+1 to that!

this kinda reminds me of the Beverly hillbillies episode when granny went duck hunting in the concrete pond in the back yard...

No, this is more like sitting on the curb while your house is getting burglarized and you can't do a fuc$ing thing about it!!!!

CAN PEOPLE NOT SEE THAT THERE IS SOMETHING VERY, VERY WRONG WITH THE SYSTEM!!!

Half truths and lies with a smattering of truths.

Now where is our propaganda? It should be easy do better than that.

It's really sad how the user groups at the bottom of the salmon fishing totem pole (the sporties and the Tribes) relegate ourselves to trying to claim each other is somehow more responsible for salmon decline. The real culprits (ocean fisheries) take a majority of the salmon both the Tribes and WA sporties should be fishing for in terminal areas. Instead of poking each other in the eye (and all ending up looking like whiny, greedy fools), we should be joining forces to affect change in open ocean quotas.

The best sign that the way things are being done now is wrong (aside from the continuing decline in salmon stocks, of course) is that the Tribes, who probably get low-holed the worst, all things considered, allow the madness to continue, because higher ocean quotas justify tribal fisheries (Hoh v. Baldridge) that otherwise would not be allowed under conservation guidelines. Using irresponsible management practices to justify others creates maximum economic benefit from the resource, leaving less than minimal consideration to conservation. That's how we got here, and as long as people getting paid continues to drive management policy, we'll only see it get steadily worse. Fortunately, we can just blame the habitat, which makes everyone feel better when looking in the mirror.

I agree, this nails it. OncyT is probably going to win any debate on the details, but olympic-level bureaucracy gymnastics hasn't really been great at solving real problems that actually do exist. And are growing.

I don't think you can read this:

http://nwtreatytribes.org/treaty-tribes-...-low-coho-year/

Then look at all the tribal nets in the water and the video of the guys at ballard locks who are basically hunting in a petting zoo, and *reasonably* say:

Have no fear! Looks like we will totally be getting our non-tribal share!



What a clusterfukk.

Fish on...

Todd

Scary

+1 on th GFY OncyT

I was encouraged by another thread to inquire with Ron Warren as to how there can be a non-tribal commercial fishery at Hoodsport while the Skokomish is closed to recreational fishing. That was about 3 weeks ago (maybe more), and I finally got a response (from Ron's assistant; not Ron, himself) yesterday.

The response was as expected. I was assured that there was no connection between the Skokomish closure and the new non-tribal fishery, and that the new commercial fishery had been planned prior to the Skokomish thing, as a way to ensure the State gets its share of the hatchery salmon in Lower Hood Canal.

The response also reminded me that I do still have a shot at Skokomish hatchery fish in the Area 12 sport fishery, which now allows anglers up to 4 adult salmon. I know Ron's office has heard it before (and they don't listen or don't care), so I didn't bother to remind them that fishing Hood Canal for salmon more or less requires a boat that most of the anglers who fish the Skokomish can't afford.

Anyway, my point (sorry it took so long to get there) is that the numerous net fisheries Todd posted for Puget Sound bear one striking resemblance to the new commercial fishery in Hood Canal:

The Tribes shut the sporties out, and the State rewarded non-tribal commercials with whatever fish were left on the table (as well as any new opportunities that might arise if the runs come in above expectation). You guys can do your own math, but it seems pretty clear to me that WDFW puts a LOT more emphasis on for-profit fisheries than they do on sport fisheries in their negotiations. Wonder who directs them to work so hard for those commercial fisheries?

I think Curt and others have touched on this a lot but the closer one gets to the stream the less likely a salmon is to strike a lure or bait (staggers and flossers exempted).

The mindset, and legal basis, for salmon management is to take the full harvest right down to the escapement number. If one side does not take the fish, the other does. You are not allowed (and I tried) to pass "harvestable" fish into escapement.

Factor in that the State prefers the marine mixed stock fisheries for sports because the fish bite and lots of money is spent chasing them. That maximizes economic return to the state.

FleaFlicker2 hits a really good point, which bugs me a lot, is that WDFW emphasizes boat-based fisheries over land-based. Walleye, kokanee, bass, OD trout, Tiger Musky, salmon, even steelhead are now primarily the province of boat-based fisheries. Access is a problem, but it does seem-to me- to limit recruitment of new anglers.

This is an interesting point. But I don't know the last time you went to NOF Carcassman? When agencies perform public processes they tend to bend to the will of those that show up, and for those meetings that I've been to, the heavy representation has always been the salt/pre-terminal/boat crowd. If they are the sector of the public that shows up when its time to give input, well sometimes that's the way the cookie crumbles. While it's probably more common for a larger % of license holders to simply be bank angling salmon fishers, If there is a currently a way to do things differently it would be interesting to hear how you think you would dice up the pie here.

Oh and then the other thing on this thread is that the assumption of these non-tribal commercial fisheries are 'new'. Looking at this link: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/hotlines.html

Seems to be that the month of September for the last 8 years (as the online hotline posts only go back that far) all have these exact same fisheries ongoing for coho. SO are these fisheries simply part of the year-to-year always there nontribal commercial package? Seems to be the case, but the question is whether they were planned in this year's agreed-to-fishery package or not...as the sport coho fisheries obviously weren't. Here is a link to the original agreement for 2016-17: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/tribal/2016-17agreement.pdf Looks like these fisheries are in it...but its fairly hard to decipher, so I might be wrong, but there are commercial coho nontreaty fisheries in it preseason that seem to match up with the areas Todd posted. So....

Rojo,

Don't you dare come on here with your sourced information and your general "why don't you folks look at the facts?" attitude!


GFY!!!!

Fortunately I avoided NOF.

But, in the 80s there were non-Indian coho net fisheries in Dungeness Bay (6D), Bellingham Bay (7B) that eventually went to 7 days per week, Port Susan/Gardner (8A)and South Sound (10 and 11). I think Dungeness also went 7 day. The rest were 1-3 days. There may have been occasional openings in Skagit Bay (8) and Hood Canal (12) but theses were normally the limiting stocks in mixed stock (ocean) fisheries.

7B,8,8A,10,11,12, 12B were generally open for chum with 9 on a few occasions.

The non-Indian net fisheries have been significantly reduced over what went on then.

Back then, much as folks will find it hard to believe, Chinook and coho primary harvest was reserved for sport. Net fisheries by the Cowboys occurred only in terminal areas after the hook and line fisheries on feeding fish had occurred. The terminal and river fisheries were viewed as minor in the overall scheme of things as few of those fish (relative to both the total run and the needed harvest) were biters.

Remember that the greatest sin for a manager to to allow one fish more than the escapement goal to spawn.

Just in case I wasn't clear, I wasn't suggesting the fisheries Todd posted were "new;" rather, they're a fine example of the same, old $hit, which was unfair last year and is still unfair this year.

I thought all men were created equal. [Bleeeeep!] the treaties, lets renegotiate and see that that is the way it is. They should have the same rights as anyone else, and nothing greater. Let them participate in the commercial or sport fisheries in kind with every other citizen in the State of Washington.

Boldt was wrong. The treaties don't reflect reality. Lets fix it by any means necessary.

In common with.

And give them back title to the land in Case Area? I bet they'd make that trade.