Oh I go 50 / 50 on that one with JT in the mix. The one I have not figured out is what Bob Turner did around some meeting or process with the tribe that the Director was not to be ( intended or not the question ) present. That one I find puzzling but about right for the Feds.

It seems like the courts have already decided who has the rights to the fish. The recs have been cornered and not even a politician can fix it.

I think it's time to legalize gambling in WA. That would be a fight we would have a chance at winning and would bankrupt the tribes.

Maybe the press would be interested in printing the truth?

How this will affect the rivers, like spring salmon in the Quileute??? And in the ocean, at LaPush???

I also wonder if this will affect marine area 7. I know Canadian stocks (not ESA listed) make up a large percentage of the salmon caught here during the summer and fall, especially in the outer islands. The southern and eastern portions of 7 are already closed for most of the summer to protect Skagit and Nooksack chinook but I am probably being too optimistic to hope the rest of 7 will be open with a normal season. Does anyone have any insight on area 7?

Pretty sure this shuts down MA7

But not the ocean or coastal cricks. LaPush will fish July 1 if I'm not mistaken.

fb

Tom Nelson has stated on the Outdoor line show that the tribes have been invited to the show to hear their side of the story but to no avail so far.

Considering what has happen in past NOF negotiations with the tribes apparently not bargaining in good faith with last minute shenanigan and now these demands, it is good to hear that the governor and many sport anglers do back Director Unsworth and not surprised the tribes have declined up to this point to go on the air to defend their behavior/actions.

I know that the tribal reps have been offered airtime on Northwest Wild Country to come and explain their actions and thoughts, too, but refuse every time.

Fish on...

Todd

IS area 6 still open, until 1 May???

MA 6 is closed. MA 5 is still open.

It is quite a poker game going on between the state and tribal co-managers.

Going into this upcoming Wednesday’s meeting, both are holding virtually the same hand of no fishing for salmon in Puget Sound without an agreement or both going it alone in applying for permits separately without the agreement.

NOAA’s letter has pitfalls from top to bottom of the letter showing possible processes with these being time consuming, which can leave both sides sitting on the beach this year.

It should be interesting to see if the tribes continue to bluff a better hand, with an all in bet this time around instead of negotiating in good faith and also seeing if WDFW will continue to call their hand instead of folding.

It is a high stakes game with plenty to lose for both sides. A FAIR compromise leading to an agreement leading to splitting the pot is better than nothing. FAIR and splitting, and not the same ol’ stuff, being the optimal words.

State/recreationals finally have the will to walk away, which makes it really interesting to watch!

Hi All

So a few questions.

I know what no agreement means to the Sound fishing but what about the rivers. Listening to the KIRO Outdoor Line POD Cast, the Rep from Northwest Marine Trade Association indicated it would most likely close rivers as well.

Does that mean No Fishing for Skagit Sockeye, Sky Kings, Skok Kings, Samish Kings etc? Runs that have no problems and per Mill Creek NOF meeting have seasons planned.

NO DEAL includes the rivers.

It may also include no "trout" fishing in those rivers. Appears it will knock out the sea-run cutt fishery in the salt due to incidental take of Chinook, even in a C&R situation.

So is it okay if us Recreational fishermen stand on the shore, without fishing gear of course, and wave to the tribal boats as they head out to fish?

Should also sing "Kumbaya" as they go out. And remember to buy fish from them.

If I don't wave with all 5 fingers is it a hate crime?

So, the Puget Sound tribal commercial fishermen are on board with their leadership putting their season in jeopardy this year?
The NOAA letter clearly states that could be the case considering what NOAA would need going forward into these uncharted waters.

If the tribes want to continue with ultimatums instead of compromise to set the seasons in Puget Sound--- NO DEAL!

The Tribes believe that the Feds, because NOAA has the twin obligations for ESA and the Indian Treaties, will find a way for them to fish. It may be convoluted, but they'll find a way.

Note that in his letter, if memory serves, that Turner said approval for the Tribal fisheries might come after the fisheries. It didn't say after they were scheduled to occur, it said after the fisheries.

This situation sets up an very interesting legal fight. Essentially, what law is supreme. ESA or Treaty. One has to be supreme. Either conservation or fishing. I doubt that NOAA or the Tribes really want to litigate that, and WDFW probably deep i its soul (assuming one exists) doesn't either.

If ESA is superior, then habitat had better be protected and restored now, not in 50 or 75 years when the "budget is better. Plus, the issue of growth and development will run flat into conservation and if conservation is the Law of the Land..... On the other hand, if the Treaties are superior I see loss of all habitat protection and interest because the tribes gotta fish and the state can just give over the fish to the tribes and let the have them while the state grows. Plus, hatcheries will greatly expand.