Geoduck, By MSY, I assume you are talking about Maximum Sustained Yield or to put it another way, streams have spawning populations that equal the carrying capacity of that stream. If that is so, then I can find no arguement with your list. You are absolutely correct in that #1 & #2 are the hardest and probably most important. If you think that WSR got people upset, you ain't heard nothing until you try and sell the "no mixed stock" fishery. There are powerful industry and recreational interests that will howl about no salt water fishing. But, if we are serious, and have the will, this prescription will work. Edit - after thinking about it some more, the "no mixed stock" prohibition would not have to eliminate salt water fishing. It would however, create a major change in how we fished the salt water.

JimH- And all- Keep in mind that at no time has anyone stated that WSR was going to solve everything.

What has been stated ( over and over) is the fact that its the first step in a very obvious chain of events that will need to take place in order to establish a foundation for recovery. Its preplexing that some people just don't understand that. How could the larger issues ever be addressed if you still have wild fish retention ??? Its really that simple. But again, thats all been said before

Jim,

There was a Kill fishery on the skagit on wild fish up until 4 years ago, maybe it was 5. You could kill a native until March 1st for a long time. Wonder where the early part of the Native run have gone?

OK for the 1000th time. WSR ISN'T a Silver Bullet. Never has been never will be. But it is a way to limit impact on the fish. Current management styles don't seem to be working so it is time to try a different management style that still allows some recreation while trying to limit impact on the fish. Habitat is a huge issue too, along with Hydro where it is present, and Hatcheries. They all have a place in the equation. WSR is a method to limit impact that we have on the Harvest side.

JJ

Check out my new signature line...think it will have any effect, whatsoever?

Todd

And as I have said numerous times( nobody has ever responded to it so I must assume all agree) WSR is the least expensive and probably least controversial way to start wild steelhead recovery.

Anyone, please give evidence that WSR will have significant positive impact on the fishery. Just a couple of successes will be good for now.

Aunty M, we are saying the same thing, just in different ways.The only real question that i have asked since my first post is, Why are we treated differently . If creating a moratorium is good for the resource, make it a moratorium for ALL user groups. I just keep saying it without running anyone's ideas down, just continue to state mine.
B run Steely.my quote"why should i let a fish go only to have it caught in a net" was meant to do only one thing. Create a dialog as to why user groups after the same resource are treated differently?I do get it, thats why I am asking the question! Not to reinstate my right to take said fish, but to question why others are allowed to take those same fish?
The only thing "tough" is trying to get everyone to move on to "why are two groups being treated differently"
Usually i do not get involved in discussions here because of just the things that i have been dealing with here/now.Because rather than truely diciphering what the poster truely means, some people are quick to put them down. I will not use these board as a means to put others down with personal dirogatory remarks, thus creating a miasmic environment that perpetuates the very thing that you accuse me of.But I am sure That has been hashed out before!

Guys

Look at the big picture for a minute

How many river HAD a heathly run
And how many Now have a heathly run

Makes you think!

There aren't many successes in Washington because the wild runs were harvested until the numbers dropped below critical levels. The WSC thought that stopping harvest before that level might be prudent.
SSF
You seem to be confusing WSR with CNR.

JG...you have not chosen the "least" controversial method in the sports fishing community. Probably the most popular in indian country. The WSR moratorium has been plenty controversial to say the least.

What do you and Todd surmise would be the effect in the short and long term of confiscating all the gill nets that would be set anywhere in the migration path of wild steelhead? If WSR is such a great idea then the rivers must be in such dire straits that certainly WDFW can shut down the tribal nets based on the emergency.

I submit that would yield the most dramatic results for wild steelhead of anything you could ever even contemplate. Just how dramatic do you think that "controversial" plan would be:?

How about an all out cessation of fishing in all rivers during the migration of wild steelhead? That would no doubt yield a big shot in the arm to wild steelhead survival. That would have to include the Columbia River. No CNR, no fly fishing. No fishing period.

