I take it to mean Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish will be closed to fishing during September and October.

No, it means LW and LS wont have a Coho Season. The complete closures were only in place due to a lack of a permit from NOAA, which wont be the case next fall.

Sky-Guy -

I believe that LocalTalent; like many rivers Lake Washington and Sammamish will be closed during September and October to fishing for both salmon and game fish.

Curt

That will be interesting to see. In the past when we had low numbers on any terminal fishery, the fisheries were closed. Not the entire body of water. If the WDFW begins closing entire bodies of water that would be a big departure from previous management policy.

It would be just what people have come to expect from WDFW though.

Impressive the way they challenged the Skok tribe's claim to the whole lower Skok, too. I couldn't be happier about their gutless conduct.

Sky-Guy -
As you know almost from the start of the NOF process there was large concern about the historical low coho forecast. As a result among the fisheries placed on the chopping block was MA 8-1 and MA 8-2 as well as game fish seasons on a number of freshwater areas; including the Lake Washington system.

The result will be no game fish season on the Lake Washington system but also on the anadromous waters of a number of river systems during September and October. That all means besides not being able to fish for bass and perch on Lake Washington folks will not be able to fish for steelhead on the Snohomish system.

Yes a departure from the past but many seemed OK with those closures as long as access was gained to hatchery Chinook; of course the Lake Washington perch fishers or Skykomish steelhead anglers were not asked.

Curt

I voiced my concerns to our group, but they were overwhelmingly quashed by those who consistently say the dept was doing a great job informing everyone on the issues. Communication is great! good job! So, I went silent, because my view was not shared by what appeared to be the majority. One of the consequences is, we never got a chance to be heard during this Post -NOF negotiation process about these types of decisions....at all, when we could have provided valuable input.

Makes me feel warm and fuzzy.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-ADN0oWQkQ

Gosh, gee whiz that scenario sounds very familiar.
It's hard to stand up and repeatedly get knocked down but the experiance you relate shows one possible consequence of avoiding conflict.
I suppose one should pick his skimishes and save his energy and ammo for those conficts that can yield a positive effect.

Thank you very much for your efforts, and I have no doubt that your efforts have yielded many positive results.

The Skok is closed????

DAMMIT!!!!

I just bought a new 12' step ladder!

CCA put out a statement yesterday:

http://centralpt.com/upload/560/Advocacy/19637_201605-20CoManagementPerspective.PDF

I know this has been covered before (and even in this thread)...but I am wondering if somebody can dumb it down for me ...

Assuming the charts are correct, WHY are the tribes harvesting more than their allotted 50%?

My very rough (likely incorrect) understanding is that sporties are reaching the ESA impact limit before harvesting the allotted 50% of fish, leaving fish on the table for the tribes to harvest (in addition to their 50%).

And since tribal nets catch everything (are non-selective), they by nature are impacting more ESA fish to get to their allotment.

If those assumptions are true, why do tribes get to keep harvesting til they get their allotment while we do not?

Which begs the secondary question I need a dumbed-down answer for...historically, *in practice*, how do ESA and tribal treaty rights relate to each other? This was also discussed previously but the answer remains murky to me.

Thanks in advance.

To my understanding, the question of which law (Treaty or ESA) takes absolute precedence has not been adjudicated.

If the tribes were held to a 50:50 sharing of ESA impacts they certainly would not get their 50% of the truly harvestable fish. Because they will not, with some notable (and voluntary on their part) exceptions.

There are real risks to both sides in taking this to court. If ESA is supreme, then you will see the tribes aggressively pushing for rapid restoration so they can fish (AK and BC would love this) and be more aggressive on getting habitat fixed.

If the treaties win, then there goes wild fish.

I am one of those guys with a boat moored in MA 10, and am pleased to see a summer Chinook season (albeit, likely a very short one) that I can take part in. However, I'm not sure I'd have traded that for all the nonsense the bass guys are having to deal with in Lake WA and Sammamish. Their activities do not adversely affect Coho. Really unfair if they continue to get shut down. Hopefully there will be some reasonable regulations in the final permit that goes to NOAA to avoid closing down those lakes completely.

CB,

The first question I have is what is represented in the shown graphs.

