Trex,

There is only two problems that I can see with your change. The first has to do with accessing the ocean crab for sport fishers. I think it's unreasonable for people from Bellingham to go to Westport for 6 crab. Don't you? In areas that are near/adjacent to recreational launches and facilities, why is commercial crabbing even allowed?

The other issue is the catch data which WDFW admits is far from accurate.

AuntyM, I like your style.

WDFW is claiming that they have a lot of public support for the reduction to 4 per day. I have discovered that most of this comes from Hood Canal. Now if you think about this, those folks can crab out in front of their homes to a greater degree than other areas of the sound so big deal if it is 4 per day. For most of us we don't crab every day it is open and usually have a limited number of attempts compared to Hood Canal crabbers. Once again the data is lacking to determine what is really going on with the sports catch.

I submit that the data is false coming from the tribes. I know they are not catching at traditional rates which might be due to a reduced biomass of crab sound wide. Who knows for sure. What I do know is that the tribes have thousands of pots soaking 24/7 and have since early October. I have noticed more pots in deeper water too indicating to me that the traditional shallower areas are fished out. You can bet that when we do have a season in late June we will see slim pickins on our usual crabbing grounds inside the sound. The commercial pressure is just too much for the resource to support a quality sports season. And it is getting worse.

The good news is that we are working hard to come up with a solution but will face extreme opposition from the commercials, the tribes and even WDFW. Cutting sports opportunities even further without addressing the allocation inequities is blatantly wrong and must be opposed by all of us until a change is made.

Good point.

I do think it is entirely unreasonable to think that ANY sporty would drive to Westport “JUST” to take crab. Along with that, It’s unreasonable to count ocean caught crab in with the gross crab catch as it relates to sporties. Pacific Ocean sports crabs come out of the harbors not the blue water (for the most part). Therefore the sports quota will never be reached areas 1-2 and 3. That is why it’s open for such a long period of time.

“ In areas that are near/adjacent to recreational launches and facilities, why is commercial crabbing even allowed?” I will try to answer that question this way. Boat launches are likening to parking lots at “The Mall”. One puts their car in the lot and then goes into the mall to shop. Once inside the mall they a free to go wherever they want. But you are correct everybody does like to park as close to the door as possible.

The catch data is a reasonable complaint. I also believe that ALL of the figures are way out of plumb. But alas the catch data is not the issue now. It’s limits and seasons. As I said, from what I’ve been able to glean, the quotas have remained static for the last three years and are forecast to stay within the same general numbers.

Auntie, you where one of the proponents of the crab survey, you ask that people stand up and be counted and they did. As my Momma would say, “Be careful of what you ask for, you may get it”.

I, for one, am not going to fight just for the sake of fighting. One could say I’ve tucked my tail between my legs and slunk away. I would prefer to think that I’m saveing my fight for the day it’s needed.

Grandpa,

There are pots at Redondo and Three tree that are in the water 24/7. And I'm sure there are many other places too. It's part of the bennies for high priced property. A 5 day season would get these pots out of the water at least a couple of days.

Isn't that because the crab allocation is on a four year cycle?

It would sure be beneficial to commercials RIGHT NOW to lessen the pressure from sport crabbers so that they will retain the allocation next time around.

A screwing is what we're getting.

The Hood Canal issue is why I have a preference for a yearly limit instead of what has been propsed, to stop the waterfront homeowners from taking so many and leaving some for the rest of us AND the tourists.

Trex, we didn't get enough responses to the survey. We needed 2000. I didn't get a break down from Gary, but I can tell you it wasn't anywhere near the rates that WDFW claimed.

T-Rex is right on the mark. It is about allocation and it is about allocation between non-Indian commercial and sport fisheries, by region, inside Puget Sound.

The issue in the ocean is not at all the same. The sports fishery is, and should remain, as "open" as it used to be in Puget Sound years ago.

Shouting about calculations that the sport harvest of crab in WA was only 7% (or whatever) serves no useful purpose as the majority of crab harvested in this State come from the ocean.... and the harvest of crab in the ocean is probably 99% commercial. The bulk of the sport harvest of crab is done in the Straits & Puget Sound. The ocean is managed differently than the inside. Mixing the harvest results makes no sense.

And the coastal Indian crab fishers do not get half of the harvestable crab in the ocean. More like 15% to 20%. Their fleet size is not large enough to compete equally with the non-Indian fleet. Harvest amounts are negotiated annually, hence the different fishiing times.

[/QUOTE]Isn't that because the crab allocation is on a four year cycle?

If that's the way you figure--Works for me

It would sure be beneficial to commercials RIGHT NOW to lessen the pressure from sport crabbers so that they will retain the allocation next time around.


There have been two post on this thread that have said (in essence) 1.there should be no commercials in the sound 2. The commercials are screwing up our catch. Would it not be benefical to lessen commercials to retain the allocation next time around? There are only so many crab out there. And there are three groups that want them all.


The Hood Canal issue is why I have a preference for a yearly limit instead of what has been propsed, to stop the waterfront homeowners from taking so many and leaving some for the rest of us AND the tourists. [/QB][/QUOTE]


Interesting concept. The yearly thing that is. the rest of it is pure conjecture.

