#1004267 - 02/22/19 01:24 PM
Re: the Skokomish
[Re: Krijack]
|
Juvenile at Sea
Registered: 01/03/17
Posts: 155
Loc: Hood Canal
|
You might want to re-focus.
Realize a goodly number of clipped-fin smolts leave the Adams hatchery, range on out to the ocean, and then head back at maturity. Upon return, they become fair game along the shores of the Strait and eastward, past Ediz Hook, the Dungeness Spit, and then Pt. Wilson before entering Hood Canal and their home waters.
The anglers along that route are already impacted with enough selective restrictions and curtailed opportunity as it is...and likely, more to come.
Check the WDFW fish counts out of Pt. Townsend late-July thru early August last season...solid numbers.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1004280 - 02/22/19 03:49 PM
Re: the Skokomish
[Re: Krijack]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7431
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
While I could agree with the argument that sportsman's money (license fees, etc) shouldn't fund production of fish they can't catch, the general taxpayer had benefitted from the Treaties in having the land to live on and develop. It has been that development that has led to the diminishment of salmon through habitat degredation. So, if there are going to be hatcheries to provide fish for the Tribes and/or the NI commercials then it should be General Fund. Like old WDF was.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1004284 - 02/22/19 04:10 PM
Re: the Skokomish
[Re: Krijack]
|
Juvenile at Sea
Registered: 01/03/17
Posts: 155
Loc: Hood Canal
|
C-Man--selling or forfeiting Geo Adams Hatchery on the Skokomish has been advocated by some as the proper response to the Tribe's closing the river banks to Rec angling.
Suppose for some reason, the State handed over or sold the hatchery to the Tribe. Do you think the Skokomish Tribe would continue the present smolt joint fin-clipping operation with WDFW?
What would their incentive be to do so, as under the present selective rule framework...those returning Geo Adams adults would be illegal to retain by Recs?
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1004293 - 02/22/19 05:01 PM
Re: the Skokomish
[Re: MetalheadMatt]
|
Repeat Spawner
Registered: 08/04/99
Posts: 1463
Loc: Olympia, WA
|
As long as the State let's the Tribes have the sole exclusive rights to the multi billion dollar slot machine industry in our state, they will always afford to have the upper hand. Once the State decides to use this as a powerful bargaining chip, with the tribes, things will change. If they don't want to negotiate, let all business tribal and non tribal have a crack at having slots, and spread out that multi billion dollar wealth, and reap the tax benefits. We have giveth and we can taketh away, and see them cringe when their pocket books take a monstrouse hit. When an entity loses 60-70% of their revenue, it tends to make them re-evaluate their position Might be awhile before the State and our politicians alter the way they do business with the tribes. There's a bill before the legislature that would give Tribal Casinos exclusive rights to legalized sports wagering in this state. Another giveaway, with "what" in return? Bill Would Allow Sports Betting at Washington Indian Casinos February 11, 2019
House Bill 1975 seeks to authorize sports betting only inside the tribal casino of the state. This would include betting on both college and professional sports.
Bets could be placed with a casino teller or at a kiosk within the casino. Bets could also be placed by mobile phone but only inside an Indian casino.
If passed, each tribe would be required to renegotiate their gaming compacts with the state to add the terms for regulating and taxing the sports waging. This is required by Indian gaming laws of the federal government and may take a year or more before betting can begin.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1004296 - 02/22/19 06:10 PM
Re: the Skokomish
[Re: Krijack]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13523
|
Um, there is a reason why the cook creek hatchery it is called the "Quinault National Fish Hatchery", and its not because the Tribe is paying for it. (hint, the web page is run by the US fish and Wildlife service). It does appear that the tribe funds the lake hatchery and Salmon Creek, but I would not be surprised if the BIA funds those. Yep, Cook Ck nat'l fish hatchery is operated and paid for by US Fish & Wildlife Service through federal funding. The Lake Quinault Tribal hatchery is also paid for mainly, if not wholly, with federal funding. The George Adams hatchery is paid for by WDFW and Tacoma Power. I think it's insulting that WDFW spends state taxpayer money on that hatchery production without even putting up a fight for terminal area recreational fishing.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1004302 - 02/22/19 07:25 PM
Re: the Skokomish
[Re: Krijack]
|
Juvenile at Sea
Registered: 01/03/17
Posts: 155
Loc: Hood Canal
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1004303 - 02/22/19 07:43 PM
Re: the Skokomish
[Re: Krijack]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7431
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
George Adams is/was at least partially funded by mitigation monies. the Tribes would [robably not mark the fish but (theoretically) 50% of the harvestable would go to the NI side.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1004378 - 02/25/19 02:24 PM
Re: the Skokomish
[Re: CedarR]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/05/04
Posts: 2713
Loc: right place/wrong time
|
Might be awhile before the State and our politicians alter the way they do business with the tribes. There's a bill before the legislature that would give Tribal Casinos exclusive rights to legalized sports wagering in this state. Another giveaway, with "what" in return?
