One of the biggest limiters now for opening recreational fisheries, esp. in mixed stock areas, are the agreed to Chinook impacts allowed. Because the state made a proposal and agreed to 0 harvest on coho (esp. in marine areas) they indicated a 0 impact on Chinook in mixed stock areas. Now that the agreed to Chinook stock impacts have been set at 0 there is no mechanism remaining for the state to open fisheries as they have no allowable impacts to Chinook.

Where would one find the results of the test fishery?
SF

Edit: Whereas - the tribes, from the beginning, had set agreed to fisheries. Test fisheries, ceremonial harvest, and direct commercial harvest in select (lets be honest, MOST) areas. They have set Chinook impacts written in to their end of the agreement.

Pretty sneaky trick play by the tribes, but hey, that's what they do best.

The fish are there, and we're fvcked.

Cobble Cruiser, I was speaking to others on this thread that want to protest something. However, again, I would ask your WDFW representatives why you can't fish. Harvestable fish = harvestable fish. The only other reason I could think of would be some allocation imbalance that folks were trying to correct, but with all the pre-terminal closures, I can't imagine that would be the issue.

I've been asking for the Department to supply that information since last week.

With regards to impacts on Puyallup Chinook, my arguement(which has not yet been responded to by the department) is this.

The advisors were told we could not have a marine coho fishery opened due to impacts on a weak Puyallup Chinook stock. But Coho were originally closed due to low forecast. Then the tribes opened up marine area (Shilshole bay and Elliott Bay) gill net fisheries on Coho, which will certainly include some Puyallup Chinook impacts.

Does this make sense to any of you?

If recreational fishing were allowed to occur in these areas, we could release chinook and retain only coho. Cant say that for the gill net fleet. Further, we closed MA 9 and 10 with Quota remaining on our ledger. That also means we have some small percentages of available impact left.

So far, after pointing this out to the department, all I have is crickets!

Having used up all the non-treaty Chinook impacts, as GodLovesUgly suggested could be a reason to not open. By the same token, I suspect the tribes modeled low Chinook impacts based on limited coho fishing as well. Maybe not. If they left Chinook impacts on the table that could be used for the terminal coho fishery (in case of a larger coho run), then there would be no reason for them to not fish.

OncyT is right to remind us we should make sure we know whom to protest. For those of you who haven't been paying attention, protesting WDFW is a waste of your time and whatever medium you use to do it. The Governor and the Legislature are the ones making the calls, and while you're not likely to get any useful responses from them without opening up your wallet, they're the only ones who can change this pattern.

Counting on corrupt politicians on the other guy's payroll to right social wrongs is an unenviable position in which to find oneself. And here we are....

SG,
Please post the test fishery info if you get it or pm it to me.
Seems it shouldn't be that hard to obtain in this supposed transparent co-manager system.
SF

I would be protesting (a) their demand that they be allowed to engage in such harvest regardless of allocation guaranteed by treaty, (b) WDFW's agreement to such a demand, and (c) the deck-stacked system that allows them to make such demands with impunity, and gives WDFW little or no recourse, since tribes can just get an emergency permit from the feds on short notice, while WDFW has to wait for months.

Ding, ding, ding; We have a winner!

I don't agree completely. You could say that it's not the job of Wal-Mart or Exxon or any corporation to look after anybody but itself, but if they engage in bad behavior, it's perfectly reasonable to protest such behavior. If the MIT takes the position that they don't care if the citizens of Washington get their treaty-guaranteed share of fish, then they deserve derision and all the negative feedback that comes along with taking that position.

Plus, it's hard to argue with WDFW when they basically have no recourse against tribal overreach in negotiations (as far as I can see).

This is a good point.

i havent been down low yet to see, but the Carbon river when from alot of action, to NOTHING... im thinking the nets may be or may have been in the water....

the Puyallups also havent updated their netting hotline since the 1st of September... usually its updated very frequently...

also heard that someone asked a Nisqually tribal netter what the net schedule was, and they said if you arent a tribal member, they wont tell you....

pretty shady situation here...

When you talk about "shares" it must be remembered that the non-Indians have been fishing, and impacting, Chinook and coho in ocean, Straits, and marine areas when they were open. The Tribes are allowed to "catch up". Sharing is by stock, not by area. Since the Tribes normally fish terminally, and the non-Indians (sport and commercial troll) fish out in mixed stock areas it often occurs that there is nothing left inside except Tribal share.

Add to that the fact that WDFW can give away fish (as have the Tribes in some cases) if it meets "bigger needs".

I would also disagree on the ability to do In-season updates. Back in the 80s, the Nooksack-Samish, Skagit, Stilly-Snohomish, South Sound, and Hood Canal Chinook, coho, and chum were updated on a weekly basis. These updates, with damn few exceptions, were more accurate than the forecasts. Apparently there has been a choice made not to do in-season management.

I also believe, on no evidence other that what I read in the newspapers, that Muckleshoot got that language in trade for agreeing to this year's fisheries. Remember that they have been a stumbling block the past two years.

Then WDFW also deserves derision as they are not responsible for ensuring that the tribes get their share of fish either. And I'm still looking for this "bad behavior" that you mention. The Muckleshoot Tribe, as near as I can tell, has done everything they said they intended to do in regard to managing their coho fishery.

Those points are valid, however, what Washington Marine waters , other than area 1, were open for Coho retention this year Carcassman?

Which included not agreeing to any LOAF which included any potential openings for Coho for the Rec Side.

The "bad behavior" in my view is taking a share of fish greater than their share allocated by treaty, and using the deck-stacked legal/political system to force WDFW to agree to that.

Has WDFW taken any position that would deny a treaty tribe their share of harvestable fish allocated by treaty? If not, then why would they deserve equal derision?

The mortality of released fish counts as "catch". So even when it is officially closed to retention, a catch occurs that must be balanced.

I am also reminded of something Phil Anderson said when he was asked why WDFW did not push for a longer steelhead season on the Hoh, when there were harvestable fish available to the sporties. He said "We got the fishery we wanted". Never would define who the we was but there are a lot of reasons why WDFW does what it does; they just won't tell us.

Trust us. We're the WDFW. We're here to help you.

Your question about whether or not WDFW has ever taken a position that would deny a treaty tribe their share of harvestable fish is really funny. The fact that they did this was the whole point of US v. WA. As far as your point about them taking more than their share allocated, I seriously doubt if you or anybody can show that they have done that. Finally, regarding your contention that the tribes have some responsibility to ensure you get your share of the fish, I only have one comment. I guarantee that you do no want the tribes to help manage your fisheries.