Arrgggh!!!

I feel this important lesson is being lost:
WHY DO THE tribes get 87% of the ESA impact?
IT'S BECAUSE WE (THE STATES) TRIED TO SUE ALREADY OVER ESA IMPACT SHARING, AND WE LOST!!!!!! Some of you need to wake up and smell reality!! The tribes have us over the perenial barrel if you think we can somehow renegotiate a larger % of ESA impacts in the Columbia R! The only way we get more than 2% is IF THEY DECIDE TO GIVE IT TO US OR NOT!!

REREAD my previous post why eyeFish is wrong about ESA impact sharing between the States and the Tribes:

History lesson: After US v OR came down and guaranteed them treaty rights to fish and then Boldt came down and guaranteed them a 50% share, but then Snake River falls got listed under ESA in the early 90's. The tribes said ESA didn't apply to them, as US v OR guaranteed them harvestable fish....and the states sued, guessing that Boldt caselaw would require the feds to split ESA sharing 50:50.....EHH!! Wrong!! The judge ruling on the case pulled the litigants into his court and said he was going to decide in this order of priority:
1. Conservation
2. Tribal ceremonial & subsistence
3. Tribal commercial
4. Nontribal fisheries

Or the parties could work out an impact sharing agreement themselves. So based on this the States went into a room and negotiated the sharing impacts with the tribes. Hence the current rate of 2% we get as that's what we negotiated. The case was never ruled on, as you can see the judge was going to give the tribes essentially preference for ALL of the ESA impacts, and they wouldn't technically have to let us have any ESA impacts as they were both #2 and #3 priority.

We get 2% simply because the tribes LET US HAVE some. Furthermore the essence of what is known as Boldt II.....we f'd up the habitat and so our ESA impacts are used through habitat destruction and so we're off the water. We don't sit on a very justified position of bargaining for anything, especially additional ESA impacts. Just part of your CR springer 101.

This is caselaw. Call the WA Attorney General's office and ask for Fronda Woods, or if you ever get a chance talk to WDFW Director Phil Anderson about it. If you want to go back to court over ESA impact sharing both of them will tell you the above story I just described, and it's the reason we DON'T PUSH THE TRIBES OVER ISSUES OF ESA IMPACT SHARING, IT'S A LOSER!!!

rojo, what you are saying is correct, and when I've said it in the past it gets ignored just as much as it is now.

For some reason folks continue to stroke the fantasy that the sportfishers are so damn cool that the commercials and tribes will just have to give us more of their impacts, and they'll just have to go "selective" and then they'll just have to give them to us...when the almost certain result is that if the commies go more selective, not only will they harvest more hatchery fish per impact, they'll get a lion's share of the impact, too.

If you enjoyed the last decade of springer fishing, I hope you enjoyed it well...cuz even as tough as it has been some times, it's a lot better now than it's ever going to be again if this gets implemented.

Fish on...

Todd

What I take from the discussion so far:

There are 2 issues that get mixed up like ingredients in soup.

1) Impact of selective fishery on commercials.
2) Impact of Non-Selective Treaty Fisheries on ESA, % hatchery catch, total return of hatchery and wild fish.

1) Impact of selective fishery on commercials:
If selective fishing for commercials on the LCR were implemented, with an estimated mortality from the commercials of 10%, same as the recreationals. This would lead to an additional almost 11,00 hatchery fish harvest by the commercials, to equal 16,000, same as the recreationals.

This would be about 10% harvest of all hatchery fish by recreationals, and about 10% harvest of all hatchery fish by commercials.

Which leaves 80% for the treaty tribes as opposed to 87% under the previous plan. Is this correct? If so, it IS NOT "insignificant." 8 % is significant in any scientific discussion. If I am wrong, then educate me, please. And Thank You.

Selective Fishing by commercials would be beneficial.

2) Impact of Non-Selective Treaty Fisheries on ESA, % hatchery catch, total return of hatchery and wild fish.

Treaty agreers should be selective.
I can't put it any more clear than that there are major effects on lots and lots of downstream issues, including recreational fishers, from the Non Selective fisheries of the Non Coordinated treaty folks. Bad things.

I recognize that there are many very caring and responsible First Nation People and I pray they are able to step up. We all live in this world. If it were up to me, I would abrogate every treaty out there and start over. Why? Because the treaties are broken. They don't work out for the greater good. Just my considered, and personal, opinion. But I live in this world.

In summary:

There are 2 issues:
1) Commercial Gill netting
2) Treaty obligations

I differ from a few folks here in that I think the problem is NOT in getting the commercials to fish selectively ( I support CCA) but the issue is that All Treaty Participants should start fishing selectively.

Recreationals do it, commercials should, and First Nations should as well.

Todd I for one would be happy if the steelhead, sturgeon and any fish other than those targeted by the commercial fishery could be released unharmed to do there thing. I think that the economic drivers would make sure that enough fish (springers) were left for the sporties. As for habitat, no argument here. I can't remember just where, but remember reading something on the columbia tribs where one of the tribes is reopening some closed off habitat. Sure would be nice if we could all work together on the things we agree on and discuss others civily. I am not into pissing contests.

Smart ass comments deleted. Apologies.

It's getting old watching this go down......

But this is exactly what's wrong with you CCA Band Wagoner's, you try and reinvent the wheel.... Things are "SLOWLY" but surely rolling in the right direction.... Don't be brainwashed into taking steps backwards, especially in a fishery that a large percentage of people on this board don't even participate in, the COLUMBIA RIVER..... Ironically we have it very good in the LCR right now with the #'s of fish we are seeing, assuming ocean conditions keep up, we keep spilling water and keep planting some hatchery fish things will be good in the future as well.....

