The state isn't going to take on the indians or the commercial fishermen. When you are fishing a river and see the indians taking fish after fish out of the nets and throwing them on the bank to rot and then have the fish cop walk down and check your license you see the reality of the situation.

The sport fishers are the only group disorganized enough to hammer.

Aunty
Well said

I have lived in Grays Harbor since 1968.....this was before the "Bolt Decison".

Pre Bolt Decision:

Remember those days of 3 fish steelhead limits on the Humptulips???

Remember when the Humptulips was also in the "TOP 10 rivers, for winter run"???

Remember the days of "before dam" on the Wynoochee River, when many small high teen or low 20# steelhead were released in hopes of the 25+ pounder???

Remember the days when native coho were "everywhere" and dumbies like me, pulling plugs, in late December could catch 2 big chromer bright silvers in just a few minutes.

Post Bolt Decision: 1974

The 100's of meetings, attended by 100's of sportspeople, non-indian gill netters, state WDF people and others. The hours and hours of discuss and cuss, of trying this way and that way to "get rid of the indian nets" in the rivers. All to no avail.........here we are in 2004, 30 years after....still fighting the wars and battles that have been fought and lost, 100's of times. Bottom line is that the WDF just doesn't have the "authorize to ban nets", hell we can't get the WDF to cut the netting season to less than 5 days a week in the Chehalis River and the Humptulips River, until April 15th........wow, something is really wrong here.

To stir the pot a little........maybe the hope is in the "farm raised fish"???? drive the price so low that the commerical value does not make it worthwhile to fish. Its interesting to note that as the price of commerical fish goes down, that there are more News reports about the negative impact on the envirement and health concerns.......makes me wonder if the commerical fishing community isn't behind many of these reports........ya think????

Aunty---I can remember at a meeting in the past.....I suggested going back to fish traps, in the lower river, releasing the hatchery fish up river to be netted on and port caught, but truck the "wild fish" to the upper areas of the rivers to be allow to spawn in the wild. A WDF biologist, Dick Stone, said " he didn't want anything to do with a project like that"

"Worse day sport fishing, still better than the best day working"

Jacob, You want the tribes to fish the way they did 150 years ago. Are you willing to do the same?

The Boldt decision clearly allows the tribes to use whatever gear they want to exercise their treaty rights, and allows them to sell their catch to whomever they want.

There are no restrictions whatsoever on those aspects of the treaty right.

As in every other factor involving the exercise of the treaty fishing right, changes have to come at the negotiations table.

If the tribes will agree to use fishing gear that allows them to release wild or ESA listed fish unharmed, they can utilize their allocation by harvesting more hatchery fish. They'll have to do it voluntarily, though.

It's most evident with fisheries like the Lower Columbia River spring Chinook fishery. With hundreds of thousands of hatchery spring chinook available for harvest, lots of them don't get harvested. Why? Because the limiting factor on how many they can catch is not the hatchery run size, but the ESA impact on the listed chinook and steelhead.

If commercials, tribal and non-tribal, use something more like a fish wheel, or fish trap, and reduce their ESA impact by, say, a third, they could harvest up to THREE times as many commercially valuable hatchery spring chinook.

If they utilized these gears and harvested DOUBLE the hatchery fish they do now, doubling their income from the fish, it would also leave lots more listed fish in the river. This in turn, would have two beneficial effects.

First, more listed fish make it to the spawning beds. The more listed fish in the river, the more hatchery fish that can be harvested without increasing the percentage ESA impacts. That means more $$ working right along side more wild fish spawning.

Second, sportfishermen, who already have very low ESA impacts, would also be able to fish for and harvest more hatchery fish.

For all three fishermen, they miss thousands upon thousands of hatchery fish to fish for because the seasons end long before the hatchery run is even moderately utilized. More selective fisheries that have higher listed fish survival rates are good for all the fishermen, and the fish, and the economics of the fisheries.

Changes in treaty fishing need to be encouraged by changes in non-treaty fishing. We can't make sportfishermen any more selective, we already release all the wild ones with a pretty low mortality rate.

Non-treaty commercial fishermen can be made to change their gear types, if the legislature and harvest managers will hold their feet to the fire.

If the non-tribal commercials improve their gear types to have lower mortalities, then they will get a bigger share of the hatchery fish without needing a higher ESA impact.

When they start making more $$ and getting a higher amount of hatchery fish, the tribes will fall in line so they can get the same advantages.

That's my solution for modifying treaty fishing over listed, mix-stock fisheries.

On non-listed fisheries, like on the OP, anything we ask them to stop doing, we're going to have to offer them something else of corresponding value.

Anyone who has read any of the science available knows that wild fish are the future of healthy fisheries. The hatcheries just aren't going to keep the wild fish at any level.

Before the anti-WSR guys get too excited, this is in no way a call to get rid of hatcheries. Without hatcheries we don't have fish to harvest, and there is nothing to trade to the treaty tribes to get them to stop fishing for the wild ones.

