C'mon Bob.... Theyr'e indians, do they ever need a justification? Really?
Bleeding hearts + Boldt = Carte Blanche
Radicalism is not popular nowadays, but the Boston Tea party did change things.... Hmmmm..

MC

I actually posted a thread awhile back saying the same thing Rich, that I could not understand all these board members that pump money into the guided Quinalt thing... To me it is the principle of it.... You can make all the justifications you want, i.e., "I would rather have them guiding than netting", etc., but it comes down to the same thing.... Supporting them in any way will not change a thing... Perhaps if there was a boycott on the Quinalt the "Indian" guides would then exert more pressure from the inside to change things??
Funny, if they are not using "Traditional" methods (outboards, mono nets, fiberglass/aluminum boats) to "exercise their traditions", why can't the fish just be taken only from hatcheries and given to the tribes? I know it has been mentioned before, but gets slammed down pretty fast. The tribes against this idea maybe because they would not get as many fish (since they would be accurately counted)?? Now that I think about it, do any of you know that TONS of fish ARE given to the tribes directly at the hatcheries??? I have a good friend that manages a large hatchery in Oregon and he told me they show up every fall with pickups and large container trucks and load up tons of fish...... Lots of people do not know this....

MC

DH,
My partner and I are reading this. I guess you had some valid points. Whats it going to do to that "other" tributary's nates? I guess we'll skip the over nighter. The little tributary wild stocks are really going to suffer. I think I'll pour another whisk and think about coyote hunting.

As long has hatchery supplimentation occures in washington state comercial fishing will favor over wild runs and sport fishers. That is why we had hatcheries in the first place to suppliment comercial fisheries as wild stocks couldnt keep up.

Now the tribes harvest in terminal areas to harvest their share of the hatchery fish without regard to the wild ones in nearly all cases.

Do you really think hatchery salmon and stelhead are planted for sport opportunities?

Only in rivers that dont have hatchery supplimentation do you see any type of balance in tribal comercial harvest and wild fish escapement. This is because wild fish have to succeed in order for them to maintain comercial harvest. If wild stocks collapse so does their fishery.

In rivers that have hatchery supplimentation it dosent matter if they catch every last wild fish.

Now as far as the Quinault's go they just dont clip their fish. They really dont want to be able to tell the difference.

"Radicalism is not popular nowadays, but the Boston Tea party did change things.... Hmmmm.."


thats the kinda thinkin i like..i dont wanna say some of the things ive thought up, i would get kicked off the board..altho i jus wish some navy personel would program some tomahawks missiles with the coordinates of these tribal casino's............extreme? nah...im not here to native bash, or maybe i am, my father's father's father didnt mistreat chief joseph and nor did i, so why is my tax dollars paying for mono nets, boats, everything else they get for free and they're beer and not there counseling?

For instance,

The early element steelhead run in the Quileute System was at one time a much larger part of the run then it is now. Comercail harvest effort on hatchery fish has no doubt been the biggest reason for the decline of the early returning fish.


Since we know this why does the tribe continue to nett 5 days a week when the early part of the run is hanging on by a thread? The early elemt of the run is just as important as the spring element but it seems it is expendable.

Heres something to think about. Picture that tribal harvest didnt exist yet sport fishers impact trying to harvest all the hatchery fish causes the early element of the wild run to deplete to where it is now. What happens?

I will tell you what already has happened. It is now CnR for wild fish untill December 1 for sport fishers and catch and release the whole season up above. Dont be fooled into thinking it is for the good of the fish. It is CnR for sport fishers so the tribal Comercial fisheries could continue at the rate they were going. Infact since this has happened tribal harvest has increased. THe Quileutes now fish on a scedual instead of a quota. Tribal powers are actually opposed to wild steelhead release though you figure out why.


Dont get me wron I strongly support total CnR.


Also dont be fooled into thinking WDFW has made any fishery in this state CnR to be proactive. It is a reactive response to the way our rivers have responded to co-management.

Bob, To my knowlege the Hump does not have a broodstock program. But the Chehalis system does and I have heard concerns before that the tribes may push for harvest on the late returning hatchery fish. I think what is even more apalling is the Hump has been closing early(End of Feb) for a number of years because it is not making escapement goals. If you want to add more salt to the wound, I have seen the harvest data of tribal vs sport harvest on the Quinualt, Queets, by the Quinalts as well as the Hoh and it is very disportionate.

