Not happy with the situation we are in. I think that the whole fishing community needs to focus on the other species of fish that are being affected by this as well. The native fisheries are commercial in nature and because of the seize of the runs be shut down. If it means we do not fish
so be it. The Wdfw has to separate the other fish from the salmon and get the required permits from the feds. The natives have pulled off a huge power play here and taken over all control off Puget sound fisheries. This
will also spread to the rest of the treaty tribes. Salmon are not the only fish that we can fish for. How about the bass guys, steelheaders, perch
fisherman, catfisherman and what ever else. The tribes have us in a choke hold and are tighten it up.

Curt thanks for taking a run at dumbing this down for me. So if I understand you correctly, the limiting factor on the recreational harvest in the puget sound region (incl both salt and fresh) is ESA impacts on the weakest stock?

If so, am I right in saying the PS recreational quotas are set based on impact on the weakest stock and NOT 50% harvest allocation...resulting in more harvestable fish in terminal areas (which recs cannot catch effectively because they don't bite), allowing Tribes to net more than their 50%?

Let me know if I'm in the ballpark

Yep.

Former Director Anderson often explained that "we got the fishery we wanted" when asked why no effort was made to get the NI side 50%. Never would explain who we was or what they wanted. Just trust him.

OK, thanks guys.

Historically do the tribes consider ESA impact guidelines at all in their plan for season-setting (that they bring to NOF) or is it all based around harvest allocation?

The tribes do consider the ESA allowable impact requirements. Under the federally approved co-manager Puget Sound Chinook Management Plan there are approved impact levels for all the ESA listed PS Chinook. AT the end of the NOF process NOAA has to review and ultimately approved the proposed fisheries. As part of that process the cumulative fishing impacts from all sources (Tribal and non-treaty) has to be below approved level for each of those listed stocks. Those impacts include all related fishing impacts; harvest, release mortality, etc.

Curt

OK, thanks for helping me understand.

If tribes (as well as the state) factor in ESA impact limits and NOAA evaluates the plans on that criteria, doesn't it follow that ESA takes precedence over treaty rights...at least functionally?

As has been pointed out in this thread a few times, many of the "rates" set by NOAA have nothing to do with recovery of listed stocks. So, one could say that NOAA views tribal fishing ( or maybe AK and BC too) as superior to ESA.

Curt,
How are wild encounters, release mortality etc factored into the non tribal chinook quote.
Is the 4,400 some fish for MA 9 & 10 a hard number or just a paper number?
In other words, if I recall correctly from years past the seasons have closed early before the quotas were met due to wild encounters.
Will that be the same case again this year and if so, the reality is it will likely be about a two week chinook fishery.
SF

SF -
As you can imagine determining the allowable catch can be pretty complex and relies on the use of a fishery model. To simplify a bit after factoring in the forecasts of all the various stocks, the contribution of those stocks to various fisheries, etc. an estimate is made of what say the catch will be in MA 9. IN this case the fishery was modelled as a 4 week fishery during the summer. The model spits out the expected fleet catches; including sub-legal wild and hatchery and legal size hatchery and wild fish. For the released there is an assigned mortality (with a difference between the sub-legal and legal size fish). Further the allowable impacts calculations for those sub-legal wild fish there is a conversion to how many of the fish that died would have survived to become an adult. The model further parses out the all the various strata of catches into various stocks which goes into the total ESA impacts calculation for all fisheries.

The end result is that there is a estimates of total ESA impacts for each of those ESA listed Chinook stocks for the MA 9 summer fishery and as well as what the expected hatchery catch/harvest will be. The end result is the harvest quota has an associated ESA impact; which seems to be more understandable for the fishing public.

I should mention that the model used is based on historic code wire tag information which is dated. In addition the modelled catches are based on historic fleet effort and success. As we all know effort has increased which is way even though the fishery is modelled as 4 weeks the catch quota is often achieved in a shorter time period.

For several years there has been a promise of an updated model which may be ready for 2017.

Curt

Thanks for the explanation Curt.
SF

With all the new tools (DNA, etc) why is the model using "dated" data and models fisheries that are not current practice?

Chasin Baitman,

Given your questions regarding the intersection of treaty rights and the ESA, you may want to review the documents found at the following link concerning NOAA policy regarding Native American Tribes, treaty rights, and the ESA. Because these documents are currently available on NOAA's website, I assume the policies they outline are still in effect. In particular, you may be interested in the document titled:

"Secretarial Order (June 5, 1997) “American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act”

The "Questions and Answers" section beginning on page 16 may be the best place to start.

http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/whatwedo/sovereign_relations/

The point to remember about the Secretarial Orders is that they have not been reviewed by the Supreme Court. They are a good-faith attempt to balance competing laws. As long as that satisfies folks we can proceed.

wow...

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/tribal/2016-17agreement.pdf

Hard to choke down when you read it. Lots of netting which I imagine is typical.

Seems to be a lot of rec cut backs and not much tribal net cutbacks. A week or two of test netting on coho followed by 4 weeks of directed coho netting followed by 4 weeks of directed chum netting seems equal to me to be 10 continuous weeks of coho-chum-steel netting unless the nets some how can discern between coho, chum and steel. Doesn't really seem protect the resource to me. Changing the Puyallup to tribal only fishing this year would seem to be a precursor to becoming a permanent situation and needing a tribal guide in the future. I suspect all of our fisheries will require a tribal guide eventually.

Frustrating :>(

Why do we have to release hatchery coho?

So the Indians can net them.

We'll get the Puy back right after we get Elliot Bay back.

As long as we keep fishing the ocean and Straits all is well with the world. At least I believe that is what WDFW believes.

When I began working in fish management WDF didn't really support/encourage river fishing. Sporties got first crack at whatever is silver and bites in saltwater. Nets got the colored-up non-biters in terminal areas and rivers were generally closed to protect spawners. Springers were the exception with river fishing for them.