I would like all of you to list the various times the sport-fishermen have gotten the shaft when it came to management policies of our resources.

An example would be when the commercial nets caught too many springers last year & the season shut down. Or, when our blackmouth seasons went from year round to a couple of months.

I'm looking for anything where we have been forced to give up time or allocation to other interests or when we have lost opportunities due to miscalculations and other bureaucratic blunders.

Thanks in advance!

Full Freezer,

What you have to factor in is the almost exponential growth of all recreational fisheries over the past 10 to 20 years. There are multiple times as many people using highly efficient equiptment, gear and technology to harvest a finite resource. In the case of downriggers, sport fishermen and women are actually employing what once was considered commercial gear.
Something has to give. Either lower limits, shorter seasons or a depletion of the resource.
Personally, I think the dungeness crab limit should be reduced to 3 crab per day. The 6 per day limit results in a tremendous waste and considerable black market sales of recreationally caught crab.
On another thread on this board someone refered to the recreational crab harvest as a subsistance fishery. Wa. has no subsistance fisheries other than tribal. In short sport fisheries are just that. They are not intended to fill peoples freezers. They are only intended to create an opportunity for recreation.

There are many,

Done for good of the fish or should I say for the tribe, but when the Quileute system went to CnR in the upper reaches of the tribs. I am all for CnR but we lost harvest oportunity to ensure tribal harvest could maintain its levels by cutting sport harvest. Its most likely one of the major reasons the runs in that system have hung on. WDFW was smart enough to figure it had to give some where in order to stop the runs from total collapse.

By no means am I saying this was a bad thing but I have seen nothing done on any other end to boost fish populations. Sport fishers took it in the shorts and the tribes kept doing what they were doing.

I thought this was co-management? In this instance only one side had to give so another could keep taken.

Slug

Below is our states (WDFW) mandate for fishing and hunting!

Can you point out to us where it says;
I can't quite find that kind of wording anywhere in our fish and wild life laws. Do you think that just maybe that may be someone own "interpolation"? Can you show us where that is the "intent" of our Fish and wildlife agency? I here a lot of people saying that on our board, but I can't remember anyone ever showing us where that is written. Can you help me out, and point me to where that is stated in our game laws or in the intent of WDFW mandate?


RCW 77.04.012
Mandate of department and commission.
Wildlife, fish, and shellfish are the property of the state. The commission, director, and the department shall preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish in state waters and offshore waters.

The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource. In a manner consistent with this goal, the department shall seek to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state. The department shall promote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve recreational and commercial fishing in this state.

The commission may authorize the taking of wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish only at times or places, or in manners or quantities, as in the judgment of the commission does not impair the supply of these resources.

The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.

Recognizing that the management of our state wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources depends heavily on the assistance of volunteers, the department shall work cooperatively with volunteer groups and individuals to achieve the goals of this title to the greatest extent possible.

Nothing in this title shall be construed to infringe on the right of a private property owner to control the owner's private property

Cedar River has been closed to ALL nontribal sport fishing for more than a decade. Muckleshoots have sportfished it the last two winters. Last winter they were frequently observed fishing during the time steelhead were in the river. Escapement of steelhead in 2000 was estimated to be 48 fish. In 2001 escapement was estimated to be 46 fish, and in 2002 the total estimate of returning Cedar River steelhead was 44 fish. These are hardly the kind of numbers that justify having a fishing season during the months winterruns are returning. There will probably be some nontribal CnR fishing allowed on the Cedar River in the near future: not so much because the fish populations can sustain the fishery, but because of the politics involved.

Thanks for reminding me CFM! I just went to the freezer to get a vacuum packed bag of filets for Wednesday's dinner.


Please keep them comming. I want to catalog what has happened to our opportunities & why it has happened.

Thanks.

FF,

Sorry to report, but a miscalculation is not a bureaucratic blunder. It is a statistical certainty. With a good model, 50% of all estimates are over-estimates, and 50% are under-estimates of runsize. If you want greater certainty, you'll have to accept greater general restrictions, either in seasons, areas, or gear, or something that keeps the harvest below the low end of the confidence interval of the point estimate.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

I think your question should read: "How many more times will we get shafted?"

I can rememeber when BM fishing was year around. Boy... those were the days! Seems like I almost have to plan a vacation around fishing the "great" fishing- or fight the crowds. Although I admittedly put a pretty good dent in the dent, I also releasee a lot. The numbers seem to be getting smaller though.

