It's ignorant pusssies that think sweet talk and roses are effective winning negotiating strategies. They aren't and once again prove that ineffective bullshlt "negotiations" are nothing more than window dressing. I'm beyond pissed off and I don't GAF if some Caitlyn like Toff doesn't like my mean words. I've never been a nice guy when I'm being discriminated against because of my race nor do I GAF what some liberal fagg wants me to say. An entire group (millions strong) is being discriminated against by the Feds and the tribes and we're supposed to be nice so we don't hurt their feelings. GMAFB

Exactly what I was thinking. It seems that the tribes just set a precedent for WDFW to do the same thing with our fisheries?? I severely hope someone in the department is pushing this issue.

First, a double standard would mean than a situation exists where both parties have equal claim to something, yet a decision is made that is biased to one party or the other...double standard.

I don't think this is the case here. The tribes definitly have a different standing and claim to fishery resources (and others) than the state or it's citizens do. So, you really can't claim that a double standard exists.

Second, the state's fisheries have been piggy-backed on the tribal federal action (BIA funding of fisheries management) since the first ESA authorization in Puget Sound was given. When the state and tribes could not reach and agreement, that severed the tie between the actions and also severed the connection to any federal action for the state's fisheries. Again, there is a different pathway for the state now, than before. The tribe's path is the same as before. So, not a double standard but a different legal requirement. NOAA is following the law. Do you expect them to violate the law for the state's fisheries, thereby opening themselves and the state up to third-party litigation?

How is NOAA following the law? What they are doing seems directly contrary to existing case law concerning section 7d.

Salmo g. an excellent point!

There is a couple other interesting twists to these tribal fisheries. I read in news release that the BIA had approved the Skagit spring Chinook season. Wonder why an agency in the Department of Interior is doing NOAA's (Department of Commerce) job by approving fisheries with potential impacts of ESA listed stocks.

In the case of the Skagit fishery there are both hatchery and wild spring Chinook present in the Skagit thus the rationale for the fish (to harvest abundant hatchery springs). On the Skagit the Cascade hatchery fish tend to return earlier than wild stocks (Cascade, Suiattle, and upper Skagit) so by fishing this early in the spring they can harvest more hatchery fish/wild impact than later in the spring. In sense this is an example of a selective fishery where the fishers take advantage of the timing difference to harvest more hatchery fish with lower wild fish impacts. On the Nooksack for several years the Lummi's have been using tangle nets to target abundant hatchery fish; again another example of a selective fishery where un-clipped wild fish can be released. The Tulalip Bay Chinook fish (which started at least 3 weeks earlier than past seasons) by fishing in a location (in or near Tulalip) can target hatchery fish with minimal impacts on nearby wild stocks; again another example of a selective fishery.

Yet some how the tribes have significant problems when the recreational fish selective (mark selection fishery) to access abundant hatchery stocks and limit/reduce impacts on wild stocks. Interesting that using selective approaches to access hatchery stocks seems OK for tribal spring Chinook stocks but not in recreational fisheries.

Curt

I'm not sure I agree that the Tribes going in early can honestly be compared to anything resembling selective fishing. When you string gillnets across rivers, your intent to target one stock over another doesn't make you selective; it makes you irresponsible, especially when whatever incidental catches you do get will be from endangered stocks (and dead, which means you have failed in being selective).

Not implying C&R doesn't come with casualties, but at least the intent is genuinely selective, and for the most part, the practice is very effective.

The idea that the tribes get 50% of the fish is a joke. They are notorious for cheating and keeping a lot more than 50%. I'm really getting sick and tired of hearing the following, "Tribal treaty fisheries are essential to the tribes’ subsistence, economy, and culture and way of life. The spring chinook fishery in particular is important to the treaty tribes because it is the first run of salmon to return for the season." What a crock of sh!t! This is about greed and hatred. Aren't the millions tax payers give them enough? Isn't gambling and in the future pot growing and selling enough? Illegal cigarette sales, liquor etc. Constant examples of poaching, littering, polluting, netting fish and taking only the eggs. It goes on and on. This has nothing to do with race. It has to do with people that have grown accustom to bilking the system. (They aren't the only ones.) Has anyone looked at their high school graduation rates? Is that our fault?

