Originally Posted By: AuntyM
 Quote:
I'm not sure how the conservation argument can be succesfully made in this particular case.


How about, we'll be spending 1.5 BILLION dollars in the next decade to recover Puget Sound listed Chinook. How about, in this particular instance, the escapement for wild/native spawners can be tripled AND increase hatchery harvests by simply changing harvest methods and the danged treaty won't "technically" be violated at all.


This differs significantly than what was proposed before. Changing methods is all find and good, and I doubt you would get any disagreement from anyone here on this subject. But the discussion up to this point was the abolishment/challenge of the Boldt decision. Fishing method is completely seperate, and can probably be dealt with at a regulatory level by the feds (ideally) and the state.

Also keep in mind, this will help wild fish, but will do little to diminish the presence of the fishing in our rivers. If the methods move to weirs, fish wheels, or tended nets, the same sort of "[censored] show" will still be in the estuaries and rivers. In short, the 50/50 split will still continue and the tribes will still recieve their allotment. Hopefully people can get over that and understand 50% is 50% regardless of method.

If this is something that can be done though, I'm all for it!

 Quote:

Fact, James Connaughton told us back in January of 2006 which direction the Bush administration was pushing us and they were looking at new harvest methods then. Fact, Norm Dicks is considering federal legislation to mandate selective fisheries. If it's mandated for everyone but the tribes, think about the repercussions. I don't think he'd bother with it if sport fishers were the targeted user, since the state already has us releasing unclipped fish in areas with ESU listings.


I don't know how the legal workings would occur on the tribes for this, but I don't think it's a stretch to mandate a selective fishing style be used in the future. In fact, if you look at the CCA post that I made, I'd be all over the CCA if they would decide to tackle that issue (fisheries wide) rather than butt heads against Boldt.

But with that said, the sticky wicket could still be the Quinault and Yakima tribes though. A state wide change from WDFW may not matter one wit to those tribes. In that case, it may require federal intervension or a visit to our friendly Supreme court on judgement.