What does this mean for areas 5 and 6?? IS the Strait considered Puget Sound????

Looks like I'll be trailering to Sooke this year....

Yes, Areas 5 & 6 are included in this situation.

Time for civil disobedience and fish wars 2.0. Violence is also acceptable.

[Time for civil disobedience and fish wars 2.0. Violence is also acceptable]


you got that right

I'd like to see recreational fishermen blockade the marinas when the tribes leave to fish their U&A in their fancy modern boats. Or take a page out of the sea shepherd douche bags and deploy some prop foulers. My first preference is to treat anyone fishing when it's closed to 99% of the states population with the tactics and prejudice we used against German Uboats in WWII but that's just wishful thinking.

maybe some one can enlighten me, but it seems that the permit the tribe is requesting, would, in being issued, have to address many of the same issues that the department would be facing. In other words, if the tribes come up with a valid number of exploitable fish and suitable numbers for them to take no more than their 50%, how much harder would it be to piggy back on to their data. If they get a permit that agrees X number of fish are available in a select harvest area, then couldn't the state just provide a model that shows the expect sport fishery exploitation and harvest rate. If the NOAA has accepted the exploitation rate in the past, why would they not accept it now?

This looks like the final draft. to be adopted in May.

http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploa...gt_measures.pdf

IF there's no summer salmon season in Puget Sound, the Canadians are going to have to build a border wall. Maybe they will get WDFW to pay for it....there's a lot of nice kings passing thru Ucluelet and Tofino, and the Broken Group islands can be lights out in July. Hell, even Sooke has good fishing, where the kings outnumber the fishermen.

From Salmon University section on Canada reports, 4/13:

Sidney

Salmon fishing was VERY GOOD near Sidney. There have been quite a good number of springs between 12-25 lbs being caught. The whole area east of the Inlet has produced nice fish. Springs have been caught by Sidney Spit, Sidney channel, Coal Island, Hamley Point, the Powder Wharf, Saanichton, Moresby Island and in Satellite channel. Many anglers are fishing using tiny strip or anchovies in Bloody Nose and UV Green teaser heads. Coho Killer, Gibbs Needle G and AP Tackle needlefish spoons have been working well.

Sooke

The salmon fishing was GOOD for springs this past week. Anchovies have been the top bait recently, especially with Cop Car and Purple Haze teaser heads. The 3”-4” Kingfisher, Gypsy and G-Force spoons, as well as hoochies, are also top choices for Sooke anglers. Good colors have been Kitchen Sink, Irish Cream and No Bananas. Hoochies in White Glow, Army Truck and Tiger Prawn have been catching their fair number of fish. The most popular flashers recently have been ones with Moon Jelly patterns such as the Madi and the Lemon Lime.

It's fine, I guess, that the tribes chose that business model. They should be required to stay within 50% (their share) on ESA impacts as well as harvestable fish. If they want to fish non-selectively, fine. But it should be their choice and the consequences are loss of access to stronger co-mingled runs.

Saw this posted over on iFish - NOF ocean fisheries hammered out in the eleventh hour thread:


This is a loser for the nonIndian fisheries in Puget Sound.

Haven't you folks ever wondered why say, in the Columbia the tribes get about 10 to 14x the ESA impacts on spring Chinook, or sockeye, or steelhead?

The reason is that's essentially the law. In the mid 90's the US government clarified how federal tribal trust responsibility intersected with ESA: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-w...ial-order.html

It states this: "Accordingly, the Departments will carry out their responsibilities under the Act in a manner that harmonizes the Federal trust responsibility to tribes, tribal sovereignty, and statutory missions of the Departments, and that strives to ensure that Indian tribes do not bear a disproportionate burden for the conservation of listed species, so as to avoid or minimize the potential for conflict and confrontation."