They say we took their lands but when you listen to how some talk about how their brave ancestors fought for their land (against other tribes) you have to wonder what the difference is. They try hard to hide the fact that not only did they fight other tribes but they also kept slaves from those beaten tribes. I'm certainly not saying we are perfect I'm only saying that this is a world where the fittest survive. They lived that way so they need to accept that it's over. The indian wars are over and they lost. Now they need to become part of society and stop with the culture and way of life sh!t. The culture and way of life joke only comes into play when they want something. They follow the old ways and culture about the same as Donald Trump practices political correctness.

It's time that we start getting ours. If we can't get ours in fishing agreements then we need to start taxing their casinos and any sales of anything on their so called lands. They need to pay taxes for our roads, schools and anything else they use that is funded by the American tax payer. I've worked 50 of my 64 years and paid taxes all those years. Why don't I or the rest of you that have done or do the same get the same breaks and advantages that they do? Especially considering they contribute nothing to better this country.

Over the years that I've fished in this state I like everyone else have seen the incredible decline in the fisheries. While that is happening they are still "getting theirs". Also during that time I've seen horrific atrocities relating to fish and game management by them. I didn't just wake up and decide that they are bad. It's taken years of watching the sh!t go down. Let it be known that I don't hate indians but as a whole it's very difficult to respect them. I know plenty of Native Americans and get along with them and consider them friends BUT they are not complaining and/or sticking it to the man. I am 20% Native American. I have NEVER tried to get any compensation or benefits because of it. It's time they tow their share of the load.

And more water closes:
May 4th:
https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/erules/efishrules/erule.jsp?id=1797

May 5th:
https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/erules/efishrules/erule.jsp?id=1800

to all species....do they really have enough enforcement folks to cover all of this?

I was sharing these same exact thoughts. In my opinion the BIA does not have the technical expertise or authority to authorize ESA impacts. This directly contradicts the purpose of the ESA and NOAA's regulations thereof.

...and BIA is under the Dept of the Interior which has another agency, USFWS, tasked with ESA listings on steelhead and bull trout/dolly varden. Did BIA go to their sister agency for permission......???

No. USFWS has nothing to do with this. They have ESA listings on bull trout but not steelhead. Steelhead are a NMFS listed species. And USFWS is not taking any action that would necessitate consultation. Plus there are not alot of bull trout taken in the fishery.

My sense is that BIA is the Federal "action agency" for this. As such, they are taking on the legal risk associated with this action. That way, if the Tribes get taken to court (e.g., by WFC), BIA is on the hook, not the Tribes. And if BIA is on the hook, so is Dept of the Interior, and the U.S. Dept of Justice. So not only do the Tribes get ESA clearance quickly so they can go fishing, they will have the legal resources from DoJ at their disposal if this get litigated.

Nice work if you can get it.......

... unless the DoJ picks the other side.

I was told by a man that gave us a ride back to the car that the DC talks with the DOJ weren't going very well, grim is what he stated....


This needs to change, and now...

Can anyone confirm that WDFW has submitted its application to NOAA? And assuming so, what route is WDFW taking to get ESA coverage? For example, is it proceeding via a section 7 consultation because there is a nexus to some federal action, or maybe via a Rule 4(d) exemption by submitting a fishery management and evaluation plan. Either way, compliance with NEPA could be a stumbling block to getting the requisite ESA coverage in place in time for this summer's fisheries.

48 more closures.....

https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/erules/efishrules/erule.jsp?id=1800

DOJ could decide not to back BIA. When there are disputes between federal agencies, DOJ can only support one. As best I can tell, BIA has zero authority to approve a fishery management plan pertaining to ESA-listed species. Cool beans.

BrianM,

WDFW cannot use Section 7 due to lack of any federal nexus. Section 10 appears to be the route in that I couldn't find any 4(d) exemption that qualifies. But I'd like to be wrong on that. NEPA does apply to Section 10 actions. I don't know why it doesn't with Section 7, although I've seen NEPA analyses for some Sec. 7 actions but not others. And NEPA is all about the s l o w.

Sg

I found this part interesting...

Information contact: Region 6 360-249-4628 ext. 0

Some of the creek closures are really interesting.
I've fished some of them and you are just as likely to catch a Striped Marlin in them as you are a chinook.
I guess it is just easier for them to do a widespread blanket closure on anything dumping into the salt....
SF

Are all of these closures necessary due to some ESA mandate or is it a way of getting as many different fisher groups saying "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore?"

Plus +++ 1 on this as all of "this" all went from the sublime to the absolutely freeking reeediculous!