Didn't they waste most of the last whale they shot with a .460 Weatherby? Just like their ancestors did....

why aren't they going for half the states deer, elk, ducks and geese... these are all delicacies that can be sold to the highest bidder...

Most on here don't remember, too young but we had pinball machines, pull tabs, cards rooms every where.....then in 1970 the voters of this State said NO TO LEGALIZE GAMBLING........there went the pull tabs, pinball machines, and most of the card rooms. WE could have had Reno/Vegas type gambling but it was not to be......

Tribes, not so righteous.....got'um all the Casinos and lots of $$$$$$$$$

Makah tribe, had a legal Whale hunt in May 1999. As I remember, they used "long boat", and chased whales but never got close enough to kill with a harpoon.....so they cheated just a bit, used a 50 caliber to kill a whale. There was such a uproar that there has not been one since.

I'd like to see Washington State have legal Casino gambling.....would sure help with a new better tax base, which we need.

I read the comments about "never going to a tribal casino" or smoke shop but I'm here to tell you there are 10's of thousands of your neighbors that are going, and spend LOTS OF $$$$$$$$$$$ and don't pay the taxes because they are tribes......

cohoangler,
Fantastic couple of posts there.
Thank you for that,
fb

DrifterWa, you are almost correct. The judge made the decission that after a whale had been harpooned and it was clear it was not going to escape they would have to dispatch it with a long gun so it did not suffer. I hated the whale hunt but I could not disagree with the last part.

BW:

Old age, I forgot that part......Thanks for filling in that blank area..

There was a second whale that they shot without the permit and had to just sink out in the bay.

Can someone clarify exactly what the state and tribal positions were going into the last meeting?

As I understand it...

WDFW was fighting for a chinook season in the sound (meaning areas 5-13), and then closed for coho. Tribes said no, because of possible coho impacts. Yet, the tribes are planning to net for chinook, sockeye and chum - all of which will yield coho bycatch (and wild ones, too). A NWTT press release even said there would be netting for coho "in a few terminal areas where there are identified harvestable hatchery fish"

Is that correct? If so, on what planet can the tribes be claiming that the WDFW plan was not conservation focused, and theirs is? Is it because of the agreed-upon sportfishing ocean season?

The Puget Sound Sport Fish Advisors are scheduled for a conference call this morning with WDFW staff. Should be some answers by early afternoon.

Yeah, it would be nice to hear what the actual proposals were from both sides. Right now, nobody seems to be sharing the nitty gritty information.

Chasin' Baitman,

I think a big part of what divides WDFW and the treaty tribes is values or policy based and not science based. I have heard that some, maybe many, tribal representatives argue against mark selective recreational fishing because that involves releasing unmarked fish, and that has an incidental mortality rate. Some tribal reps suggest that the incidental mortality be calculated as 100%. Obviously that would be a policy determination and not a science based determination. Mortality rate varies according to species, time and place of catch, gear type, handling, and most importantly, the variable of hooking location. While not stated, it's more than obvious that the tribes are opposed to mark selective fishing because the way that they choose to fish cannot fit with mark selective fishing. Pretty much all fish caught by conventional gillnetting die. I think they have a values based approach against their fishing being tagged with 100% mortality of unmarked fish while non-treaty sport is assigned a significantly lower level of incidental mortality.

With those values it's easier to understand that they would oppose sport fishign in PS that will catch a mix of marked and unmarked (ESA protected) Chinook and possibly some unlisted but vulnerable coho come August. Yet they have no problem saying that they will have some conventional fishing (gillnet) in select terminal areas where hatchery coho are expected to be abundant. What they leave unsaid is that there is virtually no place in PS where hatchery coho will be abundant that doesn't also have a complement of wild coho needing protection, and those wild coho will also be caught in unselective treaty gillnets.

With disparate values like this, the only way for an agreement to happen is for WDFW to capitulate, which fortunately so far, hasn't.

Sg

The meeting yesterday included representation from all PS tribes.
The Mucklehsoot and Puyallup tribes came to the table demanding additional concessions from sport fisheries from what was discussed at NOF. Essentially providing 1 of 2 options for the WDFW to accept. I dont have the exact figures on what those proposals were yet. Last week, Puyallup had proposed total closure of sport fishing in the River, and in marine areas 9, 10 and 11, so the WDFW counter-proposal was aimed at the Puyallup proposal.

Prior to the meeting, the WDFW received a letter from the Puyallup which essentially outlined the same proposals that were discussed the week before.
They again demanded that MA 9-10-11 be closed entirely and no sport fishing in the Puyallup river. The department had fisheries models which dropped from NOF positions to a quota of 1112 fish in MA 10, and 2606 in MA 9.


The end deal on the table for Puyallup Chinook was a 65% treaty 35% non treaty impact on those fish. The department attempted to stay at a 60/40 impact, and that proposal was denied. The Puyallup and Muckleshoot rejected the states proposal and the meeting ended with the tribes never offering a proposal or concessions for their own fisheries, the only focus was on sport fishing season reduction.


The sportfishing communities support for the WDFW and director Unsworth should be unwavering. As much as it hurts and creates uncertainties in the near term, This was the right decision by the department. Is time for this negotiation process to get overhauled from top to bottom.

IMO, and others, The real issue here is that NOAA has allowed these negotiations to fail to this point, and allowed this abusive relationship between the tibes and the state to flourish to the point of failure of co-management. This isnt a crash, it has been a slow crumble and the cookie just broke.

Yes, it seems like these "values" can usually be traced back to something a little less pure.



They can't have it both ways. Perhaps this is an exploitable loophole in their demands.



This is a great point. On all the rivers I fish from the N sound up to the BC border, I've caught wild coho when fishing hatchery areas. So I'd love to know where these strictly terminal areas are they're planning to net for coho.



What surprises me is that it's taken this long for the tribes to be steadfast about a "no sportfishing in the sound" demand. Why have they ever negotiated with the state when doing so only results in fewer fish in their nets?

I have to follow up and say this is an abridged explanation, and many other issues such as stopping in seasons management were not even discussed yesterday. I've only outlined what caused the talks to fail.

Thanks, Ryley

When the Puyallup make a "we fish commercial; you have no sportfishing" proposal, is there any attempt to make it seem like this follows the 50/50 rationale of the Boldt decision?

Talk to you at 11 Dave, where I hope we will learn more details.

Will the tribes have their normal chum netting in area 9 this fall? Could impact late returning wild coho.

That's one of my big questions too. Why isn't WDFWs counter to a 65/35 tribal-nontribal impact proposal 50/50 instead of 60/40? I imagine there's a good reason, I just don't know what it is.

Re-read my comments in this thread from 4/25 for the answer.