Essentially, the feds have to err on the side of the tribes. You could add that portions of the Boldt decision (the major decision affecting Puget Sound salmon fisheries) also directs that the tribal fisheries are the last to close. Folks can get bent out of shape by this, but its all case law that's been in place for close to 40 yrs now. Plus its how fisheries have been set for decades now. Good luck going it alone, as NOAA already went on the record saying it would be near impossible for nontribal fisheries to get approval w/out agreement with the tribes back in January: http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/u..._MAR2016BB.pdf

I don't know what your point is in context to that quote is but the key word I see is "disproportionate". That verbiage is designed to indicate that the burden should be carried equally....

Having reread the letter by NOAA to WDFW about “going alone,” there are plenty of incentives for the tribes and WDFW to come back to the bargaining table because an agreement would be beneficial to both sides. We will see if both sides do sit down, as has been proposed, before the short window of opportunity closes.

As it stands, it appears that both sides could be sitting on the shore this year without an agreement and NOAA is probably reminding both sides of that very possibility if they don't come to terms.

Quote from the letter,
“In addition, a separate tribal plan could require a new NEPA assessment by the BIA. While NOAA Fisheries believes proposals for tribal only fisheries could receive ESA approval so long as conservation objectives were being met, it is likely that the analysis and review of the newly-structured proposals would be time consuming, and might not be completed before the proposed fisheries would be over.”

How is it I can kill and transport across State and International boundaries endangered Wild King Salmon?? If anybody wants to get a Polar Bear carcass thru Sea-Tac just place it in a fish box from Sitka!

If it was the tribes killing all of our ESA listed fish in Canada and Ak we, the sports fishermen, would be taking the exact same stance that they are!

The two groups at the end of the line arguing over the scraps is tiring as hell and sad!

But hey, at least we can low hole ourselves

Just sayin!

JustBecause,

I've read the "working with tribes" memo, and am unclear how you think a 50/50 split places a "Disproportionate" burden of conservation on the tribes?

Isn't 50/50 proportionate?

Wasn't my post, I reposted it from iFish.

However, I would guess that the point is that if it takes more that half the impacts (ESA) for the tribes to get half of the catch, then that would be the way it would go, based in the decisions on the Columbia, for example.

Jim Unsworth
WDFW Director
jim.unsworth@dfw.wa.gov

Ron Warren
Assistant Director Fish
ron.warren@dfw.wa.gov

John Long
WDFW Salmon Policy
john.long@dfw.wa.gov

A respectful and supportive email sent to all 3. I also copied/pasted my email into the governor's message page:
https://fortress.wa.gov/es/governor/

So, does all this mean the Baker Lake sockeye season is in jeopardy. I was thinking of trying that out for the first time this year.

If AK and BC stopped intercepting fish today, how long would it take for WA and the tribes to manage us right back to where we are today? I don't think it would take long.

Today, you can plan a trip up north and know that it won't be suddenly closed or that it won't be dialed down to catch and release. If intercepts stopped and an additional 300k kings swam into our waters, would we have that kind of dependable fishery in WA? Would we have liberal limits and be able to schedule a yearly trip with family/friends? Could you count on Elliot Bay opening again?

I wouldn't put my money on it! I think even if we had every fish destined for our rivers, we would still be severely constrained. It's too bad because I think we should be able to expect a consistent share of those fish.

The tribes have control of this state, the recs are just a nuisance. They've already gone their separate way with regards to Puget Sound. It won't be long before they thumb their noses at any suggested season and just do what they want. The state can put their foot down and it won't make a difference. I wouldn't be surprised if in the future we have to buy a tribal permit to go catch one of "their" fish!!

I don't look at AK and BC as taking our fish, I look at it as an opportunity to go catch our fish before the tribes get their greedy little fingers on them. I pay to raise them, I pay for habitat and I pay for management, I'll continue to go north and catch a few of what I payed for.

Low Holer!

Now go read your post again from a tribal perspective and tell my why you'd negotiate in good faith with sport anglers. I mean you can always plan a trip to Ak and know you'll catch your fish while they stand at the mouth of a river and hope they can catch fish.

Now I'm not really criticizing your position as those of us who love fishing are going to go fishing. I'll most likely retire north of here just to be part of the problem instead of being the guy standing at the mouth of the river hoping to go fishing.

But hey just as long as we have some "other" to blame this all on we're golden

Ain't humans awesome!