If the tribes fish in a way that allows them to release, say, 500 wild fish they would have ordinarily harvested, I say give them 500 more of the hatchery fish.

They get the same amount of fish, and the same amount of money. More wild fish spawn, and their higher productivity creates many more fish than the 500 hatchery fish could have.

We harvest hatchery fish in Nov. through February, or later if any are still around, and exercise WSR over much higher runs of wild fish.

We get fish for the BBQ, more fish to fish for throughout the season, spend more $$ in small towns that really need it, not to mention all the $$ we spend on everything else to go fishing over a year.

I think it's also important to point out, again, that WDFW CAN NOT make the tribes do anything. People keep claiming that if WDFW just had enough balls they'd go after the tribes, etc., etc. They don't tell the tribes what to do, and they cannot.

Fish on...

Todd

Of course not. But then again, I'm not invoking a treaty that was written 150 years ago. By my plan, the tribes would have two choices, if they want to use the treaty as it's written, they have to make do with their traditional methods. However, they can make use of all the modern equipment they want, but then, they'd have to play by the same rules as the rest of us.

I want to explain more fully what I was getting at with the Col. R. fishery.

The amount of harvestable spring chinook is not the number to get excited about if you like to fish there. The number to look at is the amount of listed fish.

These numbers will be illustrative, not exact, so as to make a point.

If there are 10,000 listed fish, and 600,000 harvestable hatchey fish, springer fishermen will get excited about that 600,000 number, but it's not the important number.

If the total ESA impact allowed is 15% (all three fishing groups combined), that means that 1500 wild fish can be killed. Based on release mortalities, the managers conclude that 150,000 hatchery fish can be harvested by the time the 1500 wild fish are killed.

What is the amount of hatchery spring chinook harveste? 150,000 out of 600,000. The season is formed to be long enough to catch the 150,000.

What if the listed fish run is still 10,000, but the hatchery run is 3,000,000? How many hatchery spring chinook are harvested?

150,000. The exact same amount, and the exact same season, as if 600,000 hatchery fish returned.

What if 400,000 hatchery fish returned, but the listed runs were at 20,000, rather than 10,000?

The 15% ESA impact is spread over twice as many listed fish. What does that mean?

It means that TWICE as many hatchery fish can be caught, in a season TWICE as long.

That's right...because of a ten thousand fish increase in listed fish, harvestable fish go from 150,000 to 300,000, even if the hatchery run goes down from 600,000, or 600,000,000, to 400,000.

The amount of hatchery fish available IS NOT the basis for the fishery, as it stands now. It's the amount of listed fish which controls how many fish will be caught and how long the season will be.

It's very disingenuous for the "powers that be" to get all excited, and try to get us excited, about half a million hatchery fish. It doesn't matter, there could be half a billion hatchery fish, the season won't get any longer.

Each winter when the Columbia River sportfishermen want to know what they're going to get a shot at when it comes to hatchery spring chinook, don't ask how many hatchery fish are coming back.

Ask how many wild fish are coming back...it's the only number that matters right now.

As the wild fish runs get bigger and bigger, a time will come when ESA impacts will allow us to harvest most of the hatchery run. When, and if, that point ever comes, then the size of the hatchery run will be relevant.

This is why selective fisheries by all user groups is good for everyone.

Fish on...

Todd

They cannot be made to do this. How do you get them to go along with your plan?

Fish on...

Todd

Obviously they would have to be taken back to court. Realistically it probably wouldn't work, but I think it works logically. Personally, I've never read the entire Boldt decision so if I'm wrong, then this wouldn't work, but to the best of my knowledge, the treaty (and possibly the decision) does not guarantee the tribes the right to specifically use gill nets. It would seem to me, that even the state government could tell the tribes they can still target their fish wherever/whenever, they just have to use a different means because the tribes weren't guranteed that right (again, to my knowledge). The tribes would still have the right and opportunity to kill all the fish, they'd just have to come up with another means to do so.

Here's the citation:

"The Stevens treaties do not prohibit or limit any specific manner, method or purpose of taking fish. The treaty tribes may utilize improvements in traditional fishing techniques, methods and gear..." U.S. v. Washington, 384 F.Supp. 312, 402 (1974).

Fish on...

Todd

Todd

We often do not agree on issues. But you are 100% right on your last post!

"in common" means exactly what it says! If we use aluminum boats, the tribes can, If we use gill nets, the tribe can. It's really pretty simple if you understand what "in common" means legally.

Cowlitzfisherman

Todd

This also goes back to what I have stated

Bob,

I think we probably agree on 95% of things...we just don't go on and on about them on the BB's...

Your quote from above is from the Boldt decision, U.S. v. Washington, 384 F.Supp 312, 409 (1974).

That portion of the case is where the State submitted questions to the judge to help them implement the rest of the ruling...the question is listed, then the judge answers it. That is question #6 from the case.

The Col. R. fishery is a great example of how the answer to that question is playing out. We have a very abundant hatchery run, mixed with very depressed listed runs.

