Krijack,

Boldt rules that the Quinault and Yakima were "self regulating" tribes and not subject even to the state's conservation determinations. And if WDFW went to court with Q over escapement goals, I think Q would prevail. I can't prove this other than by observation, but in systems were productivity is declining, using spawner-recruit data will almost always support reducing spawning escapement goals. I think C'man knows more about this than I, but harvest management models do not incorporate ecosystem factors; I think they are assumed to be included indirectly. The upshot is that the Q are going to use the escapement goals they have derived, and there is nothing WDFW can do about it, either use its own or adopt the Q's.

Evo,

When Director Wilkerson formally adopted co-management in 1984, I think most things did run smoothly for a good while. I think any deterioration in the state-tribal management relationship correlates with the severe declines in run abundance of Chinook, coho, and steelhead stocks in the 1990s, along with ESA listings. That tightened up the supply of fewer harvestable fish available that had to be shared. The whole NOF exercise is one of many parties fighting over the scraps of salmon that are left. It's not the Qs who are not letting us fish the Queets and Quinault. It's WDFW, and the reason is as I explained above: run size forecasts are less than WDFW's escapement goals. WDFW could choose to lower and adopt the Q escapement goals, and then as long as the run forecasts were greater than that number, they would allow us to fish.

You didn't read the Boldt Decision very closely if you think the state can stop the tribes from harvesting "our" hatchery fish. News flash: they can't, and Boldt spelled it out clearly in subsequent court orders.

C'man,

That was both Quinault and Yakima that Boldt ruled as self-regulating. Many other tribes went on to adjudicate their status, and I'm unsure what became of most of them. Probably became irrelevant due to co-management. I remember FABs and that I generally agreed with the decisions made by Dr Whitney and Gill Pauly. And then FABs stopped happening.

Run n Gun,

Many people have tried to make the point that tribal members would trade $$$ for fishing, but they are wrong. Sure, some individual tribal members would, but the treaty right belongs to the "tribe," in other words, the tribal government. And tribal governments have made very clear that treaty fishing rights are not for sale. Because of casinos, some tribes actually pay their members to fish, to exercise the tribal treaty right. When ex-vessel fish prices are too low to support fishing, the tribe will artificially raise the price paid and buy the fish from their fishermen, subsidizing the actual fishing to ensure that the tradition continues regardless of market conditions.

The tribes do not want fish runs to fail. The tribal folks I have talked with believe that when - not if - ocean conditions improve, then salmon and steelhead abundance will increase, that ESA populations can be recovered. I wish I shared such optimism. Salmonid abundances are not in decline because of treaty tribal fishing. I have written this numerous times. Still, some don't believe it. I guess it's just easier to scapegoat the highly visible fishing that the tribes do; I don't really know why.