You are right Boldt doesn't read that way. It is pretty explicit in the Boldt rulling (and it's antecedents) that conservation comes before harvest. But as Todd pointed out, there has to be an actual conservation issue if you're seeking a change in the management of a fishery. If Green river wild coho are listed as healthy, and the tribal fishery is not impacting any listed stocks, I'm not sure how the conservation argument can be succesfully made in this particular case.

Isn't the Makah whaling permit being litigated now for reasons of conservation, and international treaty obligations? I'm not as familiar with the status of that permit process 'cause honestly it doesn't really interest me as much as salmon issues.


Mingo,

The fishing rights retained by the tribes in the treaties have no expiration. But It won't be the Supreme Court that makes the treaties obsolete, time and the social nature of man will bred the tribes out of existence. Their blood will be watered down a hundred times over, and their culture bastardized till it becomes recognized only as a trademark for some brand of canned pinks. And in a 150 years people will brag that they are 1/64th indian. Considering the amount of land bought with those fishing rights, how many generations of indian fishers should be allowed to operate under the tribes pretense of the treaties before you consider it 'even'?



I do get bitter...no, pissed, when I'm upriver of a gauntlet of nets. And just for consideration, I was not around here in the early '70's. If I was, I'm pretty sure it would color my current viewpoint. I have no doubt about it.

Hehe, I'm blocked on Aunties list, but anyhow... The reason why is because in the case of the marine mammals, the conservation effort is clearly defined in the Marine Mammal Protection act. Since there is a federal regulation for specific conservation of a species, it's tough for the tribes to justify harvest. The same can be said of ESA listed species also. At this point, this seems to be the only way to define protection and conservation in a manner that trumps treaty rights. Considering that most runs are considered "healthy" it's tough to challenge the tribes on that ground.

Vhawks right. This will come to pass eventually. Changing the publics opinion is the key to the beginning of the end for treaty rights. Most people were taught that the indians got f'd over and that they deserve special legal rights. Tribes spend millions massaging the public perception, lobbying gov't and funding elections. It's time for the real story to come out. These treaty rights are the last legal form of racial discrimination. USA has the power to negotiate these treaty rights away, it will require a lot of time, money and hard feelings but none of it will get started until the public is shown how this legal discrimination really hurts the peoples it is intended to help and is destroying a valuable resource. Thus the movie in my initial post.


I view co-managment as the single biggest and most easily remedied problem facing salmon and steelhead today.

This differs significantly than what was proposed before. Changing methods is all find and good, and I doubt you would get any disagreement from anyone here on this subject. But the discussion up to this point was the abolishment/challenge of the Boldt decision. Fishing method is completely seperate, and can probably be dealt with at a regulatory level by the feds (ideally) and the state.

Also keep in mind, this will help wild fish, but will do little to diminish the presence of the fishing in our rivers. If the methods move to weirs, fish wheels, or tended nets, the same sort of "[censored] show" will still be in the estuaries and rivers. In short, the 50/50 split will still continue and the tribes will still recieve their allotment. Hopefully people can get over that and understand 50% is 50% regardless of method.

If this is something that can be done though, I'm all for it!



I don't know how the legal workings would occur on the tribes for this, but I don't think it's a stretch to mandate a selective fishing style be used in the future. In fact, if you look at the CCA post that I made, I'd be all over the CCA if they would decide to tackle that issue (fisheries wide) rather than butt heads against Boldt.

But with that said, the sticky wicket could still be the Quinault and Yakima tribes though. A state wide change from WDFW may not matter one wit to those tribes. In that case, it may require federal intervension or a visit to our friendly Supreme court on judgement.

This thread is interesting because one more time it illustrates the classic fisheries allocation conflict, who gets to kill the fish. It starts with emotion, gets tempered with facts and data, and then evolves into the how to change the allocation process. It has been going on for as long as humans have caught fish.

I would like to add one comment to the debate. This fishery and other freshwater terminal fisheries are preferable to any marine fishery for one important reason, bycatch. Below are a few lines from a 1994 FAO report titled "A Global Assessment of Fisheries Bycatch and Discards", available online. The (Shepard 1994) report was prepared for the then WDF, it is available in libraries but not easy to find. In an earlier thread, "Saturday on the Sound", Jerry Garcia asked about chum purse seining bycatch. It could be the subject of another thread because bycatch is a problem in all marine fisheries, commercial and sport.

"Other than data associated with trawling, NRC was unable to locate bycatch discard data for the Bering Sea salmon fisheries. In waters to the south of the Bering Sea, the incidental catch of juvenile chinook salmon in the Puget Sound purse seine fishery (Area 7/7A) between 1976 and 1985 varied from 111% to 489% of the adult chinook catch in this fishery, but the number of juveniles as a fraction of all target salmon species catch in numbers was much lower (0.57% to 4.39%). The situation in Puget Sound areas 8–13 regarding juvenile discards was much worse, ranging from 434% to 2867% of adult salmon catch (Shepard 1994). "

This particular issue (coho net fishery on the Duwamish) is most emphatically NOT about the ESA...you can clamor about the ESA listed Chinook all you want, but the impacts from this fishery are well within legal limits...they are catching coho, and some nasty pinks.

