grays Harbor State managed commercial fishery depending on the results of this Sunday’s and Monday’s fisheries. To update you all, there were two State managed commercial fishery openings this week, one five-hour the other four-hour, Sunday and Wednesday. The attached in a quick summary of the numbers. The total NOR Chinook impacts was predicted to be 60 fish for this week. Data shows an estimated 70 NOR Chinook impacts for this week, so we are close for Chinook. This is based on on-board monitoring, the proportion of NOR Chinook to Coho encounters. The Chum catch was predicted to be 7 fish for this week. The actual catch was about 1,200 Chum. The caveat here is the harvest rate used to predict this week’s Chum harvest only uses a couple data points. In recent past, State managed commercial fisheries didn’t occur during week 42, so there isn’t a lot of data for catch predictions. The Tribal data has more points to look at. Looking at historical Tribe catch during this particular week definitely shows that this is the week that historical catch of Chum starts to just up. I also want to let you know that Chum are showing up in good numbers in spawning ground index reaches. So, with that said, depending on what we see in the fishery Sunday and Monday, we may be directed to make a change to the fishery later in the week. This is just a “heads-up” there may be fisheries adjustments. Also, I’d like to note that tribal catch has been requested for this week.

Please help distribute this update to those concerned that aren’t on this distribution list.

Thanks and have a good afternoon.

Rivrguy,

Thanks for forwarding these updates! I didn't see anything about coho in the update. Do you know why there wasn't anything?

The E mail had a spread sheet with it I can send if you wish. That said it was 671 for Coho & they were modeled for 1131 which is 60% expected catch. Now Chum were 7 I think and they got over 1200 which should be interesting to watch play out.

As far as the tribe requesting fishing this week, does that mean they are putting in nets PRIOR to Sunday, the 18th? That would truly suck!. Bob R

Comment on Ron Warren......

Director Unsworth seems to have his priories for not only fish but also to rein in the commercial from "run away netting", also the WDFW Commission has given this State a new and better direction. Ron Warren is at most of the WDFW meetings......I'm thinking he has heard the message loud and clear.

Time tells all, the current direction for fishery issues in this State in now heading down the correct path.

Good luck, Ron Warren......WE will be watching!!!!!!!

QIN numbers minus last week are up on WDF&W's website. http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/landings.html

Then we have this from Steve and nope I know only what Steve provided.


Hi Everyone,

I want to alert you to an emerging issue in the Chehalis River basin. The Skokomish Indian Tribe has recently made a claim to “usual and accustomed grounds” on the Satsop and Chehalis rivers. That is, they are asking for fishing rights in the Chehalis Basin. They have scheduled a “meet and confer” with other parties to US vs. Washington, including other tribes, for November 4th. A meet and confer is usually a precursor to court proceedings and an opportunity for the parties to try and reach a settlement. At this time, we do not know the evidence for the claim. We aren’t sure they will present it to us on the 4th, as they may save it for court. We will know more after the 4th and should be able to give you a better update.

I’d like to say call for more information, but I really don’t have much to offer. This is going to be a wait and see for the moment.

Thanks.

Steve Thiesfeld
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Region 6 Fish Program Manager
48 Devonshire Road, Montesano, WA 98563
Steven.Thiesfeld@dfw.wa.gov
360-249-1201

Wait...I'm so confused. What rights are they claiming? They have ancestral rights? No? Oh so they have historical range that far west? No? They are greedy bastards? Oh ok now I understand, moving on.

I think we have to go back in years but in the 80's ( after Boldt ) the Skooks would come & put a net in the Satsop, upstream toward Bingham . Then enforcement would remove it. No idea on the validity of their claim then or now. That said it is not a new disagreement but someone might remember what the bases of their claim is.

In the Boldt Decision each Tribes's U&A was defined and mapped. I am sure WDFW has a copy. Since then, Tribes have used the Courts to expand/contract U&A's. If the Skoks have some historical, archaeological data that has come to light then they would have a good case. The 1980s probably don't count, under Boldt, as where they fished historically.

Should be remembered that individual tribes had long-distance relationships with other tribes. The Yakimas and Nisquallys were close enough that the Yaks have (or had) U&A in Puget Sound. I recall that there were South Sound Tribes (can't remember which) that had strong ties with the Coast.

So where would the impacts come from? Pretty sure we're maxed out on gillnet fishery impacts in the Chehalis, so someone would have to give up some days. Something tells me it won't be the QIN. Wonder what the Chehalis Tribe would say about getting low-holed by another, non-native tribe?

Not hard to understand why they want the Satsop included; that would give them the Fuller area, which would be a gold mine early in the season, when all the Satsop fish that get by the QIN and NT nets are kegged up below the mouth. Gillnetting in that area would spell doom for upriver fishing and the salmon.

Lands ceded by the Skoks under the PNP Treaty include those bounded by the Satsop on the west.

So would they attempt to put nets in the satsop if they win the case? That would be fun to watch. I'd love to see how the locals deal with the nets. It's my local river. Taking it away and plugging it with nets would be the last time I would pay to fish in this state. I'm not saying I would stop fishing, just not paying. Something I think everyone should consider. I can't understand why something like this isn't causing outrage.

Here's a link to the WDFW website on tribal treaty boundaries

http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/tribal/treaty_history.html

Holy Crap! Milt roe is right! Look at that map in the zoomed PDF

Looks like the western border of the Skok treaty claim IS the entire lower Satsop!

If that is what was ceded then they likely win. The really pissed off ones will be QIN, because that would a tribe with rights wit whom they have to share.

Chehalis and and the NI should not, in a perfect world, be affected as they "share" the NI half. This should just be an intratribal pissing match.

EXACTLY... treaty share 50%, non-treaty share 50%

State and Chehalis (non-treaty tribe) feed off the non-treaty half of Chehalis Basin salmon.

QIN's will have to cede some of the Satsop portion of their 50% Chehalis Basin salmon to the Skok's