Hi Salmo. I read with interest your reply to Andy's "I have another idea!" post thread. Your excellant knowledge base is impressive! Because of that and the respect that you have on this BB, I ask on behalf of many of the members here for you to read the letter by Guy Norman (ODFW director of Col. fish allocation negotiation team in meetings with the NMFS) in my post thread "Treaty Allocatioin Gov. Letter Arrives - Answers?", and for you to give your knowledgable opinion answers to the questions I addressed to Guy Norman within that thread. We would greatly appreciate it Salmo! Here is a copy of the posted questions:

We greatly appreciate Mr. Norman's efforts to answer sportfisher questions about the Treaty fish allocation decision process, that is still ongoing. I have serious questions about the participant positions outlined in the above letter (which do not necessarily reflect Mr. Norman's own opinions). - The historical 1968 Judge Belloni ruling in U.S. vs Oregon stated that Columbia River Treaty Tribes were entitled to an equitable share of Columbia R. stocks of fish [salmon and steelhead], later defined in 1974 as "an even split". Why is sportfisher take of Willamette (& Cowlitz) stocks of fish brought into this equation in this letter, and in other venues particularly by Indians, when those stocks are clearly not included or a factor in the CRFMP for managing Col. R. allocations, based on Treaties only covering upriver Col. stocks? - Also mentioned as a factor for constraining sportfish take, including in the 2000 Fall Managage Agreement, were spawning escapement needs of stocks of lower Col. R. fish, which are not only outside the jurisdiction of the Treaties, but certainly can easily be avoided altogether as a factor by restricting sportfishing to above the Sandy and Washougal rivers! To quote "...the lower Col. chinook caught by non-Indians are not counted against the non-Indian share". Furthermore, it is hard to imagine the lower rivers not getting more than the needed escapement given the great upturn in all Col. salmon returns with the unexpectedly high ocean survival rates occuring! - In a context seemingly geared toward constricting sportfishing, it stated that wild upriver chinooks cannot be deciphered between healthy harvestable Hanford Reach stocks and ESA protected wild Snake R. stocks. Obviously that applies to the Indians as well! - In comparing the expected take of this fall's Col. fish, why were the non-treaty factor lower river stocks included in the 42,000 non-Indian expected take of fish; comparing that to an expected Indian take of 70,000 upriver fish? That's not an appropriate or fair comparison in regards to allocation negotiations, for which we fell far short anyway. - Why does the 2000 Fall Agreement take into account sportfish take of coho and steelhead when they are overwhelmingly of hatchery stock that we paid for? And the Indians also take those, as well as ESA steelhead in their nets! - Here's a good one concerning the vast majority of spring chinook take being allocated to the Indians despite the even 50/50 split court decisions. To quote "...the federal government determined the spring chinook allocation in the ESA permits they issued for the tribal and state fisheries. In the absence of an agreement, the federal goverment allocated the majority of the spring chinook ESA impacts [and fishing opportunity] to the tribes because they believe it consistent with the United States Treaty trust responsibility to the Columbia River Treaty Tribes". The reality is that was anything but consistent with the Treaties! Particularly when you consider the overiding ESA factor! Indian nets are indescriminate killers. Sportfishers can fish selectively by careful release of the half of the Col. springers that aren't fin clipped. Does the government take sportfishers as inept dimwits and the Indians as the "squeaky wheel"? Or what is going on here? It makes us wonder, and this is not an acusation, if the Indians have become big political campaign contributors by means of there huge gambling casino profits, thus making them constituents of powerful politicians in Wash. D. C.? Who "Coho" posted have handed down an edict to the NMFS to go along with this likely illegallity and clear unfairness!
With all due respect to the states of Oregon and Washington Dept. of Fisheries and their efforts on our behalfs, I certainly hope we have stronger legal and negotiation representation in ongoing and future litigation with the federal government and the Col. Tribal Commission! And that we get deserved credible answers to the above questions. - Steve Hanson (in representation of a likely majority of sportfishers) ---

Salmo, the same principals apply to the Treaties, and reported abuses and excess take of fish beyond them, to the Indians of NW Washington. Will you address those issues as well. Thanks much. - RT



[This message has been edited by Reel Truth (edited 09-01-2000).]

