The State was actually winning a lot, especially when the Chair of the FAB understood biology and simply didn't split the difference. We had a situation where a Tribe's fish staff requested WDF to put in a conservation closure because the Fish Committee (tribal political managers) wouldn't close a fishery. WDF almost did but the Tribe closed and promised not to do it again. Did the same thing next year.

The push for "Cooperative" or "Co" management came from above the agencies when the State realized that Boldt II (habitat) was where the big hammer was for business. If the state had to ensure dead fish in the boat then development/industry/business would be constrained. Couldn't have that. Mike Fraidenburg wrote a good paper on that process.

There was, I believe, a lot of fear on both sides off going to court. If the state won, on conservation grounds and then constrained the Indians, Boldt II would jump in big time I also believe that if the tribes lost that any hope of conservation was gone because, as you remember from the Culvert Case, the State argued before the Supremes that it was the State's right to blow away runs for the greater good.

My perhaps pessimistic view is that the State is gradually ceding anadromous fish and shellfish to the Tribes in trade for not having to fight another, and much larger, culvert-type case. The Leg now realizes that the foot-dragging they did on complying with the culvert case has come due very big time with need to spend billions by 2030 to comply with the Court Order.

Cman,
Some of my memories differ a little from yours, and I defer that to you. Perhaps the magnitude of the potential of having to go on a reservation or U&A fishery to stop tribes from fishing (again) scared the bejesus out of me, both in fear and the social repercusions of "picking on the Indians". It seemed to me that Wilkerson brought the agreement forward because WDF was losing regularly in court. I know for sure that he said we all were better at managing fishing than the courts.

I totally agree with your last paragraph. BTW, where is Mike Fraidenburg? A very smart and interesting guy?

Flatbrim,

I agree with your statement, totally.

I believe this is where were at. It's all about $$$, especially in the rural areas of the state, where the casino's and revenues are small, and living standards are low. With the failing fisheries comes a "Moderate Living". How would that work? I think tribal members would rather obtain a steady paycheck vs working there ass off commercial fishing. The bottom line is having the cash to raise their standard of living. Casino's have helped, fishing hasn't. I can't believe the tribes would want fisheries to fail, but if they can get cash out of it, I think most would. They are in a win win position and us recs are the biggest losers. All the closures prove that. Give them a "Moderate" living, whatever that is. The general taxpayer probably would gladly pay for it, and maybe then the recs might get some opportunities back. $$$ wins every time.

Krijack,

Boldt rules that the Quinault and Yakima were "self regulating" tribes and not subject even to the state's conservation determinations. And if WDFW went to court with Q over escapement goals, I think Q would prevail. I can't prove this other than by observation, but in systems were productivity is declining, using spawner-recruit data will almost always support reducing spawning escapement goals. I think C'man knows more about this than I, but harvest management models do not incorporate ecosystem factors; I think they are assumed to be included indirectly. The upshot is that the Q are going to use the escapement goals they have derived, and there is nothing WDFW can do about it, either use its own or adopt the Q's.

Evo,

When Director Wilkerson formally adopted co-management in 1984, I think most things did run smoothly for a good while. I think any deterioration in the state-tribal management relationship correlates with the severe declines in run abundance of Chinook, coho, and steelhead stocks in the 1990s, along with ESA listings. That tightened up the supply of fewer harvestable fish available that had to be shared. The whole NOF exercise is one of many parties fighting over the scraps of salmon that are left. It's not the Qs who are not letting us fish the Queets and Quinault. It's WDFW, and the reason is as I explained above: run size forecasts are less than WDFW's escapement goals. WDFW could choose to lower and adopt the Q escapement goals, and then as long as the run forecasts were greater than that number, they would allow us to fish.

You didn't read the Boldt Decision very closely if you think the state can stop the tribes from harvesting "our" hatchery fish. News flash: they can't, and Boldt spelled it out clearly in subsequent court orders.

C'man,

That was both Quinault and Yakima that Boldt ruled as self-regulating. Many other tribes went on to adjudicate their status, and I'm unsure what became of most of them. Probably became irrelevant due to co-management. I remember FABs and that I generally agreed with the decisions made by Dr Whitney and Gill Pauly. And then FABs stopped happening.

Run n Gun,

Many people have tried to make the point that tribal members would trade $$$ for fishing, but they are wrong. Sure, some individual tribal members would, but the treaty right belongs to the "tribe," in other words, the tribal government. And tribal governments have made very clear that treaty fishing rights are not for sale. Because of casinos, some tribes actually pay their members to fish, to exercise the tribal treaty right. When ex-vessel fish prices are too low to support fishing, the tribe will artificially raise the price paid and buy the fish from their fishermen, subsidizing the actual fishing to ensure that the tradition continues regardless of market conditions.

The tribes do not want fish runs to fail. The tribal folks I have talked with believe that when - not if - ocean conditions improve, then salmon and steelhead abundance will increase, that ESA populations can be recovered. I wish I shared such optimism. Salmonid abundances are not in decline because of treaty tribal fishing. I have written this numerous times. Still, some don't believe it. I guess it's just easier to scapegoat the highly visible fishing that the tribes do; I don't really know why.

Do you really think that electing a Republican governor is going to change tribes from donating to that governor and that governor would not accept those donations. A governor, regardless of party, would never turn down a donation. $$$ talks.

Salmo G,

Very well said. Regardless of who has done it, harvest has been a factor in salmon declines, along with a bunch of other factors, for sure. I'm in the same boat as you concerning "recovery". I truly think we can recover much of our fishing through hatcheries well managed, but we will not come close to "recovery" through pure wild fish strains because we only have five percent of our habitat that we had a hundred years ago., according to researchers at O.S.U.

