I am still reeling from the news of the slashing of the summer King season in the PS.

I am very interested in what the factors were that led up to this decision. I've been following the other threads but I still don't have a complete picture of what went down. So I have a bunch of questions. Feel free to answer any question, all questions, or completely ignore Some may be annoying because they betray my ignorance of the rulemaking process.

I am aware that the returns for certain stocks of concern were expected to be low. I'd also heard that tribal impact on these stocks was estimated at 70% and sporties making up the rest (correct me if I'm wrong).

First question...if that is true, what leverage did the tribes have to push for a near-closure of puget sound to chinook sportfishing (which they got)? Seems like with those numbers, sporties would have the leverage. Did the tribes not agree with the numbers? According to Boldt they are allotted 50%, right?

Was it the Muckleshoots vs WDFW on this or did the Muckleshoots have support of the entire NW Fisheries Commission? It would seem like antagonizing sporties would not be in the best interest of the tribal "co-managers". That is, unless, they view their non-tribal "co-managers" as complete buffoons who will do their bidding.

Had Phil Anderson already come to an agreement with them Muckleshoots BEFORE NOF? I read that he convinced Unsworth to take the deal.

Was there a public comment period for this rule change that was cut out? I don't recall seeing this in the proposed rule changes or I certainly would have commented.

I know the Sportfishing Advisory Board was fighting this...what precisely is (was) their role? It would seem they have no actual "teeth" if the decision is ultimately up to the Director. I suppose they "advise" the director and he can take it or leave it (in this case, leave it), but does the board engage directly in negotiations with tribes? If Anderson/Unsworth were for the deal and the board against it, what was the dialogue like between the directors and the board?

Did the Muckleshoots (or any tribe) agree to a reduced season as well? I haven't seen any tribal "concessions" specified anywhere. If there weren't, it doesn't seem like much of a negotiation to me.

I want to full understand the process and what went down. Cuz it sure seems like we got railroaded here. In a similar fashion to the steelhead crap that went down last year.

Is there any recourse for this particular situation. Meaning, is there any possibility the rule could be rejected because correct procedure wasn't followed (public comment period maybe?) Or maybe negotiation in bad faith (quite a stretch). I'm guessing no. But highlighting irregularities may help.

Larger questions...

Do tribes provide publicly-available catch data?

Are there any other possible models of management that could be explored, because this "co-management" thing doesn't appear to be very equitable.

It seems that there's a general acceptance among the public that Tribal fishing practices are unsustainable, even more so among people on the water (like us) who are witnessing what they are doing. You see it all over the comment sections on the internet (even on non-fishing-related media). Is there a way to use that energy to create leverage federally? Anytime the issue of tribal abuse of fisheries is raised, there seems to be an air of hopelessness. That's probably based on failed attempts at this. But I'd like to know what attempts have been made or are currently being made to try to rein in WA tribes? IIRC Norm Dicks took a pretty strong stance on it.

I have heard the idea that using a threat that WA will legalize gambling batted around as potential leverage against the tribes. Has it ever been actually used? The tribes probably see the bluff (pun intended) inherent in the threat. But I like it as a way to try to rein them in without having to go to court.

Anyway, any answers you old salts can provide would be helpful!

Chasin' Baitman:

I used to get upset when we sporties got bent over the barrel, but I recently found a new perspective that I think might help you out. I find that when I accept my role in our state's fisheries, which is to open my wallet so the State can manufacture fish for gillnets, for what it is, I find comfort in just how much money I apparently do have to give away.

Sorry. I know that was weak. I thought maybe writing out something positive would help my attitude. I was wrong.

PFMC is all about ocean harvest, and they make the rules. Hence, whether you're a tribal gillnetter or a suffering sportsman, the guys in the big blue just low-holed you. Again.

If I had to guess at why there seem to be no meaningful tribal concessions, my answer would be that the Tribe's fisheries are guaranteed by a treaty, the violation of which could result in hefty lawsuits, whereas we sporties are guaranteed nothing beyond "opportunities," which, as long as something's open for five minutes, we always have. In most cases, if someone's gotta take a hit, it won't be the guys with the power to hit back.

