You make some good points Salmo, but although I do believe in the "can do" attitude, that attitude I reserve for myself and not others that I have no control over. Does not matter how "can do" my attitude is if the other party does not feel the same.
You state that reporting of catch is "about equal" to non-treaty commercials.... I say you are very wrong on this point. Although commercials are not worthy of defending in my opinion, the tribal fisherman do not EVER have the fisheries dept. staring down their neck and when the commercials sell, there is a very stringent paper trail from both their side and the buyers side. On the tribal side of things, they are not forced to comply, they are asked to comply. If they sell to a 3rd party and fail to report it, the third party (you, me, restaraunt owner, etc.) does not face any huge fines for not reporting it. Try buying from a commercial for "commercial" purposes and if you get caught failing to report the sale you can be shut down.
Anyway, I applaud the efforts and ideas of you and the others, something needs to be done.
Anything that will save the wild fish is worth the effort, and lord knows how many wild fish end up in the nets.......

MC

MC,

You disagree with me that non-reporting of catch among non-treaty fishermen is about equal to that of treaty fishermen. That's fine. We don't have to agree, and neither of us can prove our point. My opinion is based on my personal acquaintance with numerous treaty, non-treaty commercial, and recreational anglers over many years, and the prevalence of not reporting one's catch is significant and spread roughly equally among all types. Of course not all fishermen catch the same number of fish, but in the case of the net fisheries, it is usually the smaller catches that go unreported, mainly because of the difficulty associated with selling a large catch off the books. Of course, there are exceptions, and when they're uncovered - often a sting operation - it's all over the news.

This proposed action isn't intended to save wild fish, altho it could be used to that effect. It is intended to transfer catch from treaty commercial net catch to recreational hook and line catch. If it were coupled with a wild fish C&R regulation, then it would increase wild fish escapement as well.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Fair enough Salmo, I do respect your opinion and feel that you are more informed than most. However, when I speak of the greater degree of, or should I say lack of enforcement when it comes to tribal retention reports, I CAN back this up by saying that when it comes to non-tribal commercials, they face a much harsher consequence if caught than tribal fishers do.. To prove my point in just one case, just look up the Yakima SoHappy family that thumbed their nose at both tribal and non-tribal enforcement authoritys for years. Always waving the treaty, and having plenty of lawyers there to ask for attorney fees/court costs, they repeatedly shot elk out of season (many LARGE bulls to mount and sell the heads) and tons of fish. If they had been non-tribal, they surely would have gone to the pokey for quite a spell..... Kinda like foreign diplomats with the immunity thing... If they know (or think) they have immunity, they are much more likely to ignore the rules.. That was my point.
Your idea is sound in theory. I can just see the agreement made, then numbers drop due to non-compliance, then who is going to lose? The tribes? No, the sportsmen who have already paid for the percentage....

Regards,

MC

Me again.... just thought I may give you a bit of insight into the attitude I refer to when relaying my fears of non-compliance...
This does not do the Sohappy case justice as it went on for decades. His son still carries the torch and they believe that "white-man law" does not apply to them. Again, that is my only concern with the "buyout" of fish quotas....

MC

Again (and again) we are not talking about a buyout of any fishing rights. What we are talking about is a transfer of quota from the indians to the sports fishers for a fee. This will only work if the tribes want it. If they don't see it as a win win situation it won't happen but it is an idea worth looking into in my opinion.

I always found the Sohappy case rather interesting. It just happened that Sohappy was sentenced on the same day that junk-bond king Ivan Boesky was. Sohappy got five years for illegal fishing, Boesky got three-and-half in a federal minimum-security facility for defrauding investors of billions of dollars. Neither one served the full sentence, Sohappy was released early because of failing health and Boesky because of his good behavior.

They both should have been hung!

Question????
#1 Would the tribes trade their projected allocation harvest, for a fee, and then sit back as the run is 5x more than predicted, and the price being given is higher than what they thought it would be. The financial disaster of trying to put a price tag on fish that can never be Pre determinded in with even a 75% accuracy rate. In the past few years how many predictions were so wrong it was not even funny?

#2 All the folks who buy a liscense pay a fee in hopes of their area being one in which this allocation buy out would occur. What if you dont even live 50 miles from a treaty fishing areas. What if you live in seattle and only the columbia river system is ever the one that goes for this. Not a chance that this would go over well.

#3 What if a run with a 10,000 chinook return is projected and we pay the tribe for 5,000 of those fish. We cut them their checks and suddenly two weeks later the river is shut down due to low returns, blown out for fishing,etc, Do we then ask for the money back. You are nuts if you think the tribe would wait until the whole run can be counted and proven. I can see a whole lot of areas of, your numbers are wrong, and ours are right. so either we owe them more money for a bigger run, or they owe us for a smaller run than was projected.

We should look at every system and see where the tribal fishery has not been very profitable, or the tribal fishery is hurting the wild stock in that system and look back 10 years on the average returns,prices,and try to buy the whole tribal fishery on a five year time frame to be reviewed and adjusted according to the flucuatons in that five year time frame. Make exceptions for elder tribal fisheries and ceremonial fisheries to be monitored very closely for compliance in allocation amounts. Promote the savings in boat repairs,labor,nets,fuel, protection financialy from mother natures little gifts. Only those who can, and want to fish on that system should pay the increases in fees and the rest of the funds come from private, and the general fund?

Now you can see how a relatively simple idea turns into a complicated mess that is impossible to implement. Too bad.

Getnsnapper,

I've thought about this. If the preseason run forecast is off by a huge amount, the contract should prescribe a continuance to the next or subsequent seasons, i.e., carryover. Also, the contract can anticipate uncertainty, and in its first years would be for a specified number of fish. To use your example, if the run is projected to have a harvestable number of 10,000, and then ends up being 50,000 - knowable through in-season runsize updates, no matter. Our contract was for 5,000 fish. The tribe is still entitled to do whatever they want with their half of the additional 40,000. Likely they would want to sell those to us as well, since we could probably offer a higher price for them as recreational catch than the commercial buyers would.

My goal: for every reason offered why this won't work, counter-offer with a reason, or reasons, why it could work.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo G,
I am in favor of this whole idea dont get me wrong. I just see so many areas of relying on trust,and compliance. With the added satan CASH it just seems like a task that would be doomened from the get go. Again I would back the attempt and do more than asked if it could be tried. I am all for more rods bending, fish spawning, monies into any fishing communities. I just see the task as one of enormous proportion. Good Luck if And When..

Enormous task? Absolutely.
Doable? Absolutely
How?
Hard work and perserverence. Not an easy road. I t could be as simple as a North of Falcon negotiation. It needs to start with mutual respect between sports fishers and tribes. Now that is probably the most difficult part and happens right at the beginning. When we as a group get to the point where we get over the Boldt decision and accept the consequences as reality then we can move ahead to an agreement I think. From what I see and hear we have a long way to go to get to mutual respect and acceptance. I am working on cleaning up my own house in this regard and will be making positive moves this coming year in that direction. Maybe I'll start something.