Although numerous factors dictate our "seasons," we need to have better management in all areas. Do I have the answer? Nope! One thing that would definitely help is stopping the watse and abuse by the tribes (among other things).

There is already talk of paying additional money for crab seasons. We already pay- enough to boot! I would like to see the allotment lowered to 3 myself. 6 crabs is a lot of meat!

3 crab limit !!!! YOU GUYS ARE KILLING ME!! If I am going to put my boat in I would like to at least make it worth my while. I am on the water whether river or salt 6 days a week minimum and catch and release ninety% of the time,the majority of my time is spent fishing in catch and release areas and that is fine with me a couple of good battles aday is all ask, but pulling in my crabpot and throwing crabs back is not sport that is stupid I would like to keep enough to feed my family. Some years I do keep alot of crab but I put my time in and not for sport but for food never have I froze a crab in my life there is no waste so please do not try to take away a great opportunity for all of us just because you hear a rumor of someone abusing the fishery. I do not push for total c&r in steelhead even though that is where put in my time Iwould not want to take away from one of my fellow sportman just because they want to keep some fish that I would just as soon see released.

Aunty/Fogged,

I agree with your feelings on making crabbing worth while, but how many folks actually eat all the crab they keep? I would venture out on a limb and say- not many. I can only speculate the amount of waste. This would especially be true of the tribes...

Although I rarely drop the pots without fishing, there are other things to make my trips worth while. A picnic on the beach with my family comes to mind. Plus given the price of crab in the markets compared to gas for the boat, I'd say you still be getting a pretty good deal.

downriggin
I have no crab in my freezer nor fish. How about you? If I catch it I eat would you like me to suggest that you should not fish if you
still have fish vacuumedpacked or furthermore take someone else out for kicks and grins that puts pressure on fisheries that would not happen if you did not provide an avenue for them. I would never in a million years support that because I support sportfishers whether or not it is my preferred method or not.

thanks Aunty

CFM,

Look at paragraph 2. There are recreational and commercial fisheries. No where is subsistance mentioned.

Downriggin,

My hat is off to you. Enjoy life.

Slug

Here is a more "clearer" set of defining laws that supports exactly what I have stated!

Please read what is stated under the "Magnuon Act" (law). .I know that you will probably want to twist it around to prove your point, but you need to fully understand what is meant in (B) and (C).

Under (B), you will notice that this applied to what is stated in (A). Both food fish and "recreation opportunities" are superceded and defined by what is stated in (B)

(B)…. is prescribed as such on the basis of "the maximum sustainable yield" from the fishery" It doesn't mater if it was the recreational fishery or commercial fishery! That's just the way the law works! You may not agree or like it, but that's just the way the law works

"(A)" overs the issues

"(B)" defines the issues!

And (C) tells us that; "in the case of an overfished fishery" what must be done.

And; (28) The term "optimum", with respect to the yield from a fishery, means the amount of fish which-- is self explanatory!

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/magact/mag1.html#s2

edit: see #104-297

(28) The term "optimum", with respect to the yield from a fishery, means the amount of fish which--

(A) will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food production and recreational opportunities, and taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems;

(B) is prescribed as such on the basis of the maximum sustainable yield from the fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic, social, or ecological factor; and

(C) in the case of an overfished fishery, provides for rebuilding to a level consistent with producing the maximum sustainable yield in such fishery

If you read what is stated in paragraph #2, you may get a better understanding of what is meant when they said; "… the department shall seek to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state."

"fishing industry" is the keys words! Recreational "fishing" is part of the "fishing industry!

Do I need to say more?


Cowlitzfisherman

CFM,

From Websters:

recreation- refreshing of strength or spirits after work;also: a means of refreshment(syn)diversion, entertainment, amusement.

Now I'm done with this pissing contest.
I would put in some of the cute faces if I knew how????

Fogged,

I only keep what I intend to eat. There may be a few times when I have a couple in the freezer, but this would be for family gatherings or parties. If I kept every salmon I caught, I would clearly not be within the limits of the law.

I fully support the sportfisher 100%- I get torqued everytime I hear something that effects us! And yes, 16% is not a fair number. However, this number is not going to change anytime soon. Until "we" get a fair allocation, we need to fix our own backyard before we go barking elsewhere.

I have the opportunity to fish over 100 days a year on the sound. Imagine if I dropped a pot or two half that time.

