Plunker,

Excuse me. Sometimes I think I shouldn’t have to repeat every thing that has been written on this subject, falsely assuming that long term PPBB members have read and remembered from the previous threads. You’re a long time participant, and I thought I presented enough information for the meaning to be clear. Evidently not, so I’ll return to a point closer to the beginning.

In general, and excluding the specific exceptions - like the Quillayute - the treaty and non-treaty allocations are limited to 50% of the harvestable salmon and steelhead that occur in usual and accustomed treaty fishing areas. The Quillayute is not an appropriate example for this discussion; very apples and oranges, so to speak. Let’s use a specific example, like the Skagit River, that is close to your homeport.

If the pre-season forecast for 2003-2004 wild steelhead is less than the escapement goal of 6,000, then both the treaty and non-treaty harvest shares are zero. Technically, there is some allowance for incidental harvest, that is, wild steelhead harvested by treaty fishermen while fishing for hatchery steelhead, and wild steelhead that are incidentally killed by non-treaty fishermen while fishing for hatchery steelhead in the early season and during the late season CNR steelhead fishery.

If the hatchery steelhead run is predicted to be 6,000, and the broodstock requirement is, say 600, then there are 5,400 harvestable hatchery steelhead, with 2,700 allocated to the treaty and non-treaty shares. (There also used to be a factor inserted to adjust the harvestable numbers to compensate for the non-treaty sector’s inability to harvest more than 80% of the available harvestable fish. I don’t know if that is still used, or is deemed redundant due to a hatchery spawning escapement requirement that didn’t use to exist on the Skagit because all juvenile hatchery fish were produced at Tacoma and Chambers Creek Hatcheries, but I digress.)

With a treaty allocation of 2,700 steelhead, the Skagit tribes devise a fishing schedule that suits their interests and gets them to their harvest allocation primarily during the hatchery run, since there are no harvestable wild steelhead in this example. The Swinomish used to have a fairly small number of fishermen who fished for steelhead, say, about 12. The Tribe would schedule fishing 3 or 4 days a week from mid-December through the end of February. Based on catch statistics from previous seasons, they generally had a good chance of taking their portion of the treaty share in that time period. The Upper Skagit Tribe, however, had more fishermen who fished steelhead, and better fishing locations for steelhead. Each fisherman tended to average a higher catch per landing for each day fished than did the Swinomish fisherman. Consequently, the Upper Skagit Tribe would schedule steelhead fishing for 2 days per week from mid-December to about mid or late January, again, quite likely to have taken their portion of the treaty share within that time. And, if the treaty share was taken before the end of the scheduled steelhead season, the fishery then closed for the year.

Now, addressing your question regarding why not fish 7 days a week all year? Since total catch does matter, the amount of fishing time matters. But it matters in relation to the number of fishermen fishing, the average catch per landing (called CPUE in fish management parlance, or catch per fisherman per day), the number of days fished during the season, the standing stock of fish, and the run timing of the fish population,all of which are related to the instantaneous exploitation rate of the fleet. If the fishing fleet is large, then the number of fishing days will be small, relative to any given run size. If the fishing fleet is small, as has occurred for many of the tribes because of declining fish prices, like the Upper Skagits, then the number of scheduled fishing days per week can be increased to compensate for the fewer number of nets in the river. The Tribe’s goal of taking its harvestable allocation remains the same, but it cannot exert the same instantaneous harvest rate with 6 or 8 nets as it could with 20 or more.

So if a tribe’s fishing fleet has shrunk, and it schedules more days of fishing per week, but is still governed by the same harvest allocation as before, why does it matter to you how many days per week they fish? They are going to harvest the same (fewer in many cases) number of steelhead, not more. If this is still not clear, I’m not sure I can improve the explanation, but in the interest of accurate understanding, honestly, I’ll try.

The Quillayute fishery is different, is based upon a schedule, and not related to the above discussion. I don’t know the details of why WDFW agreed to that instead of the more common 50%, but I think it is related to the concept of foregone opportunity. Foregone opportunity is a separate subject and should be treated separately.


Grandpa,

I think that there is some uncertainty about foregone opportunity and a decision to regulate statewide WSR. I believe the situation is made more difficult by coastal WDFW managers who don’t support WSR. There needn’t be anything foregone by regulating for WSR if the principle is to manage for maximum recreational opportunity. Opportunity is a key concept in the Boldt ruling. Just as the treay fishing right is meaningless if it consists only of an opportunity to set a net and have it repeatedly come up empty. This was in connection to the treaty tribes fishing second in line after the non-treaty ocean and sound fisheries. Similarly, the non-treaty fishing privilege (the federal court says you and I have a fishing privilege, not a right, CFM notwithstanding) is meaningless if the river is open to fishing, but there are few or no harvestable steelhead in it. WDFW could do more to legitimize CNR and WSR and fisheries management concepts that have maximum sustained recreation, rather than maximum sustain yield or harvest and the management goal. If WDFW adopted MSR, instead of MSH, as its wild steelhead management goal - and the state does have that right - then I believe most of this perceived risk associated with foregone opportunity would evaporate because under MSR, the management goal is realized by having the largest possible steelhead population consistent with recreational fishing and incidental hooking and handling mortality.

Foregone opportunity is not a hammer; it has been a convenient crutch for WDFW and people like you who are unwilling to move forward to the next logical stage of wild steelhead management that provides the greatest benefit to the greatest number of citizens.

Regarding the honesty of catch reporting by tribes, do you really think they are less honest than non-treaty commercial and recreational fishermen? I don’t. I know liars in both camps.

Regarding what WDFW and NMFS can do to make fishing more equal, well, you’re not gonna’ like this. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, treaty and non-treaty fishing are equal. Each side gets 50% of the harvestable numbers of salmon and steelhead occuring in usual and accustomed treaty fishing areas. There is nothing that WDFW nor NMFS can do about that. In fact, every federal agency, even those that have nothing to do with fishing, are obligated to look out for tribal rights under what is known as the fiduciary trust responsibility. Abrogation of treaty fishing rights, or modification thereof, are possible only through an act of Congress. That was tried in the 80s by former Senator Slade Gorton, who got nowhere with it. The vast majority of Americans support honoring Indian treaty rights. That could change, but that’s the track record to date. Regarding legal avenues, I’ll mention that nationwide, tribes have won 95% of all federal court decisions relating to treaty and tribal fishing rights over the last 108 years.

The state and federal fisheries agencies can close a treaty fishery for conservation reasons, but the situation has to be so extreme, that you and I probably wouldn’t like it. ESA closures most likely qualify, but NMFS was unwillling to test that on the Columbia with treaty tribes there, and instead came up with an allowable incidental harvest of ESA fish. If they hadn’t, the tribes were threatening to push the issue of removing the Snake River dams. In court, they would likely have a very good chance, as incredibly few fisheries biologists would testify that the 4 lower Snake River dams aren’t primarily responsible for Snake River salmon and steelhead being listed under the ESA. The Tribes are not independent nations. They are legally sovereign nations within a nation, whatever it is that means. The courts have rules that they are sovereign, but that they also are dependent nations within the U.S. Legally, it gets pretty murky after that, and I’m not qualified to explain it.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.