Well, the word is out. The August 1st opener is still on. Apparently Oregon, Washinton, the Feds, and the tribes have reached an agreement. The sporties get 8.5% of the upriver fish, and the tribes get 23%. Now I didn't major in math, but that looks like a similar 50/50 split like the one we got this spring. Anybody want to chip in with me and buy these guys a new freakin' calculator???

Backlash,

Thanks for the info. I was getting ready to post that question.

Now, the $64,000 question: does that include chinook? When you mention upriver fish, I assume it does?

This is obviously far from a 50/50 split according to your numbers. You know, I'm pretty open-minded and reasonable when good communication takes place with legitimate arguments. But isn't it odd that the feds. will not tell us why there is an inequity in the allocation? If they have a good argument and it is sound...I can live with it, but there is a very distinct LACK of communication regarding this(and last springs fiasco with us getting shut out of a record springer year)

One must ask themselves "What are the feds. afraid I will find out?"

Will we ever get a straight answer?

NO [Bleeeeep!] !!!

I was looking at my up-river spoons today and thinking about the 3 weeks i fished last year and all those brite nooks. Was so good to see it open. My garden will have to wait again this year. Last year my corn was tough before i had any. this will be our 25th year at the mouth of the Kalama HOG LINE see you there. Fish On! Bathtub Bob

Let say the fed's figure it out this way. With the native americans getting 23%, the sporties 8.5%, then the non native commerial's must be getting about 14.5%.
Now of course this the allowing amount for proper escapement for spawning of the entire upper river brights.
I think i saw someone make this point out on previous threads. You just don't seem to get all the info from the people whom are suppose to know and why the make this decision's because they think we can not understand or handle the decisions they hand out.
And yes, the non-native commerials have to be listed as seperate from the sporties because they are competeing more directly with the native fishiers.

Now if some has a better or more informed opinion on this please corrct me, as i am just thinking out loud as to why's and what's.

I hate to say it but it is the only logical way too come out to the number's given out.

elmtree (woody)

I am beginning to really hate this new math.
I can only hope the rest of the 50% is actually going to the white commercials.
Tight Lines

------------------
Marty
Steelheader.net marty@steelheader.net

Why the white commercials?

If we're talking a 50/50 Native/Non-native split, and we're talking a 50/50 split of 100% of the harvestable numbers of fish, then 23% Native harvest, and 8.5% non-Native sport harvest leaves 68.5% for non-Native commercial harvest. That's really what the historical data show for past harvests too, and it shows us that our "white net" friends are just as big a problem for sport anglers as are the tribal commercial netters. Unless the 23.5% and 8.5% represent a fraction of the total numbers expected, rather than a fraction of the harvestable numbers expected, then that's what the numbers say to me. In either case, it's the sporties screwed again, to the benefit of commercial netters. Pay less, take more......ain't it the American way?


Fish on........

Guys,

It ain't the calculator, and it ain't new math. The problem, as is so often the case, seems to be incomplete information.

There are two legitimate reasons why the treaty share is significantly greater than the recreational share of in-river harvest. First, as others have posted, is the non-treaty commercial catch. Second, the ocean harvest by both recreational and commercial non-treaty fishing. The treaty fisherman don't take any of their share in the ocean, so it stands to reason that their in-river share would be greater than the non-treaty share. Remember, according to the U.S. v. Washington decision, as upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, every fish harvested in U.S. waters counts as part of the treaty and non-treaty shares. Canadian and high seas harvests are excluded from the sharing formula.

I know it's like spitting into a strong headwind, but don't be so quick to jump to hysterical conclusions.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

So would it be safe to say the sporties in-river share would be quite a bit more if 696 had passed? Sad to think what could have been...

Bruce

Salmo G.,

Wondering if you cna confirm/deny the information I've read on historical catch data. The numbers I've seen show roughly a 60/30/10 split of the harvestable fish between non-tribal commercial/Tribal/recreational anglers. The last numbers I've seen were from the mid-80's. Can you steer me to a source for more current harvest statistics? Thanks in advance.

Fish on........

This has more to do with legal interpretation of the court decisions rather than mathematics. The interpretation regarding the Tribal/State allocation (per the Boldt decision) is as follows:

First and foremost, the needs of the fish must be met. That is, THE FISH COME FIRST. Let's not forget that.

Second, if there are any fish above that needed for spawning, harvest is allocated as follows:

Tribal subsistence and cerimonial fisheries have first rights. However, this fishery is usually quite small.

Second, the Tribes get 50% of the available harvest. The current interpretation by the Feds is that the Tribes get their allocation first. The State would get the other 50% percent but only if they are not constrained by other factors (e.g., the Endangered Species Act - ESA).

In the case of the Columbia River, the harvest is constrained by ESA listed stocks on the Snake River. Therefore, the level of fishing is dictated by the level of "incidental take" of listed Snake River fish. The National Marine Fisheries Service has set the incidental take at 31%. That is, fishing can proceed only until 31% of the Snake River fish are caught. Therefore, the Tribes, States and Feds are negotiating the level of incidental take. They are NOT negotiating the overall harvest levels.

Now comes the tricky part. Since the Feds believe (and the courts appear to agree) the Tribes get their 50% share before ESA kicks in, the Tribes are entitled to 100 percent of the incidental take (all 31%) in order for them to achieve their 50% overall allocation. Since the Tribes are entitled to the entire incidental take, the States 50% allocation CANNOT BE HARVESTED. The States end up with zero.

An example might help.

If the overall harvest level for the Columbia River (after spawning escapement and Tribal cerimonial fishery) is say 50,000 Chinook, the Tribes are entitled to 25,000 and the State is entitled to 25,000. But if all 50,000 fish are havested, the harvest of listed Snake River fall Chinooks would exceed the incidental take level (i.e. the Snake River fish might go extinct). Therefore, the overall harvest level must be reduced to prevent the Snake River fish from vanishing. Unfortunately, the levels are not reduced equally. So, let's say that to prevent harvest from taking too many Snake River fish, the harvest level (as dictated by the incidental take limit) can only be 25,000 Chinook. According to Feds, the Tribes get their cut before the State. Therefore, the Tribes get all 25,000 since they are entitled to 50% of the allowable harvest before ESA kicks in. The other 25,000 (the States 50% share) cannot be harvested because it would exceed the incidental take limit imposed by the ESA. So, the States 50% share of the overall allocation is still there, but it can't be harvested by anglers, commericals, tribal folks, or anyone else.

I'm impressed by the States ability to negotiate ANY fishing season on the Columbia River this fall since they are, in effect, trying to negotiate part of the Tribes 50%allocation. Which they did. But you can bet the States will challenge the Federal interpretation at some point in the future. But it won't be this year.

So there will be a fishing season at Buoy 10 this August and I'll be there, along with a million other anglers. But it's hard to believe that, in effect, I'll be trying to catch part of the Tribes allocation...

Given the complexity of the issues, it's easy to see why misunderstandings abound. I'm not sure if I've cleared anything up but at least you have more information.

Salmo G. help me out if I've missed something or my explaination is off.



------------------
MSB