Check

 

Defiance Boats!

LURECHARGE!

THE PP OUTDOOR FORUMS

Kast Gear!

Power Pro Shimano Reels G Loomis Rods

  Willie boats! Puffballs!

 

Three Rivers Marine

 

 
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#1027856 - 04/10/20 11:44 AM Re: A Glimer Of Hope [Re: RtndSpawner]
OncyT Offline
Spawner

Registered: 02/06/08
Posts: 506
Area 26D is bounded by the Tacoma Narrows bridge on the south and a line drawn through the north end of Vashon Island on the north. Looks like Puyallup territory to me. U & A? Can't say. Have shellfish U & A's ever been adopted by the court? (additional information welcome).

Regarding filing regulations under 4.6 of the Shellfish Implementation Plan - I'm not sure filing regulations under this provision is as nefarious as some might think. The implementation plan foresees that the co-managers will develop interim and long-term management plans for all the shellfish resources that will guide all fisheries. In the absence of those plans, the only way to open fisheries by either party is under section 4.6. That section also describes a time frame necessary to open fisheries and what information and documentation that warrants a fishery opening needs to be provided to applicable co-manager(s) to proceed with a fishery. There is also a section 4.7 of the plan that provides a procedure for contesting and resolving disagreements, so there is no reason that a disagreement cannot be resolved outside the boundaries of some area/species/fishery plan in a manner consistent with conservation or sharing of the resource.

I have never been involved in shellfish management under this implementation order (hopefully someone who has can correct any faulty thinking I have), but I was involved with management of finfish resources under U.S. v. WA. so I have some experience with court orders and how we make or don't make them work. My experience there tells me that development of these expected long-term management plans (that would negate the need to file a fishery opening under Section 4.6) can take a long time, in fact I'm not sure that all Puget Sound regions have to date developed the long-term finfish management plans foreseen in the original salmon and steelhead orders (maybe carcassman or Curt can correct me). How many years after the original decision? (again, I could be off base here - just sharing thoughts). Whether I am exactly right about that or not, I do know that a whole lot of years of finfish fisheries went on without those plans. Additionally, there are a lot of things that could prevent having agreed to plans at any given time. For instance, right now I could certainly see how the co-managers learning how to deal with communication and planning under the limitations of COVID-19 could prevent having an agreed to annual management plan for this particular Puyallup fishery. (again, sort of thinking out loud based on other experiences).

The last thought is regarding whether or not WDFW ever uses Section 4.6 (or perhaps more telling, Section 4.7 to contest a fishery) is beyond my ability to find out. (Although if you think about it for a second, it is obvious that they HAVE used that provision because non-treaty fisheries certainly occurred soon after this court order, certainly before any/all of the management plans could be fully developed.) WDFW regs that they share with us would not need a reference to the implementation plan. Only the regulations that they share with the tribes would need to reference that section (outside an agreed to plan). I don't have access to their legal communication with the tribes about fishery openings, so that is a project for someone else if interested. Maybe carcassman knows - hey, do they still communicate by TWX? (He will get that).

Top
#1027863 - 04/10/20 12:17 PM Re: A Glimer Of Hope [Re: OncyT]
Larry B Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
Thanks OncyT, you beat me to the confirmation that 26D is another designation for MA11 and is certainly Puyallup tribal U&A.

From a conservation standpoint I wish the Puyallups would hold off another year as it puts WDFW in a difficult position between those who want a Dungy season (hey, look, the tribes are commercial fishing on crab) and those who have ongoing conservation concerns.

One only needs to look at what happened in MA13......
_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!

It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)

Top
#1027868 - 04/10/20 12:43 PM Re: A Glimer Of Hope [Re: RtndSpawner]
Carcassman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7411
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
U&A was defined by the Boldt Court and there are maps available. Some of the boundaries have changed due to Tribes going to court so the old maps I have may not be current. There aren't "salmon U&A" or "Crab U&A"; just the U&A and they fish inside that. They can also be invited to fish in other Tribe's U&A (has happened) when such an invitation makes management work better.

There was a PS Salmon management plan that was approved by the Court in the 70s. This was redone in the early 80s. I know there was an attempt to update steelhead plan in the early 90s but that fell apart, I think.

Don't what they use now because ESA blew it all up. For example, Nooksack-Samish was managed for hatchery Fall Chinook; the wild stock was blown away. When you return over 100K Chinook to the Bay, that kinda wipes out the by catch. Each and every stock in PS was designated as hatchery or wild and managed with the appropriate emphasis. ESA changed that so there likely is no operative "plan".

Top
#1027870 - 04/10/20 01:12 PM Re: A Glimer Of Hope [Re: RtndSpawner]
OncyT Offline
Spawner

Registered: 02/06/08
Posts: 506
I know what the existing U & A's are. My point about U & A is that some tribes fished for shellfish in different areas and with different regularity than they fished for finfish, and in reading the arguments for existing boundaries, salmon was the driver in the discussion. Access to different areas today would likely still be controlled by primary rights of other tribes, but I would not be surprised if it were opened up for discussion that there would be some significant differences in U & A's that would cut across the boundaries of the existing ones. For instance the proximity of southern Hood Canal and southern Puget Sound (Areas 12 and 13 for finfish respectively) would be an interesting discussion, going both ways.

