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.

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.

Bottom line, the Shoots kill more LW Chinook than all of the other fisheries combined that impact that stock in the state of WA. The Shoots 62%, all the other fisheries combined in the state 38%.

Yes, but they own a casino which produces a bunch of dollars which they use to promote their agenda with the public and the politicians.

One might call it a license to steal.

We were low holed by the Muk's at N O F, not negociating in good faith. WDFW had two choices, agree to the new structure to save 9 paper fish or no season. I believe that no season would have been a better deal in the long run. The tribes don't want to be seen as the only ones fishing on depressed stocks so they threw us sporties a bone. Reminds me of the Steelhead Moritorium.

Those that were there said they were blindsided at the last minute by the Mucks. Everyone thought there was a workable agreement in place that allowed for the opening in area 10, but at the last minute the tribe demanded it be closed along with the Lake Sammamish Chinook fishery. The reason used was possibly poor survival due to the low water and warmer temps expected this summer.

The impact that would have been used by the sportsman for area 10 was used elsewhere to expand other fisheries, I don't know where that was though.

If conservation was the Muk’s real concern as stated by them, then they wouldn’t be far and away the highest killer of Lake WA Chinook than any user group in Washington state.

It is clearly a fallacy! MA9 has even less opportunity than the original models.

Who is against the new, improved launch at PNP?

They just said "in other locations" no specifics.

The Suquamish and I think the Port Gamble Skallam have both sent letters against PNP boat ramp to the Army Corp of Engineers, due to usual and accustomed grounds argument. Wdfg was talking to them about two different marine area's to rehab.......seems to be swinging in the wind at the moment. Maybe some movement soon as North of Falcon is over and I' m sure Michel was busy.

Out of curiosity, how did Phil Anderson factor into this? I remember reading (I can't remember where) that Phil had already worked out this deal with the muks, and convinced Unsworth to take it. If that's the case, WDFW couldn't technically have been blindsided.

I heard Unsworth on KJR. He sounded beaten. I know he's new and this is a tough situation, but I didn't hear the voice of a strong leader. I'm hoping he can turn it around.

Yes, Suquamish claimed it would interfere with their ability to exercise their Treaty rights. Then they demanded cash up front for future damages and mucho haggling over the locations and extent of mitigation. My understanding is that WDFW resisted the money demand and has bent over backwards to accommodate the mitigation (more within the Suquamish U&A and simply more of it when just removal of the old dock and pilings should have been adequate). Oh, and special use of the site off hours for their fishermen to include parking. That may become another issue of contention not only with recreational users but also the County based upon the public hearings and possible constraints in the County's permit to WDFW. NOAA has given its "no harm" blessing to the Corps which is holding the permit in abeyance pending resolution of issues between WDFW and the Tribe(s); afraid to give the go-ahead with in the face of an unsupported assertion by the Tribe(s).

Oh, did I mention that "we" have over a Million of RCO money tied up in acquisition and design costs? For a walking and kayak park.....

Unsworth podcast here....

http://www.sportsradiokjr.com/media/podc...41815-25982360/

Not very impressed with his delivery of the why and how.

Listening to the podcast I actually felt sorry for him. He was obviously not prepared for NOF and even in this after action interview seemed unable to articulate what had occurred. Of course, that is why Anderson was retained to be at his side and maybe Anderson or others should have been party to this interview.

But bottom line, they had numbers they felt they could support and through several months of discussions thought they had a deal then at the last second had the rug pulled out. As Yogi said, "Deja vous all over again." Nope, should have just agreed to disagree and let the chips fall. Enough is enough.

I am having a flashback to the Tribal (Tulalip??) individual who spoke extensively at Sen. Pearson's hearings on the WFC deal espousing the need to work together. Pretty hollow words.

Frankly - he sounded like an idiot without a clue. He didn't put together a single articulate line of thought in that entire interview. Completely unqualified to negotiate on our behalf in my opinion. New or not, how can he go into a major negotiation and not know his numbers or be ready with a plan "B"? I'd be fired if I tried to explain the negative results of my negotiations to my boss as lamely as he did. WTF!