For instance, is it the harvest of Puget Sound Chinook and coho, wherever they are harvested in Southern U.S. waters, or is it only Chinook and coho harvested in Puget Sound marine and freshwater areas?

This gets back to Carcassman's point about marine, mixed stock fisheries vs more terminal fisheries. The Boldt decision says 50:50 on fish returning to the tribe's U&A.

If the graphs only represent fisheries occurring in Puget Sound and does not include catch in the other southern U.S. marine areas 2, 3, and 4, for instance, these catch proportions (on the graphs) might make sense.

I've already discussed (way back in this thread, I think) the way that the total catch vs impacts arguments are misconstrued, sometimes it seems purposefully so.

As far as Treaty v ESA. Both are the Supreme Law of the Land: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

I think Carc is right, nobody should want this to be decided...

They can't both be supreme law. One has to be #1, the other #2. Because, at some point either the fishery stops (ESA) or it doesn't (treaty).

Here's an example of that....

Here's an interesting review of the subject - Treaty rights vs ESA. Turns out that so far, what few cases have been edudicated, it comes down to whether there is evidence that Congress, when creating and passing the law, intended the law to abrogate the treaties or not.

Warning, it's a direct pdf download...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1240%26context%3Dplrlr&ved=0ahUKEwiBi8ON4PvMAhVBwWMKHVE0DjwQFggeMAE&usg=AFQjCNHPaXkqehuYuSkNwIh_agTqQ4DoFw

I understand the data (or the use of it) can be flawed and biased. BUT I want to try to understand the broader context.

Let's assume for a second that the graphs on page 1 actually represent what they say they represent (Puget Sound) *AND* that the data is accurate (even though it may not actually be).

http://centralpt.com/upload/560/Advocacy/19637_201605-20CoManagementPerspective.PDF

What would be the reasons Tribal harvest is consistently more than 50%? Is it what I think it is...that sporties reach ESA impacts before harvest allocation, thereby leaving extra harvestable fish on the table for the tribes?

Sorry to keep flogging the issue, but I have been hearing this for years (from the recreational side) and I am still not in full understanding of *why* it's true.

IF it's true can come after

Chasin' Baitman -
Let's see if this helps.

To keep it simple let's just consider two PS Chinook stocks. The allowable impacts for each stock varies depending on the current productivity of each stock. For 2016 the mid-Hood Canal wild Chinook the allowable impacts (the maximum the can be killed -whether in harvest or handling mortality) is 12%. For a stock like the Nisqually the allowable impacts are 52%.

Because the Mid-Hood Canal stock was the weakest being caught in the mixed stock recreational fisheries (most of Puget Sound outside of extreme terminal areas )those fisheries would be limited by the Mid-Hood Canal impacts. Even though the recreational fisheries often more than 1/2 of the mid-Hood Canal impacts clearly there likely would remain a lot of impacts left for the Nisqually (the exact number would depend on the stock mixture in each of the various mixed stock fisheries).

If the non-treaty folks wanted more equally balance the catch we would need to move away from those mixed stock area fisheries to more terminal fisheries. Doing so is complicated by the fact that many of the recreational anglers want to fish in areas like the Straits and central sound. Further once the Chinook reach the more terminal areas they seem to less inclined to bite making it difficult for the recreational fishers to catch their "full share" in those terminal area. Of course the non-treaty fishers could easily catch their full 50% if they were willing to confine the fishing to the same terminal areas as the tribes and were willing to catch the non-treaty fish with nets.

The question we each have to wrestle with is it more important to achieve equal catches even if it means doing so with gill nets or to emphasis the recreational fisheries in those mixed stock areas where most anglers seem to want to fish? There is little doubt that under the current system were nearly 1/2 million salmon angler trips are made in Puget Sound annually the economic value of that recreational fishery exceeds what would be produced with a commercial fishery.

Which do you prefer?

Curt

I understand the argument about where the greatest economic benefit is. It also brings the greatest risk to the resource because we fish on the forecast rather than an update.

But, personally, boat fishing on the salt is close to a non-starter. In the past it has been both boring and (more importantly) I get seasick very easily. So, if the rivers and creeks aren't open I don't participate. But, I am in the minority and it does make sense to maximize benefits as long as all the participants clearly know and accept the tradeoffs.