Begin rant:
Others mentioned that this is the result of fighting over a dwindling number of fish. Whether or not anyone accepts it, the tribes and anglers are in the same boat. FFS, look at how many wild fish this commotion is over and how much damage it has done. Of course a tribe will advocate for itself and of course WDFW will cede a popular fishery in a situation like this. WDFW's goal is not to provide robust fisheries for their constituents -- their goal is to continue a worsening conservation facade in a day and age when recovery of any ESA species comes at great cost with very little to show for the efforts. Despite what George W. Bush said, humans and fish cannot live in peace.
Recovering any listed species in Pugetrolpolis is simply out of the question. LW chinook will never recover to healthy, harvestable levels. Ever. To believe otherwise is insanity. There are too many factors at play preventing just about any species recovery whether they inhabit the most intact PS river, or a warmwater cesspool surrounded by tech executive mansions.
Keta brought up the interception by AK and BC on local stocks, and his advice is absolutely correct. Do you think ADFG gives a damn about LW chinook -- or any nearly extinct PS stock for that matter? Of course not. SEAK trollers will be allowed to continue business as usual, and we'll continue allowing ourselves to be held hostage by a stock that simply will not be extant, except through hatchery supplementation, in 50 years. Will a SEAK troll fishery moratorium be the answer for LW chinook? Probably not, but we would likely see a great deal more chinook everywhere else in the PNW.
While it's easy to complain about what happened, it doesn't come anywhere close to fixing the problems. If the tables at NOF had been turned in favor of the rec fleet, does it mean fewer wild LW chinook will eventually die? Most people know the answer to this question, so it comes back to fighting over a pathetic population of fish that will continue sliding closer to extinction.
Anglers need an organized plan, and that plan shouldn't involve bickering about less than 200 paper fish. WDFW and the feds aren't going to create better fisheries for us; they're going to gradually keep restricting fisheries while tooting the recovery and conservation horn. This said, what are the solutions for providing better fisheries?
Impact on wild stocks is the nail used to tie all the conservation and restrictions together. Less impact on wild fish = better odds for recovery (so says the party line)
The elephant in the room that no one wants to address is the non-selective fisheries that are conducted on ESA listed fish.
Sport anglers are mandated to rules that reduce impacts and are given substantial fines for violating these rules. Further, recreational fishermen support the majority of the conservation efforts toward restoration and hatchery supplementation. Then there is the financial contributions to the state and communities by the sportsmen. Yet, our co-managers and commercial communities are continuing to use (and be allowed to use) gill-nets, which account for significant impact to wild stock. So, the fallacy of WDFW making decisions and using "conservation" and "reduced impacts" are all smoke and mirrors. The truth is, stocks are dwindling for a number of reason, and overharvest by commercial fleets is a major one. But it is much easier to place restrictions on the recreational fishermen then the politically connected tribes and commercials. The only recourse sports fishermen have is to complain, and that doesn't impact those that make the deals!
Previous Topic
Index
