The tribes need a permit. Except when NMFS doesn't want to make them get one.

For Skagit. Tulalip, or both fisheries

Funny. I don't recall the BIA having a very extensive staff of fishery biologists to knock something out like this in such short notice.

But they do have political appointees, and that is all that is necessary now. Maybe a good lawyer or two on the side.

The Section 7D sure is convoluted. The one phrase that does come up quite often is........"......license applicant shall not make any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources....."

Seems kind of ironic considering they are using gill nets and killing everything.

Reading through it, it would seem to me the tribes are probably given an exemption under Section 7H, which is linked back to 7D thru Section 7(A)(2). Maybe that's the link for avoiding everything? It surely doesn't seem possible that in 2 working days the tribes went through all of the normal procedures for acquiring permits AND got them approved???? I imagine they also certainly didn't go thru consultation with the State of Washington as called out.

If so, GREAT. That means we shouldn't even be worried about getting ours approved.

If not, my question, why can't WDFW use this same path?

So who and what permits are needed for the tribes to actually fish?
None it appears...business as usual and they can do as they please.

It seems you have NMFS, NOAA and now BIA giving the OK to fish or working on the permitting process.
What is the pecking order as far as which supersedes the other and can one stop another from issuing a ok or permit to fish?
With all the agencies looking like they can give the green light to fish, The NOF process is looking like more of a sham every day that passes.
SF

Because WDFW is not the Tribes. The Federal Gubmint believes it has a special (Trust) responsibility to the tribes superior to its responsibilities to any other citizen.

There are quite possibly some legal questions to be debated but it will not only take time but it will take money. The Feds can just keep printing it, the State doesn't want to spend it in a suit so that leaves "third parties" who might or might not have the standing to sue. But it will take googobs of money.

I have not substantiated this, but I'm sure someone can. Word is that the Tribes started independent negotiations with NMFS prior to NOF. They knew this was going to happen, so they got to work on their own permit right away. Only hearsay, but it would do a lot to explain why the tribal members kept coming to meetings with WDFW and repeating the same demands. They knew they didn't need to negotiate, and the only way they were going to compromise was if the State offered them something sweeter than what they asked for.

IF this is true, NOAA did us a major disservice, and they should hear about it on Thursday.

Carcassman came back to the subject of AK and BC... I still say this all could have been avoided if the Tribes and the State were negotiating over a larger percentage of ESA impacts. We all know the process is broken (and has been from the beginning), but it took a forecast low enough to make closures a strong possibility to wake the sleeping giant. If we weren't relegated to fighting over the scraps open ocean fisheries leave behind, we'd all be fishing this season, if with major restrictions on coho. I'll continue to support this effort, but I think we're waging this war on the wrong battlefield.

I might determine that perch fishing in Lake Washington with my kids has 'limited impacts' and just go for it. A ticket would be unfortunate, but I guess I'd then have more 'standing' to participate in the legal system.

I'd be interested to know if WDFW is actually patrolling the lakes and enforcing the closure.

I'd watch out for assuming only a "fishing in closed waters" fine is levied. ESA violations might be tacked on, here is what I found for costs: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/laws/esa_section11.pdf

looks like anywhere from $500 - $25k...

Expensive perch. But it's not really clear to me that fishing for perch (or bass, or blue-gill, or most anything else that is not caught with a downrigger) in Lake Washington is actually a violation of ESA. Seems more like a hyper technical over-reaction by the State. Heck, the WDFW 'how to catch perch' video says catching them is a high priority for resource management. Having more of the buggers in the Lake as a result of a fishing ban may just increase predation on Chinook smolts.

this pretty much says it all....

basically, fvck off sporties....



http://nwtreatytribes.org/tribal-statement-may-fisheries/

100> 0 is not sharing Ms. Loomis
if the fishery is considered sustainable..why is it not shared? ?

Interesting that there claim includes that it is " essential to the tribes’ subsistence, economy". While that may be true for some tribes, it isn't true for others. For the Casino rich tribes, only a hand full of members may actually fish, and the overall revenue from fishing likely does not equal 1% of net revenue. When we get into culture, I then would ask about the need to drift net with jet sleds and other methods that greatly increase the ability to exploit the resource. To blame habitat loss strictly on non-tribal interests makes me wonder where they get the power to light up all those bill boards.

Stretched across the whole river.

King 5 Footage

Since the Tribe's fishery is the same as what has been conducted and approved by NMFS in the past, and they have received preliminary approval for this current spring Chinook fishery, then WDFW can schedule all the normal fisheries that have been conducted and approved by NMFS in the past, and NMFS can offer its preliminary approval for these usual fisheries. Right? If not, why not? Unless a double standard exists . . .

Don't let the toilet seat hit you in the neck----why are the sports always last at the table?? The fish making it to their natal streams to spawn are the ones who genes should be preserved---I was about to pull the trigger on a new Boulton 18ft, something told me to wait until spring. And May 1 was a dark dark day for me, and for all sport fishers in WA, and for the businesses that serve us.

This.

Fish on...

Todd

Is there any question that there is a double standard? Seems to me the notion of two sovereign nations sharing the same resources is, in and of itself, a double standard. With one nation, we would have one set of standards. This is precisely why co-management broke (or proved to have been broken all along) the instant there weren't enough impacts to keep both nations on the water.