Yeah...I'd get the CCA right on that...



Fish on...

Todd

Right or wrong is a big question in my book.


Why shouldn't we have to honor it?


Because the treaty:

defies the declaration of independance.

Promotes racial prejudice and discrimination.

creates vexing resource managment and socio-economic problems.

Does not have an end date.

Besides, I am in favor of negotiating our way out of these agreements...not breaching them.

HOLLY CRAP!!!!!!!!!!

Ok. What Todd says about escapement numbers , total catch, are the tribes getting over 50% of the harvestable fish? Having the facts. I think this is a great point. We should be able to look at solid numbers and regulate or fisheries on these numbers. I do think the state has a decent idea of the sport catch by checking a certain percentage of fishermen and doing the math from there. I feel pretty good about the fact thaty when they say we have enough quota to say....fish halibut another day that the data to support this is fairly accurate. I don't feel as good about the tribal data. I will give you 2 reasons why.

I was talking to the father of a tribal commercial crabber at a boat launch I would guess maybe 6 yrs ago. He was non tribal but married a woman that was. We had a friendly conversation about crabbing and he actually told me that the tribes were able to sell alot more crab than they reported. I have also seen huge piles of crab dumped just off a boat launch that i use. I am guessing the crab had died and couldnt be sold to the buyer. Are these counted against their allocation? This pile was so big that it stunk and it was never exposed to the atmosphere even at low tide. I know this isn't salmon but it makes me skeptical.

Another point is...(and please correct me if im wrong) the river tribal fisheries as well as the ocean fisheries go on until there are no fish left to be caught. I can't recall hearing or seeing either fisheries stopped because they caught their quota... like the sport fisheries constantly do. I would like to hear if this is incorrect, sincerely. I have only heard of it happening in emergency situations. If it is the norm than do they never get their 50%? Are they always coming up just shy?

Todd,
Does anyone no the actual numbers being caught by each user group? If they accurate and being used to actually determine seasons and limits, then they should be readily available. I am not challenging you, just questioning why they always seem so hard to get. In actuality they may be hard to compile, but once they are compiled they should be easy to present; and since they have supposedly been compiled, where are they?
On another note, I see lots of things that could be done to up the number of coho that are being caught by non-treaty fisheries, such as opening up elliot bay for 4 fish coho limits and maybe 7 days a week with gear restrictions of some sort, such as no down-riggers and no more than a certain weight allowed to try to limit chinook by-catch. The in-river fishery does not produce well, but at the same time with 40,000 or more in excess they could up the limit here too.

Castnblast, commercial fisheries get stopped on the Columbia because they often are fishing in mixed stocks of fish. The quotas in those situations are based not on how many hatchery fish can be taken, but instead on the impacts to listed fish. This last spring the gill netters had to give up a few days of spring chinook because they were close to burning thru their impact allocation.

I agree that harvest numbers are probably inaccurate, on all counts, on all user groups. Commercials, sports, and tribal. I'd bet that at least 25% of guys don't mark every salmon they catch. I don't know the process that the commercial guys use to report, but if it's a self reporting system...might as well pull numbers out of a hat.

Wooly,

Its good to be passionate about something. I don't think however that your verve and vigor are going to reverse a long and fairly consistent series of Supreme Court rulings regarding the treaties with the local tribes.

Boldt did not happen in a vacumn. In spite of what most people think, Judge Boldt did not make it all up as he plodded along. Federal Judges have been at work defining that treaty language since the 1800's, i.e. United States vs. Taylor in 1887, followed by United States vs. Winans in 1905. and ongoing throughout the 20th century. Washington State got really good at pushing cases against the Indians all the way to the Supreme court, where they would proceed to lose. All your arguments regarding racial inequality, the passage of time watering down treaty obligations, 'special treatment' of Indians, all those arguments have been made and rejected by the highest court in the land.

Whether you agree with the rulings or not, you should still read them. Maybe you'll find some novel argument that has not been made. Plus they are interesting history that has relevance to anyone who reads this board.

VHawk

Castnblast,

In some cases the treaty tribes take more than 50% of the harvest, and sometimes they don't. The Muckleshoot case on the Duwamish/Green might be a case where they do, but I'm not going to look it up. Here's why: as Todd mentioned, the non-treaty sport fishery cannot fully harvest the non-treaty share of terminal area salmon partly because the fish are poor biters compared to when they are feeding in the salt water. In order for non-treaty fishermen to fully harvest the non-treaty share in such cases, the only viable alternative is to open a non-treaty commercial net fishery, which used to be common. So in either case, those salmon not caught be non-treaty sport anglers aren't going to end up in the sport catch. They're gonna' end up in the commercial catch. This ends up mattering mainly to folks like Woolly, who is fixated on the equality issue. Equality of harvest can be achieved, but it's more likely to result in even fewer terminal area coho being available to sport fishermen, as the non-treaty gillnet fishery has plenty of fishing power to scoop up all surplus coho. As sport anglers, we're better off with the situation as it is.

Regarding fish waste, it happens. It happens in both treaty and non-treaty fisheries. I don't have enough information to point fingers, but I think that it occurs more in the treaty fishery. I think that because tribes fish in terminal areas where they are more likely to catch salmon in poor condition that commercial buyers don't want. Having seen some examples, that's my conjecture about the overall situation of wastage.

