Originally Posted By: eyeFISH

***

And to rojoband for calling me out.... huh

The ONLY rationale for the extremely lopsided tribal impact allocation IS catch balancing.... ensuring that they ALWAYS get theirs, and that ours NEVER exceeds theirs. I said nothing more and nothing less..... so I can't figure out what you think is so "wrong"... it is what it is. I could give a rat's ass about HOW we got there because it's irrelevant to the point of ensuring their take and making sure ours never exceeds it. Not sure why you needed to create another entirely worthless personal argument to further divide the board.

As you pointed out, the parties were given the option work out an impact sharing agreement themselves. "So based on this the states went into a room and negotiated the sharing impacts with the tribes. Hence the current rate of 2% we get, as that's what we negotiated."

And if as you assert, the case was never ruled on by a judge, that just affirms the possibility that said agreement could be re-negotiated to maximize conservation, ensure treaty fishing rights to the maximum harvestable catch for ceremonial/subsistence/commercial purposes.... AND.... still squeeze out even greater harvest opportunities for NON-treaty users. It's just a matter of how small a narrow-minded box the stakeholders want to constrain themselves.... or do they want to think outside that box to fully realize the potential benefits to all parties, the fish included.

The haters want folks to believe that a more responsible, fish-friendly harvest method is somehow going to be BAD for the resource. Say it to yourself a couple dozen times. JFC.... it sounds pretty GD stupid doesn't it. The only thing driving that camp's ridiculous position is GREED..... the perception that somehow their piece of the action will be threatened by doing something good for the fish. From a more global perspective, the same selfish and obstinate mentality among every camp that takes a piece of the run ANYWHERE is what's killing the fish at every life stage! Nobody wants to make the sacrifices that are good for the fish for fear that it might cost them, or somehow benefit someone else more than it benefits themselves.

Sad isn't it.... and a GD sorry shame at that.

Selective fishing is coming folks, whether you like it or not. Don't be deceived by the haters.... it's good for the resource whether it's about CR springers, OP steelhead, Puget Sound chinook. It has been endorsed by the commission, embraced by WDFW, and is getting the attention of legislators. Get with the program or get out of the way.

Instead of fighting it, use your collective energy to come up with innovative ways to maximally apply the strategy for the betterment of the sport and the fish it depends on.

This is eyeFISH and I approve this message.


I was never calling you out eyeFISH…but you seem to be too dense to realize that. NOT CARING how we got to where we are is the same type of mentality that forces people to repeat the mistakes of those that came before them.

You continue to think the tribes will be somehow forced to go selective….I was not arguing about selective fisheries within our fisheries, but once again you don’t seem to realize that the rationale for the extremely lopsided tribal impact allocation is NOT catch balancing.

The rationale is that the tribes wanted to shore up their legally guaranteed right to fish. They were worried ESA would force them off the water in an equal fashion that it would the non-treaty folks. Well their treaty guaranteed them that wouldn’t happen, and because it was Dams, agriculture, water storage, and harvest (all nontreaty issues) that caused ESA to go into effect on these fish the federal government was supposed to ensure they had access to into perpetuity they had us over a barrel. Essentially they gave us 2% to ensure they had some vague form of political will to change some of the habitat issues.

You seem to think it’s about catch sharing and it’s not about catch sharing AT ALL!!! PLEASE contact your Attorney General to get a better understanding of this. I am not calling you out; I am asking you to educate yourself on the matter. I am not trying to divide anyone, as you seem to do that yourself. I am simply saying….we have every opportunity to change things for the better through habitat protection (for everyone) and I AGREE with you that going selective is the right thing to do, and as you’ve roughly calculated, going Nontreaty commercial selective doesn’t access a whole hill of beans more hatchery fish DUE TO our constraining measly 2%...the big elephant in the room is the whopping tribal ESA impact allocation. I think the best thing is to remove the nontreaty commercial fishery altogether!

With the Dam’s being nontreaty, with agriculture interests being nontreaty, with water user’s being nontreaty, with the majority of ocean fisheries being nontreaty, and outside that fact that we already tried to go to court over this…..what makes you think they are ever GOING TO WANT TO GIVE US MORE IMPACTS! Even if they go selectie (which I doubt) WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THEY WILL USE LESS IMPACTS THAN THEY USE NOW! We are the ones that got us into this mess….why should they give up anything?

Oh I forgot, because they gave up all their lands in a treaty that ceded them to us, in exchange for the right to fish….and now they should give up those crumbs too…right. To quote you….Sad isn't it.... and a GD sorry shame at that.