Look, I'm not out to be the PC police, but sportfishermen in Washington are in the middle of a political battle. You don't have to like it, but the truth is that resolution of this matter will come down, in some measure, to politics.

Anyone suggesting we take matters into our own hands bears some responsibility for how "our side" is perceived. We don't need sportfisherman making it *easier* for Tribal fisherman to win the political battle by painting this as a racial/cultural battle, then claiming "aw shucks I'm just not PC" as some sort of excuse.

If you don't care about this issue, then by all means keep the racial insults coming, and the politicians and media commentators will be discouraged from standing up on the side of the "racist, anti-Indian" sportfisherman. But if you do care, please, please, please exercise the tiniest bit of restraint.

/rant over

"Not PC" and "ignorant fuckin racist" are not the same thing.

It's ignorant fools like RvW that caused this mess in the first place, acting just like that and eventually bringing on the Boldt Decision.

Fish on...

Todd

by fishing without permits, and illegally, arent they violating that very treaty Todd?

Todd or some others probably know better than I do, but I don't think the permits are a treaty issue. I think that's an ESA issue. They may very well take the position that that, once the feds agreed to give them 50% of the fish by treaty, the feds can't then limit their right to take those fish by enacting the ESA, so a permit isn't necessary. Lots of fights could be fought if there's no agreement.

thats all fine and dandy, but they better start realizing how important the ESA listing is....

theres 1 thing they have bitched about for YEARS, and directly attribute said action to us... BUFFALO...

so why do it to the fish if your lives depend on it?

Because all of the problems with the salmon are due to the WhiteMan. That's the mindset.

and also, if we cant harvest fish, because of low numbers, meaning there isnt a harvestable amount of fish, how can they harvest fish? the treaty says 50/50 on "harvestable fish".... if there isnt any, how do you harvest?

about 6 or so years ago, the Hoh closed early for low Steelhead and Salmon numbers for sports anglers.... the Quinaults took 90+ percent of "harvestable fish"....

how do you sustain an already low population by raking in the last of whats coming?

you dont....

sure, the WDFW fvcked up, the WFC compounded the problem, but the Natives should sit back and take a gander at what they are doing themselves....

if they want to close areas in the salt to us fishing, then remove the gillnets from the river.... easy trade, fish for everyone....

thats my point, they saw what happened, and are going to do it themselves... why? cuz someone else did it? thats the mindset that has gotten us as a world into the sh!thole we have today....

There are plenty of harvestable fish...all of the hatchery Chinook.

The problem is the wild Chinook, followed by the "no harvestable numbers of coho" that will be arriving soon.

Fish on...

Todd

I think Todd is correct.

Sky-guy posted the following (I can't verify if it's correct):

"Under the proposed justification of a "Harvestable surplus" of Chinook Salmon, Lorraine Loomis of the NWIFC has just submitted Fisheries proposals for both the Swinomish and the Sauk Suiattle tribes to gill net Skagit Bay and the Skagit river for Chinook....Starting tomorrow!"

For the sake of discussion, let's say this is correct. The Tribes were careful to indicate there is a harvestable surplus of Chinook. That puts this issue squarely under the Boldt decision, not the ESA. Recall that the Boldt decision did not say who gets to decide whether (or where) there is a "harvestable surplus" of fish. In the past WDFW and the Tribes made that decision together. But, as we now know, WDFW and the Tribes aren't working together. So there is the first casualty of that lack of cooperation. That is, the Tribes may be deciding (unilaterally) whether, when and where there is a harvestable surplus of salmon.

Since there is now a surplus of salmon (according to the Tribes), they are entitled to 50% of those fish (I used the word 'entitled' exactly as it is defined). So, the only thing that would inhibit or prevent their harvest is whether the ensuing netting will take ESA listed fish (incidentally). But if they decide they will not take any ESA listed fish (No Effect,or Not Likely to Adversely Effect), they can proceed with their harvest. It would be NMFS that would 'concur' or 'not concur' with that decision. At that point, the burden of proof falls on NMFS, not the Tribe. NMFS would likely not concur, but it might take them awhile to make that determination. And when they get around to it, the fishery might be completed, and so would any evidence of the take of ESA listed fish. But even if there was, the Tribes would ask NMFS to do a consultation after-the-fact. What's the chance the resulting incidental take of ESA listed fish would exceed the ESA limits? Your guess is as good as mine.......

My point in outlining this completely hypothetical example is to illustrate the problems that are likely to occur if WDFW and the Tribes go their separate ways on fishery management in Puget Sound.

Unfortunately it may already be happening.

Hoping this one comes out in paperback soon...

This is a big giant mucklefvck.....

Isn't it illegal to "take" an ESA listed fish without a permit, regardless of whether the amount you actually end up taking might have been approved if you had sought permission? Can you really just kill some ESA fish and get off the hook if NMFS later determines it had a negligible impact on the stock as a whole?

MPM - Yes, of course it's illegal to take ESA listed fish without an exemption (permit). And it's not all that unusual for ESA take to be exempted after an action has already occurred, particularly if the situation does not allow early consultation, such as an emergency. I'm not sure NMFS would consider this an emergency, but the Tribes could claim "lost opportunity" to exercise their Treaty rights to harvest excess Chinook salmon (i.e., harvestable surplus) as the reason for after-the- fact consultation. Indeed, those excess Chinook won't be there for long.

Also, under the hypothetical circumstances I described, how would anyone know whether ESA listed fish were taken? What evidence would anyone have to make that claim? The Tribes or the State could claim they killed zero ESA listed fish. All fish harvested are excess hatchery Chinook. No ESA listed fish were killed. No harm, no foul. Innocent until proven guilty.

This puts the burden of proof on NMFS. Unless NMFS is out there taking pics or gathering evidence, they may have difficulty making that claim. And so would anyone on this BB........

Clearly, this is no way to manage a complex fishery involving the State, several Tribes, and at least one ill-equipped, understaffed, and bewildered Federal agency. There has to be a better way.

There has got to be a better way? I'm all eyes and ears on that one... FUBAR sorry.........

Is an exemption after the fact an option for WDFW?

Yes. But you are describing the same situation that WFC sued WDFW and won. Cohoangler forgot to add that others can sue you for doing something that need an ESA permit for that is proven after the fact that you needed it for.

Essentially the state can open fisheries anytime it wants, NOAA can't force them to close. Heck they could open wild only fisheries right now if they wanted to...but the REAL risk the state is thinking about is that anyone then has the opportunity to sue WDFW for not having a federal permit. Very simple (& exactly the same suit WFC brought in the hatchery realm), as this is how it'd go:

Judge: "ok, wdfw do you need a permit to run these fisheries? This litigant says you do..."
wdfw: "I don't think so"
Judge: "nmfs, do they need a permit"
nmfs: "yep".
Judge: "ok, wdfw stop what you're doing till you get a permit to do it, oh and pay the litigants attorney fees since you f'd up".
Litigant: ($ cha-ching $)!!!!

That's the real issue. Without ESA authorization that what any party is subject to, even the tribes...

Please see my new post stickied to the top of the main page!

One answer to several questions in this thread is obvious. Up until now there has been no real adjudication of the relationship of the US v. WA case and the Endangered Species Act. If the Skagit tribes actually go fishing without any federal permit, perhaps that relationship will soon be defined. I think that would be a good thing for everybody.

Esa is federal, shouldn't be an issue with state laws.....