Regarding emergency closures, they are common to commercial fishing. You may not be familiar with them because you don't commercially fish; otherwise you most likely would. A long time ago I worked in salmon harvest management and also saw tribal fisheries subjected to emergency closures with some regularity.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Krijack,

The co-managers presumably share all their catch data...

Those ideas about limits and regulations in Elliott Bay are fine examples of the types of discussions that take place at the North of Falcon meetings...all fisheries have impacts, and all fisheries have goals...the goals are set at NoF, and the impacts are traded around to satisfy the different goals.

The goals are met to a varying degree, depending on the "greater good"...or depending on the "greater and louder representation"...and believe it or not, I'd say clamoring repeatedly for a fishery will work as well, if not better, then showing how great your fishery is, if you're at NoF arguing for it.

Fish on...

Todd

SG, Just to clarify my position. It's racial equality and equal rights under the law that I'm fixated on.

You people are so much smarter than me. I'll just sit on the sidelines and observe. Good points by the way.

Todd, Missed you at the meeting last night, hope you can start making them again.

Todd you have my respect as a fisherman and an activest. Thanks for all you have done for salmon, steelhead and for helping ease the pain of the picture that started this. I agree with the rational of what you are saying and infact described it much the same way before reading your post. I would even go as far as saying that the run of fish in that river is better than it would be without the nets. Most of fish that are put into that system by the tribes are there to return to those nets.
Where we may disagree is here:


Do you believe our end of the bargin (agreemant) was suposed to be anything resembling what bolt has turned it into and what is happening around Grays Harbour, Neah Bay, the locks, Lake Washington, Mid Columbia or the Duwamish.
Something got you out of bed at 3am did you just want to go down and feel good about our end of the treaty being held up or maybe you believe like me that the Tribes were just suposed to have the same rights to the fish as the rest of us.
I hope our paths cross soon...Maybe in a couple weeks ...Thanx again. Art

My last word before drifting off to sleep, and spending the next few days chasing fish.

I think what the treaties were supposed to ensure was a sustainable economy for the tribes in the form of their commercial fishery. The tribes fished, they sold to market and made their money. It would keep the indians occupied, and the white folks fed. Which was what they did before Europeans settled here, they traded fish for other goods. Why on earth would they have given up 50 million acres of land for the right to sportfish?

BTW, good job on keeping this one as civil as it has been. It's very easy to get carried away and call someone a weinie licker. It's a bit harder to give up the personal insults and focus on the argument.

Tight lines, I hope there's still fish out there for me.


VHawk

Why honor or respect a lousy judgement? It is all about the crazy interpretation of the phrase "in common with".

there were also far fewer socio-economic alternatives for tribal income when it was written. Tribal casinos were not yet a twinkle in the chief's eye in those days. That's why I asked....when the F does that mortgage ever get paid off? Or revised to a more reasonable, real-world sustainable and trackable level without the "wink wink look the other way" mentality over wasted crab, dumped carcasses etc? I mean, the very gear tribal fishers use now looks like alien technnology compared to when Boldt was written...........if they evolve the techniques to state of the art, can't the world evolve to state of the art management with all user groups given their proper, treaty-granted, scientfically calculated and carefully monitored share? Or is that too costly? Personally I get tired of the Jesse Jackson-esque "you are a racist" chants I hear whenever a logical plan is proposed that the tribes see as a change to current practice. That is too convenient.....I've already seen that movie too many times.

Wooly,

I understand. I think we both know that in the real world, life just ain't fair, and like it or not, that's just the way it is.

Aunty & others,

Some interesting points about the Stevens Treaties and the ESA. Does one trump the other? Congress passed the ESA with the express intention of preventing species extinctions, and in fact recovering threatened and endangered species. However, right is the good ole U.S. Constitution it reads, "treaties are the supreme law of the land." The Tribes are in an unimaginably strong legal position, which is probably why every treaty case that goes to the Supreme Court gets decided in the tribes' favor.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

One thing that is disturbing is that this yearly gill netting ritual occurs right at the mouth of Hamm Creek. The County, local businesses, and volunteer citizens groups have spent millions of dollars in land aquisition and hundreds of hours in labor restoring the creek buffers of Hamm Creek in hope to improve the tiny coho run that is struggling to survive. All which appears to be for not. I just don't understand why the volunteers, politicians, and big businesses who have contributed to the rehabilitation of the creek aren't getting angry to? Why does it appear that the only people who are disgruntled are the people on the board? Why the blind eye from the public?


BD

That's probably a better way of managing significantly marginalized stocks....

Talking about the Boldt Decision is a major departure from the actual topic of this thread, but I think that Salmo g. wrapped it up nicely already...

"I understand. I think we both know that in the real world, life just ain't fair, and like it or not, that's just the way it is."

Might there be some wiggle room to modify the treaty interpretation? Sure...maybe a lot of it...but with limited time, energy, and resources to affect changes in fisheries management (which is about 80% putting fires out), I'll leave that to folks who have thicker skull plates than me...they'll be banging them against brick walls for much, if not all, of their time.

If someone else can get that done, I'll be all for it, and I'll support them all the way...but I've got plenty of work to do in arenas that are actually in motion every day.

Fish on...

Todd

If a desire to NOT bang my head into walls and waste limited time, money, and energy fighting to have the treaty modified by Congress is a back pat, then I guess I'll take one.

I, on the other hand, view it as a smart way to use very limited resources.

Fish on...

Todd