At least the Puget Sound is managed with a priority towards Sports fishing.

I had to listen to the show to hear what you folks did. Well not having a huge knowledge of PS I listened to what he was saying and not what I wanted to hear. His description of both tribal & WDF&W staff talking past each other is right on. The process critique also was pretty much on the mark also. So I always try to look through the others eyes and if I was him Holy sh-- comes to mind. Being a newbie he went forward with staff leading the way and had a vertical learning curve. What he was part of is a typical WDF&W thought process of you tribes we WDF&W and all hell broke loose.

I think the only upside is the recognition that with the projected ocean conditions numbers will only get worse. So next year it will be even more difficult but at least he has seen the WDF&W way in the recent past under Anderson at work. I doubt if he will go there again.

He also was leaning on Ron Warren for information, a person I have no confidence in at the position he holds.
I have read that on the last ten year average in PS the tribes have caught app. 64% of the Chinook and 70 % of the Coho.

At the NOF Millcreek meeting, Warren had the audacity to stand there in front of the sport anglers and state that he wasn’t so concerned on the 50/50 court split as much as quality and dependability of sport seasons. I told him straight out that I disagree with him about the split, and that he representing us sport anglers was pretty scary with his perspective.

Now we still see an uneven split, one less area to fish in for Chinook, and still instability in that particular Chinook fishery. Warren’s way of thinking isn’t working and could get worse. He already has a previous lousy track record in region 6 that didn’t work.

Unsworth needs to fire that worthless POS.

As I wrote earlier he was facing his first NOF cluster which is why Anderson was there to help guide him through the process - and we can see how that worked out. I sincerely hope that this has been a learning experience and that he has the managerial skills to avoid a repeat.

As to WDFW and the co-managers talking past one another I simply don't buy that explanation. We've had those fisheries for a couple of years now and the tribes have fought their existence each NOF so why should WDFW have thought this year was going to be different? This was simply lack of preparation and anticipation with no Plan B. (Correspondingly, refer to the PnP ramp resistance)

But after all of that and being scheduled for this program and with all of the adverse reaction he should have been far better prepared to answer for his actions regarding the P.S. marked selective fishery. The hosts were actually quite polite; almost too much so.

Now, what he did mention was that no one apparently had worked out one or more scenarios as to what might happen if the WDFW and the other co-managers could not come to an agreement. Would NOAA not issue a permit thereby precluding ALL Chinook harvest? Or would the Tribal fisheries continue while the rest of us sit on the beach? Or would NOAA take all the information available to them and play Solomon?

Regarding the 50/50 split per the Boldt decision.
Someone mentioned in a thread on another board that fish caught in Alaska and BC count again the non tribal 50% split.

I always thought the 50/50 split was only for fish caught in Washington waters.
Which is correct?
Thanks,
SF

The 50:50 split is WA waters. When the US/Canada Treaty was to be signed in the mid-80s the Tribes were threatening to sue to have all WA fish taken in any US fishery counted. AK indicated that they woud not sign the treaty if the Tribes sued. Following negotiations, Bill Wilkerson agreed to the current co-management outline, the suit was more or less dropped, only WA-caught fish counted, and every one lived happily ever after.

Except the fish, who mostly died in nets and on hooks.

I can't help but think about the parallels between this and the "disenrollment" craze sweeping many tribes with casinos. With diminishing casino revenues they are becoming absolutely cutthroat. Scary stuff.

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/unsworth-takes-radio-explain-area-10-king-closure/

Has the "conservation footing" the tribes have adopted ever been specified? I have not seen any evidence of that.

You may need Sherlock Holmes on staff to suss out that evidence...but I think Moriarty will still have the last laugh in this case.

Fish on...

Todd

Our fish managers managed the fish, till they were gone.

