This is a stinking pile of poo--- but it had to happen. The tribes offer was basically no saltwater fishing when there was an offer by WDFW where there would have been a short season on chinook . Tribes turned that offer down. This was death by a thousand cuts. Easier to stop the bloodletting from one big wound than a thousand little wounds. In a real co management arrangement the parties would sit in the same room and work out a plan. Instead we Have WDFW working on a plan and the tribes working on a plan and instead of a compromise we have one side not only refusing to move but then add additional conditions at the last minute.

After reading Mr. Turner's comment to the editors blog, this whole thing becomes even more ridiculous. According to Turner, everything would be OK if there is agreement to reduce the harvest on the Puyallup Chinook population from 58% to 50%. Are you f'ing kidding me? Anyone that thinks that an appropriate rebuilding (or recovery) exploitation rate is 50% for a population that is adapted to the hatchery environment (90% of the returns are hatchery fish) that return to a river with its lower 26 miles diked and an estuary that has multiple Superfund clean-up sites, has their head in very dark places. How can a population made up primarily of hatchery returns and crap habitat sustain more or less the same exploitation rate as Skagit Chinook, a population with little hatchery influence and some of the best habitat in Puget Sound.

I'm sorry, but Turner's details on this make this whole situation a joke. I would guess that if people were actually trying to recover Puyallup Chinook and were honest about its productivity, the RER for this population would be something that is half, or less, of this proposed exploitation rate. Good god! Either side (along with the feds) arguing for either of these arbitrary numbers is a total sham. If we're going to risk everybody's fisheries, let's at least do it for a defensible reason, i.e. to actually make a difference for the Puget Sound ESU as a whole.

OncyT,

Sorry to carry this thread drift, but I think it is germane to the issue. You may as well have said, "The Emperor is not wearing any clothes!" Some of us might even say that the Puget Sound Chinook Recovery Plan is a sham. The Plan gives much lip service to recovery but preserves Chinook fishing at nearly all costs. It's not just the Puyallup, but if you notice that all four of the south sound rivers with major hatchery Chinook programs, all using Green River origin hatchery Chinook (the Green, Puyallup, NIsqually, and Skokomish) include harvest rates that conform more to preserving the harvest of hatchery Chinook than to the recovery of wild Chinook populations in those watersheds. I've been disappointed with the PS Chinook recovery plan since its approval because it's more about "harvesting our way to recovery" than it is with actually recovering Chinook in PS. Of course the flip side might be addressing the reality that wild Chinook recovery in south sound watershed like the Puyallup isn't feasible with the extant level of human development.

It really does illustrate how ludicrous it is when the PS salmon management agreement hinges on an 8% discrepancy of 300+ wild Chinook of Green River hatchery origin descent as though it really matters in terms of the ecosystem.Sg

If the tribes fish without the permit will there be any enforcement?

I believe that, in Indian Country, it is one for all and all for one. Unlike the NI side that will each other...................

I just took a quick look. It only takes $5.00 filing fee to start and initiative. While I am sure the cost would go up drastically if you proceeded with one, it might be worth it to file one to allow gambling in certain locations in Washington state. If a person could actually get it on to the ballot, I would think the tribes would have to respond. Hitting them in the pocket book may be the best way to get their attention. I think at least 17 million was spent in the fight to defeat the GMO initiative.