How about removing all the dams on all of our rivers? Deporting 50 % of the people in the state immediately? Shut down all the hatcheries in the next 6 months. No exceptions. Ban boats from all rivers during fish migration.

**edit double post :p "

SSF,

I think that Aunty M and I both answered that question above, albeit not very clearly. Here's the scoop, though I'd be very surprised if you already didn't know this...

"The tribes...reserved the right to off reservation fishing 'at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations' and agreed that 'all citizens of the territory' might fish at the same places 'in common with' tribal members. ... However, off reservation fishing by other citizens and residents of the state is not a right but merely a privilege which may be granted, limited, or withdrawn by the state as the interests of the state or the exercise of treaty rights may require."

United States v. Washington, 384 F.Supp. 312, 332 (1974), (emphasis in original).

"The right to fish 'at all usual and accustomed' places, may, of course, not be qualified by the State, even though all Indians born in the United States are now citizens of the United Sates."

Id. at 337, citing Puyallup-I, 391 U.S. 398 (emphasis in original).

In short, the answer to your question is that they are not treated the same because legally they are not the same.

Treaty fishers have a federally guaranteed right to fish, while the rest of us have a privilege that can be restricted all the way to the point of having no fishing whatsoever, if the interests of the state or of treaty obligations require it.

The state cannot require anything of the tribes, short of stopping them from doing something that will immediately cause the extinction or extirpation of a run of fish.

It would literally take an act of Congress to change that...and good luck on that. Even with a republican administration there would be way too much public outcry for the "poor Indians", especially when we "greedy rednecks" just want to take all their fish (a la Boldt Decision).

You're argument is the same as saying "since we can't remove the dams from the Snake and Columbia Rivers, we shouldn't regulate water withdrawals by the farmers, either".

Now the "right vs. privilege" subject comes up here and elsewhere about once a year, and legally it doesn't really matter what anyone's opinion about it is. The Supreme Court of the United States has said that's the way it is...and if they say that the sun is purple, legally it is until either they change their mind or Congress overrides them with a new law.

I think that answers your above questions...if not, let me know and I'll see if I can try again.

Fish on...

Todd

The state cannot require anything of the tribes, short of stopping them from doing something that will immediately cause the extinction or extirpation of a run of fish.


hmmmmm..would that be like netting wild steelhead ?

Todd - Did you get my e-mail?

Wildfishlover,

It would only include netting wild steelhead if it would cause the immediate extinction or extirpation of a run...

That means catch all or almost all of them...which is a lot more than "a lot" or "most" of them.

The NWIFC and WDFW make preseason agreements on how many fish are available, and how many the tribes will catch...which is estimated by how many days/hours they will get to fish.

So...99% of the time it means "no", they cannot be stopped by the state from netting wild steelhead.

4Salt, no, but I will in a minute when I go and check it...

Fish on...

Todd

I already knew the answer....So the bottom line is this: As long as the tribes net and harvest wild steelhead (whether intentionally or as bycatch) in the numbers they do (not what they report) then extinction of the species is a real possibility even if you stop all sports fishing of any kind. Perhaps if we stopped all fishing extinction is a real possibility.

I think all the repetitive arguments about the WSR moratorium fail to focus on what most of the opposition is all about . It is not in opposition to releasing wild steelhead but it is in opposition to the process by which the new rule was implemented by the WDFW commission. I think it could be viewed as a precedent setting process which could bode ill in the future. In the future a small group could ramrod a policy through that curtails fishing without due process. Villifying opponents of the moratorium is missing the point that maybe alot of people who do alot for fish and fishing are, themselves, opponents of the moratorium for reasons that have nothing to do with being able to kill a wild steelhead.

grandpa,

I agree that there is repetitiveness, but I don't agree that process is the only issue that folks have with it...there have been arguments of giving fish to Indians, stealing them from "real" fishermen, using junk science to justify the restrictions, economic arguments, etc., etc., etc.,

There have, however, been repeated comments about due process, too. In spite of what some folks and organizations feel, there was no problem with the process...no one did anything untoward, and certainly there was nothing in any way, shape, or form illegal.