It's all about money and politics that set up the pecking order on salmon runs. The ocean commercial and sports contingent have more "free speech" (ie money/incentive) to mold the rules than the Puget Sound and river sports fishers. The tribe are the last group to get hit with "conservation restrictions" because of the way the rules for treaty rights are implemented, although they still get corked by the ocean fisheries. What complicate matters is the different jurisdictions salmon travel through,Alaska,Canada and Washington.

Chasin’ Baitman:

From the Yukon River south to the Sacramento River wild chinook runs are in trouble. The quote below from the Northwest Indian Fishiers Commission press release regarding the season setting process is on target.

“This year’s season-setting process was especially difficult because of necessary conservation measures required by ongoing habitat loss and climate change that is resulting in drought, low water levels and higher water temperatures that are lethal to salmon.”

These ongoing processes are not going to improve soon if ever. Is there a better management scheme for Puget Sound chinook that might account for the changing environmental conditions? Probably not for a variety of reasons. As FleaFlickr02 alluded to, Puget Sound chinook are harvested from Southeast Alaska to Puget Sound. The co-managers have little influence on this interception harvest. Even if they did though chinook fisheries management in Puget Sound will never satisfy everyone. ESA listings, the Boldt decision, and hatcheries are not constrained or changed by ongoing environmental changes. Eliminate any one of those three factors and management would be a reasonable process. Puget Sound chinook hatcheries produce salmon for harvest (ocean ranching). ESA listed chinook are impacted by harvest and the Boldt decision guarantees the tribes the right to 50% of the harvest.

WDFW and the states taxpayers who they answer to are not capable of reversing the changing climate. Reversing the Boldt decision or eliminating ESA listings is a major national political battle and would probably result in something much worse. The only thing that the state of Washington can do is to eliminate chinook hatchery programs. I know that means no chinook for sport fishing but it also means no hatchery chinook for any other fisheries. I suspect that even a proposal to eliminate chinook hatchery programs would result in major changes to the present co-management scheme. It might also improve the WDFW budget outlook.

Not having a mark selective chinook fishery in area 10 is the equivalent to not having hatchery chinook in Puget Sound so for those of us who primarily fish in area 10 eliminating the chinook hatchery program is no problem. I suspect closing area 10 is going to have no benefit to the ESA listed Lake Washington chinook. For years we have hooked (and released) more chinook, hatchery and wild, fishing for coho when chinook was closed than we hooked fishing for chinook when it was open.

Think Pink.

I realize there are serious challenges to Chinook population. What is burning me (and many others) is the inequitable distribution of that very small pie. Or at least *perceived* inequitable distribution. That's why I am trying to understand more about the situation that just transpired.

So if the tribes are taking 74% and sports are 26% why are the sports reduced even more?

bk -
To be more precise the final fishreies package model run estimates for Lake Washington wild Chinook had the non-treaty impacts at 29%.

To fair under the ESA incidental allowable impacts under the federally approved co-manager PS Chinook fisheries management plan there is a cap of 20% allowable impacts. That is further divided into 10% pre-terminal fishery limit - pre terminal means essentially downstream of the lower end of the ship canal. Of those pre-terminal impacts the majority were modeled to be taken in non-treaty fisheries.

WN1A -
While the statement about the situation with Lake Washington wild Chinook and Puget Sound wild Chinook in general is correct it is hard to accept that this year's season package is significantly more conservation based that in the past. The total modeled fishing impacts were up to the 20% limit. It is true that some of that modeled impacts will not likely be used (for example potential LW Chinook impacts that might occur in a potential sockeye fishery) and passed on to the spawning gravels.

What chaffed many in the NOF process (non-treaty recreational and commercial) was a single tribe dictating when and where the non-treaty fishers conduct their fisheries even if the impacts remained unchanged. By that action not only were WDFW and many of the tribes painted in an unflattering light with the resulting seasons (or lack of) the anglers like yourself who look forward to fishing in your own backyard paid a heavily price in terms of opportunities.