In the last week I have spent about $5K on new rods, reels, and lines...none of it on steelhead gear.

I suspect the several tens of thousands of dollars worth of steelhead rods, reels, gear, and boats I own will continue to serve as my own private museum of "used to be".

Fish on...

Todd

A friend of mine just got back from a non fishing trip to Oregon. He lives in Grays Harbor. He said all he saw was drift boats on the road and trucks with fishing poles on the road. He said you hardly see any drift boats in Grays harbor these days. Is it any wonder why? Oregon never did shut down their steelhead fishing. Only good ole Washington. And steelhead is the state fish? Unbelievable. Like Todd and many other anglers, my steelhead gear continues to gather dust.

Wonder what makes Oregon so different with steelhead as the fish go into the same ocean. How can it be horrible for WA and not OR?

Aside from the Columbia I don’t believe there is any tribal gill netting in OR.

CM, I asked the same question as you. WA and Oregon steelhead go into the same ocean. Is it a coincidence that there are a lot more tribes in WA as there are in Oregon? HMMM.
I know the fellow who owns BnR tackle in Oregon. I used to buy lots of soft beads etc. from him. He asked me a year ago why I don't buy any of his tackle anymore. I said because all the rivers that I fish (ed) are closed to winter steelhead now. He suggested that I move to Oregon or at least to across the river from Oregon.

Tribes are all over North America. Some just have more rights than others reaffirmed in the courts. A little history for those that don't know.

https://www.nwcouncil.org/reports/columbia-river-history/indiantreaties/

What is interesting is how the treaties started at the Canadian border in Western WA, worked South, and stopped abruptly at Nisqually. So all the treaties signed north of there are what is in play today.

https://nwifc.org/w/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2014/10/understanding-treaty-rights-final.pdf

simple, bureaucrats. That's what they want you to think.

i agree. Wont change things overnight but, its a start. Some people still enjoy eating grass and getting the shaft though. And salmo, if there was no data collected for wild broodstocking, why would they do it every year? Must be successful and personally might shed more light to what is really going on, if that data was out there. Seems to be working on the quin res and in nw Oregon. They are fishing. Enough of the excuses and games.

Ask those that participated in the Snider Creek Brood Stock program on the Duc, if it was working or not. Although no scientific documentation took place, those early wilds that showed up the end of Dec. into January sure were fun to grapple with. I think today were still seeing some positive early returns from those efforts.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/01187/wdfw01187.pdf

I volunteered on the Carbon/Puyallup brood stock program back in the late 70's & early 80's. Although not documented, we also were seeing positive results before it got shut down.

Spoonfed,

They did it every year because it was popular, and the supporters believed it was successful. But believing without evidence is more about faith than it is about knowledge.

We know - by the evidence of marked fish - that wild broodstock programs do return recruits. But what we don't know, and this is critical to understanding how successful it is, is how many more recruits the program returned than would have returned had the broodstock just been left in the river to spawn naturally.

The Quinault program is not a wild broodstock program. Broodstock were initially collected from the wild population. But the program runs on returning hatchery fish from that initial wild broodstock. In a wild broodstock program, the brood is collected from the wild population every year. That is an important distinction. It seems to be working in OR in the very same way. That is, they know the program returns recruits. But like programs here, they don't know what the smolt to adult return rate is, or that the program returns more recruits than if the broodstock had just been left in the river to spawn naturally. That's a lot of effort and money to spend without knowing that you're doing significantly better than not doing anything at all. I hope you can see and understand the difference.

They are fishing and we are not. Maybe it's because OR doesn't have a steelhead management plan that says no fishing when run forecasts are lower than the escapement goal. Does OR even have wild steelhead escapement goals? So who is playing games?

So, if there was no data collected for wild broodstocking, why would they do it every year?

Maybe, It was very effective in changing and abetting the Steelhead run timing. Get the fish coming back late in the season, then close down the late seasons to recreational fishing access.

Viola, no hatchery early timed fish to mess with the tribes netting, and no one fishing the later run wild only fish.

Measuring the broodstocking program for succes was not in the program’s project management’s set of deliverables, however it sure got everyone in the recreational angling groups excited enuff to volunteer, support with free help and boats hoping to get fish back to their rivers.

What it got as a measurable deliverable was late season closures.

Failing Project Management 101...

Salmo, there is no difference at the end of the day. One collects wild fish on the river to make hatchery fish and calls itself a program(siletz and sandy). The other collects hatchery fish made from wild genes, at the hatchery, to make hatchery fish. Both seem to have decent
winter runs. And maybe salmo that Oregon's wild steelhead population is doing good enough that they can keep its taxpaying sportsmen's fishing.

I agree Spoon. If pure scientific data is missing, it seems at least some educated guesses could be made with brood stock programs. Facts we do know include, more eggs survive to hatch in the hatchery vs in the wild. More hatchlings survive to fry in a hatchery vs the wild. More fry survive to smolt in the hatchery vs the wild. If the goal is to have more survive, then you would think the hatchery is the place for that assistance on the front end. Once released, survival becomes a crap shoot. Wild fish spawning naturally, have more risks associated with their environment. It could be said, that is the problem? Taking natures sorting out of the equation. That is, only the strongest survive. I wonder if any of the program's currently going on, have developed a way to measure success or futility? I would think that would be a priority to quiet the naysayers and lawsuiters. BTW how come OR is not having issues with lawsuits?