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!