Curt

Curt how can a single tribe dictate the nof process?

Probably because EACH tribe is a separate entity and has to agree. Regardless of the recs, river anglers, gillnetters, seiners, or reefnetters feel, WDFW does speak for them all.

WDFW goes into NOF proposing a six week season in MA 9 and MA 10 with a two fish limit; presumably based upon valid impact numbers. Comes out of NOF with no season in MA 10 and in MA 9 it is four weeks with a one fish limit and no reasonable expectation that it will last that long. Then WDFW has the audacity to say it is for conservation.

Just wondering who at WDFW is going to step up in his/her/their embarrassment and commit Hari kari?

Would it offend anyone if I nominated Phil Anderson?

No balls.

There are more functional balls in the Sultan's Harem Guards.

Crushing blow for everyone that looks forward to salmon fishing in Puget Sound.

MA9 will see twice the effort, all the guys that post up at Richmond Beach, Jeff Head, Meadow and West Point will head North. The quota will be gobbled up and most likely it will be open for one weekend, maybe two if we are lucky.

Conservation of our wild stocks is extremely important, but I feel like we was blind-sided by the lack of transparency in the process. Initially, WDFW proposed a 2 Chinook daily limit for MA9/10 and what we got were chopped quota in MA9 and zero retention in MA10. Even though all sport fishing advocates including NMTA, NSIA, CCA, PSA have been diligently working on our behalf, there was no negotiation, no public discourse, just a final verdict that we all must accept. This isn't the way our system should work.

I believe he had his moment in the sun in front of Sen. Pearson. The short run impact is an affront to all of us considering the money and work put into that marked selective fishery.

I am very concerned about the precedence this sets for the new Director's relationship with the Tribes and, maybe more importantly, his primary stakeholders and financiers.

I think most people comply with laws based on a combination of (i) fear of getting caught, and (ii) morals. When it comes to complying with fishing regulations, my personal compliance is almost completely based on morals--doing the right thing, just because it's the right thing. I think WDFW and its new Director should consider the effect that developments such as this cluster-fish MA 10 Chinook result are having on people's moral compass. Up until the end of the 'process' those of us in MA 10 expected a reasonable hatchery chinook retention opportunity and WDFW supported that goal. In the end, possibly just through lack of gumption, the rug was pulled out from under us and we get no Chinook retention at all. We've seen in Elliott Bay that once a season is stripped in NOF, it often doesn't come back. This feels much more political than proper. I wonder what folks in MA 10 are going to do when a hatchery Chinook hits their pink gear (happens every odd year for us) and then eventually comes to the boat with a sea lion waiting 10 yards behind the kicker for an easy meal. Bad start for the new Director. Worrisome precedent for WDFW.

What's the big deal? We (the sport fishermen) just need to remember our place in life. We are an inconvenience to the power brokers. Our roll is to provide money (and lots of it) and then to shut-up and let the grownups make all the decisions.

Cheer up! "They" said they will let us fish for pink salmon, and of course there is also sand dabs. (Of course, the commercials will get a large share of the pink salmon.) Commercials are a priority because they have such a large financial impact on the state and communities.

Remember, this decision was made to "reduce the impact on wild fish" so be sure to follow all the rules so the wild fish you "don't" catch can be really healthy when it swims into a gillnet and dies!

Since WDFW is looking at a $10 million budget shortfall, maybe it's time to close Puget Sound hatchery Chinook production until those who pay for them get a reasonable return on their investment.

Sg

Bay wolf...I needed that laugh!

I wasn't going to be the radical to make that suggestion outright - sort of hinted at it vis a vis the Wallace hatchery increased output and a lot more eggs to the Tulalips. So what do we get in return? Reduced opportunity in the salt and no in-river fishery because there aren't enough getting back to the hatchery to..........give eggs to the tribe and support the increased output at our expense.

The Non-sequitor of that scenario is simple enough for even me to grasp.