Oh, and don't forget;

COMMING TO A RIVER NEAR YOU:

ADDITIONAL CLOUSERS TO ALLOW UNMOLESTED TRIBAL NETTING TO OCCURE.

Looking into my crystal ball...ummmmm Nisqually closed for more days and including Coho and ....Chum???

It's funny that the LW chinook are the limiting factor for our area 10 season. Rec's haven't been able to fish anywhere near the locks for many years now. The tribe corks the bay 7 days a week, then they net the ship canal to get what they missed, and if they still have fish they missed, they net lake Washington. We can shut down our fishing and there won't be a single fish saved.

Salmon hatcheries need to be shut down, every one of them in Puget sound. The opportunity we're provided just doesn't match the cost. Every year areas get eliminated, quotas get lowered, and we get pushed out. The tribes capitalize on the forgone opportunity and cork the terminal areas without any consequences.

Does anybody have the illusion that this is temporary? Does anybody think that we'll ever get Elliot bay back? If this continues to decline another 5 years what will you think of hatcheries then?

There's a hope we might get the tribes to the table if we announced the hatcheries are closing. If they want to share the resource and the responsibility for native fish, we keep them open, if not we pull the plug. At least we'll still have the pinks to fish for every other year

If the fishing is so bad here, and folks feel that they aren't getting out of it what they put in they why keep buying licenses?

Want fish Buoy 10 or much of C? Buy and Oregon non-resident. Go fish BC or AK. We should spend our money where the results are commensurate with what we put into it.

Last year I bought a hunting license and tags for deer and NR fishing in Wyoming and Yellowstone where the fishing was just fine.

We need to think this through. Is the fishing worth it? Is it worthwhile to spend my time on advisory groups and such if I get treated like the Willapa (or crab folks in the past) were?

As long as we play along, they won't change.

The issues need to be broadcast to the 90% that don't fish. As long as they see salmon at the Pike Place Market (even if a fish costs $300), they assume all is well. Talk to everyone you know next time they ask you how the fishing's been. I think any neutral party would agree, given the facts, that the current management practices aren't fair to the public OR the fish. When there's a loud enough public outcry, the lawmakers will listen. Until then, the majority will go on reading "news stories" that glorify commercial fishing and thinking everything's fine. That's just how an incumbent politician likes it. Quiet.

This has been at the crux of the increasingly dysfunctional state-tribal co-management relationship. No spine to represent the state's interest and no confidence to push back when that interest is threatened.

What would have happened if WDFW had told the muckleshoots NO, and kept the season as-is? Would that even have been a possibility?

Ya how can a single tribe dictate our share or our seasons?

Never know until you try....

Refer back to my spine/confidence/pushback comments.

"user group conflict" right there...us sporties are an inconvenience to the tribal netters. they try hard to make us not feel welcome, playing chicken with anchored boats, yelling threats...so of course, we're the ones who get punished. what a load of crap. fk their whole damned tribe.

Yeah, no spine for sure. I guess what I'm trying to understand is, what is the reason they said YES to the tribe's demands? I am guessing they didn't want to. Tony Floor said repeatedly they weren't going to, but ultimately they did. I assume it's because of fear of what would happen if they didn't cave. And that's my question. What would happen if they didn't cave? What was the tribe's leverage?

Walking away from a raw deal was certainly an option.

Might be a good question to pose to Director Unsworth at this weekend's NWWC broadcast.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Northwest-Wild-Country/177883655555995?fref=ts

Thanks EF! That is most definitely "the hot seat". Should be interesting what he has to say.

WDFW and sporties are in a flat out no win situation. Tribes have gillnets full of $$$$, Fed backing, and the general public backing their unknown bullchit. Lawsuits cost $$$$, which the state has none.

Maybe sports fisher shouldn't be fighting over the scraps with the tribes and put some effort into getting more of our fish past the Alaskans and Canadians.

Without an agreement with the Muk's there wouldn't be a season for kings, probably all the way to area 4. WDFW really hasn't a way to stop the tribes from fishing. Caving to the tribal demands now will only promote further concessions for 2016.

You guys need to get the harvest impact (targeted / incidental ) by area by user by gear type after the fish enter WA ST waters. The terminal impacts being low for Rec can simply mean they went to another area as incidental. Could also be that the tribes from the straights on down low holed the Mucks who low holed the Recs. You need those numbers.

Maybe the new Director will provide an after action report for public consumption which provides both the data and rationale for this being a well thought out biologically supported closure. Frankly, it will be in his best interests to do so -- if he can't or won't he will have gotten off to a very poor start.

Keep in mind that WDFW went in to NOF with a goal of a six week season and two fish a day for MA 9 and MA 10. Presumably they had data which supported their position. If so, how did it go so sideways?

Now, as to the suggestion that the Mucks being low holed by other tribes - if that were to occur to would be during the actual fishery and, furthermore, an inter-tribal problem.

I'm sure that the Feds who signed the Treaty for its citizens will ensure that the other signatories and their citizens fish within the terms of the treaty(ies) and subsequent court decisions.

I was taught re:Treaty catch that the Indians get 50% and the Cowboys get 50% of the harvestable fish. There is no guarantee to an individual tribe that they will get 50%. Just as there is no guarantee to sporties in Area 10 that they will get 50%. It is cumulative.

If Makah were able to catch every treaty-harvestable Chinook in their troll fishery that would meet the legal requirements of Boldt for 50:50. That may not meet inside Tribes needs or desires and certainly wouldn't meet the State's political desire to keep the tribes happy..

I have seen instance where a tribe fishing lower in a river effectively corked the tribe upstream.

The intertribal sharing agreements are, from what i have heard, harder to hammer out than Indian/non-Indian.

I have the data print out of all fisheries that could have an impact on the Lake Washington Chinook in the state of Washington from the ocean, strait, and Puget Sound. The highest impact is from the tribe who is hollering the loudest with 132.The second largest is the tribal troll in area 3:4 with 39.The Area 10 sport fishery would have had an impact of 14 in July August fishery and 2 others in the Oct- Nov.

The 132 is way over ½ of all the impacts by all user groups T and NT. If I remember right there was 212 total impacts on that stock state wide.

Make your own conclusion if there is incompetence of the people negotiating at NOF.

While it may be true that BC and AK have taken way too many fish, which the State, tribes, and Feds seem unwilling to fix, the fact is that the treaty gives the Tribes and non-Indians what shows up in WA waters. That is what they have to share. That is the pie to divide.

Or, should the Columbia tribes, for example, say we used to take 3 million a year before the dams and settlement. Therefore we get the first 3 million that enter the river.