The "I THINK" is the biggest problem with CCA, you think you're going to put more wild fish on the redds when you're only cutting the throat of sportsman, you will be killing just as many wild fish.... Take Gary's junk out of your mouths, take CCA's junk out of your mouth, spit it out for a second and listen....

Comprende??

Keith

Very Bad.

People who agree on 90 % airing out the other 10% on a public forum that is searchable and admissible.

Smarten up. And shut up. And work together.

Good comments.

I'm just trying to gain the respect of Lead Bouncer, you know... Come at it with his style....

More or less it makes me sick to my stomach knowing we're 5-7 years from implosion.... I really do enjoy fishing, I just hate seeing it being taken away from us as sportsman, especially by those from the same user group....

Keith

Thank you, Keith,
I know, and apologize. I just get cranky when I see us eat each other up. No offence intended.

FWIW, most long lasting policy changes occur when we focus on points of agreement rather than points of disagreement. Nobody is in charge to argue with! An exception would be Ghengis Khan, and his agreements didn't last longer than his life.

I really like the goals of this band here, to keep these fish going.

Thank You.

Your looking at just one fishery that originates mostly from reservation hatcherys. If you look at coho that comes mostly from lower river, non indians are taking about 98%. I guess we could shut down the lower river hatcheries and shift production upriver like alot want to do..But?

Let's not even go there.............. That's where it all started, the "mop-up" fisheries.....

Keith

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/OSCRP/CRM/landings/09/2009_treaty_FALL_landings_prelim_WEB.pdf


This is what the CR tribes took for Coho, whites 100,000+ ocean, 50000+ Bouy 10, 40000 Select 40000 mainstem commercial, then tributary sport. Sturgeon whites 40000 tribes around 5000..

KEITH I for one would be happy if the steelhead, sturgeon and any fish other than those targeted by the commercial fishery could be released unharmed to do there thing. I'M POSITIVE that the economic drivers would make sure that enough fish (springers) were left for the sporties. As for habitat, no argument here. I can't remember just where, but remember reading something on the columbia tribs where one of the tribes is reopening some closed off habitat. Sure would be nice if we could all work together on the things we agree on and discuss others civily. I am not into pissing contests.

NWP,

No offense intended, but when you say, "I think," please understand how different that can be from saying, "I know."

In previous threads, I've laid out a hypothetical case of harvest allocation. Doc did so in this thread. These allocations are based on the present regulations and policies and case law governing the LCR spring chinook fishery. So you "think" it will be different. Please take the necessary time to analyze a hypothetical case, and show your work. That is, if you reach a different conclusion, show what rule or policy causes your example to work out differently.

I'm a CCA member. Not because CCA is correct on the LCR selective commercial fishing issue. But because CCA brings important infrastructure and massive numbers that other organizations haven't been able to deliver. Make no mistake, CCA is wrong regarding the potential effects of its actions on the LCR springer fishery. But a course correction is possible, and I will support that. I don't bash you and the other CCA desciples for being wrong in these threads because it would not be constructive. Another thing, just because you think Todd pontificates about this subject doesn't make him wrong, or you right. The only reason Todd is correct and you aren't is because an objective analysis of the available facts reveal that conclusion. So don't change your thinking because some CCA opponents bash you. Do the objective analysis; seek the truth, and go where it leads.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

NWP,

Missed your last post, but switching "I think" to "I'm positive" without backing it up with evidence is a visceral, emotional response, worse than thinking incorrectly. Sorry, but that's how it adds up.

Sg

If "economic drivers" were in fact the driving force behind Lower Columbia spring Chinook fisheries, then the non-treaty commercial fishers would have been gone a long, long time ago...

They make a handful of dollars for a handful of people, providing a service that is already being provided for by the CRTFC tribes, while taking away millions of dollars worth of "economic drivers" that would be generated by a longer and more robust recreational fishery.

Fish on...

Todd

Sg you are right on both posts, thanks I will be more careful, so for the moment here is a corrected post. Todd does make part of my point on his last post.

I for one would be happy if the steelhead, sturgeon and any fish other than those targeted by the commercial fishery could be released unharmed to do there thing. I'M HOPEFUL that the economic drivers would make sure that enough fish (springers) were left for the sporties. As for habitat, no argument here. I can't remember just where, but remember reading something on the columbia tribs where one of the tribes is reopening some closed off habitat. Sure would be nice if we could all work together on the things we agree on and discuss others civily. I am not into pissing contests.

NWP,

Thanks. A level headed discussion is value added. I understand that you're hopeful, as am I. However, we need to be cognizant of the facts. Boater, in his usual tactless way frequently posts the WDFW news release which clearly states that the reason they are trying to develop a selective commercial fishery is specifically to increase the commercial catch of hatchery springers. Since all the analyses show that there is but one place for those hatchery springers to come from - the recreational share - it simply doesn't matter how much you or I or anyone else hopes. It will not improve recreational fishing for LCR springers. It will not put one single additional wild springer on the spawning grounds.

There was a time in my life, too long in fact, when I "hoped" things would change. I was atypically slow on the uptake, but finally learned that HOPE does not cause change. Working my ass off for what I want causes desired change. It really does. So please forgive me for having a negative opinion about hope.

Sg

Hope is good...but it doesn't replace a plan that logically results in the fulfillment of that hope.

Fish on...

Todd