Well, I'll ignore some of the things that bother me to focus on the biggest issue in this post. If what you say is true about the netting the the problem is that the *goverment* (state or federal) won't take them to court on it. Nowhere in the Boldt decision does it state that if sportfishermen forgo there allotment for harvest that it goes to the NA nations. WSR should have *nothing* to do with that at all. Our allotted steelhead are ours to do what we will. If we decide that we want to have longer C&R seasons to encourage sport fishing activities, then that is our perogative...

-- Cheers
-- James

Whatever blows sunshine up your skirt, just don't post your personal pics here.

True James that should be how it works, but unfortunately it doesn't appear to be working like that.

I don't think the issue of forgone opportunity has come up yet and I don't think at this point that the tribes have used it. I'm pretty sure the tribes don't want to go down that path.

I could be wrong. Does anyone know if the tribes have, or are using forgone opportunity?

I thought the term being used was fishing "in common" with respect to the "surplus" fish. Meaning they're "helping" us (sportsfishers) take care of the "extra" steelhead.

It has seemed like netting activity has increased since the moratorium decision was handed down, but perhaps I'm just a pessimist.

If you have documented proof of such activity, then this would probably be something useful to various agencies, institutions and conservation groups.

From my discussions with Salmo_g and others in the fisheries business, this "forgone" opportunity is a sticky wicket that neither the tribes or state want to get near...

From the sportsmens and conservation groups perspective this is something that *must* be addressed, especially if this is going on.

But if all they are doing is increasing the number of days they net and not taking extra fish, that just means they are prolly either pulling the nets out earlier in the day, or getting their quota earlier in the season.

This is my second post this week!
I glad this discussion is happening now. I know there has been many other threads like this in the past, but its a new year and once again are problem has grown bigger. I'd like to add a couple questions to this thread that I've been debating in head on what action and stand I should take. I'll answer the thread question first. BECAUSE YOU CAN!! No one is an idiot, stupid, or whatever you think there problem might be. I personally don't kill natives anymore and never will again. I've wanted to a couple times this year because they were miss clips. The LAW stated I must release, so I did!! I felt like I was spreading some disease like AIDS to my almost extinct run of steelhead WFG says I have on my river. BULL@#$@ If they counted reds correctly I'm sure they'd be amazed. The Natives I have killed none of them being trophy’s either. I did kill another one out of anger when they made the C&R rule. I look back on that and think to my self "what an idiot" Not that I killed the fish, but for not paying attention to what was happening around me. Age probably had allot to do with it. I started about twenty years ago and turned die hard fish bum around 10 years ago. I've lived in my truck, friends couches, dated women for places to crash around rivers ect.. Steelhead had always been a challenge we all will humbly agree and there is nothing like them. It seemed the more I learned about rivers, runs, genetics of fish, techniques, and network of friends ect.... The more fish I caught. That still holds true but I'm married now, and every years more runs dwindle. I don't want to go into how marriage has affected fishing, I still get my opportunities. I just don't have the same network of friends. Oh well!! With all this said I'm still pretty young but have enjoyed these fish enough to know I need to give back HOW, is the question
1/ We will see Natives go extinct in are life time
2/Government will not be able to resolve tribal conflict in time.
3/The more we give the more others take.
4/Tribes will take whether they can or can't
5/F&G Beau racy has done so little and complicated so much.
6/Everybody points fingers at one another saying your the problem. Unethical, opinion, law, believes what ever, its not going to change the fact that Wild steelhead will be extinct in our life time!!!!!
I would join a conservation group but I don't agree with allot of their views and many think there glorified game wardens. I'll be the first to admit I'm not the perfect fisherman I ride the fence on allot of things. I'm also not someone that doesn't care obviously! Sorry for taking so long but here are my Questions.
1 If we can't buy out the tribes can we buy out commercial fishermen?
2.If we bought one Commercial fishing permit how many fish would be saved?
3.Brood stock has been successful in other states also in Washington. What’s stopping us from pursuing this method and eventually getting rid of the entire hatchery program?
4.Could I start a brood stock program if I had all necessary equipment?
5.If the law said no, would It be wrong if I continued? (up for debate)
6. I'm convinced that democracy isn't going to work with the state, what more drastic measures could I take to secure the Native population in the future. Not saying I have a thick pocket book, because I don't. What if you did, then what would you do?
7. This is my extreme thought what about getting a couple extreme environmental group out there to attack the issue with us? Its just a thought, at last minute thought.

