NWP,

Thanks for the compliment. I write to be understood, altho it doesn't always work out that way.

I doubt that fisheries (WDFW) is sitting on its hands. I'd venture that over 98% of WA fishermen have never read the RCW (revised code of washington) that describes the job assigned to WDFW by the state legislature. That legislative mandate along with the policies and regulations approved by the WDFW Commission, and the orders of courts of jurisdiction, are what WDFW must do.

WDFW does not exist to do what any minor special interest group, such as may be loosely represented by the members of this internet forum, thinks they oughta' be doing. State law fixes some very strong responsibilities on WDFW to accommodate commercial fishing. For direct evidence, please read the recent post in the "gillnetters arrested" thread. They have to commit at least 3 gross misdemeaners within 2 years, or is it 2 in 3, before the appeals committee can even think about a 1 year license suspension. This law was written by the seafood industry, not by WDFW, and the legislature passed it, and the gov (Locke) signed it.

I don't know what went on this week at NOF. Maybe Smalma will report.

What you observe on the Skok may be offensive to you, but consider this:
The Tribe allows early chinook to pass through to the NF and to a lesser extent the SF, and some of those are wild fish. 90+% of Skok chinook are hatchery fish that were raised to be caught. As far as I know, there is no shortage of chinook spawners in the Skok, at least on average. Whether the surplus chinook are taken by treaty snaggers, gillnetters, or by spear or pitchfork really makes no difference biologically to the resource. So long as enough fish make it into the hatchery and up the river to spawn, how the remainder are harvested is strictly a social (and legal in the case of treaty fishing) issue, not a biological nor ecological resource issue. If you'd prefer those fish were allowed to migrate upstream and contribute additional MDN, that's a separate issue that should be considered under setting escapement goals. Thus far, no escapement goals include MDN in their estimation.

Further, it's funny you mention the Skok and treaty snagging, since that's the location of one of the more significant non-treaty snag and floss fisheries in WA. Pretty hard to criticize the tribe's practices since they make no pretext of sport fishing - it's just harvest to them. Yet the non-treaty guys with sport gear are actually breaking laws daily there. Given the emotional content, I doubt it would matter if the people there were better informed of the purposes of the two fisheries, although both serve the same end: harvesting surplus salmon.

The way you solve your frustration is to mind your own business. I may not think highly of snagging salmon, but when I see a treaty Indian doing it on the Skok, hey, he's just doing his job, which is to catch salmon, and his method is legal for the group he belongs to. As long as he isn't breaking any laws, it's none of my business, so I don't sweat it. Maybe you shouldn't either. Try modifying your attitude this year. It's the one thing you have control over. Treaty fishing - you don't.

So one of the ways you solve problems is by figuring out what things are problems and what things are not.

Real problems appear to be things like the Puget Sound tribes not approving increased non-treaty selective fisheries for chinook. For sure the LCR non-treaty gillnet fishery that takes more ESA listed wild salmon and steelhead than legal hatchery fish is a problem, and it doesn't include federal treaties with Indian tribes. It shoud be solveable, but we aren't well enough organized to fix that. Yet.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.