Way to step up Streamer! That’s two of us who’ve committed, now we only need about 28 more to make an impact.

Getting attention isn't too hard to do. Get friendly with a local reporter and make sure they show up. Our local paper was at every one of our events to get the Skagit opened up - because I invited them and made sure they knew what the purpose was. Progress was slow, but it did happen.

https://www.goskagit.com/news/fishermen-...b6bddc76d4.html

The Occupy Skagit events were...umm...unfishing. We fished without hooks. When asked, I replied, "If they are going to pretend to manage them, we'll pretend to fish for them."

The main difference I see here between what your situation is and one we had was that we had one of the tribes agreeing with us. I don't know if you'll be able to do that. But if you think there is a chance start at the bottom and not at the top with Loomis.

Figures below taken from WDFW published records for the years 2014-2018:

Final Yearly Totals For Surplus Chinook Beyond Escapement---George Adams Hatchery---Skokomish River---Hood Canal

The three seasons since non-Tribal recreational fishing was closed:

11/01/2018................24,429
11/02/2017................37,812
11/03/2016................25,136

The final two seasons prior to the closure when recreational fishing was allowed:

11/05/2015.................6,697
10/30/2014.................4,792

Take what you will from these stats.

Off the top, it appears that in the two seasons prior to the river's closure, rec bank fishermen may have landed and retained a considerable number of legal hatchery fish before they reached the holding pond.


More significantly, note how the number of "surplus" fish--those typically sent to food banks or used to produce organic fertilizer--spiked after the closure.
Finally, its obvious that both harvest opportunity and possible resource waste may now be the norm, rather than the exception.


Could the Tribe be encouraged to work together with WDFW through positive co-management to turn this around? That possibility rests entirely in the hands of WDFW Management. There's your trouble...

Ok every "one, here is the latest updated. I probably should have waited with the first post as there has been a little progress. Take what you will, but there has been one meeting this year with the Tribe over this and one more scheduled. Nothing has been agreed on, but it appears some progress is being made. We will probably not know anything for sure until after NOF, which is coming up fairly fast. Since no protest or "fish-in" would make sense till after that, I think any planning should wait until we here what happens there.

The biggest issue here should not be the Skokomish, but rather the behavior of the State and the Tribes. Last year the state went in insisting they would stand strong. They came out with their tail between their legs. Nothing was said and no explanation was given. We were left with the Tribes statement (Kitsap Sun, 2014) afterwards, "Skokomish Tribal Chairman Charles "Guy" Miller said Friday there was "brief" discussion of the Skokomish closure during the salmon meetings but the tribes did not offer to reopen recreational fishing on the river. Miller said no further negotiations have been arranged with the state. Skokomish representatives are open to discussing solutions with recreational fishing groups and Fish and Wildlife officials, he added."
Now I have been told that the "brief discussion" was basically the tribes holding the State hostage. This type of behavior should never be allowed to go unchecked. In the end, I am again a little hopeful that something will be worked out on the Skokomish, but with no access to the NOF or agreements made, it is very unclear what the true cost could be. As a group, renewed effort must be made to get access to the negotiations at NOF.

To wrap it up, waiting on the Skokomish for a few months may be the best approach, with a renewed effort to get NOF access starting now. The example of what supposedly took place last year should be great example of why access is needed..

At some point you have to ask yourself, "Is this something I can live with, or is this the line in the sand where I take a stand?"

It is clear that most men are willing to have others fight for them, and are comfortable looking into the mirror and see the coward that they are.

Fortunately, there are still a few that lead from the front...

Bay Wolf, a bit of advice.

I really appreciate your passion, and I appreciate that you have dedicated a lot of time and energy for the cause of recreational fishing.

That being said, your disdain for most anyone who's not you is glaring, and besides being inaccurate, is counterproductive.

You didn't invent activism, and believe it or not, before you started in on it on PP last year, many folks here have been doing it for a long time.

You'd do well to remember that.

Take that advice how you will...but your attitude is not going to engage other people well, in my experience.

Fish on...

Todd

Thanks Todd for that bit of advice. And for the appreciation of my passion.

Not sure what part of what I said you consider "inaccurate", but I guess it's all in the individual interpretation.

I'm not really concerned how others feel about my attitude. After all, I'm not in a popularity contest. I call things like I see them. Always have, always will. Others may see things different and that's good. Different perspectives are important. I've never singled out anyone for their unwillingness to get involved in "activism". I do take issue to those that talk the talk, but won't walk the walk. Again, always have, always will.

I apologize if there was something in my last post that hit a nerve. But, to my experience, there is truth in what I wrote.

Nothing will change until WDFW adopts a strategy at NOF that involves something other than caving to whatever they need to in order to get a deal. They flirted with saying no a few years ago, which I took as a good sign. They need to do it again and put massive pressure on the Feds to just grant two ESA permits if the tribes and State can't agree. There are a million and three (at least) federal nexus (WTF is plural of nexus?) that could be used to expedite the ESA permit process. It doesn't have to be tribal fisheries for any reason other than the Feds say it has to be tribal fisheries.

As it is, the Feds have set this up so the Tribes have no incentive to negotiate. If the Tribes take their ball and go home, the Feds tell the state to sit on the sideline and tell the Tribes to go fish. I wouldn't negotiate either.

Baywolf, maybe ease up on words like "coward". You may be amazed to find out that people don't always have the time to do what someone that's retired can do. I'm not retired and worked with PSA as and officer of the south sound chapter until there was just no time any longer because of changes at work.

You may call things like that as" calling things as you see them" but fact is you're not nearly as enlightened as you think you are.

Trust me, Baywolf, I have no nerves that you can either touch or get on, just trying to offer some friendly advice about alienating those who may otherwise be interested in helping out with your endeavors...you can use it, or not.

Good luck.

Fish on...

Todd

I tried to help him a couple years with his petition at the sportsman's show. He had asked to see if I could get a copy at the PSA booth. Had he made that statement before hand I expect I would not have been so inclined.

If you are interested in catching flies, honey works better than vinegar!

Members of the Skok tribe have made their position on what they want clear to me. I've asked them directly what it would take to reopen the Skok.

Do any of you know what that position is, and why?

Stop shitting all over because it's gross?

No.

Please tell.

TIA

From what I have heard, The Skok wish to implement a paid permitting system to limit access to the river, and to cover some expenses with operating a fishery there.

Pay to stand on poop and snag fish? I think not.

Pay more to catch our fish, FOH..

Interesting. That's something I would consider.

Would be curious what their expenses were for operating this fishery before it closed and what they'd expect them to be if it opened up again.
What services would they be providing, Honey Buckets, etc?
Anyone know?

Thanks,
SF