My question regarding wild broodstock programs is there never seems to be any established goals, objectives or timelines that I have seen. If someone knows where I can find them I am interested to know where to obtain them. I am just questioning, to play devils advocate, (because I don't know what the answer is) are they always a great idea for the fish. Would it be more helpful for sportsman's groups to help the department float the rivers to count redds in the Spring?

For example, the Sol Duc broodstock program, seems like it is successful and it has been stated that it's purpose is to jump start or help the depleted early wild run on the Sol Duc. But is there a target set in the program where it is finally determined it has met it's goal to augment the run to stand on it's own? And if the early component of the run is so depressed to have to augment it with a broodstock program why are we still allowing wild steelhead kill on the early portion of the run? Seems like a paradox, dam if you do and dam if you don't.

TKS- Buddy, I agree, make mine a double.

Yeah, great. There's a broodstock program on the Satsop, so we'll net the lower Chehalis and get them...............and the fish heading to the Wynoochee, Cloquallum creek, the Skookumchuck, the Newaukum, and the whole upper Chehalis.

Simply outrageous.

This doesn't surprise me. I don't like it but it doesn't surprise me. Nooch has had 2 week sport extensions into mid-April the last 2 years because of above average returns. WDFW also claims(as of last year anyway) the Chehalis system, as a whole, has been above escapement in recent years. I was wondering when the tribes would catch on.

As to the Hump, with it's depressed wild stocks and early sport closures, I'm completely baffled how this is justified.

Guess that explains the increased netting I've been seeing in Aberdeen on Fridays now.

Why do I keep hearing words like "justified".....The tribes don't have to justify anything....When is everyone going to get that through their thick heads?

I have a question for you folks that might be familair with the federal court process. Is the Bolt decision the type to where it is such a sacred cow that it can never be challenged? If it can be...wouldn't the fact that the tribes probably get much more subsistence monies from casinos and other government programs be justification to overturn it? I think a well financed campaign that was based on bilogocal facts and the endangered specoes act, and basic sportfishing economics, would be the way to approach it. I would be willing to contribute to such an effort. Forgive me if I am stating the obvious too much...I am pretty new to the issue

No there is not a broad stock program on the Hump.

I have to put the blame on the state. They allow it all to happen.

Quote by Double Haul,
I have seen the harvest data of tribal vs sport harvest on the Quinault, Queets, by the Quinault as well as the Hoh and it is very disportionate.

I could tell it was disportionate without the data. I would say they took maybe 90% of what was caught on the hatch steehead. Their nets went in 24-7 on Dec. 2. The river was blown and came back in on the 1st. We were catching some nice fresh hatchery and native silvers. The 3rd nothing no bites for anyone. the nets choked them off. Native silvers gone. They stayed in till noon on the 23rd then went back in on the 26th. They keep the native silvers and steelhead.

They are entitled to 50%. So that should mean we should get to keep the other 50% of the native fish. There are some that think that so they take an ocassional wild one. "My native friend nets all he can, I'm taking this one." The hatchery steelhead are done on the hump so any fish they take now are all natives. I put it on the state for allowing it.

I've talked to alot of longtimers and they say fishing was great till the "Bolt Decission" then it took 4 years for it to get wipped out. One guy told me the 1st year he went down to the bottom and counted 55 nets. They had a real tough time getting the boat thru the gountlet of nets.

Don't get me started on the state biologist that keep the plant at 140,000 hatchery steelhead.

What the hell can we do? It’s the state that doesn’t give a turd. Can we sport fisherman unite to get something done? Can we unite to put presure on the state? Boycott buying fishing licenses. What?

Maguana,

Id say we are pretty much fizucked. Most of the WDFW these days got there start for one of the tribes so you could say there would be some type of loyalty. Meaning making sure the tribes interests are looked out for before sport fishers or the tribe might tell on you for all the bad stuff you were involved with. Im not jokeing.....

Not to mention all the pay offs that go on from the tribes.