There is not a conservation element to this topic...the coho run in the Duwamish/Green River is tens of thousands of fish over-escaped...tens of thousands...and that's after all the fisheries have been conducted, mainly by non-tribal fishermen throughout the year.

As I noted above, a couple of times, the biggest problem with this situation is the unsightliness of a ton of nets in the six mile stretch of the Duwamish River...but the emotional impact of seeing them is just that...emotional...and doesn't magically turn it into a conservation issue.

As you may know, I have the same emotional response to seeing the garbage strewn knuckledragger fisheries that go on in the fall...pretty much every terminal area salmon fishery, and half the terminal steelhead fisheries, too...they're even worse, since they're full of not just unsightliness, but full of lawbreakers, too.

Fish on...

Todd

Maybe if we could get the Sonics and the Muckleshoot together then theor be no need for nets on the Green/Duwamish

Just a funny idea.......

Yeah... maybe I should change the title of the thread to "NOTHIN' BUT NET"

I like that Doc, thats sweet.

Seriously though, the local talk here inAuburn is that the Mucks are going to build them (the Sonics) and Arena next to Emerald Downs.

Gee you could then watch Basketball and play slots at the same time.......

With the oppurtunities that the tribes now have with their casino's, hotels, ampitheaters, and destination resorts, why would any Native American spend the time soaking gillnets when they can get steady employment.

What is interesting is the number of tribal members that actually work at the Muckleshoot Casino and then take time off from dealing cards to both sell fireworks in July and net Salmon in September. Then listen to them Biatch about the price per pound not being enough. Simple solution...........Keep your dealing job and hang up the gillnet!

Probably the most insightful stuff I've ever read from you Jerry. Just sat in front of my computer nodding my head in agreement; Why would they drag gillnets when other more lucrative opportunities exist?

Vhawk

This may be hard to swallow, but give it a chance to sink in...

You know what it's like when you are heading out to the river in the morning...it's dark, your gear is all in order from the night before, you have no idea if it will be a good day, but hey! you're a fisherman!...of course you're filled with optomism!

You put the boat in...some birds fly by as the fog lifts just enough in the early light to see where you're rowing...you take your first cast of the morning, and it hits the water with a barely audible *plop!*...and you just flat out *know* you are going to have a great day!!

Think about that feeling that we all have...

The tribal fishers, and the non-tribal commercial fishers, too, for that matter...as they are playing out their nets and watching the corks float along the water...

They feel exactly the same way.

They enjoy what they do exactly the same way we enjoy what we do...that's why they do it...no more, and no less. You can call it "greed" all you want, but no one in Washington makes jack for money commercial fishing in rivers...at best it barely covers costs...which, frankly, is better pay than most of us get for it.

Fish on...

Todd

Wow.....I logged on to post just that exact sentiment Todd. I was trying to remember who had made me think about this aspect of netting, but it must have been you a long time ago. I expect that most will call BS.

Gillnets are the most visible and easily attackable method of tribal fishing. The Makahs harvesting 25,000+ Fall Chinook destined for 100's of Puget Sound rivers that included many, many, listed Chinook stocks doesn't get people as riled up as a bunch of nets stretched across the Duwamish for surplus (mostly hatchery?) coho......

I guess I'm kinda immune to the nets nowadays. Docs photos did not produce the same emotions for me. I don't like any river looking like it's hosting a swimming meet, but once you've witnessed drift netting for wild steelhead on the Hoh a couple of times, netting that POS waterway for surplus salmon doesn't really bother me. Sorry.

Ike

Todd,

Your calm voice of reason has been most welcome in this thread. Thank you.

You are right on. I once asked a tribal fisherman why he would do it for such little pay, at the time they were getting something like .75 cents a pound. He asked me how much a pound I paid, including gear, gas etc, to catch the fish I do. Then he asked to tell him why I would pay so much more than I could buy fish from him. I told him almost the same thing you just said. He just smiled, shook my hand and called me brother.

I really don't think many on here would b!tch at all if they truly just got their treaty-granted 50% of the fish in the targeted fisheries. What riles everyone is that there is too much evidence they are taking WAAAAAAAAAY more than 50%, with voodoo math and "unbiased checkers" ( what a crock) doing the monitoring. In some cases 80, 90, 95% of the runs are being vacuumed out......we've all seen it.

If undesirable fish are left to die and rot in nets, then why fish it? that same fish could put a big smile on a 12 year old's face at Flaming Geyser Park and bring in way more revenue to the local economy in the form of dad's gas pump $, donuts, coffee, rods, reels, bait, Vedder bait (jigs ) waders, fleece, etc etc etc.