Hi again RT,

As I indicated in the other thread, I just don't have the expertise to give detailed review or analysis of the questions that Mr. Norman's response prompted. I do bird dog a lot of fish management and conservation and even allocation issues, but this one goes way over my head.

Regarding the inequitable harvests that are not the product of specific agreements or trade offs, like perhaps the recent target fishery on Green River chinook that was suddenly cancelled, I offer this observation. Pre season predictions are not expected to be perfect, and the courts acknowledged that uneven sharing would occur in any given season. But the balance is supposed to be carried over to the next season, so that the party who underharvested in one year would get a greater opportunity and share the next year. This is the method by which equal sharing over the long haul would be accomplished as I understand it. Maybe something's changed and I missed an important court case or order somewhere?

I hope you are able to get more complete explanations from Mr. Norman. The better we can understand complex management issues, then hopefully we can contain at least that level of animosity that is based in ignorance.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Thanks for taking the time to reply Salmo. I hope you are correct with the harvesting balance component, by giving a larger allocation to the group that got less than the proper share the previous year. If you are, us sportfishers are going to have almost all of the harvestable Columbia spring chinooks next year! Yahoo! And some nice quotas on many other rivers around Washington next year too? We are excited about that , but I doubt anyone is making any plans; if you know what I mean. - RT - Edit: When you mentioned that much of these things are over your head it made me think of more questions. Can you tell us whose head these issues are closest to, so we might have them address these issues head on? Would we have to go any further than Mr. Stelle? All the way to Wash. D.C.? Or do you think that the states lawsuit against the Fed.s/Tribes will answer the questions? Thanks. - RT


[This message has been edited by Reel Truth (edited 09-01-2000).]

Rt
I don't think he is correct on this one. If he was we would have the Forks streams net free for several years as we tried to catch up on our past under harvests.

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

Amen smilesforu.

Roger

Get our share? Never happen!!!

------------------
Tight Lines!!

I'd have to agree with Marty on this one. I've seen complete runs wiped out of the Skok by set nets and the next year there was no moratorium on netting. Similar on the Puyallup. I'd say it's a set netting schedule every year.

------------------
you haven't lived til you've rowed a cataraft. Friends don't let friends run Outcasts.

RT,

Yeah, no doubt I missed something somewhere on the allocation business. Some systems are regulated by state/tribal agreements for fishing schedules, which explains the catch disparity on Forks area rivers. But the disparity happens on a lot of fisheries, and I don't know what event, order, or decision modified the court's sharing rule. Understanding that might help alleviate some frustration.

Regarding the Columbia agreement, recall what Guy Norman said about the trade offs. I expect those and the higher priority federal trust for treaty fishing would over rule 50-50 sharing, so I won't be surprised if the tribes get the larger share to harvest again next year. The state lawsuits seem to be the best course of action. That will serve to at least let us know the score about where the non-treaty fishing privilege rates.

I don't know whose head in any agency these secrets are closest to. I doubt it would be Stelle. He's the regional administrator for NMFS and a lawyer by trade. His fish management expertise is less than Jeff Keonings, who actually is a scientist. Stelle's fish management knowledge is probably limited to whatever he's told by his biologists in the fish harvest management divisions. And they would most likely be acting under the advice of agency lawyers' interpretations of the court orders. Sheesh, see why this is so complex? Hey, maybe no one really knows the score. Think that's possible?

I should mention, I have a new email address. Guess I have to see if I can modify my profile on here, in case anyone's been trying to email me. Got a new computer and email service and still trying to figure out how to set it up and use it.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo, I just got back from fishing NW B.C. Thanks for your efforts to answer the Q's. Just a couple things: I too won't be the least bit suprised if the Indian netters get more Col. springers next year again. We will be angry again. And yes, I do definitely think it's quite possible that no one knows the answers to my Q's. But they need to be addressed and fairness returned somehow! - RT