*Remember, the only time the state can regulate tribal fishing is if it is reasonable and necessary for conservation, and is not discriminatory towards tribal fishing* (U.S. v. Washington, 384 F.Supp. 312, 402).

The court's answer is "Not necessarily", and that the state must pursue "other" alternatives.

What does that mean?

I know you won't like the answer, folks, and this is not intended to re-hash the "right vs. privilege" argument, but...

"If alternative means and methods of reasonable and necessary conservation regulation are available, the state cannot lawfully restrict the exercise of off reservation treaty right fishing, even if the only alternatives are restriction of fishing by non-treaty fishermen, either commercially or otherwise, to the full extent necessary for conservation of fish." U.S. v. Washington, 384 F.Supp. 312, 342 (1974)(italics added for emphasis).

Now, back to the "not necessarily" language.

If there is no way to conserve the weak stocks without restricting the treaty harvest, then the state can restrict the treaty harvest.

If the state can restrict non-treaty fishing, commercial or sport, enough to conserve the fish, even if they don't get to fish at all, they have to do that first. If after restricting all non-treaty fishing, if the tribes can fish without endangering the run, they still get to fish.

The reason is, whether folks believe it or not, non-treaty fishing is a privilege, and the federally protected treaty right to fish has precedence. (see U.S. v. Washington, 384 F.Supp 312, 332 (1974)).

So, back to your question...

Yes. If there is no healthy run mixed in, and if after stopping all non-treaty fishing, commercial and sport, there still is no way for the tribes to conduct a fishery without jeopardizing the existence of the run, then the state can stop them from fishing.

If such a case came up, the State would have to go to Fed. Court and ask for an injunction to stop the tribal fishery from taking place, assuming they had one planned.

The key, though, as that the tribal fishery must jeopardize the continued existence of the run.

Fish on...

Todd.

I just got back from three days of fishing and don't have the stomach or patience to read all the posts here tonight so if I am out of context sue me.

I say we elect some folks in Olympia who are willing to threaten the tribes with statewide wide open gambling. If that doesn't work the Russian mafia could start getting rid of anyone who sets a net in a river...one at a time until they are all gone.

Well, Grandpa,

No one can say you don't have an active imagination.

I'd have to say that's definitely thinking outside the box :p :p

Fish on...

Todd

Todd,
Just want to say thanks to you for your posts on this and the Boldt thread.Its great to have someone here that knows the facts about the treatys and Boldt decision.The more sportsman know the better.They might not like the facts.But its alot more productive than going off assumptions.Bashing the tribes over how someone feels or what they assume is right is counterproductive. Thank again Todd

No matter what the sport fisherman do, it is all perceived as anti-native americans.
I truely believe that a protest of any sort will be back fired and actually elevate the market for wild SH.

I don't agree with river netting at all, but lets face it the Fed won't go for "Indian Giving", especially now a days.

I may have a solution.
How about figuring out other ways to help the Native American economy to steer away from fishing.
Partners in business is more powerful than legislation.

No problem, Duroboat...I'm glad to have such a place where I can share that type of information with people who really need it.

However, don't let the postings being here make you too complacent...nothing in those posts you're talking about was just posted for the first time.

There are a few members who continue to talk about Foregone Opportunity, and tribal catch rates, and science, and politics...without backing it up with much in the way of facts.

You watch, in spite of the words of the Boldt decision, which sets the framework for salmon and steelhead management policies, you will continue to see these same folks say things that directly contradict what is out there in plain sight for them to see.

I don't know how many times I've responded to people's posts saying "why should the tribes get to use monofilament gillnets and powerboats when they didn't have them at the time of the treaties?" I've responded by showing the exact piece of federal law that says they can. Here they are again saying the same thing.

The folks that keep demonizing WSR because the Indians will use Foregone Opportuity to get all the fish, just like they always have, can never come up with a court case where they did.

The reason is that it has never happened. That's not to say that it may not...but it hasn't happened yet. In my opinion it won't, but we'll have to see how that shakes out.

It's kind of funny, but the type of a situation where FO would apply would be in the situation where we in no way possible could even have the possibility to harvest the non-tribal portion, and that would be if there were no commercial gillnets fishing over gigantic runs of salmon. It sure didn't stop these same people from supporting the B.A.N. initiative, which would have presented that situation.

It didn't stop me from supporting B.A.N., either...I picked up and distributed a lot of signs the last time it came up.

Fear and emotion are there for everyone who gets involved in steelhead management, and they're especially there for folks who don't get involved other than to b!tch about what's going on.

Fear and emotion, however, is not science, it's not law, and it's not facts.

Fish on...

Todd

Hi All, just an FYI about the economics behind wild steelhead sales. Two years ago in La Push the price tribal fisherman were getting for steelhead was so low($ .15/lb.) that they were freezing them whole to be used as halibut and crab bait!! So even if there is not a fresh market they will still fish for them! We need to get the net out of the rivers period.