The following was pulled from the NOAA hatchery steelhead evaluation report from the Dungeness, Nooksack, and Stillaguamish rivers. It starts on page 8. I've tried to edit out the line numbers so it reads a little cleaner. I think it outlines a major part of our problems with the co-managers. NOAA is in the mix but their actions, or lack thereof, are driven by the federal responsibility to the tribal treaties.


http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/hatcheries/hgmp/ew_steelhead_proposed_eval_draft_ea.html


1.5.4. Executive Order 12898
In 1994, the President issued Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-income Populations. The objectives of the Executive Order include developing Federal agency implementation strategies, identifying minority and low-income populations where proposed Federal actions could have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, and encouraging the participation of minority and low-
income populations in the NEPA process. Changes in hatchery production have the potential to affect the extent of harvest available for minority and low-income populations.

1.5.5. Treaties of Point Elliot, Medicine Creek, and Point No Point
Beginning in the mid-1850s, the United States entered into a series of treaties with tribes in Puget Sound. The treaties were completed to secure the rights of the tribes to land and the use of natural resources in their historically inhabited areas, in exchange for the ceding of land to the United States for settlement by its citizens. These treaties secured the rights of tribes for taking fish at usual and accustomed grounds and stations in common with all citizens of the United
States. Marine and freshwater areas of Puget Sound were affirmed as the usual and accustomed fishing areas for treaty tribes under U.S. v. Washington (1974).

The Lummi Nation, Nooksack Tribe, Stillaguamish Tribe, and Tulalip Tribes are signatory to the Treaty of Point Elliot, the lands settlement treaty between the United States government and the Native American tribes of the North Puget Sound and Strait of Georgia regions, in the recently formed Washington Territory. The Treaty of Point Elliot was signed on January 22, 1855, at Muckl-te-oh or Point Elliott, now Mukilteo, Washington.

The Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe is signatory to the Treaty of Point No Point, the lands settlement treaty between the United States government and the Native American tribes of the Strait of Juan
de Fuca and Hood Canal regions (then, the S'Klallam, the Chimakum, and the Skokomish Tribes), also in the recently-formed Washington Territory. The Treaty of Point No Point was signed on January 26, 1855, at Hahdskus – the Salish dialect name for Point No Point – on the northern tip of the Kitsap Peninsula.

1.5.6. U.S. v. Washington
U.S. v. Washington (1974) is the Federal court proceeding that enforces and implements reserved treaty fishing rights with regards to salmon and steelhead returning to Puget Sound. Hatcheries inPuget Sound provide salmon and steelhead for these fisheries. Without many of these hatcheries, there would be few, if any, fish for the tribes to harvest. These fishing rights and attendant access were established by treaties that the Federal government signed with the tribes in the 1850s. In those treaties, the tribes agreed to allow the peaceful settlement of Indian lands in western Washington in exchange for their continued right to fish, gather shellfish, hunt, and exercise other sovereign rights. Under Phase II of U.S. v. Washington, the Federal District Court ensured tribes the rights to the protection of fish habitat subject to treaty catch and a right to the fish that are produced by hatcheries. In 1974, Judge George Boldt decided in U.S. v. Washington that the tribes’ fair and equitable share was 50 percent of all of the harvestable fish destined for the tribes’ traditional fishing places.

1.5.7. Secretarial Order 3206
Secretarial Order 3206 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities and the ESA) issued by the secretaries of the Departments of Interior and Commerce, clarifies the responsibilities of the agencies, bureaus, and offices of the departments when actions taken under the ESA and its implementing regulations affect, or may affect, Indian lands, tribal trust resources, or the exercise of American Indian tribal rights as they are defined in the Order. Secretarial Order 3206 acknowledges the trust responsibility and treaty obligations of the United States toward tribes and tribal members, as well as its government-to-government relationship when corresponding with tribes. Under the Order, NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Services) “will carry out their responsibilities under the [ESA] in a manner that harmonizes the Federal trust responsibility to tribes, tribal sovereignty, and statutory missions of the [Services], and that strives to ensure that Indian tribes do not bear a disproportionate burden for the conservation of listed species, so as to avoid or minimize the potential for conflict and confrontation.” More specifically, the Services shall, among other things, do the following:
1.5.8.
Work directly with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis to promote healthy ecosystems (Sec. 5, Principle 1)
Recognize that Indian lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands (Sect. 5, Principle 2)
Assist Indian tribes in developing and expanding tribal programs so that healthy ecosystems are promoted and conservation restrictions are unnecessary (Sec. 5, Principle 3)
Be sensitive to Indian culture, religion, and spirituality (Sec. 5, Principle 4)
The Federal Trust Responsibility

