If this is the case, completely stop using taxpayers/sportsman's money to run the hatchery. Turn it over to the tribes and they can operate it.
Take that funding elsewhere where all can benefit form the hatchery fish.
Quinault River comes to mind here. You want to fish the lower river, you pay an Indian guide, but the rest of us are not paying for the Quinault's to raise their fish.

That being said, this is complete BS. If you want change, hit them where it hurts. Stop going to the Indian casino's . I for one do not!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Salmo, +1

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.

Greased Democratic palms.

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?

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.

The problem I see with Carcassman's argument is that the Cook Creek and Makah hatcheries put out extremely large number of Steelhead that are almost exclusively utilized by them alone. While salmon production can probably be justified, I do wonder about the large numbers of Steelhead they produce.

While a different topic, one thing else that bothers me is that these Federally financed hatcheries are dumping hatchery fish into quite a few small rivers in the area, like the Sekiu river and Moclips river, that have no hatcheries or ways to separate the fish. These rivers also have low levels of development on them. Yet we are being told that the state needs to stop putting hatchery fish on rivers that have more development, and have the means to collect most of the hatchery fish.

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.

I think it questionable for them to plant steelhead, with federal funds, for the exclusive use of the tribes. Very few of these fish are caught in the oceans or contribute to anyone but the tribe. At one time it could be justified by arguing the tribe needed the fish for economic reasons or to offset low run numbers that were a result of damage done to the watershed. In the case of the Quinault, most of the watershed is now in the reservation or in the national park. The tribe most certainly does not need the revenue to survive, and could easily pay for the raising themselves. In that case, and probably in the case of the Makah hatchery, the raising of steelhead in the numbers can not be justified by treaty obligations. It simply is a government handout to the tribe.

I don't blame the tribe from taking advantage of it. I would too. But I do wonder why it the federal government continues to fund it.

Sky guy,
I was thinking about your statement earilier

********"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.****

This could be a very dangerous proposition. It seems that the tribe, if they wished, could easily have implemented such an idea on their own without the State's approval. I doubt that the Makah's, Quinault or Collville tribes ask the state for permission on fees for fishing on their land. My guess is that the Tribe wants the State to agree to the terms and post it in the regulations or to codify such an agreement, thereby implying they agree with the Tribe's ownership of the land.

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?

Build a WALL.

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...