Why not Oregon dosent allow it.

I saw something on another board about this issue. This thread stated a state Ban could not stop the tribes from selling their Treaty caught steelhead on tribal land. This is very true.

The thing an inititive could include that would work is making it illegal to transport Steelhead for the purpose of comercial sale or transport purchased steelhead off of tribal land.

Yes the tribes could still sell it on the reservation but if you purchased it you couldnt transport it off of Tribal land into the State of Washington.

If a tribal member was caught transporting steelhead off of Tribal land they would have to have legal documents from the state of washington giving the reason, (other than comercial sale), or they would be prosecuted like everyone else.

You ask how would this be enforced? Simple if you have steelhead in your possession you better have a good reason or you better have your punch card punched.

This may not stop it completely but it sure would stop any comercial buyers or marketers.

I'd vote for it

That is a nice idea... I'd definateley go for it.

I could be mistaken but I thought that this was the case???

If I am full of $hitscabobs just say so... but if not, I am could see a law like this end up as just another of the those laws that are never enforsed..

Rich, Good idea, however read Smalma's post on the Bush Thread. From my vantage point, there is a lot more talkers out there than doers. I just heard a good quote the other day: "show me a group composed of indviduals who will work for the fish the same amount of time they will fish for them and I will show you a successful and
vibrant group."

And another good quote: Fisheries Management: "Everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die to get there"

Well, if I am correct (Lived in Oregon for a decade), Oregon bars the sale of any game fish (at least in Oregon). The tribes saw the big $$ that California was willing to pay for Walleye, so they sued for the right to sell out of state. I was told that they won that right, but it would not include steelhead. I know that when I was back at Umatilla the first week of October to fish, there were indians selling salmon at the docks (Umatilla Marina). I told the one guy that he had steelhead in his for sale box and he said "Oh" and took them out and threw them into the back of the truck.
Now if he was allowed to sell them according to the law, why would he take them out and not just tell me to stfu??

MC

Rich -
understand the logic however as I recall a similar idea was floated in the mid-1970s right after the Boldt decision. The legal opinion at the time was that it would not fly as banning the sell of steelhead was in effect denying the Treaty Tribe's fishing rights.

I may have the details wrong - my memory does tend to get foggy at times - maybe Todd or some else has better details. However the logic was similar as that of those behind this proposal - If they can't sell the fish they would/can't fish.

By the way nice to see your regular contributions again -welcome back.

Tight lines
Smalma

I'm with Salma. I totally favor a ban, would work to get the initiatives signed, as I didi with the net ban initiative, but fear the new law would immediatly get tossed by the Supreme court. That said, I think we should try. Even if we fail we bring the issue to the public's attnetion.

I completely agree that Steelhead should get the same status as deer and elk; no sale.

However, as far as enforcement goes I see it being handled the same as cigarettes and fireworks purchased on the reservation, i.e., no enforcement.

My recollection, like Smalma's - fuzzied over time, is that the state considered it back in the 70s, but it either got the federal boot, or expected to get it, and therefore never got off the ground.

The marketplace may be having more of the effect you desire. I talked with a tribal fisheries manager last week, and he said not only is the ex-vessel price offered for steelhead and river caught salmon uneconomic for his fishermen, the local commercial buyers won't buy the mandatory state steelhead commercial buyer's license because the prospective harvest is too few fish at too low a value to make it worth it. Consequently, a few of his fishermen fish for personal consumption and a few over-the-bank sales and that's the extent of it. No money = no interest, or low interest in catching steelhead.

Unfortunately (a personal judgement here) their chum fishery is following the Puget Sound pattern and has become a roe fishery because that is all that the buyers want. No market for chum carcasses. Ah well, ocean derived nutrients for the river bed.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

sounds like a law to prohibit sale of eggs from salmon when the carcasses are not included with the sale. No eggs by themselves.

what we need here is some good video footage of them chucking carcasses into the water, stripping eggs and what not..and get it edited and when there is people trying to sign people up for the initiative, have a tv/vcr combo there to show people whats going on...that should open some eyes and possibly get that net ban/ steelhead ban going into effect...

