#956613 - 05/01/16 09:56 AM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: Sky-Guy]
|
Fry
Registered: 09/09/08
Posts: 34
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956615 - 05/01/16 10:01 AM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: Jerry Garcia]
|
Repeat Spawner
Registered: 10/26/12
Posts: 1057
Loc: Graham, WA
|
This is a stinking pile of poo--- but it had to happen. The tribes offer was basically no saltwater fishing when there was an offer by WDFW where there would have been a short season on chinook . Tribes turned that offer down. This was death by a thousand cuts. Easier to stop the bloodletting from one big wound than a thousand little wounds. In a real co management arrangement the parties would sit in the same room and work out a plan. Instead we Have WDFW working on a plan and the tribes working on a plan and instead of a compromise we have one side not only refusing to move but then add additional conditions at the last minute. WDFW brought this situation on a long time ago. I have called BS for a long time when I first started going to the NOF meetings. I asked WHY the "negotiations" with the Tribes was done in closed meetings. I asked WHY aren't the Tribes subject to the same enforcement conditions the rest of us are. I asked WHY ESA listed fish are allowed to be harvested in a gill net, but I get fined or worse if I keep one. I've been asking these and many other "un-comfortable" questions for so long and now it's like a surprise that it's come to this. This State has never been in the role of co-manager. It has ALWAYS been an enabler and into appeasement.
_________________________
"Forgiveness is between them and God. My job is to arrange the meeting."
1Sgt U.S. Army (Ret)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956617 - 05/01/16 10:07 AM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: OncyT]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13422
|
After reading Mr. Turner's comment to the editors blog, this whole thing becomes even more ridiculous. According to Turner, everything would be OK if there is agreement to reduce the harvest on the Puyallup Chinook population from 58% to 50%. Are you f'ing kidding me? Anyone that thinks that an appropriate rebuilding (or recovery) exploitation rate is 50% for a population that is adapted to the hatchery environment (90% of the returns are hatchery fish) that return to a river with its lower 26 miles diked and an estuary that has multiple Superfund clean-up sites, has their head in very dark places. How can a population made up primarily of hatchery returns and crap habitat sustain more or less the same exploitation rate as Skagit Chinook, a population with little hatchery influence and some of the best habitat in Puget Sound.
I'm sorry, but Turner's details on this make this whole situation a joke. I would guess that if people were actually trying to recover Puyallup Chinook and were honest about its productivity, the RER for this population would be something that is half, or less, of this proposed exploitation rate. Good god! Either side (along with the feds) arguing for either of these arbitrary numbers is a total sham. If we're going to risk everybody's fisheries, let's at least do it for a defensible reason, i.e. to actually make a difference for the Puget Sound ESU as a whole.
OncyT, Sorry to carry this thread drift, but I think it is germane to the issue. You may as well have said, "The Emperor is not wearing any clothes!" Some of us might even say that the Puget Sound Chinook Recovery Plan is a sham. The Plan gives much lip service to recovery but preserves Chinook fishing at nearly all costs. It's not just the Puyallup, but if you notice that all four of the south sound rivers with major hatchery Chinook programs, all using Green River origin hatchery Chinook (the Green, Puyallup, NIsqually, and Skokomish) include harvest rates that conform more to preserving the harvest of hatchery Chinook than to the recovery of wild Chinook populations in those watersheds. I've been disappointed with the PS Chinook recovery plan since its approval because it's more about "harvesting our way to recovery" than it is with actually recovering Chinook in PS. Of course the flip side might be addressing the reality that wild Chinook recovery in south sound watershed like the Puyallup isn't feasible with the extant level of human development. It really does illustrate how ludicrous it is when the PS salmon management agreement hinges on an 8% discrepancy of 300+ wild Chinook of Green River hatchery origin descent as though it really matters in terms of the ecosystem. Sg
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956618 - 05/01/16 10:12 AM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: Sky-Guy]
|
Lord of the Chums
Registered: 03/29/14
Posts: 6760
|
if the tribes werent so pissed off about the WFC BS, they likely would have came to an agreement like usually happens...
they lost out and are losing out on a bunch of fish because of that crap, and now, we are going to pay for it.....
