Parker: You talking about me??? \:\) I live on the banks of the Raging River... And no I didn't build there. And no I don't use anything that might get into the water system and do damage. But I know what you mean.

Quote:
Originally posted by parker:
If I am not mistaken, there is no tribal netting for steelhead on the Snohomish System, and hasn't been for a few years now. Last time I checked, the spring native steelhead population was still in the dumps, and not showing any signs of recovery. I'm almost positive the WDFW has, and still is doing, and creating the "science report" on that system.

Smalma will probably chime in to tell me that I am (somewhat) correct, or maybe that I'm smoking crack again and have it all wrong.

I guess my point is - it is foolish to just blame tribal netting for the decline and/or loss of native steelhead. The White Man and his destructive nature almost certainly played a larger role in the decline of our native steelhead populations than the Native American Man, did, or has done.

Hey, I'm just giving credit, where credit is due. Us White Men are damned good at raping our own enviroment, doing whatever we feel like, and when it all goes down the shiatter, *THAN* maybe start to do something about it - or blame someone else.

How come I never see anyone pick on the loggers, or the river-front property owners, or the farmes that let their cows on the river bed? How many native steelhead do you think they destroyed????
I agree to some of this Parker but not all. The problem is that nets are non discriminitory. They kill everything that gets caught in them. So what we really need to do is not allow ANY NETS ANYWHERE in Washington waters. This would also have to include tribal nets as well. This would have so much benefit you wouldn't believe it. For proof go look at the fish numbers in the other states that have put simlar laws in place.

You are correct that we all are responsible for what has happened to our environment. Unfortunately those with money (I'm thinking Commercial Fishing Lobbies and Tribes) cloud the issue when they think they will no longer be able to rape the land/sea to make that money such that the public just doesn't get a chance to see how badly we have been raped. I would venture a guess that with a ban on Nets and similar regulations on logging, farming, building in our watersheds that in 20 years the fishing for all species would improve drastically. And this includes the bottomfish that have had their habitats destroyed by bottom nets that dredge the bottom for halibut, sole, cod, etc. Those are actually some of the worst nets out there as they not only kill the fish but also destroy the habitat as well.

Personally I feel that the letter at the top of the page was created because the tribes didn't want to look bad because they were the only ones fishing for Natives. They then put a bug in their politicians ears and told them they would no longer be supported if they didn't do something. Politicians have to have the support from the people with money or they won't get/keep their jobs come election day. The letter has nothing to do with the legality of the WDFW setting regulations(policies if you wish). They have been doing so since they were created as that is what they were created to do!

Plunker: The interesting RCW is the following
Quote:
RCW 77.04.012 defines the mandate of the department and commission when it states:

"The commission may authorize the taking of wildlife, food fish, game fish and shellfish only at times or places or in manners or quantities, as in the judgment of the commission, does not impair the resource."

"The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens... ."
The last line states what I feel this whole thing is about. Maximizing opportunities of all citizens to be able to fish for a steelhead. It doesn't state Killing a steelhead. So tell me how the moratorium impairs the resource and keeps you from fishing for steelhead? If you can then I'll support the removal of the ban. But if not there is no way that I will and in fact I would propose to make the ban permanant rather than just for 2 years.


Also the following is kind of fun.

Quote:
RCW 77.04.055 sets out the duties of the commission:

(2) The commission shall establish hunting, trapping, and fishing seasons and prescribe the time, place, manner and methods that may be used to harvest or enjoy game fish and wildlife.
So isn't that what the Commision did when it made the moratorium? Hmmm

And then we have
Quote:
(4) The commission shall have final approval authority for tribal, interstate, international, and any other department agreements relating to fish and wildlife.
And
Quote:

(5) The commission shall adopt rules to implement the state's fish and wildlife laws.
WOW! Guess that is the trump card huh? They really do have the power to do what they did!


Isn't the law fun??? I'm sure glad I'm not a lawyer cuz depending on how you read the laws you can have 2 different views in many cases. However in this case I think the lawyers that said the commision didn't have the power to make the moratorium are just plain wrong.