Trex,

The shrimp allocation is set for four years at a time. I believe the crab allocation is also. Grandpa will know.

I also don't think it's "conjecture" that this proposal is being timed for this particular year in the 4 year cycle. WDFW is notorius for the games they play to keep the commercial quotas up there and this is just one more of those games. If you doubt me, go to the top of the fishing board and read the latest game WDFW wants to play with wild Columbia trib steelhead. They are doing that crap for commercials, not sporties. They've done the same thing to us over shrimp in PS.

From Commercial Crab Fishing in Puget Sound

According to the figures you posted Trex, it then rose to 2.8 million pounds for 2002 and 2003 and should be over 2.6 at the end of this commercial season. It would be 2.8 if sporties hadn't gone over their quota. (That amount is for 250 commercial licenses.)

So the same amount of commercial licenses kept getting increases except for this year, but there are no increases for sport crabbers, although their licenses sales and participation has increased.

Rafeedie didn't apply until 1995, so the big jump in allocation to commercials came AFTER the tribes got a 50% allocation.

pnw,

You whined when we jumped on tribal accountability and crab statistics that we never address the non tribal allocation between sport and commercial. Now we are, so what is your problem? Do you just dislike non tribal people and want to see them denied resources as much as possible?

AM... your quote

"pnw,

You whined when we jumped on tribal accountability and crab statistics that we never address the non tribal allocation between sport and commercial. Now we are, so what is your problem? Do you just dislike non tribal people and want to see them denied resources as much as possible?"

Wow, interesting choice of wording... "whined" and "jumped on." Emotions seem to running a little high there, eh?

I never said that "we never address the non tribal allocation between sport and commercial." I said that within the Puget Sound non-tribal share, region by region, the allocation between commercial and sport catch is what needs to be addressed. Throwing all the crab harvest numbers into the same bucket and then saying the sport fishery only caught 7% (or whatever it is) does not serve any purpose. When you go to WDFW with those numbers they react negatively because they know you are trying to purposely distort the picture. Not a good way to get what you want. What would serve the sportsfishing purpose is an exposure, within each Puget Sound region, of what the commercial and sport harvests have been. That is all I am saying.

Why would I dislike non-tribal people? Weird!

Being "denied the rersource" is not what it is about but seeking an appropriate division of the non-Indian, harvestable crab resource is. The WDFW decision makers must come clean with the reasoning they use to divide the allowable non-Indian harvest between user groups. That is where the debate should properly focus. I hope that clears up what my point is.

Right. What are you smoking?

Aunty,

I believe a conspiracy theory is pushing the envelope in this case of timing. So lets just A2D on that.

The “conjecture” part was “to stop the waterfront homeowners from taking so many and leaving some for the rest of us AND the tourists.” I’m sure if one where to talk to a beach front property owner they would have a few choice words about the city folks that go there on weekends and rape the canal.

I’m thinkin this whole debate is starting to get emotional rather than logical.

That would be because it is an emotional issue to be screwed against your will and there is no logic in the way WDFW operates.

I've posted plenty of facts that sport crabbers are not being treated fairly.

And for the record, your new friend you've been defending on the other board admits there is a problem with poaching by folks living on the canal.

If I'm not mistaken, when sport crabbers had their daily limits lowered by half, from 12 to 6, it's in the same time frame that commercials got an allocation increase of 1/2 million!

Sounds like BOHICA to me!

Well, I don't smoke anything so there goes another one down in flames.

But I am gathering, by your off-handed reference to WDFW decision makers, that you no longer believe that working within the Department's "system" is worth your time and effort. This is too bad. Why do I say that? Because it really is the most direct way of getting the issue addressed. Notice I did not say, resolved.... but addressed.

Or, perhaps, you think that taking this to the Fish and Wildife Commission is the solution? Depending on what the outcome of this strategy might be, it is hard to say how much of a solution it will offer. All I can do is remind folks of what happened with the wild steelhead moritorium.

The decision should have nothing to do with how much public support the comission has drummed up to push this change. It should be solely based on good data.

What a bunch of crap.

Rex's rule #2

Don't bring anything from another board over unless it's positive. But for the record I defended you on another board that you never knew about. So lets not bring anything over.

But Poaching is a problem everywhere.

Meanwhile back at the ranch---


I've asked for both sets of figures. Half or what was the year? or I bettcha it was the same year, ain't facts. Those are liken to--- we only got 17 mill out of 35 mill.

If I'm wrong because I don't remember which year it changed, you can chatise me. However...unless you have proof that I'm wrong, you're just being a meany ( ) in advance.

Trex,

This has been a bad day. I am frustrated by someone else and took it out on you.

I'm Sorry.

I will tell you what I see as FACT. The sportsmen generate a hell of a lot more for the economy on a per crab caught basis then do the commercials, be they Indian or non-Indian.

The sport fishery gives all the people a chance for healthy, family oriented recreation and a chance to share in the bounty of our state.

In any rational allocation system, the sport fishery should be given priority over the commercial fishery. Support RFA. Let’s take back what is rightly ours!!!