Stupid math. stupid science. A throwback. Maybe they take pleasure in it. But I've seen far too many incidents where they seem to do it just to give a big proverbial finger to Whitey because they know they can. Taunts, arrogance, running over sporty lines while zipping down to nets, yelling, screaming....I've seen all that crap happen.

Marsha,

There are a bunch of reasons to be riled up about wasting taxpayer money to "recover" Puget Sound Chinook...use your passion and point it in the direction of those "recovery" programs...don't waste it on something that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Puget Sound Chinook...

Fish on...

Todd

You know, this topic is about the net fishery...I already gave the two options to get people what they seem to want here...reduce the hatchery plants, or have a non-tribal gillnet fishery to make sure "we" get our half...

If you're advocating for ditching the hatchery program there, fine...that's one of the options.

Annoying? That is funnier than hell.

Fish on...

Todd

Passed by the Duwamish this afternoon, and thought this picture offered quite a contrast.

Does anyone know if the tribes voluntarily remove the nets so sportsfishers can have the weekend, or is it something that was negotiated for us by the State?

Anybody looking to save the Green will need a time machine and the gumption to stop white men from logging the upper basin to crap; diking, dredging, poisoning and re-dredging the lower river; diverting the White, Black, and building Howard Hanson Dam. Oh, and from building the hatchery that facilitates this fishery. If said time travel and plunder-stopping occured I might start to get upset about nets. Then again, in that scenario, there would be enough fish for both nets and "sporties."

Welcome back, UF...good post fer #18.

Fish on...

Todd

Protecting our Natural Resources and Treaty Rights, Muckleshoot Monthly, September 14, 2007

"This year a landmark federal court ruling related to salmon habitat and the settlement of a long-standing shellfish harvesting dispute stand as important milestones in our ongoing efforts to protect our natural resources and safeguard our treaty-reserved fishing rights. The Muckleshoot Tribe has worked closely with other Washington Tribes to achieve these important victories and through them help preserve our culture, economy and way of life.

Culvert Decision
An August 22, 2007 federal court ruling in a suit filed by tribes in 2001 said that the state cannot build or maintain road culverts that impede salmon migration to or from the spawning grounds. This is a very important decision because of the impact it will have on the health of salmon and the Muckleshoot Tribe's ability to exercise its Treaty fishing right and preserve the fishery resource for generations of Muckleshoot fishers to come. The state admitted that road culverts are currently blocing more than 2,300 miles of streams where salmon could spawn and that repairing the culverts could result in an additional 200,000 salmon available for harvest each year. While this is undoubtedly a low estimate of the harm caused by the state culverts, it was sufficient to persuade the Court that the State needed to respect the Treaty and to act to correct the impact.
In his decision the judge said "the right of taking fish secured to the tribes in the Stevens Treaties imposes a duty on the State to refrain from building or operating culverts under state-maintained roads that hinder fish passage and thereby diminish the number of fish that would otherwise be available for Tribal harvest." Or, in the words of Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission Chairman Billy Frank, "if the fish aren't there, what is the treaty all about?"
This decision will result in the replacement or repair of fish-blocking culverts faster, the establishment of proper standards to better assure that culverts do not harm fish in the future and thereby better assure that salmon are available for harvest by everyone. It will also encourage others who impact the fish habitat to treat fish habitat with respect and care thus reducing the impact on the fishery resource and the Treaty right.
The decision in the culvert case is vindication of the commitment of the Muckleshoot Tribe to protect its Treaty right to fish. Muckleshoot was one of the original tribes to join United States v. the State of Washington in 1970, and was one of hte original tribes to raise the issue of the need to protect the fish habitat as a necessary way to protect the fish and the Treaty right.

Shellfish Settlement
Earlier this year Tribes signed a settlement agreement with commercial shellfish growers that ended a long-standing legal dispute over shellfish harvesting from private land. An earlier court ruling prohibited tribes from harvesting shellfish from commercially enhanced private beds, but upheld tribal rights to half of all naturally occurring shellfish on those tidelands. Left unanswered were two important questions; how to distinguish between naturally occurring shellfish and those privately produced, and how tribes could access those naturally occurring shellfish on private lands.
The agreement settled those issues while also preserving the health of the shellfish industry and affirming tribal shellfish rights. Under terms of the settlement tribes agreed to forgo shellfish on tidelands sold to commercial users and a $33 million fund was established to acquire and enhance tidelands to which tribes will enjoy exclusive access. The Muckleshoot Tribe will receive a share of these funds to be used for fishery purposes. Private growers will provide $500,000 of shellfish enhancement on public tidelands for everyone to enjoy.
This agreement, like the culvert decision, is a win for our natural resources and a win for the fish. The Treaties reserving our fishing rights were intended to insure that tribal culture and society continued even as non-Indians entered our lands. The culvert decision and the Shellfish settlement better insure that those promises made long ago will be kept for us and our children."