We all know that the single biggest harvest issue affecting wild steelhead is Indian netting in the rivers. We also know that past attempts to stop the netting by court actions have failed miserably. So, the question remains, is there any way we can stop or limit Indian netting of wild steelhead? Earlier I asked about a protest. I still believe this may be a viable option. Other ideas I have had were to boycott restaurants selling net caught steelhead, and to consider a consumer awareness program. But it occurs to me that with all the wisdom and energy of all out board members there must be some good ideas. What do you think we can do to limit Indian netting of wild steelhead?

Good question Dave,
According to one of the Quinalts, the humptulips is netted solely for the income...

Over the past few years and the dismal commercial market for fish their profit has been between a few hundred to a few thousand. I would think that a buyout of commercial fishing rights may be accomplished somehow. (just talking the commercial not the ceremonial)

Perhaps it would be possible to let them fill that market with the hatchery surpluses instead of netting the wild runs.

Is it possible to give the Tribes a bigger percentage during the hatchery runs and in return they would take a smaller percentage during the Native Fish runs? They would still get the same yearly percentage just cut back during the Native Fish runs in order to help protect them. I don't know just throwing it out there.

Also are the Tribes willing to work out these issues or do they care?

How bout a PR campaign that directly counters the tribes "Salmon Steward TV ads.
Such as...Sportsmen, the true Salmon Stewards, we lead by example.
This effort would require significant $$$ though.

I believe the first and largest effort needs to be directed at educating the public of the crisis at hand. Once you have their buy in, the rest will come more easily.

Bill

Aunty

I like it when you are flowery :p

Oh and this is a very good point and people should not cloud the issue with this.

There goes CFM on his science kick again! Someone pull his plug... quick :p



edit: You do make a good point though....

CFM

I believe Vedder's statement was made in the context of ZERO sport harvest of wild steelhead beginning this sprng. In that case he is correct... well maybe except for the nontribal gillnetters wishing to target spring kings on the Columbia who want to triple their impact on ESA listed wild steelhead.

Selective fishing by the tribes would tame this whole issue. So why don't they? After all, they are the stewards of the land and all that bs. I think it's an independence thing. They don't want to let whitey tell them how to fish. The nets are their way of thumbing their noses at us.
Some of the other ideas posted are very good too.

The best thing I can think of is similar to AuntyM and just limit the means the tribes can use to harvest and what the resource can be used for. If the tribes want to force the issue of the treaty, we should put it into context of the time period that treaty was signed. Tell them they can only harvest fish for sustenance. I doubt the tribes would be able to prove they sold salmon roe to Japan before the white man came over. Force them to use the equipment of the time. Reed nets and so on. After all, that's what was in use when the treaty was signed. That's the legacy they claim they want to hang on to. Or, let them fish just like sportsmen, only let them fish whenever they want and keep as much as they want. Sure, they'll do more damage than sportsmen, but far less than they do now. If they want to fish commercially, they have to get a commercial liscense just like anyone else because they do not have a historical tradition of selling fish to Safeway.

One thing to remember about the tribes use of gill nets.Is the fact that it was the state that forced the tribes to start using them.It wasnt there traditional method.The state determend there traditional method was killing to many fish.And that gillnets were more selective.The traditioal method most used by the tribes were fish traps.
Note: This is in no way a statement that im pro net.Just an FYI

Obviously my idea would need refining but I think my basic idea works. The argument the tribes make is "before the white man. . . .", "before our land . . ." I don't want to say it's ALWAYS used but everytime I hear it, they use the word "before". Well, obviously, they didn't trade with white people before white people were here. They obviously didn't trade with Japan. Based on the argument the tribes use, we could regulate that.

Sport fishers would not have to give anything up because we do not have a treaty that is based on a time period. It's obviously subjective, but I think it's accurate to say that when the treaties were written, no one could forsee the non-traditional technology the tribes would be using. To put it simply, if they want to abide by the treaties, they need to abide by them using the conditions of the time they were written. They want to fish and hunt at all of their "traditional" places, fine, but let them use their "traditional" means. Will this ever work? Probably not, but I think it's fair.

Amen, sister, amen.

In many rivers the Indian harvest of wild SH is much higher than the sport harvest. This is not inside information.....it is available at any WDFW office. There is very little that WDFW can do when the sport anglers don't, or can't, harvest our share of these fish. Although many of you thing your great anglers, and you may well be with hook and line, you are no match for the gillnetter. The sport anglers simply cannot harvest "their share", and certainly won't under the new management plan. .

Gillnetting will continue in rivers that are forecast to meet the escapement goal, and in some that won't. What would your argument be to stop it in rivers that will meet the goal? And will your argument stand up to the Bolt decision. We need to remember that some of the runs on the coast are very strong even with a high percent of terminal harvest. It's a good thing that many of these river have good recruit per spawner ratios.

Although I am very concerned about the tribes harvesting my portion of wild SH, I am much more concerned about them fishing into escapement. That is what needs to be addressed. And that is what is not allowed by the courts.

Anybody for fresh farmed steelhead? You know drop the bottom out of the price and basic economics will do the rest.

Start a campaign to educate the public to refuse to buy steelhead and ban exports of all net caught fish products.

I was watching the indians netting by the 101 bridge in Aberdeen a few days ago. Some whites (maybe even some that later complain) were coming down and buying steelhead, some of which were natives.

As long as there is a market...............

Both Florida and California have banned gill nets in their waters and both sates have had higher populations of all fish that where targeted by nets since they where banned. You'd think that the government, or at least the WDFW, would see this and take it into consideration. But have they? No.

As I've been meaning to ask this. I seem to remember a few years ago that some law was passed that did bann gill nets and the indians and others where supposed to revert to mesh nets that kepted the fish alive, or atleast cutback on killing the fish, and this way fish selectively. I have not seen this happen. Was the law shot down or just not enforced?

Yes... lets just ban gillnets and wild steelhead sales. Convince people to release all wild fish and or brats.

If the state were to ban all nets, why wouldn't that effect tribes? The state is not telling the tribes they can't fish or harvest their share of fish, they're only restricting a single method. If the tribes could come up with another means, such as fish traps or wheels, that'd be fine, but wouldn't a ban all nets inititive effect tribes too?