Jacob

In my opinion they are one in the same. How can we ask the Tribes to stop killing wild fish if we the sport fishermen are doing the same?

One more thing. I have recieved a lot of really interesting emails, from some very interesting people regarding this thread and a number of emails regarding AuntyM. Some of the emails have been very enlightening and many of them have come from regulars on this board. Thanks, it is nice to know your out there paying attention.

Show us your true character and post of some of them here...



No personal attacks... this is a good thread about fish... lets leave it at that.

lead thrower said,
How can we ask the Tribes to stop killing wild fish if we the sport fishermen are doing the same?

This is the song that never ends it goes on and on and on ..................



Theres a difference between self defense and pesonal attacks pipper.

Todd,

The right of the tribes to forgone oportunitty is stated very clearly in the boldt decision. though if your looking for the words forgone oportunitty in the boldt decision you wont find them. There does not need to be a court battle for tribes to take advantage of F.O

As far as example where the tribes have takin advantage foregone oportunitty there are many cases in this state that are poorly documented. I have been having good luck with getting information from the state though. so I will send for some tangable facts you can sink your teeth into. Columbia river white salmon and the wind rivers are examples I have talked with wdfw about in the past.

If they wanted their opinions posted here they would do it themselves. I'm sure many of them have taken your abuse before and just don't have the desire to take anymore of it.

NOW THAT'S FUNNY! As long as the attacks are not directed at any of your soldiers it's cool. I didn't see you speaking up when AuntyM came after me.

there is a big difference between making a joke and a personal attack...

That is the last thing I will say on this subject...

back to the fish!

It's all about politics. Let's say that some river has 100 harvestable fish. By law, the tribes are entitled to at least 50 of them. That leaves 50 for the sportsmen. Now, we all know that there's no way every one of those 50 fish the sportsmen have a shot at will be killed. Probably a majority of the ones that are caught would be released by responsible anglers and then some would not even bite at all. Some would make it up to spawn along with the rest of the fish that are required for escapement.

Basically, what we've done is said to the Indians they can have all 100 of them and thensome. We all know that nets don't magically stop once their set number has been taken. In Elliot Bay, the tribes take more than their quota year after year. So by taking opportunity away from the sportsmen, more wild fish will be killed than if there was a very limited C&K season.

With C&R only, people think that a steelhead on the spawning bed is a great thing and it seems like that's where their thought process ends. Yes, the more steelhead that survive to spawn the better, but if their offspring are caught in nets when they return to spawn, it doesn't really do a whole lot of good other than provide more fish to the tribes. What it comes down to is the simple fact that letting a few more fish spawn will do nothing to increase the run strength as long as nets are in the rivers.

The tribes won't clean house just because ours is clean. They're an authority unto themselves. The only people they will piss off is the sportsmen and they know we can't unite to do anything about it. Every year, the tribes take more fish than they're supposed to in Elliot Bay. The last several sockeye seasons have been shut down early after the tribes go in then the WDFW tries to tell us that sportsmen caught 26,000 fish in two days. The tribes have the state and the media in their pocket. They'll do whatever they want and anyone who says anything against them will be labeled a racist. It's that simple folks.

The bottom line is that more wild steelhead will be killed on a yearly basis than when there was a limited C&K season.

If those fifty fish were listed for WSR, the the sportsman would have a shot at releasing 500 fish at a mortality of 10%...

To me it is better to have a longer season with a chance to harvest more hatchery fish than a short season where only 50 people will get to bonk 1 wild fish.

Just because someone supports catch and release, it doesn't mean that they fish on the spawning beds. I fish the same stretches of rivers everyone else does. (The hatchery down on most rivers).

So what is going on now to make certain harvest are equitable? There is pretty much agreement that the numbers published for tribes and sports are highly speculative at best. We may have the opportunity to harvest 50%, but are we getting it? So if we don't get it , does it automatically go to the tribes? I'm not sure it is happening that way in most cases.

All of the peninsula tribes are on schedules.
So we can only assume that they will now get 7 days a week instead of 4 or 5?( Actually to double their catch they may have to net for 8 or 10 days a week now!) That is basically the only way they could catch more fish than they are right now.


Microp,
You are correct in stating that this point will be pivotal, at least.

If the tribes get a similar number of days as in the past, then were on the right track.

If indeed this happens, then yes, this regulation is a huge mistake. I haven't seen anything that convinces me that "foregone opportunity" is a "foregone conclusion", speculations and assumptions aside...

...?

Lead Thrower, Not only do i think they have the "NADS" to ask for more of a quoto, I think that the tribes will see this as an opportunity to further their foothold into being treated as a superior race within this country. Two hundred years later and things are being done to drive a wedge further between the citizens of this country, rather than unifying all people.The "Nads" yes, I think that that this was by design......

Well we will see but I do not think the Tribes will use the forgone opportunity. If they do then just maybe this is what it will take to piss off enough sports fishermen to get off there rumps and ban together and do something.

Very true and sad

You're missing my point. I thought the whole point of this measure was to save more fish. By doing this, more fish will be getting killed and in the end, we'll have shorter seasons because of it.


That's not the point I'm trying to make. Many people argue the point that allowing fish to make it to the spawning beds where they can spawn is the end goal. They don't look beyond that. What's the point of allowing more fish to spawn if their offspring are going to be facing even more nets than before? Let's say that there was no netting for one whole return and 1,000 more fish were able to spawn (or whatever max capacity for a river should be). Obviously, there would be a lot more smolt. Hooray! But when those fish return, if the nets are there, we won't even notice it. The same amount of fish we have now will be spawning because the nets will get the increased offspring.

Rather than make this thread longer and longer with the foregone opportunity doctrine, I'm going to start a new thread...

Micro, I look forward to you finding the places where F.O. has been applied. Maybe Jacob could help you, he seems just as sure as you that it happens and will take the rest of the steelhead now.

Fish on...

Todd

Assuming the Tribes take our fish and that is yet to be seen..........at this point it is only speculation.

My soldiers, your soldiers, doesn't matter. The personal attack crap will stop here or I'll make it stop

Yes, a heated subject. I would expect that it would be, but leave the insults out or you will be ...

I don't believe that I personally attacked anyone in this thread, but some some personal attacks were definatly made. However most members involved in this discussion have been very respectful, in my opinion.

If I did then please accept my apology.

If anyone is interested in information regarding a possible repel please feel free to contact me.

Bob

You have made your rules more then clear about personal attacks.

I have only seen a couple that are near reaching your high standards that you have set. If some people make a "personal attack" to another board member, I think every person here will support your decision to nail them. So far, after 486 posts (must be a record) I have not really seen anyone cross your established line (maybe close, but not crossed).

This is by far, the best thread that this board has ever had, and it would be a shame, and discredit to the members of your board to "lock it up" just because one or two members may have violated your high guide standards. It would be appropriate for you to deal with anyone that you feel has overstepped your guide lines. You have to remember that this site is being continually monitored by both WDFW and NMFS, plus who knows who else. It is my personal opinion that how you personally deal with this issue will reflect on the credibility and power that this board is likely to have on persuading the future policies that WDFW must consider.

It's your call as always, but to close this tread down because someone oversteps the rules that you have established doesn't make a whole lot of sense to the many of the members that belong to your board.

It's certainly has been a little heated at times, but all and all, it been the best thread that I have ever followed for whatever that is worth.

Cowlitzfisherman