_________________________
BLM IS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION ANTIFA IS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956621 - 05/01/16 11:41 AM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: Salmo g.]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7578
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
Salmo
Yeah, the "recovery" plan for deep S Sound was to fish our way to recovery. Triage is necessary.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956624 - 05/01/16 04:13 PM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: Sky-Guy]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/08/06
Posts: 3359
Loc: Island Time
|
If the tribes fish without the permit will there be any enforcement? Without a fishing season of any consequence will WDFW lay off or have a mandatory reduction in hours or will they just shift enforcement focus to northern Pikeminnow fisheries? I'm sure the $100 million shortfall for the state and local economies is no big deal for Caesar and his centurions but most businesses would look to cut costs when facing a projected loss of tens of millions of dollars. I suppose crabbers can expect harassment of epic proportions. I hope it gets ugly....
_________________________
"...the pool hall I loved as a kid is now a 7-11..."
If you don't like our prices bring your wife down and we'll dicker.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956625 - 05/01/16 05:40 PM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: Salmo g.]
|
Spawner
Registered: 02/06/08
Posts: 510
|
OncyT,
Sorry to carry this thread drift, but I think it is germane to the issue. You may as well have said, "The Emperor is not wearing any clothes!" Some of us might even say that the Puget Sound Chinook Recovery Plan is a sham. The Plan gives much lip service to recovery but preserves Chinook fishing at nearly all costs. It's not just the Puyallup, but if you notice that all four of the south sound rivers with major hatchery Chinook programs, all using Green River origin hatchery Chinook (the Green, Puyallup, NIsqually, and Skokomish) include harvest rates that conform more to preserving the harvest of hatchery Chinook than to the recovery of wild Chinook populations in those watersheds. I've been disappointed with the PS Chinook recovery plan since its approval because it's more about "harvesting our way to recovery" than it is with actually recovering Chinook in PS. Of course the flip side might be addressing the reality that wild Chinook recovery in south sound watershed like the Puyallup isn't feasible with the extant level of human development.
It really does illustrate how ludicrous it is when the PS salmon management agreement hinges on an 8% discrepancy of 300+ wild Chinook of Green River hatchery origin descent as though it really matters in terms of the ecosystem.Sg In my second post on this topic I said that some other nameless populations also probably needed much lower RER's. Those population are now no longer nameless.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956629 - 05/01/16 07:41 PM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: Sky-Guy]
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 08/15/12
Posts: 247
|
and oversimplification, but...If the entire system is being held hostage by a handful of "on paper" fish, it really doesn't seem worth it. Especially given the exploding population (of people). Seems like the money and resources could be used for stocks that actually have a shot?
Also, can somebody explain to me why the puyallups and muckleshoots held all the cards? By my count there are 19 other treaty tribes. Are those two the most well-funded?
Edited by Chasin' Baitman (05/01/16 07:46 PM)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956633 - 05/01/16 08:28 PM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: Sky-Guy]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7578
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
I believe that, in Indian Country, it is one for all and all for one. Unlike the NI side that will each other...................
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956637 - 05/01/16 09:26 PM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: RowVsWade]
|
Repeat Spawner
Registered: 04/20/09
Posts: 1249
Loc: WaRshington
|
If the tribes fish without the permit will there be any enforcement? Hahaha. That's a good one. Enforcement? When higher ups in the government are caught blatantly poaching they don't even receive "enforcement". I'm pretty sure they can and will do what in the actual fvck ever they want, unabated.
_________________________
When I grow up I want to be, One of the harvesters of the sea. I think before my days are done, I want to be a fisherman.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956638 - 05/01/16 09:27 PM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: Sky-Guy]
|
Repeat Spawner
Registered: 04/20/09
Posts: 1249
Loc: WaRshington
|
I think the word you were looking for is "protection".
