PLEASE keep the Nooksack off that list. I don't think it's wild population is one of the weakest and there is very little economic value provided the hatchery (actually a huge negative economic impact if you count the cost of the hatchery itself).

One of teal disconnects in WDFW is that they have to sell licenses to survive. This also seems to be lost on WFC. At the same time, they have to provide for wild fish.

Time is rapidly running out for WDFW to make conscious triage decisions. Some streams/watersheds should be purely wild for all fish. And, the land and water should then receive the protection necessary to maintain the stocks. Other watersheds would be there for people to live in, consumptively fish in, and so on. Large hatchery operations because the land and water are serving multiple purposes.

But, I have high confidence that we won't go there. We will try to do everything everywhere and end up with nothing anywhere.

This is not entirely a WDFW conundrum; any and all discussions/criticisms need to consider how the 800 pound gorilla will respond. Your vision???

In wild managed areas the Tribes would some sort of base number. Say (made up numbers) that they got the first 500 Skagit steelhead, all taken as incidental to other fisheries. Directed fisheries begin at 501 harvestable and are shared 50:50.

In the zones managed for maximum total production (hatcheries) the fish are shared 50:50.

So they would promise to quit fishing for their targeted species when they hit the magic number of wild steelhead?

Sorry if I don't share your confidence in that type of deal.

As an example, in 2012 the NIsqually tribe agreed to a Dungeness crab harvest number yet its members took three times that agreed upon number. In 2013 the tribe agreed to a number and their fishers exceeded it by two times. Their answer in 2014 was to not sign an agreement; same in 2015. Did someone mention setting up the Nisqually River as a gene bank?

Sorry to say, but a serious case of rose tinted glasses my friends.

It would take oversight with balls. The idea is that the Tribes would get first call on some level of harvest since they are owed actual, real fish and not paper fish.

What will likely happen is the State will simply abandon steelhead and then salmon and then crab to the tribes in order to allow continued growth and habitat destruction. That, and to continue the flow of campaign funds.

Oh really? Where does this proof exist? I'd be interested in seeing the evidence, as would thousands of other people.

The Nooksack likely has the second strongest wild steelhead population in Puget Sound, but the past steelhead program could have been increased substantially given the non-existent rate of introgression. Sometimes the best of both worlds can be had. Otherwise, I agree with your idea except for the fact that localized fishing opportunity would diminish for a large number of people.

Carcassman, no offense but this statement is entirely backwards. WDFW is not dependent on license sales to survive, which is exactly the reason why they could care less about providing fishing and hunting opportunities to WA residents. States that do depend on license sales are well-known for having exceptional opportunity, seasons and quality.

All WDFW revenue goes into the state's general fund and gets divvied up among the plethora of state departments. The WA legislature decides how much money WDFW gets.

If WDFW was partially dependent on license and permit revenue, I can guarantee you that fishing (and hunting) opportunity would be several fold better, they wouldn't back down during negotiations, and there would be more fish available for harvest.

TastySalmon, I just checked the 2013 - 2015 WDFW budget, and general fund money only makes up 16% of the department's budget. 27% comes from the state wildlife account which is mostly from the sale of fishing and hunting licenses. The remaining budget is made up as follows: federal funding - 29%; local funding - 16%; and other funding 12%.

Thanks Oncy. That license funding is further leveraged on a 4 for 1 basis (I think) with DJ and PR. So, with the loss of a license dollar used as DJ/PR match another 4 Federal dollars go away.

Oversight by whom? Clearly the State has no control/authority over the Tribes and the Federal Gov't seems to have forgotten that it entered into the treaties on behalf of its citizens at the time. It would be nice if they (the Feds) grew a set and ensured that the tribal Governments adhered to the terms of the Treaties and subsequent Federal Court rulings.

Sorry to be such a naysayer but I seriously doubt that any of the individual tribes will relinquish any of their actual or perceived treaty rights.

In fact, just look at how the Suquamish Tribe has delayed the Point No Point ramp development for over a year by merely objecting to the issuance of a Corps of Engineers permit on the basis that usage would adversely impact the Tribe's ability to exercise its treaty rights. No details, just the assertion is enough for the Corps to withhold the permit.

This scenario is not allowed by the Stevens treaties, though. This is what the tribes have been saying for years and put in writing in their "Treaty Rights at Risk" white paper in 2011. The tribes have continued to say that habitat must bear its fair share of the burden of conservation (see http://bit.ly/1J7EcWu). Eliminating or reducing fishing or hatchery programs will do no good unless habitat is protected and restored at the same time. Anyone interested in a future that includes fishing has to agree with this. Maybe, finally, we will see some alliances formed to make some big changes in how habitat is managed.

A long time ago Sam Wright opined that non-Indian habitat destruction could be considered as a type of harvest. Society makes a choice to take water out of streams to drink rather than grow fish. The fish are still just as dead. It is the same when we debate nest vs. hook and line vs. subsistence , etc. To the fish, and the ecosystem, they are still dead and don't spawn. So, as Smalma said, we can choose to take our share of dead fish as development.

Removing the taxpayers and license buyers from the equation of direct harvest would probably decrease interest in having the fish around but I suspect there are many in overall society who would see justice in giving the harvest back to the Indians.

And, regarding habitat, until we deal with actually dealing with human population on a local, state, national, and international basis the wild resources will lose. Just how well are wild native salmonids doing in most of Europe, Asia, and the Eastern coast of North America? If you're unsure, read Dave Montgomery's "King of Fish".

A pretty good description of the state of many populations, however, he misses really badly when he describes how healthy and robust the Chinook run is in the Nisqually River. He somehow managed to miss the fact that all those thousands of fish are from the tribal hatcheries.

If we are going to discuss societal demands which impact our natural resources it is reasonable to recognize and consider that tribal peoples are now a part of that society and contribute to those adverse impacts.

Absolutely Larry. But, they make up what fraction of the population. The treaties guarantee them half the fish. I suspect their "share" of development is what they use.

Easy there, Tasty. While I don't subscribe to any theory suggesting that hatchery fish are among the greatest obstacles to wild steelhead recovery, I think several decades of planting hatchery fish, without wild runs recovering, is pretty solid evidence that they haven't made any meaningful, positive impact on recovery. I suppose I should stop short of calling that "proof," but....

My point, like RUNnGUN's, was that it's probably time to rethink the purpose behind producing hatchery fish. I think they have significant value in places where degraded habitat makes in-river spawning largely non-productive. I can't prove it, but I have come to believe that their presence in systems with self-sustaining wild runs, while it does provide meaningful harvest opportunity, can have only negative impacts on the wild fish, if for no other reason than that they justify fisheries that impact wild fish, no matter how hard we try to avoid that result.

I don't advocate closing rivers designated as wild gene banks, but I do think C&R should be the only type of fishing allowed on wild stocks, regardless of how "stable" those stocks may appear. The rules would be much easier to write (and follow) without having to make exceptions for the sake of weeding out hatchery fish.

"They" to include casinos, hotels, and water parks, etc. ??? Point being it is not a simple divvying up of impact based upon discreet population numbers.

Again, I doubt very much if any tribe will give up any of its treaty rights and even if there was some sort of agreement there currently is no mechanism in place to monitor and enforce any such agreement. Proceed with eyes wide open to those realities.

Which gets us back to the point that WA is really not concerned about salmon, steelhead, or recovery. No money, no balls.

I believe that the Boldt Decision placed the conservation responsibility with the State. That was why the State issues Conservation Closures. This was negotiated away in the Spirit of Port Ludlow and Centennial Accords.