Lastly, since the Dungie population in MA13 isn't great, I am content with the two or three I do occasionally come across. Should I have to drive somewhere for better crabbing? To me, that is not worth the time nor effort.

If my family drops a couple pots and we all get limits, I would certainly say 18 crabs is in excess!

Are you people a bunch of Ballerinas ? This was the first summer my family and I crabbed in the sound and we had fun. We never froze crab. The wife would crack and keep 4 crabs worth of meat for a few salads but me and the kid (13) would eat about 4 to 6 crabs for dinner. Thats each! I only set two traps and if i got two limits thats just enoght crab for dinner and if I invite over friends or family I have to take the wife to pull up a third limits. 3 crab limit is not enoght for dinner. we do not have the chance to crab more then two days a week in the season. Besides we can allways cut out the commeriacls and let the folks at fred myers pay more per lbs. I like to work for my crab and would never pay for crab at the store. hell I cant afford to buy crab.

Slug

Webster- Law; all the rules of conduct established and enforced by the authority, legislation, custom of a given community, state, or other group

LAW:
(A) will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food production and recreational opportunities, and taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems;

(B) is prescribed as such on the basis of the maximum sustainable yield from the fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic, social, or ecological factor; and



Cowlitzfisherman

downriggen
I agree that we need to clean up our own backyard but I do not think that dropping the limit from 6 crabs to 3 will slow down those that are already breaking the law by over harvesting alls it will do is keep those of us who obey the laws (like yourself) from getting enough crab to make a crabsalad to eat on our picnic as you have suggested.
P.S
LittleCleo says Hello to all his friends out there

Funny how no one mentioned the Bolht decison.....flatly, the biggest rip off of sportmen to date. OK, so it's gone to the highest court and been upheld and I'm just pissin' against the wind.....doesn't change the facts. No one ever, in their wildest imagination, would have interpretted the words, "in common with" as meaning any sort of percentage. If you go fishing ("in common with") me, you are not guaranteed 50%.....so why is anyone else??

One more thing and I'm thru with my rant.....I saw someone state previously in a recent thread that, (my words, but close) ..... "there were fish runs in trouble before the infamous Bolht Decision......" Really? and just how many of those runs that were in big trouble were not being already netted?? (for subsistance and cermonial purposes, of course)

OK, I'm done now....

Sincerely, Just another White native American.

I'm still trying to figure out how to feed the family and fill the freezer with the two trout limit on creeks and beaver ponds. If we go to a three crab limit, what's next...two oysters?
I believe in the "trickle-down" theory of fish/shellfish allocation. Give sporties more resource, and extended family members, friends, neighbors, and little ol'ladies down the street will all get fresh seafood. Unfortunately, those who allocate believe in the "trickle-on" theory when it comes to sporties. At a WDFW hearing, a member of Citizens for Canned Salmon stated that the salmon quota of 10% for sportanglers should be reduced because only 25% of this state's population goes sportfishing.

Fun5Acres


Believe me, I am no lover of the Boldt decision either! In fact, I think that it sucks! But we need to deal with what the cards are on the table now, and not what's still in the deck! I am not trying to put you down because I know that you're sincere in what you say. But here's what wrong with an argument such as yours. If you ever want an opportunity to turn the boldt decision around, you will need to change your agrument!

You said; Here where your arguments fails to hold water! You say; "in common with" as meaning any sort of percentage. If you go fishing ("in common with") me, you are not guaranteed 50%.....so why is anyone else??"

True, it doesn't mean that you are "guaranteed" to catch 50% of what is caught ; but it certainly does implie (legally) that your friend would have the same "opportunity" to catch 50% of what ever was there to be caught!

Since we get to hold our commercial fisheries 99.9% of the time before most of the tribes can get and opportunity to catch 50% of the harvestable run, how other way was a judge to rule on the "in common" definition?

If you read the decision you may understand what "in common" legally meant. Example;

"4. Each of the basic fact and law issues in this case must be considered and decided in accordance with the treaty language reserving fishing rights to the plaintiff tribes, interpreted in the spirit and manner directed in the above quoted language of the United States Supreme Court. Each treaty in this case contains a provision substantially [**16] identical to that in the Medicine Creek treaty: "The right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations, is further secured to said Indians, in common with all citizens of the territory, and of erecting temporary houses for the purpose of curing, . . ."

So maybe now you can change your argument to other issues of the decision.