The regional plans that I am referring to were called for in the broader Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan. They were called Comprehensive Regional Resource Management Plans (or something of that nature), e.g. the Hood Canal Salmon Management Plan. To my knowledge not every region has yet to develop one despite being required.




Edited by OncyT (04/10/20 07:07 PM)

Top
#1027878 - 04/10/20 05:25 PM Re: A Glimer Of Hope [Re: RtndSpawner]
Carcassman Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7411
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
For a long time, WDF Shellfish folks ignored what was happening in Salmon. Then, when the Tribes got into shellfishing they got "surprised". One of their (Shellfish's) ideas was to create essentially"Hatchery Beaches" where the shellfish would be significantly enhanced just for Tribal fishing. Tribes, at least some, wanted nothing to do with it because it meant sharing U&A. I had heard that at least some of the arguments for expanding salmon U&A were they fished while canoeing to harvest other resources.

One of the intersting aspects is that, at least back in early Boldt Years, that the Yakama U&A included a bit of PS as they came down the Nisqaully to fish here. Seemed odd that that would be enshrined in the Decision while other Tribe's strong connnections (I think Nisqually and Quinault) were not.

Top
#1027899 - 04/11/20 09:38 AM Re: A Glimer Of Hope [Re: RtndSpawner]
ned Offline
Spawner

Registered: 06/09/07
Posts: 666
Loc: MA 5, 9, 10
And, from back in 2014, you have inter-tribal arguments in overlapping U&A areas.

https://www.goskagit.com/all_access/uppe...c18c20679a.html

Does anyone know what ever happened with this?

Anyway, that year, I saw some Suquamish crabbers at the ramp with a major haul off crab. I asked them where, because my pots were not productive. They said, " We fished all this out (Area 9), there are none left here. We go up past Everett."
(Recall tribes start crabbing in April or May).

Top
#1027901 - 04/11/20 10:46 AM Re: A Glimer Of Hope [Re: ned]
Larry B Offline
River Nutrients

Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3020
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
Originally Posted By: ned
And, from back in 2014, you have inter-tribal arguments in overlapping U&A areas.

https://www.goskagit.com/all_access/uppe...c18c20679a.html

Does anyone know what ever happened with this?

Anyway, that year, I saw some Suquamish crabbers at the ramp with a major haul off crab. I asked them where, because my pots were not productive. They said, " We fished all this out (Area 9), there are none left here. We go up past Everett."
(Recall tribes start crabbing in April or May).


Suquamish have U&A north into 8-1/8-2 and the Swinomish south to cover (at least) the same area. Right in the middle? Tulalip (and several smaller tribes). One can only speculate on validity of tribal catch reporting as they compete within those overlapping areas against a total set share (assuming that there is an agreement with WDFW).
_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!

It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)

Top
#1027922 - 04/11/20 03:59 PM Re: A Glimer Of Hope [Re: ned]
OncyT Offline
Spawner

Registered: 02/06/08
Posts: 506
Originally Posted By: ned
And, from back in 2014, you have inter-tribal arguments in overlapping U&A areas.

https://www.goskagit.com/all_access/uppe...c18c20679a.html

Does anyone know what ever happened with this?

Anyway, that year, I saw some Suquamish crabbers at the ramp with a major haul off crab. I asked them where, because my pots were not productive. They said, " We fished all this out (Area 9), there are none left here. We go up past Everett."
(Recall tribes start crabbing in April or May).

The US District Court for the Western District of Washington granted a summary judgement in favor of the Upper Skagit Tribe. In 2017, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision.

At least that is what this appears to say to a non-attorney:

9th Circuit Upper Skagit v. Suquamish

Top
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2

Search

Site Links
Home
Our Washington Fishing
Our Alaska Fishing
Reports
Rates
Contact Us
About Us
Recipes
Photos / Videos
Visit us on Facebook
Today's Birthdays
3Gonads, herm
Recent Gallery Pix
hatchery steelhead
Hatchery Releases into the Pacific and Harvest
Who's Online
1 registered (1 invisible), 1054 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
John Boob, Lawrence, I'm Still RichG, feyt, Freezeout
11498 Registered Users
Top Posters
Todd 28170
Dan S. 17149
Sol Duc 16138
The Moderator 14486
Salmo g. 13520
eyeFISH 12766
STRIKE ZONE 12107
Dogfish 10979
ParaLeaks 10513
Jerry Garcia 9160
Forum Stats
11498 Members
16 Forums
63773 Topics
645292 Posts

Max Online: 3001 @ 01/28/20 02:48 PM

Join the PP forums.

It's quick, easy, and always free!

Working for the fish and our future fishing opportunities:

The Wild Steelhead Coalition

The Photo & Video Gallery. Nearly 1200 images from our fishing trips! Tips, techniques, live weight calculator & more in the Fishing Resource Center. The time is now to get prime dates for 2018 Olympic Peninsula Winter Steelhead , don't miss out!.

| HOME | ALASKA FISHING | WASHINGTON FISHING | RIVER REPORTS | FORUMS | FISHING RESOURCE CENTER | CHARTER RATES | CONTACT US | WHAT ABOUT BOB? | PHOTO & VIDEO GALLERY | LEARN ABOUT THE FISH | RECIPES | SITE HELP & FAQ |