Parker,

Todd authored a white paper on Foregone Opportunity that is located on the Wild Steelhead Coalition website. It's a pretty good analysis.

No, I don't think either the state or any tribe has exercised a fishery under the legal concept of "foregone opportunity" unless some of the non-treaty fisheries were in the first years after US v WA when many tribes didn't have enough of a fishing fleet to harvest their treaty shares. Now that both sides have more than enough capacity to harvest all treaty and non-treaty shares, neither side seems to want to adjudicate the matter. A lot of times it's beneficial to both sides to leave a matter in legal limbo. However, if a tribe prosecutes a steelhead fishery under FO, it's probably high time for WA to press for adjudication.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo g:

I always enjoy your posts, always so fact filled, and written in a way that a guy like me can understand. Maybe you can tell us why it seems like fisheries is sitting on its hands and not working to solve the probs. (Like the north of falcon deal that was so bad that the sportsmen walked out) I guess there must be problems to solve that I dont know about. In case I got it wrong, it was the meeting just held at SeaTac. Another prob that I had to look at quite often last year, was the King fishery on the Skokomish, Watching the native fishermen, and I say that lightly, snagging fish every day I was there with large treble hooks, leaded down. I was there when our fish warden, called the tribal guy and told him what was going on, and that he was looking at it as he called. There was no responce by tribal authorities, and I was there till dark. How do I solve my frustration. Is this what I get for doing what the law calls for? Hoping you can shed som light on these probs, and now I will quit whinning. Looking forward to your response.

Thank you

Chuck G.

So here are some answers in order.

1) Steelhead aren't a game fish, they are a sport fish. As such they can't be harvested by commercial fisheries. The exception is the tribes due to the Boldt decision.

2) Because of one, the only way to reduce wild mortality is to change the laws around the salmon fisheries associated with "acceptable bycatch". In particular the springer fisheries and chum fisheries are issues...

3) Broodstock is a slippery slope. Devious people have already tried with Coho to prove that "hatchery" is the same as "wild" so that the ESA listing could be removed. With steelhead, it is easy to envision that if "broodstock" equals "wild stock" that the ESA would be harder to pursue as well as endangering currently listed stocks. Besides, broodstocks while less damaging (potentially) that current hatcherys are still producing "hatchery" fish.

4) No

5) You shouldn't. I don't think there is a single person on this board that can do better than mother nature. While guys like Salmo_g, Smalama, and guys other guys on this board are *very* smart, even they would probably shy away from saying they could run a broodstock program that would "rejuvinate" wild stocks. Running a program like that isn't easy and requires not only extreme dedication, but an understanding about the fish that we (as in the scientific collective) simply don't have. What brood stock has proven to do is provide a more viable form of hatchery fish.

You're right Hooked.........I should have made that clear......INTENTIONALLY kills a wild steelhead. I may have unintentionally, through no fault of my own, caused the untimely death of a native steelhead in the past 20 years or so. I don't think I have. They all swam away strongly, and even before Sparky's Law took effect, my buds and I always kept them in the H2o until it was time for a dripping wet photo. A quick one too.......

I like your driving analogy.

It seems that what is needed is frequent, constant education on proper handling techniques. And the less handling, the better. Respect for the fish results in better handling OF the fish. But as Vedder has told us many times, they are unbelievably tough critters................