Finally, you said; Well if you look at this chart that was used on another thread, you may be surprised! If you look back into the mid 1800 hundreds (1866) when the treaties were first signed, you will see that "our harvest" of chinook was around less then a million pounds! By 1882 (16 years later) our harvest was over 43 million pounds of chinook. From that time on, the runs were on a downward spiral. It's pretty hard to blame the tribes for our declines when one really sees what has happen over time.

Notice how the runs were headed down long before the 21 dams were put into place on the Columbia? It paints a pretty bleak picture for how the commercial industry has demolished the fish runs!

The tribes have helped to diminish what's left of our fish runs, but I guess we had more to do with it then they did. Maybe if we really did divide all the fish in common back in the 1800, we wouldn't be where we are now. The pie has already been eaten, and now we all must fight for the few little crumbs that are left in the dish:D

Cowlitzfisherman

CFM......treaties were signed around here in 1855. that doesn't mean the tribes are responsible for the decline in salmon.. What is the case is that in this day and age of post-decline runs the tribes are not sacrificing "in kind" . the abuses of on and off reservation fish and game harvesting are well documented. The tribes could do alot more to help rebuild things but they are too busy working to maintain their treaty rights to care..in my opinion

I agree Grandpa

CFM…..First off, thanks for the Columbia River info. Obviously, you have spent a bit of time studying that river, and I won’t dispute your data. Instead, let me be more specific concerning the area I am more familiar with and I will speak from personal experience. Up until The Decision, it was possible to fish many of the North Olympic Peninsula streams for steelhead with assured success. I’m speaking of streams like Morse Creek, Salt Creek, Lyre River, East and West Twin Rivers, Deep Creek, Physt River, etc. The reason was simple….there was no interest in netting these streams. The Decision changed all that and within two seasons of The Decision, fish were tough to find. In all fairness, some of those runs are returning and once again fish can be caught (some of these streams are now closed, however), albeit not close to the numbers they used to be. The bigger rivers can withstand the net punishment much better than the little streams and rivers, yet The Almighty Buck drove the Tribes to nearly wipe those runs out. All the sport fishing up to that point had very little affect year after year, but all that changed with the introduction of nets to those small streams. I know what I experienced and saw.

Concerning the “50%” aspect of the treaties….Apparently most have been duped into believing that “50%” of a resource to 2% of the population is what my ancestors agreed to……you have to be kidding! I’m not being a smartass, but what’s that do to your gut? The feeling it leaves in mine hasn’t changed since I first heard it. Do the math...49 white guys with 49 fish equals 1 Indian with 49 fish. (based on 2% tribal influence to total population) And for what it’s worth, I don’t blame the Indians……I blame us!! We have allowed this idiot decision to stand and deserve what we get, but it’s not right…..and no matter how many times it is repeated, it doesn’t sound any smarter.

My two cents….I’m done with this….and again, thanks, CFM!

And it is a pretty sad state of affairs when I am considered the wrong "color" to be able to provide for my family. Since when is it not my right, but the right of a certain minority group to provide "subsistance" for my family?

I do not think the answer lies with decreasing the limit down to 3 crabs, as I agree with others that 3 crab is generally not worth the time or expense. I have always been an advocate for common sense retention, but was lambasted once for disagreeing with a fellow on this board for taking home crab when he was tired of eating it, and giving it away to "friends and neighbors".... I just do not feel the resource is plenty enough for that type of generousity. Take what you and yours can eat, but not you, yours, theirs, and ours....
I am also a staunch supporter of the notion that way too much seafood goes to waste in the store. Shelf life is far too short. If I cannot catch it, then I do not need to eat it. Simple as that. Take the commercials out of the equation and the problem is largely solved. Hell, the loggers had to learn different trades, same for the commercials. Their day is gone. Times change, and we must change with them. Not just some, but all.
This is my main gripe with the Tribes. They want all the modern conveniences that this "Foreign nation" has exposed them too, but they do not want to adapt to the changes necessary in todays world to bring benefit to all people. Mormons had to give up a religious belief/practice held dear to them when times changed (polygamy) even though it was deeply rooted in their religion and heritage.
Alas, we do not live in a fair society, although we espouse that we want fairness for all.
Anybody that is not in a minority group complains of unfairness, then the accusations start flying of bigotry and racism.
Until this way of thinking stops, we will continue to lose what is precious to us to the interests of small minority groups.

MC