There is a proposal floating around this state to add $$ to our license fees to fund a partial buyout or "lease" of tribal quotas. How it would work is that the tribes would sell a portion of their Boldt Decision quota to non-tribal sports fishers. Say the tribes have 50% of 10,000 fish or 5,000 fish and they only want to catch 2,500 of them they would then sell the other 2,500 fish to be added to the sports quota. The cost would be amortized into license fees. Good idea?

I brought up this idea several years ago and have wondered how to get some traction with it. I figured that with the declining ex-vessel prices for gillnet salmon and steelhead, some tribes would eventually see this as the most viable economic option for part of the treaty share.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo

I think the tribes are mostly concerned about maintaining their treaty rights and not in the catch. As I drove home today on I-5 I looked down at Lake Union and saw the same gill nets that have been there for a couple of weeks. I suspect that the catch will bring in enough money for a gas and some groceries . The Makah's up at Neah Bay push whaling to maintain the treaty right. Not to eat whale blubber. The younger members of the tribes probably are more receptive to the proposal since most of the fishing is subbed out right now anyway. The fishing sites on rivers are held in the families and passed on generation after generation...On the Quinault I know that non tribal subs work the nets for the stake holders....If they could sell the rights and do absolutely nothing I think they would consider it. The problem might be though that some tribal members would sell out too cheap. The Quinaults again sold off some of their prized timber to exploiters for cents on the dollar...Now the beautiful forest the tribe worked so hard to get from the government are clear cut. The proposal could get legs when the indian haters step back for a second and try to work around the reality of the treaty rights the tribes have instead of complaining about them ad noseum

Would this, or could this, be considered some sort of a subsidy? Like the ones given to wheat and cotton farmers?

I think it would be a great idea; win/win for everyone. Sounds like there's a better chance of achieving this goal than buying back the license of a non-treaty commercial.

On the face of things, I could support this. I'd want it to be a fixed payout for termination of the quota rights, rather than an ongoing payment.

On the surface it sounds good, but lots of things are done just because they sounded good. The reality is that the tribes that want to participate would only do it as long as the fish prices are depressed. Once the prices start going up all bets are off. Also, can see the state keeping the increase in place even if there is no buyout. Their track record is proven on this.

I think it's a great idea, but my experience on this topic points to the probability that even if the program was set up and funded, either by license increases or otherwise, the tribes wouldn't go for it.

Grandpa2, PSA has a great conversational relationship with Billy Frank, and I'm sure you've heard his opinions on such an idea;

1. Treaty rights are not for sale, or lease;

2. Even if they were, it couldn't be done because while the tribe holds the treaty right, it is exercised by individual fishermen who make a certain amount of money based on how well they fish and what price they can get for their fish. It would be impossible to apportion the $$ to the proper tribal fishermen.

3. In the fuzzy areas of the Boldt decision, management is done by agreement, pretty much each and every year. That being said, agreements that happen over and over again start to carry the weight of law, and changing any agreements to lease/sell rights would be more difficult as time goes on.

Without agreement from all individual fishermen, it wouldn't happen. While some of the fishers do it just for the money, some of them do it because they like to exercise their treaty rights, and they like to fish. The former might not care if they are guaranteed the same money, while the former probably wouldn't care no matter how much money they were offered.

On another note, I'm pretty sure that subbing out netting duty would violate all kinds of federal laws, including the Boldt decision itself. As far as I know, the only non-tribal folks that can even be on the boat while treaty fishing takes place are spouses of the fishermen who are on the boat, too.

Fish on...

Todd.

It sounds good on paper, but with all the abuses we see and hear about, how are we going to make sure that they don't take the money and then fish like they always have? If we do a buyout, then we must do a complete buyout. Then we know that if they're fishing, they're doing so illegally.

Something that I've been thinking about is some type of permit that you could buy that would grant you a large daily limit of fish. The individual angler could purchase a special punch card that would allow them X amount of fish per day over the normal limit. The fees would go to the tribes, and the catch numbers would go against the indians catch total. This might not work on every river, but I think areas like the Skokomish or Hoodsport could be good candidates to do a test run. So instead of forcing all anglers to pay the Tribes off, it would just be the ones that want the extra meat.

There's my 2 cents in the pot.

Say only the Tulalips agree to sell some of their take. Why should sportfishers around the rest of the state fund this when they reap no benefit?

Todd...non indians fishing for indians is widespread. I don't know if there is a law prohibitting them from hiring someone to work for them (can you say loophole?). Certainly the non indian commercials can do that. It may be against some law or other but it is happening. This spring at the Edmonds marina I saw first hand 5 Alaska fishing boats being used to harvest shrimp right out in front. There was ONE indian woman and about 10 white "helpers". Each boat had about 150 collapsible shrimp pots...they harvested tons of shrimp on the indians "quota"....highly likely that most of it went uncounted.

With that said...I don't know anything about a dialogue with Billy Frank. I don't know who is pushing this lease of tribal rights proposal either. As I understand it the plan would allow leasing quota only. So what the end result would be would probably simply extend the sport fishing opportunity..Say in area 9...add a couple of weeks on the season in exhange for4 leasing the tribes share.

The whole North of Falcon process that allocates the catch every year is now based on give and take and not on any increased opportunities. If we gain something in one area we must give it up in a different area...kind of like a shell game. The lease of quota plan could add opportunity for sportsfishing. Just an idea at this point for discussion.