The United States government has a trust or special relationship with Indian tribes. The unique and distinctive political relationship between the United States and Indian Tribes is defined by statutes, executive orders, judicial decisions, and agreements and differentiates tribes from other entities that deal with, or are affected by the Federal government. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, states that the United States has recognized Indian tribes as domestic dependent nations under its protection. The Federal government has enacted numerous statutes and promulgated numerous regulations that establish and define a trust relationship with Indian tribes. The relationship has been compared to one existing under common law trust, with the United States as trustee, the Indian tribes or individuals as beneficiaries, and the property and natural resources of the United States as the trust corpus (Cohen 2005; Newton et al. 2005). The trust responsibility has been interpreted to require Federal agencies to carry out their activities in a manner that is protective of Indian treaty rights. This policy is also reflected in the March 30, 1995, document, Department of Commerce – American Indian and Alaska Native Policy (U. S. Department of Commerce 1995).

I guess I don't understand the entire dynamic behind the process. How is it that. One unique sector of the co-managers can throw a trump card at the last minute? What is the point of negotiating if the end all be all is a stern and foreboding "sorry, no".

The "low snowpack, warm summer" argument is based on speculation. WDFWs models are based on science.

If the mucks said "no" why wouldnt the state then also say "no" and not agree to their terms. Both user groups need permits to operate, and if the argument is over conservation then NO ONE fishes. Force a stalemate, no permits should be issued until terms are met for BOTH groups....

This sets dangerous precedent if this policy goes unchanged..... What's to stop the tribes from just saying "no" to each and every last NOF proposal knowing now that crying like a baby and stomping their feet will get them their way.

It seems to me the process is beyond broken. I think it may be time for some Supreme Court inquisition into this "process".....

If the mucks said "no" why wouldnt the state then also say "no" and not agree to their terms. Both user groups need permits to operate, and if the argument is over conservation then NO ONE fishes. Force a stalemate, no permits should be issued until terms are met for BOTH groups....


I believe that in the long run this would have been the best decision.

It would require saying "no" to the Tribes. That word is not in the State of WA vocabulary.

Neither is casiNO. State recently "negotiated" an agreement with the tribes that would allow them to double the number of slots they presently have over the next decade. Wonder what benefit the state received for that?

I'll ask the impolite question...

How few fish is too few? Nobody wants a fish run to disappear OF COURSE, but when do you throw in the towel?

The entire system is being managed for literally a few dozen fish that have shown no signs of recovery. Not to mention all the bad blood that's arisen between people over this. On the surface, it doesn't seem to make alot of sense. These fish are holding us hostage.

Seattle is exploding and even more habitat loss is inevitable. The future is not bright for these wild fish. Hatcheries were created to mitigate habitat loss. A hatchery fish is not as good as a wild fish, but is waaaaaay better than no fish. Maybe let hatcheries do what they were created to do?

In reality I know that throwing in the towel is not viable. Governmental agencies and other groups would not allow it. I'm sure they will manage it right down to zero, and beyond.

But is there a precedent for throwing in the towel on particular conservation efforts, and perhaps using those resources on conservation efforts that show promise? Would anybody have the political will and clout to do that?

ESA allows it. Called the "God Squad". Used in Tennessee, I believe, on the Tellico Darter.

I agree 100% with this.

Recreational impacts on Lake Washington Chinook go down, tribal impacts on Lake Washington Chinook go up, overall impacts on Lake Washington Chinook go up...and this is done as a "conservation measure"?

Doesn't even pass the "do I look fuckin stupid to you?" test.

And...it's not like anyone at WDFW or at the Muckleshoot Tribe is wrong, or can't do basic math...they are lying.

No, I won't qualify it...they can do basic math as well as anyone else, and their math shows the same thing that mine does.

They are straightfaced lying to you.

WDFW, the F&W Commission, Phil Anderson, and the new Director Unsworth should all be ashamed.