Grandpa,

Both the state and some tribes formerly had regulations that prohibited egg sales without salmon carcasses, but as the market has shifted to devalue pink and chum salmon, even some river caught coho, both have slackened the rules to permit such sales. Remember the state still has this legislative mandate to promote a viable commercial fishery. It makes about as much sense as promoting viable buggy whip factories today.

The commercial fishing industry (like any industry) and their legislative sympathizers are in denial that certain commercial fisheries have become economically obsolete. It's not a matter of fault; it's just the way economic times have shifted. Sort of like I have no use anymore for a manual typewriter.

The key lies in modifying WDFW's legislative mandate. That would require a temporary truce or cease-fire among the various conservation and recreational fishing groups to lobby the legislative change. It would require out of state money. And it would likely require the $ support of the DSIs (Direct Service Industries) that buy energy directly from BPA, since they have been sympathetic at spending money to reduce the commercial fishing fleet.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Problem is, some reservations are pretty damned will spread out. I can't see it working at all. Just like cigarettes. What would happen, they would start selling them inside smoke shops. I doubt they would pay to have an agent outside very smoke shop to nab illegal steelhead buyers.

Case in point. Most people think that the Puyallup tribe has that piece of land on the hill where the new casino is built, down into the tidal waters of the Puyallup. But, they have bits and pieces of land throughout the Puyallup valley up into NE Tacoma. They would legally be able to transport up to their homes, since the "Nation" isn't in one big piece around the river. You'd have to give them the right to at least make it to their homes. I know of a few smoke shops spread out throughout "non reservation" areas. I grew up in the middle of the Puyallup Tribe Nation, and in fact, went to school with alot of them at Fife. Until they hit a certain age that is, and went to a Native School (well, not all, but most). I lived, delivered papers, and played sports with the likes of the Satiacums, Georges, and such. But, the problem is, most of the lands here aren't in one big piece. That's going to be the hard part of enforcement. You' d have to AT LEAST have a good 20 extra officers just to do the Puyallup area alone. I don't think the state would go for that. It would be a "blind eye" effect just like cigarettes. Hell, I've even seen an officer in buying cigarettes at a Smoke Shop. LOL.

Think the time is to work with them, not against them. Just like anything, you can sway someone more with kindness then pushing something down their throats. I've seen the good and bad with reservations, but you'll see just that everywhere.

no enforcement on the rez really wont matter much. it dosent matter if some guys sell some out of their truck as long as it stops them from selling it to safeway

WDFW itself is in the egg business big time. Harvesting of various species has been expanded all over. When one species is wiped out ie Yelloweye rockfish they move on to something else.. Egg sales is just one example of allowing massive harvest of species raised in hatcheries with a bunch of taxpayer money to support commercial fishing. It seems to be a desperate struggle to prop up a dying industry. Look at the wider picture and see what is happening to species like marlin and sailfish...despite catch and release sports fishing Japan is making deals with Mexico to long line these species out of existence all up and down the coast of Mexico and South America. The ocean is quickly being strip mined of most species in the name of commercial fishing. In the waters of Puget Sound where marine life is more fragile we are going full speed ahead to strip our local waters of fish, crab, shrimp, geoduck, seaweed, kelp and whatever else can be made into sushi.

Grandpa: Amen to EVERYTHING you just said!!

I have fished extensively in remote destinations such as Nicaragua, Pananma, Costa Rica and Micronesia, and I see the rape of those oceans first hand. I have seen marlin stacked like cordwood in Chinese , Koraen and Tiwanese freighters. The longliners are wiping out the billfish from Micronesia to Mexcioc and everywhere in between. It is despicable.

We already wiped our our Puget Sound bottomfish, and are workinh on geoduck, herring and anything else someone can sell. Us old farts, yes I'm a grandpa too, remember when this was a very diffrent place to fish.