Greased Democratic palms.
_________________________
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill
"So it goes." Kurt Vonnegut jr.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1004470 - 02/27/19 11:34 AM
Re: the Skokomish
[Re: Salmo g.]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 3314
|
Um, there is a reason why the cook creek hatchery it is called the "Quinault National Fish Hatchery", and its not because the Tribe is paying for it. (hint, the web page is run by the US fish and Wildlife service). It does appear that the tribe funds the lake hatchery and Salmon Creek, but I would not be surprised if the BIA funds those. Yep, Cook Ck nat'l fish hatchery is operated and paid for by US Fish & Wildlife Service through federal funding. The Lake Quinault Tribal hatchery is also paid for mainly, if not wholly, with federal funding. The George Adams hatchery is paid for by WDFW and Tacoma Power. I think it's insulting that WDFW spends state taxpayer money on that hatchery production without even putting up a fight for terminal area recreational fishing. I completely agree in principle, but could it be that we've reached a point at which funding those hatcheries is the only way we can provide enough fish to keep the Tribes from suing the state (to virtual death) for the total collapse of their traditional salmon fisheries?
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1004476 - 02/27/19 12:17 PM
Re: the Skokomish
[Re: Krijack]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7431
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
It is pretty clear that the State, under Boldt, has to ensure that the Tribe's have dead fish in the boat. Boldt II, the habitat aspect (and it spawned the culvert case) has the State scared spitless because they have to ensure fish to catch.
So, yes, the State needs to operate hatcheries to meet Tribal needs. But, the cost of those hatcheries is a State responsibility and not the responsibility of the recreational angler, or even the commercial netter. It is the State's responsibility because the State chose development over habitat protection.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1004497 - 02/27/19 03:40 PM
Re: the Skokomish
[Re: Krijack]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7431
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
Not sure I understand the problem with producing those steelhead. The Tribes have rights to them, they have markets for them, and the Feds can look at the production as meeting a tribal need without a lot of "conflict". It is those Cook Creek fish, I believe, that are planted in the Hoh. Or we're.
Not sure if the Moclips steelhead are listed as it is coastal and not PS.
You could push WDFW to plant steelhead in WB, as they aren't listed.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1005215 - 03/09/19 09:24 PM
Re: the Skokomish
[Re: Bay wolf]
|
Repeat Spawner
Registered: 10/26/12
Posts: 1075
Loc: Graham, WA
|
SO? is anyone willing to organize a "fish in"? I guess not... I’m not a Skokomish River fishermen, but I believe without this getting a lot of media attention, the Tribe and the State are both very comfortable in their positions, and as such, nothing will change for a very long time. Remember Point no point?
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1005594 - 03/16/19 11:32 AM
Re: the Skokomish
[Re: Krijack]
|
Repeat Spawner
Registered: 10/26/12
Posts: 1075
Loc: Graham, WA
|
For those of you who “believe” we are on the brink of a major breakthrough:
“As for accessing Skokomish River hatchery kings, which have been off limits for several seasons now over a boundary dispute, Puget Sound manager Mark Baltzell says that WDFW is still talking with the Skokomish Tribe about access and that getting anglers back on the water “is a goal of ours.”
This is code for: Nothing has changed...
_________________________
"Forgiveness is between them and God. My job is to arrange the meeting."
1Sgt U.S. Army (Ret)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
0 registered (),
1391
Guests and
3
Spiders online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
11498 Members
16 Forums
63779 Topics
645378 Posts
Max Online: 3001 @ 01/28/20 02:48 PM
|
|
|