Several months ago Billy Frank in his capacity as the head of the NW Indian Fisheries Commission wrote the following words of disapproval to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission concerning their proclamation of a moratorium prohibiting all harvest of wild steelhead.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
"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."
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

More recently the Quileute Tribe wrote the following.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
August 16, 2004

Chairman Will Roehl
Washington State Fish and Wildlife Commission
600 Capitol Way North Olympia, WA 98501-1091

Re: Quileute Tribe Position on Wild Steelhead Moratorium


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

cc: Dr. Jeff Koenings, WDFW Director
James Anderson, Executive Director, NWIFC
Ed Johnstone, Fisheries Manager, Quinault Indian Nation
Rod Thysell, Natural Resources Director, Hoh Tribe
Nedra Reed, Mayor of Forks

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

Will the moratorium stand?

Remember Billy Franks words from above...

What a load of BS. I wouldn't protest if the tribes changed to more selective harvest methods.

That's rich. A wonderful position for the so-called stewards of the resource to have.

Ahh... Such fun. It's amazing how on one hand they gripe about their rights being violated and yet on the other complain that there might be too many fish that only they can kill.

What is really funny is the fact that they complain that "Co-Management" is not happening. Well let's see... Washington manages the non-tribal to be non-kill on wild fish and the tribes manage it to be their way. Sounds like co-management to me! In fact this proves it!
They as much as admit that the conservation actions they have been pushing down our throats hasn't been working in the following statement.
In my mind when he says "Attempting to deal with" he is simply saying it's not working! Instead of being shortsighted here we should look at fish counts as far back as we have them and then graph them by likely cycles so we can see what each cycle of runs is doing. My GUESS is that they are all declining slowly but surely. People just don't want to believe it. Especially if we rule out the hatchery stock.

The thing that really gets me though is his saying that the rivers could be overstocked! What hogwash! Does he really think mother nature woudln't balance out the runs after a few cycles on her own? I mean give me a break! The fish have been around a lot longer than humans have been fishing them. Too bad we will wipe them out due to such unfounded beliefs as that!

The thing is that more smolts in the river means more food for the larger smolts/and returning adults. So who wins? The fish that is the strongest of course. Does that mean that the river can't sustain more fish in the river? I don't think so. It just means more competition to survive so we end up with stronger fish. Hmmm Sounds good to me!

Now if we end up with more fish in the rivers then we need to make sure that those fish have adequate habitat in the rivers. This means we have to be more careful with the environment over all. Again, sounds good to me. I would love to see more rivers look like the upper reaches of the rivers that are in the Olympic National Park. Too bad we ruin them as soon as they cross that boundary! It's no different for the rest of the state either.

This letter just goes to show how greedy people are. It amazes me that the "Stewards" who are supposed to be so concerned about the natural wildlife can be so short sighted.

The kicker is the following.. Basically they want to fish regardless of how the fish are doing and the moratorium is keeping them from feeling they can do that. Well guess what. If we don't do this there won't be any fish to fish for anyway!

Other possible interpretations?

Try this one...

"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 us and tribes can go back to fighting each other for the fish...and they don't have the PR fiasco...

Fish on...

Todd

P.S

Well stated Todd!

Do you by chance have the link for the Hoh v. Baldridge case? I couldn't find it.

BTW: Here is some very interesting reading!

http://www.forkswashington.org/wildsteelheadissue/OtherFactors.pdf

No message. They reap what they sow.