Having seen the inner-workings of the tribal fishery for years opened my eyes to many things. The Boldt decision could have been appealed all the way to the supreme court (federal) but to my knowledge it never was. Now after all these years for it to be repealed would take nearly an act of God. As far as the fishery services of either Oregon or Washington doing ANYTHING about tribal fishing, I know many in that field and some at the upper management level...... Here is the problem. They are allocated a limited budget and believe me they do not want to waste it on litigation. Anytime in the past they have tried to impose any restrictions on the tribal fishery it would result in an immediate lawsuit by the tribes which the state fishery agency must then pay legal fee's (and often the tribes legal fee's) and almost always lose. The general attitude has become "why waste the money fighting litigation we will most likely lose?"....... The tribes have become increasingly wise to this fact and know that no matter how out of line with regulations or popular opinion they become, they will always prevail by waving the treaty and Boldt decision in the court room. I have had 2 game wardens tell me in the past that even when they see infractions committed by tribal members, they will rarely issue any type of ticket because it will always be thrown out of court under the auspice of "exercising treaty rights" and they also do not want to waste resources or "my time"
How do we solve this? No easy answer, but I do believe that support of the WDFW in pursuit of litigation is a good move. Although it does deplete the monetary resources in an already limited budget, I believe that the long term benefit to the fishery in general and sportsman interests are well worth the money. Keep in mind though, that the tribes legal fee's are completely funded with federal $$ and if they had to pay their own legal fee's out of their own pockets they might not rush into court so quickly and would then possibly begin to be more compliant and cooperative with the F&G agencies...........

MC

Quote from Double Haul: "if the early component of the (Sol Duc) run is so depressed to augment it with a broodstock program why are we still allowing wild steelhead kill on the early portion of the run?"

Rich - You probably already know that about 60% of the Sol Duc sport harvest of hatchery steelhead occured during the Nov-Jan time frame in the 2001-2002 season. Only around 21% of the sport harvest of wild steelhead occured during those three months. Incidentally that is an increase of more than 20% above the 18.5% of the wild steelhead total harvest for the same three months of the 1998-1999 season. Are you suggesting that all fishing be shut down during that period to prevent the take of the early component that is unavoidable with any recreational fishing?

--- --- ---

We can whine about the over harvest by the Quinault tribal netters but the numbers tell the real story. For the 2001-2002 season the total tribal take of winter steelhead on the Humptulips was 242 fish, and all of them were harvested in Dec(161) & Jan(81). Considering the time frame it is likely the few of these were wild fish.

By contrast, the sport harvest for 2001-2002 was 778 fish, 752 hatchery and 26 wild. Only 8 of the sport kill of wild fish were during Dec & Jan during which time 648 hatchery fish were harvested.

The tribal and sport kills of winter steelhead on the Humptulips during the 2001-2002 season were about 242 (24% of the total) and 778 (76% of the total) respectively. It seems that the sport take was three times as great as the tribal take.

On the Chehalis the tribal harvest was 1,480 and the sport harvest was 8,018.

On the Quinault the tribal harvest was 10,124 and the sport harvest was 525. I wonder why?

On the Queets the tribal harvest was 4,019 and the sport harvest was 1,855 (1,500 of them on the Salmon). I wonder why?

On the Quillayute the tribal harvest was 9,598 and the sport harvest was only 7,260 due to restrictions on wild harvest.

Just some numbers for the record. It goes both ways.

45 years ago i caught my first steelhead on the chehalis, which was the number 2 river system in the state, in december . the main run of wild steelhead then started around thanksgiving and lasted till around the middle of February. now you rarely caught a steelhead tell January because the early run has been netted out so that now they net later.

If you think tribal stats are honest your very mistaken.

MC//that was a great summation of what we are up against. An arrogance on the part of the tribes is breeding an in your face attitude that we will be sorry for in the long run.

The threat of lawsuits is what we fear. Go along to get along is our motto now. This country's appeasement mentality has gotten us into incredible danger and we just don't want to stop I guess.

Plunker -
there you go again trying to insert information and data into the discussion. Some might consider that to be poor form! (t.i.c.).

Rockfish -
Much the same could be same about the accuracy of the steelhead sport catch information.

Rich G -
I found your comments regarding loyality of former tribal employees surprising and inappropriate. Frankly comments such as that seriously undermine your credibility; at least in my eyes.

Tight lines
S malma