This mornings paper shows the Chinook give away, for the fifth year in a row, by the Nisqually tribe at their hatchery. I have no complaints about this. My point here is why net when you have a hatchery? The only explanation can be to target native species. I am not specifically pointing the Nisqually tribe out but all tribes that own hatcheries still seem to net the rivers too. What if we were to sell, or even give, all of our hatcheries to the tribes in exchange for a written agreement to no longer net in or within X number of miles from the river? This would not skirt any treaty rights. The tribes would, or should, be happy. I696 passing would eliminate the commercial competition. I see it as a win win for all.

I don't think the tribes will buy this mainly because of the quality of the fish by the time they return to the hatchery. I saw the give away on TV, and these fish were 'beyond boots'. I imagine they would be pretty dark even if collected immediately after returning to the hatchery. Talking to tribal netters on the Skokomish this past late summer--they were getting half the price for dark fish compared to bright. Late in the season, they were avoiding areas filled with bucks, looking for hens to sell the eggs.

I don't know the Nisqually system, but it would be great if the hatchery were managed to maximize separation in timing between hatchery and wild runs. The state has been pretty successful doing this with winter steelhead. That way they could avoid the wild fish by pulling their nets after a certain time.

Does anyone know if the state puts in there 50%? I mean, match the numbers of the native hatcherys. How do we know if on some rivers, the native release we call wild, is actually uncut hatchery salmon. We need more strong numbers of wild fish.


I think there needs to be some federal help.

Do you think Bill Clinton could get the state federal funding? Sure, and wild fish will recover over night!

VOTE YES I696

I have ask many Native Americans the same question and here are some of their answers. We fish for the same reasons you sportfish. It is an obsession, a way of life. It is something we enjoy doing. We are simply acting upon and protecting our court ordered treaty rights. We are practicing our local and tradional customs. It is a way to protect our heritage. For religious and ceremonial purposes etc.
I am not condoning these answers but remember that there are good and bad tribal fishers just like there are good and bad sportfishers.

Stlhead,

You've overlooked a key point that has consistently limited the alternatives for paying tribes not to fish. Although it is individual tribes that "own" the treaty fishing rights, it is individual treaty tribal fisherman who, with a license from his tribe, exercises that right. So the various purchase proposals end up being befuddled by the "who gets the money?" issue.

If you pay the tribe, then the individual tribal fisherman doesn't receive any direct benefit from such a deal. And the numerous individual tribal fishermen vote on tribal decisions, so they are likely to reject such offers.

I have thought for years that it would make sense to offer to pay a tribe on a given river to not fish for steelhead during a given year. Pay them the market rate for the steelhead they would expect to commercially harvest. [I would propose they go ahead and net those they want for cerimonial and subsistence purposes.] Given the steadily decreasing price paid for commercially caught steelhead, the time should be getting right for this kind of deal. But the problem continues to be, who gets paid? The simple answer would be that the tribe could dole out the payment to individual fishermen based on their % of previous years' catch. But every fisherman is certain that they would do even better than their fellows this year, and won't agree to the % of total harvest they took in previous seasons. (Just like most sport fishermen - we are all optimists, and believe we will do better next time!)

This and the reasons pertaining to quality of the salmon by the time they reach the hatchery, along with the cultural issues, keep ideas like yours on the back burner.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.