Will they receive "protection"? Certainly.
_________________________
When I grow up I want to be, One of the harvesters of the sea. I think before my days are done, I want to be a fisherman.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956643 - 05/01/16 10:41 PM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: Carcassman]
|
Carcass
Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 2267
|
I believe that, in Indian Country, it is one for all and all for one. Unlike the NI side that will each other................... There are many court cases involving strife between Puget Sound tribes at the throats of other Puget Sound tribes. A recent court case was July 27, 2015 between the Tulalip v Suquamish tribes.
Edited by Lucky Louie (05/01/16 11:22 PM)
_________________________
The world will not be destroyed by those that are evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.- Albert Einstein
No you can’t have my rights---I’m still using them
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956646 - 05/01/16 11:51 PM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: Krijack]
|
The Original Boat Ho
Registered: 02/08/00
Posts: 2917
Loc: Bellevue
|
I just took a quick look. It only takes $5.00 filing fee to start and initiative. While I am sure the cost would go up drastically if you proceeded with one, it might be worth it to file one to allow gambling in certain locations in Washington state. If a person could actually get it on to the ballot, I would think the tribes would have to respond. Hitting them in the pocket book may be the best way to get their attention. I think at least 17 million was spent in the fight to defeat the GMO initiative. Throw online Poker in there while you are at it. It's a felony here!
_________________________
It's good to have friends It's better to have friends with boats ***GutZ***
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956650 - 05/02/16 06:34 AM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: Lucky Louie]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7578
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
Oh they'll fight each other but will unite against the Cowboys.
Edited by Carcassman (05/02/16 06:34 AM)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956651 - 05/02/16 07:25 AM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: Carcassman]
|
Carcass
Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 2267
|
Since the negotiations between the Tribes and WDFW in the NOF process are in a clandestine setting, where the public is not invited and information can be disseminated as they wish, most of us can only assume.
Regardless, it was nice of the Tulalips to take one for their team (if they did so voluntarily) considering they are first up in the tribal fishing season to be sitting at shore right now waiting for a permit instead of fishing for Chinook as they did at the same time last year.
Edited by Lucky Louie (05/02/16 07:40 AM)
_________________________
The world will not be destroyed by those that are evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.- Albert Einstein
No you can’t have my rights---I’m still using them
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956653 - 05/02/16 09:20 AM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: Lucky Louie]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4489
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
|
The open meeting requirements require NOF to be public but if the meetings take place on tribal holdings not so. If you think the state wants the meetings open anymore than the tribes you would be wrong.
Edited by Rivrguy (05/02/16 09:21 AM)
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956661 - 05/02/16 12:13 PM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: Sky-Guy]
|
Repeat Spawner
Registered: 10/26/12
Posts: 1057
Loc: Graham, WA
|
To: Congressmen D. Heck Message Subject: Time to review fisheries co-management practices Message Text: Congressmen Heck, it is time (actually over due) to take a hard look at the co-management practice of our fisheries resource. The current disaster we are experience is a culmination of back room deals, appeasement and poor leadership in our WDFW. It is time for a congressional investigation into the practices of co-management which has lead to a complete deterioration of our natural resource. Have you received any contributions or other considerations from any tribal affiliations???
_________________________
"Forgiveness is between them and God. My job is to arrange the meeting."
1Sgt U.S. Army (Ret)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#956662 - 05/02/16 12:54 PM
Re: North of Falcon/PMFC update
[Re: Sky-Guy]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7578
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
Might want to check out the WA Public Disclosure Commission's website. They were requested to formally deal with the fact that the Tribal Governments contribute to WA elections and WA State Law prohibits governments from doing so.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
11498 Members
16 Forums
63822 Topics
646115 Posts
Max Online: 3937 @ 07/19/24 03:28 AM
|
|
|