Anybody from south sound or Olympia area want to carpool? Email me.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Dear Chairman Roehl:

As public hearings for review of the recent steelhead moratorium are about to resume, we find it timely to reiterate the Quileute Tribe's position on this matter. We recognize that only the state's non-treaty share of the fish was subject to the moratorium. However, that does not mean the treaty share was unaffected by the FWC decision. Our concerns are as follows:

1) Without demonstrated need for conservation, it is entirely possible that returning fish could exceed carrying capacity for the rivers, thereby adversely impacting survival per spawners.

2) A mechanism for evaluation on the first point exists pursuant to Hoh v. Baldrige for Pacific rivers---they must be managed on a river by river and run by run basis. Yet, the Pacific tribes were not included in any discussion or consultation regarding the FWC decision to implement a moratorium. Omission of such consultation violates U.S. v. Washington, regarding co-management of the fishery.

3) Because we have no information leading us to believe the steelhead of the Quillayute watershed need to be in conservation status, we have not closed the tribal fishery. That situation, however, as you must be aware, has the potential to create racial tension towards tribes.

4) We note that even the WDFW staff did not find a need for the moratorium to be indicated. What then, was the motive, we must ask ourselves?

5) As citizens of the state of Washington, we are concerned that the lawful administrative process of the state was not followed by FWC when the moratorium was enacted; instead, it came by fiat of the Commission.

We are always concerned when state officials do not follow required process of state laws and federal court decisions. WE hope that the reopened hearings will rectify the immediate problem of an unsupported moratorium and that state and federal processes will be followed in the future.

The Quileute Tribe reserves the right to act as it may deem appropriate to protect its treaty rights to the steelhead fishery, in the future.

Sincerely,

Russell Woodruff, Chair
Quileute Tribal Council

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

In an earlier letter Billy Frank wrote:

It is our understanding that the FWC took this action despite recommendations to the contrary from WDFW staff, that you characterized it as a conservation regulation, despite the fact that WDFW and tribal staffs have clearly indicated it is not necessary for conservation, and despite the fact that we have agreed upon management plans which identify harvestable wild steelhead in a number of rivers.

This action by the FWC raises a number of issues regarding opportunity, allocation and conservation that we have been attempting to deal with over the years through annual, river specific plans without having to resort to the federal courts to resolve our different perspectives.

Try this one on...

"Without demonstrated need for conservation, it is entirely possible that returning fish could exceed carrying capacity for the rivers, thereby adversely impacting survival per spawners."

They sure haven't been complaining that the river has been so "over escaped" over the past several years...I'm sure the recent three year decline towards the escapement goal is giving them all a combined breath of relief as the river gets "healthier"...sure wouldn't want to have more than the escapement goal in there.

"A mechanism for evaluation on the first point exists pursuant to Hoh v. Baldrige for Pacific rivers---they must be managed on a river by river and run by run basis."

Look up the case...Hoh v. Baldridge says rivers can't be lumped together for the purpose of calculating "harvestable excesses"...which goes back to exactly what I was saying about cooperatively establishing escapements, run sizes, and harvestable portions. Don't rely on me or the Quileutes for the interpretation...check out the case...that's exactly what it says, in very plain english. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything at all like this moratorium.

"Yet, the Pacific tribes were not include in any discussion or consultation regarding the FWC decision to implement a moratorium. Omission of such consultation violates U.S. v. Washington, regarding co-management of the fishery."

Not if they are hinging their conclusion on the Hoh v. Baldridge case, or on the U.S. v. Washington case.

As noted, Hoh v. Baldridge says that rivers cannot be lumped together to calculate total harvest levels. In the case, WDFW lumped together all the OP streams, divided the number in half, and "gave" half the coho to the tribes, and half to the non-tribal fishermen. Under this calculation, while total fish caught from the OP would have been split evenly, the Hoh's would have got virtually nothing, as all the fish from the Hoh river were to be caught in non-tribal fisheries.

Also, as noted before, the exact language in the U.S. v. Washington case says that neither party can tell the other what to do with their half of the fish. It's called the "wisest and best use" doctrine...and explicitly limits harvest consultation to setting escapement goals, predictions of run size, and dividing up the difference.

As with the Hoh v. Baldridge case, don't take my or the Quileutes word for it, look them up...the copy/cut and paste masters should be able to get it done.

Then we get to the real reasons:

"Because we have no information leading us to believe the steelhead of the Quillayute watershed need to be in conservation status, we have not closed the tribal fishery. That situation, however, as you must be aware, has the potential to create racial tension towards tribes."

Playing the race card...but it's obvious what they mean is that people won't like it that they are the only ones harvesting the fish. "Racial tension" does not create some sort of consultation requirement under the cited cases. Again, look them up.

"What then, was the motive, we must ask ourselves?"

What they're saying here, is "if you don't care that we will suffer politically from being the only ones harvesting fish, then what reason other than racism must you have for doing it?" Which, of course, is the vilest kind of garbage. Accusing the state of being racist because they want to conserve the fish?

What they don't want is the political pressure of being the only ones harvesting the fish. Here, and on all the BB's, there have been discussions of what a great need there is to lessen the tribal impacts, and we all know that there aren't any ways to do it in the courts...they have a federally protected treaty right...this is the only way to do it. Where are all the guys bursting with anti-net sentiment now? Some of them, at least, are arguing out the other side of their mouth...

"As citizens of the state of Washington, we are concerned that the lawful administrative process of the state was not followed by FWC when the moratorium was enacted; instead, it came by fiat of the Commission."

True or not...it's irrelevant. It's going through all the most public channels possible right now.

Do you guys actually believe that the tribes would oppose the moratorium for any other reason except that they will receive bad PR?

I hope that the State is not blackmailed by these (thinly) veiled accusations of racisim, intended to fear them into knuckling under, and then we and tribes can go back to fighting each other for the fish...and they don't have the PR fiasco...

Fish on...

Todd

Interesting, does anyone else see the irony of this letter- Why should the tribes bully us in how we utilize OUR 50% of the resource. Does anyone really feel we would have say in how the tribes utilize theirs? Nice effort Plunk to cloud the issue.