“The way they’re managing
the Hoh is unacceptable,”
Burge explains.
A recent agreement allows
the Hoh tribe to receive
55 percent of harvestable
steelhead for the 2008-2009
seasons, although the tribe
was allocated 68 percent ofthe fish from 2003-2006, and
actually harvested 82 percent,
Burge says.

Those allocations run
counter to the 1974 Boldt
decision, Burge points out.
That decision, and court
orders that followed, mandate
Washington tribes receive up
to 50 percent of the annual
harvest, and sport anglers get
the other 50 percent.

With some tribes demanding
more than an equal share
under the law, Burge urged
commissioners to guarantee
that any fish that anglers do
not harvest, estimated to be
about half of the 50 percent
allotment each year, be allowed
to contribute to the spawning
population.

Today, those fish are
allocated to the Hoh tribe by
the Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife, and make up
a portion of the greater-than 50
percent share of fish the tribe
receives.
“
They’re just giving all our
fish away,” Burge laments.

Vote the bums out.

I didn't say "ever." I thought it was implied that I was talking about this year (or at least recent history). I think the state *does* deserve criticism for its previous failure to honor treaty rights.

As for tribal management, they arlread have a large hand in managing my fisheries. They are one of the co-managers. They have no more obligation to look out for the 99% than any other 1% does, but that doesn't mean they can or should be free from criticism for it.

You know, I worked in this field for 30 years, and it has never been the job of the state to take care of the tribes nor the other way around, except of course all those years that the state took such great care of the tribes before the Boldt decision. I did sometimes hear some state staff talking about how one option or another might actually prove to be a benefit to a tribe. All those comments ever did was alert you to the fact that this person was about to try to screw you somehow. The state manages its fisheries. The tribes manage their fisheries. That is co-management. If you want help from the tribes in managing your fisheries properly, they will look just like the tribes' fisheries.

The only "help" I want is for treaty parties not to take more than their share (even if they can get away with it!).

And again, show me where the Muckleshoots are taking more than their share.

Vote the bums out.

Well, this chart is from last year, but LW chinook impacts sure don't look like they were evenly divided here:

https://infogr.am/muckleshoots_cancel_recreational_season_still_overfishing

I'm not talking about sharing impacts on listed populations. That is an entirely different critter. I am talking about managing non-listed coho, and the thought here appears to be that the shares are determined by the amount of fish the non-treaty fishery has taken. That is not how it is done. Shares are determined by knowing the run size and the escapement needs. Half of the remainder is the share. In reality though, there is no real share of Green/Duwamish coho. Rather, those fish are part of a larger bunch of fish from the South Sound Region of Origin, which includes all natural and hatchery populations south of the Snohomish system. Catch shares are actually based on all those populations, not just the Green/Duwamish.

All that has happened here is that the Tribe is now fishing on a larger run size than what was predicted pre-season. No one has provided any information to show that they are taking more than their share. They are just taking more than you.

Obviously I don't have up to the minute numbers. However, when no non-tribal fishermen have been fishing for or harvesting coho from La Push to Seattle, I think it's a pretty safe bet that taking 100% of the harvestable surplus in the Duwamish will not work out to a 50/50 allocation of that surplus, even when accounting for released coho mortality from incidental non-tribal hooking. If anyone thinks that's not the case, I'd love to hear the explanation as to why.

This is a good point, but I don't think it's true that that is "all" that has happened. What also happened (I believe; please correct me if I'm wrong) is that they demanded an agreement whereby non-tribal fishermen would not be able to exercise their right to the non-tribal share is and when such share comes into existence.

Now, if I'm wrong, and it was really just WDFW that didn't ask for the ability to open up fishing mid-season based on actual fish return, then you're right that WDFW deserves the criticism.

Oncy is right that SS coho are aggregated. But, the capability used to exist to take the Muck's update (obviously shared with WDFW), the forecasts for rest of SS and recalculate the 50:50. Interesting thing is that if the rest of SS is managed on the forecasts then the other Tribes might would need to be shut down if the Muckleshoots take too many fish, even keeping it under the umbrella 50:50.

It is a very complex management scenario and it would behoove WDFW to clearly explain it. There are reasons why things are the way the are. Much has been argued and defined by the courts and had 40-odd years of work. But there is a lot of either mis-information or refusal to believe how things work going on out there..

Look, the tribes can ask for anything they want in a negotiation with WDFW. So can WDFW. None of it means [Bleeeeep!] until the other party agrees. What it appears is that there was an agreement that if there are more fish, certain tribes can fish, but the non-treaty fishery will not. Please ask your representatives in those negotiations why they agreed to that.

If you can tell me who "our representatives" are, I'll give 'em a ring and ask that question. Of course, you can't tell me that, because we HAVE no representation, particularly where the real decisions get made (which is before any sport interests get any say). OUR representatives and senators are supposed to be taking care of US (by that, I mean American citizens, not other sovereign nations seeking to deny us our right to fish).

I can't begin to understand all the BS policies WDFW and the Tribal Overlords have come up with to "co-manage" Puget Sound salmon to the state they're in today, but one thing is abundantly clear: non-tribal interests are NOT getting access to fish to which the law entitles them. Whether that's due to bargaining from a neutered position or political strong-arming (I suspect the later), it's not fair.

By the way, after 30 years in the business, it appears you have adopted a twisted definition of the term "co-manage." Co-management implies two or more parties working COOPERATIVELY to manage something. What you described as co-management (both sides trying to manage the resource for themselves, unilaterally) is closer to the reality, but it's NOT co-management.

Defending poor policy is poor behavior, in my opinion.

OK, I'll try this one more time. The premise here is that the tribes did something wrong. The OP said their position was that there were not enough fish for anybody to fish, but now they are going fishing. That cannot possibly be true across the board as the List of Agreed Fisheries clearly shows that there was agreement that if more coho were available, certain tribes would fish. As near as I can tell, there were in-season updates that showed more coho available, and as per the agreement, some tribes went fishing.

Sorry, but I can't find anything to get bent out of shape about here. On the other hand, if the LOAF showed that there were not enough fish for anybody to fish (as in the Nisqually River where the LOAF says coho is closed for conservation) and then the tribes went fishing, I could be upset.

For those that want to have protest fisheries about this, good luck getting traction when you say you are protesting the tribes doing what they said they were going to do with the agreement of WDFW.

Nothing further.

Your point is taken, OncyT. For sure, the protest needs to be about us NOT fishing, when according to the Tribes, there are fish available for harvest.

I personally think we should have kept everyone off the water during this uncertain time for the fish, just like we all said in the beginning, but I realize that to let a single, harvestable fish live is gross mismanagement under the MSY paradigm, so that was never an option.

I guess we know who's eating the LOAF around here.

At the end of the day, I think we are all upset over the fact that the agreement was "agreed upon" because the WDFW had no other options and the tribes were bullying them to the point that in order to open a few fisheries to the sporties, they had to give the farm. We all remember the stale mate and the tribes strong arming the state. Now that we have this unexpected (or so we thought) larger run of coho, we as citizens feel like we've been hosed and not aloud our 50% even though we can all see that there is a ton of harvestable fish. Basically, people feel they have been treated unfairly and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it but stand back and watch.

Nailed it Danny. I doubt the tribes would have agreed to a LOAF which included fisheries for sport fishermen in the event the Coho forecasts were off, and a lot of fish returned.

That's it in a nutshell folks!