Several folks have alleged that it violates their constitutional rights, their right to fish, and numerous laws, though none have been able to come up with a cogent answer for how...other than repeating that it did.

Perhaps you know of a law that no one else has brought up yet, or hasn't been able to make a reasonable argument for yet, that you could share and show me exactly where something went wrong?

Remember that when Mayor Reed met with members of the Commission, Chair Roehl (who, by the way voted against the moratorium) informed her that there was no problem with the process...and from what I understand, someone from the AG's office opined the same thing.

I also don't think that asking people to back up their arguments with facts and logic, rather than innuendo, opinion, and conspiracy theories is "villifying" them...

Fish on...

Todd

Todd, yes i did know that, But there are more user groups than the sportsmen and the tribes.
J.G. I am confusing nothing, What I ask is that if the sportsmen give up there right to take natives, then why are the commercials asking for an increase to native steelhead down on the columbia(by according to the R.N. +200%)I gladly give up that right to keep wild fish, but as part of the largest user group doing so, we should ask that no other(that we have control over on the state leval)user group gets to take more, untill such time that all user groups are allowed, If that is what they choose to do.
Grampa, The process was not so much my focus as those stated directly above.If the largest user group in the state can release wild fish, then every other user group,(under state control) should be held to the same task.
I like to see that people are passionate about the resources in this state and that there can be great debates and discussions about our love of the resource.

Todd –
I refrained from taking part in this continual circular argument however your statement –

“I also don't think that asking people to back up their arguments with facts and logic, rather than innuendo, opinion, and conspiracy theories is "villifying" them..”

cries for a response. Such a standard should cut both ways. While not looking to pick a fight with anyone there are also ample examples of the WSC side of the discussion being supported by innuendo, opinions and miss information. Jerry I apologize for picking on you.

A couple examples
1) Just a few post ago Jerry in responding why those system that have had WSR release for extended periods have not responded with increased returns stated:

“There aren't many successes in Washington because the wild runs were harvested until the numbers dropped below critical levels. The WSC thought that stopping harvest before that level might be prudent.”

This clearly is just an opinion that is not supported by any information or data. To my knowledge no one has established what such a critical level might be. Clearly we have examples of runs rebuilding from populations much lower than we are seeing in most of the populations of concern – SF Toutle after St. Helens would be an example. In the run size/escapement graphs present by WSC the most recent returns of concern were from parent escapements at levels at or above levels previously seen (the Puyallup being the only exception). This argument doesn’t seem to be supported by either fact or logic.

2) In the discussion titled “WSR – a precedent for fisheries management” Jerry posted the following in addressing the statewide moratorium as precedent-

“It doesn't set a precedent for other fisheries here just as it hasn't in Oregon, Idaho and B.C.”

Of course it doesn’t set a precedent for either Oregon or B.C. as both allow the harvest of wild steelhead in some areas (they don’t have a state or providence wide moratoriums or prohibition on the talking of wild steelhead). In fact Oregon’s harvest of wild steelhead is much the same as Washington’s before the moratorium – that is harvest of 1 wild fish a day, 5 per year on systems with healthy populations (above established escapement levels). It is my understanding that there has been serious consideration given to expanding the opportunity to harvest wild fish. His argument again doesn’t seem to be support by either fact or logic.

Not wanting to beat a dead horse I would suggest that many involved in this continuing discussion take a minute to step back from the issue and try to look at it a little less emotionally. At the least take a deep breath before sending their postings.

Todd, I have to wonder if you would be as gracious as you have advise others to be in your own comments if the a group of 50 anglers or so had been successful in getting the 1/day and 5/year wild fish limits raised in stead of the current moratorium.

Tight lines

S malma