The problem is that recreational anglers will just take it in the ass and go out and fish for their "opportunity", which is now less than half the opportunity crammed into half the space.

Enjoy your five day summer Chinook season this year, suckers.

Fish on...

Todd

Well, while I'm busy venting my frustration with this pack of bull$hit that they are selling us on Puget Sound Chinook fisheries this summer, let me say this, too...

I just listened to the first 15 minutes of the Director on NWWC and he is either woefully undereducated, underskilled, and underqualified to do that job, or is a terrible liar himself.

Another reason for the Comission to be ashamed.

My days of being "nice" to the muckety mucks at WDFW are long past in order to preserve my "access" to them, so I will tell it like it is...and this is how it is:

They are lying to you.

Flat out lying to your face.

Your Director, former Director Anderson, the entire negotiating team for WDFW that was at the PFMC, and the Muckleshoot Tribal reps who ever once utter the word "conservation" in regards to this fishery.

Lying.

As long as sportfishermen and our "representatives" allow it to go unchecked then this is what we get, and it's also what we deserve.

Fish on...

Todd

Hard to compete with Casino money and political clout.

Todd -
Nice rant!!!

I agree with your conservation comments and further that we are getting the what we deserve. In that regard I pretty sure there will be at least one opening on the Puget Sound sport fisheries advisory group and I encourage you to step up as one of our "representatives".

Curt

Smalma. After seeing how WDFW handled the Willapa Advisory group by flat out denying that options had been looked at, how can one even think about working "with" them if they act as they do? All they want is a rubber-stamp.

I do know that if we don't participate our input won't be heard but when it is consistently ignored?

Kind of damned if you do damned if you don't.

I sure hope you reconsider and stay there, Curt...I know you are you wonderfully humble about it, but you know more than any other three of us about how WDFW works and what needs to be done to get this back on track!

Fish on...

Todd

And this isn't the first time within the NOF process!

Sadly, it seems to be endemic within WDFW either by directly lying or manipulating data to further the goals of bios and/or upper management. What is even more egregious has been the Commission's failure to put them on the credibility spotlight and insist that the Director and his employees be scrupulous in their professional actions. But being scrupulous means having scruples and by their past actions I am convinced that some of those folks simply don't see their own failures.

No integrity equals no confidence. Simple.

The rules are written to ensure that WDFW has the ultimate authority on season setting, which is why entities like the F&W Commission, while they create an illusion of citizen representation, are effectively ineffective. Make no mistake: lawmakers' campaigns are profiting from the status quo, and that is why they will never change it. Want change? We have three options:

1. Stop buying fishing licenses.
2. Outspend the casinos in lobbying.
3. Revolt.

Number 3 is my favorite option, as it fixes all the other BS to which we, as taxpayers, are constantly subjected as well. Because most Americans still have blind, undying faith in their leaders, however, that's still a long ways off.

Number 1 won't happen (too late for this sucker, who shelled out his $100 last week, anyway).

Number 2 could be accomplished relatively easily, IF sport fishers weren't too hung up on their own contentions to join forces toward a common purpose....

Looks like we'll continue to bend over to me.

All should read Directors Anderson's contract. I have not read Mr. Unsworth's contract but the former Director had total control. He also had a real desire to do what he wanted, in particular in the total disregard of HSRG reform and many other things. So in many ways it is a institutional problem.

I think the state and the muks figure we'll just bitch a little and it will all blow over. Sportsman have taken all the other opportunity cutbacks without doing anything. No protests, no court cases, nothing!
Today, teachers are walking out and their complaints have made the news. Police brutality, homelessness, minimum wage you name it- everybody who wants their issue resolved protests. I know that if this affected the commercials, they would have taken them to court. These days, if you don't like something, you have to both protest and use the courts to get something changed. That threat needs to be out there or you'll be stepped on.

I think we need to rally a protest that gives our issue enough press to get something done. I'm thinking we should take every boat we can get to the Capitol and have a rally on the steps.

Our banners could read " we just want our 50%" and if we don't get it we should take them to court. I think it's just a matter of whether we do it this year or next, it's just going to get worse. The longer we wait to address it, the more ground we'll have to work to get back.