I'm no Orvis catalog flyfisherman either (it always cracks me up how Orvis always gets smeared , nobody ever says "this flyfisherman looked like something out of a Sage catalog" ), I guzzle beer like there's no tomorrow and I love rare steaks and tequila.

It really does come down to intent. Anyone who's ever held a big wild nate in their hands and hasn't had that experience change them as they watch it swim away just doesn't get it. The DNA is too priceless to end up on a grill. that's what hatchery fish are for.

I love you too Aunty, but I'm with Stam and Todd on this one..............

NWP,

Thanks for the compliment. I write to be understood, altho it doesn't always work out that way.

I doubt that fisheries (WDFW) is sitting on its hands. I'd venture that over 98% of WA fishermen have never read the RCW (revised code of washington) that describes the job assigned to WDFW by the state legislature. That legislative mandate along with the policies and regulations approved by the WDFW Commission, and the orders of courts of jurisdiction, are what WDFW must do.

WDFW does not exist to do what any minor special interest group, such as may be loosely represented by the members of this internet forum, thinks they oughta' be doing. State law fixes some very strong responsibilities on WDFW to accommodate commercial fishing. For direct evidence, please read the recent post in the "gillnetters arrested" thread. They have to commit at least 3 gross misdemeaners within 2 years, or is it 2 in 3, before the appeals committee can even think about a 1 year license suspension. This law was written by the seafood industry, not by WDFW, and the legislature passed it, and the gov (Locke) signed it.

I don't know what went on this week at NOF. Maybe Smalma will report.

What you observe on the Skok may be offensive to you, but consider this:
The Tribe allows early chinook to pass through to the NF and to a lesser extent the SF, and some of those are wild fish. 90+% of Skok chinook are hatchery fish that were raised to be caught. As far as I know, there is no shortage of chinook spawners in the Skok, at least on average. Whether the surplus chinook are taken by treaty snaggers, gillnetters, or by spear or pitchfork really makes no difference biologically to the resource. So long as enough fish make it into the hatchery and up the river to spawn, how the remainder are harvested is strictly a social (and legal in the case of treaty fishing) issue, not a biological nor ecological resource issue. If you'd prefer those fish were allowed to migrate upstream and contribute additional MDN, that's a separate issue that should be considered under setting escapement goals. Thus far, no escapement goals include MDN in their estimation.

Further, it's funny you mention the Skok and treaty snagging, since that's the location of one of the more significant non-treaty snag and floss fisheries in WA. Pretty hard to criticize the tribe's practices since they make no pretext of sport fishing - it's just harvest to them. Yet the non-treaty guys with sport gear are actually breaking laws daily there. Given the emotional content, I doubt it would matter if the people there were better informed of the purposes of the two fisheries, although both serve the same end: harvesting surplus salmon.

The way you solve your frustration is to mind your own business. I may not think highly of snagging salmon, but when I see a treaty Indian doing it on the Skok, hey, he's just doing his job, which is to catch salmon, and his method is legal for the group he belongs to. As long as he isn't breaking any laws, it's none of my business, so I don't sweat it. Maybe you shouldn't either. Try modifying your attitude this year. It's the one thing you have control over. Treaty fishing - you don't.

So one of the ways you solve problems is by figuring out what things are problems and what things are not.

Real problems appear to be things like the Puget Sound tribes not approving increased non-treaty selective fisheries for chinook. For sure the LCR non-treaty gillnet fishery that takes more ESA listed wild salmon and steelhead than legal hatchery fish is a problem, and it doesn't include federal treaties with Indian tribes. It shoud be solveable, but we aren't well enough organized to fix that. Yet.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Here are a couple of native bucks off another message board.
You guys recognize these pics?

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads.../gonew/1#UNREAD

I saw that too Sal, even thought about linking to it here... Wasn't sure if I should stir the pot any more than I'm about to.

Are they Quinault fish?

Says "North Peninsula."

Looks like the Quinault to me...

Mmmm...yummy...double-striper boot steaks...it's what's for dinner.

Bring a spoon.

Fish on...

Todd