Whose proposal is it GP, the state's, legislature's, or just some wishful thinking by sport fishermen? Sounds interesting, but first, I doubt the power structure in Washington state would accept any such proposal, and second, I doubt the tribes would sell any part of their quotas...

The proposal is not about selling quotas but leasing them. I will find out where this came from and report back...

Sounds like someone bugged our conversations. We've talked about this numerous times, but I've never heard or read that it's actually being considered.
Any decent lawyer representing Indian Treaty Rights would never allow this to happen. A "lease", perhaps, but Treaty Rights cannot be sold, in part, due to future generations' denial of ancestral entitlement.
Think about it. It would be immoral.

On the other hand, I'd sure pay an extra $25 to be able to fish more often.
I would not pay $25 to catch more fish. How much can a person eat, anyway?
We're just bummed right now because the rivers are still too low and the ocean/Straits are closed. Seems like the only thing we can do for the time being, is ( my Gawd ) talk to each other.

Great idea, would not mind paying a fee for this even though I don't fish rivers that are effected by tribal netting. I would just like to see fish preserved. I think it would be a lot better off for fish survival if a trive reached their quota in early september and had their nets out of the water rather than having the nets in the water the remaining time. And sport fisherman would see a lot more fish, maybe causing more people to buy liscences.

Hmmm, wish I could dredge up my previous iteration of this concept. It could be workable. It is NOT a purchase of treaty fishing rights. It isn't even a lease of treaty fishing rights. What makes the concept fairly workable is that it is simply a purchase of fish. That is, via whatever funding mechanism selected and whatever agent, i.e. WDFW, a fish purchase contract can be made with a treaty Indian tribe for X number of salmon or steelhead from the treaty harvest allocation.

For example, say a tribe's steelhead allocation this winter is 4,000. The tribe determines that they want to harvest 1,000 of its allocation for ceremonial, subsistence, and perhaps some commercial sales. The remaining 3,000 are sold by contract to our agent (WDFW) at the prevailing ex-vessel price of $0.65 and say 8 pound average for a value of $15,600. However, these fish are sold as is, that is, live and well in the river.

The second biggest hitch in this concept (the major hitch is for treaty tribes to do business with WDFW and recreational anglers on this scale) is that the treaty fishing right is the property of the treaty tribe, not individual Indians. However, tribes franchise individual fishermen, through tribal licenses, to exercise the treaty right and harvest fish. And the individual tribal fisherman earns the money from the sale of fish.

This concept will work for tribes that can devise a way that keeps both the tribe and individual fishermen happy.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

No, Immoral is the country we are creating to be left to our children/grandchildren.
We are becoming a nation of entitlement.... Got a cause? Get on board the entitlement train and we will take care of you and your future generations forever, no matter who has to pay for it...... Not speaking only of Tribes, but welfare, medicaid, immigrants (illegals), and rich folks who do not deserve SS and Medicare...... The list goes on and unfortunately is growing.......

MC

But speaking as someone who has seen it from the other side, that would not work. They already do a very poor job of record keeping. Saying that a good 50% of the catch goes unreported is not stretching it in my opinion. I have to wonder how many of the fish I witnessd being sold at the marina the other day were "counted". No tribal fishery people around in the 3 days I was there fishing. Many tribal members resent having to report anything to the white man and do not cooperate. So, lets say they "Sell" 10,000 fish. What would the penalty be if they take the money and still allow members to take all or a portion of that "sold" lot of fish? There would have to be a severe penalty to assure compliance, and a stringent reporting process to assure numbers were correct. I'm afraid that with a severe penalty attached the plan would probably not make it through tribal approval.

MC

Oh yes, the killer is always in the "details"!!

Cowlitzfisherman

Who gives a sheeeet what the indians do? What ever they do you can't do a darn thing about it. What this would mean is increased opportunity to fish for us non-indians. It would allow the allocation of quotas for increased season length and perhaps some new openings.

Mastercaster,

As one who has also "seen it from the other side," I agree that it wouldn't work with some tribes, perhaps, but I disagree in that I'm fairly certain that it could work with other tribes.

Treaty fisheries are feeling the economic pinch of declining ex-vessel prices. In the case of one tribe I'm well acquainted with, the tribe has paid fishermen to go out and exercise the treaty fishing right the past two years because the price received for fish was too low to cover the costs of fishing, that is, boat amortization, fuel, and nets, not to mention the fisherman's time value. This is a case that is ripe for a revolutionary change in marketing treaty fish. The tribe does want, as usual, enough to cover normal ceremonial and subsistence needs, but they're not making any money commercially in most cases. This is also a tribe where the preponderance of the harvest is recorded. They do permit "over-the-bank" sales, but the fishermen are required to either report those sales, or the fisheries office estimates the harvest based on past records. Accountability isn't 100%, just as it isn't in the non-treaty commercial and recreational fisheries. So I don't think you have much of a point in that regard.

There is an evolving opportunity for some tribes to improve the economic return for part of their treaty fishing allocation. It isn't a buyout of treaty rights by any stretch. It's simply a higher value marketing technique that could yield benefits to treaty and non-treaty fisheries.

Finally, progress is made by those with a "can-do" attitude, not by those who can only think of reasons why it will fail.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.