Begin rant:

Others mentioned that this is the result of fighting over a dwindling number of fish. Whether or not anyone accepts it, the tribes and anglers are in the same boat. FFS, look at how many wild fish this commotion is over and how much damage it has done. Of course a tribe will advocate for itself and of course WDFW will cede a popular fishery in a situation like this. WDFW's goal is not to provide robust fisheries for their constituents -- their goal is to continue a worsening conservation facade in a day and age when recovery of any ESA species comes at great cost with very little to show for the efforts. Despite what George W. Bush said, humans and fish cannot live in peace.

Recovering any listed species in Pugetrolpolis is simply out of the question. LW chinook will never recover to healthy, harvestable levels. Ever. To believe otherwise is insanity. There are too many factors at play preventing just about any species recovery whether they inhabit the most intact PS river, or a warmwater cesspool surrounded by tech executive mansions.

Keta brought up the interception by AK and BC on local stocks, and his advice is absolutely correct. Do you think ADFG gives a damn about LW chinook -- or any nearly extinct PS stock for that matter? Of course not. SEAK trollers will be allowed to continue business as usual, and we'll continue allowing ourselves to be held hostage by a stock that simply will not be extant, except through hatchery supplementation, in 50 years. Will a SEAK troll fishery moratorium be the answer for LW chinook? Probably not, but we would likely see a great deal more chinook everywhere else in the PNW.

While it's easy to complain about what happened, it doesn't come anywhere close to fixing the problems. If the tables at NOF had been turned in favor of the rec fleet, does it mean fewer wild LW chinook will eventually die? Most people know the answer to this question, so it comes back to fighting over a pathetic population of fish that will continue sliding closer to extinction.

Anglers need an organized plan, and that plan shouldn't involve bickering about less than 200 paper fish. WDFW and the feds aren't going to create better fisheries for us; they're going to gradually keep restricting fisheries while tooting the recovery and conservation horn. This said, what are the solutions for providing better fisheries?

This is exactly what needs to happen. We just need a voice to rally a few public demonstrations.

One venue would be flying in the face of the Muckelshoot commercial fisheries down in Ballard.

Thankfully, something that makes a lick of sense.

Where is the CCA, the NSIA, and PSA in all this? Seems like efforts should be combined to lobby, battle or protest as a group against this BS. Haven't heard a word out of any of them.

maybe they should end mass marking ....

.....or hatcheries.

CCA and PSA members were working the process and were at the final NOF meeting in CA. Safe to say we're all continuing to work the issue.

Impact on wild stocks is the nail used to tie all the conservation and restrictions together. Less impact on wild fish = better odds for recovery (so says the party line)
The elephant in the room that no one wants to address is the non-selective fisheries that are conducted on ESA listed fish.

Sport anglers are mandated to rules that reduce impacts and are given substantial fines for violating these rules. Further, recreational fishermen support the majority of the conservation efforts toward restoration and hatchery supplementation. Then there is the financial contributions to the state and communities by the sportsmen. Yet, our co-managers and commercial communities are continuing to use (and be allowed to use) gill-nets, which account for significant impact to wild stock. So, the fallacy of WDFW making decisions and using "conservation" and "reduced impacts" are all smoke and mirrors. The truth is, stocks are dwindling for a number of reason, and overharvest by commercial fleets is a major one. But it is much easier to place restrictions on the recreational fishermen then the politically connected tribes and commercials. The only recourse sports fishermen have is to complain, and that doesn't impact those that make the deals!

The sportsman also has the option to not participate. To vote with their feet and with their wallets.

I see over on Mynorthwest there's a full page banner add "7 reasons to fish Canada." One reason is the four king possession limit. It should read, "Come to Canada and kill your four ESA listed Puget Sound kings before the Muckleshoots kill them all!"

Every day may chances of retiring in Wa goes down. Throw in another 5-7 million people in the next decade or so and there will be nothing left that I used to love about this state.

Or you could just go fish in the ocean and not have to release unmarked Chinook? That's right, in a non-selective recreational fishery...