I've just concluded the morning conference call with WDFW staff and fellow PS salmon Advisors.

Without going into 1000 details on the fishery models, Tribal, WDFW, and sportfishing positions and seasons which are being proposed now, I am here to say that ALL advisors and individuals such as Ron Garner representing PSA in Washington state have all said "NO DEAL"
and compelled the WDFW Director Unsworth directly to walk away from the negotiations. If WDFW walks away in support of the chorus supporting that decision, WDFW and Co Managers would have 18 days to continue negotiations. the PS Salmon advisors are requesting that no deal is made at NOF and that a Section 7 permit is sought through NOAA to allow salmon seasons for sportfishermen and charter operations in PS this Summer and Fall.


I'll report back once there are more developments.

WOW... this is getting ridiculous. The meeting is already in overtime and they're still playing hardball.

Do you guys have the proposed king quotas for each catch area? Westport was proposed to be 14,800. What are Lapush and Neah Bay?

Thanks.

Wow! I guess that letter earlier from NOAA didn't help much.. Or maybe it did.

NO DEAL

NO DEAL!!! Thanks to you, Ryley, and the rest of the folks who are drawing a line in the sand.

While things are still being negotiated in the lower 48, Alaska is already making their plans for the summer. This quote came off one of the troller sites. I haven't seen the official announcement from ADFG.

"Abundance index for 2016 of 2.06 for a summer troll quota of some 260,000. 2015 AI was 1.45, it was 2.47 back in 2014.

Last year's announcement didn't come until June 26."


Most of these fish are headed south, especially on the outside waters. They'll catch this quota in <10 days in early July.

I'm surprised with all the turmoil here that they chose this year to make an early announcement.

Well, a public statement from one side: http://nwtreatytribes.org/treaty-tribes-...-low-coho-year/

Ocean package adopted just minutes ago....



Rec total of 35K kings and 18.9K coho

To put this into perspective, we ended up at Ocean Option 2 Plus

Recall PFMC Ocean Option 1 was 58.6K chinook and 37.8K coho
Recall PFMC Ocean Option 2 was 30K chinook and 14.7K coho

Apparently, Loomis thinks only one side cares about the fish...

"Unfortunately, the political leadership with the state Department of Fish and Wildlife did not provide a fisheries package that met the conservation needs of stocks of concern because of low abundance,” said Lorraine Loomis, chair of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. “The treaty fishing package is a conservative and appropriate approach to this historically low return."

They care so much about fish, especially endangered ones, that they refuse to adopt methods permitting encounters leading to overwhelmingly safe releases. Give me a HUGE break.

Link to coast-wide salmon info Doc?

No deal. About damn time. I sent a note to Director Unsworth thanking him for his stance. Let him know you have his back.

So what is the goal? Maximum sport harvest? I'm not sure if that is a really a goal worth fighting for given the dismal predictions.

I haven't been following the details, though, so maybe I'm misinformed. What is the enlightened sportfisherman hoping will result from this process?

50:50 .... in times of good AND in times of bad.

Conservation in times of bad means EQUAL sharing and reduction of coho impacts for 2016.

One co-manager should NOT be made to subsidize the disproportionate impacts of the other.

Are the treaty tribes proposing something other than 50/50? As I said, I have not been following the details.

The Seattle Times version...

http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/very-...ginning-july-1/

Thanks for leading the charge, Pat Patillo!

It's a bit hard to follow.

Can you explain to me your 50:50 comment? You say impacts, is that the same as catch, so equal catch? Also, the subsidize comment, can you explain? I've seen it thrown around at the non-treaty commercials. Is this the same with the tribes?

Just curious....

Catch and impact is NOT necessarily the same.

When you fish NON selective, they ARE the same. You catch it, you harvest it, it's a 100% impact.

These fisheries closures are the direct consequence of the state of Washington allowing the destruction of salmon habitat for decades,” Loomis said. “Dips in ocean survival will happen every so often, but we wouldn’t have to drastically cut back our fisheries if a better job was done protecting the habitat.”


Just cracks me up that the tribes have no ownership in their own impacts.

Okay, got it.

So if a selective fishery is designed to use an amount of "impacts" in the form of released fish, does that mean more released fish will survive the fishery (to spawn), or do the same amount of non-target (wild) fish die a in a non-selective fishery? If the same, then how is one technique better than the other, for the fish?

Also, how does the expanded catch, from the selective fishery, affect the total catch for the 50:50 split? In other words, how is it possible to split the harvestable fish and impacts, equally, when the parties fish differently, selective vs non-selective?

Thanks for entertaining my questions.

What will be the regs for Johns River, Willapa Bay and the Chehalis river ?

NOAA's letter suggested no Section 7 route for rec's and NT's, but the tribes had a faster (albeit not guaranteed) route. Is that set in stone, or was it "guidelines"?

Very interested to hear of the progress over the next couple weeks Sky Guy, and thank your for your time and effort in advocacy.

Let us know when and how to help. There are resources available.

fb

Done. And thanks to Sky-Guy for the updates and urging WDFW to stand up to the tribes.

Reading the NW Treaty Tribes press release is both entertaining and disturbing. The very first paragraph ends with "except in a few terminal areas where there are identified harvestable hatchery fish."

Sure sounds like a euphemism for "basically business as usual"

This is not even preliminary but off the last model run for GH and numbers did not make sense at all. It does give you and idea though. This at a 5% NOR impact on Coho as in a conference call WDF&W said they were moving toward the QIN preseason forecast of around 32K and not WDFW 40k.


Dates Bag Limit
Area 2D only Oct 1-Nov 30 1 Adult bag: release wild Chinook
Area 2C only Aug 1 - Sept 16 2 adults, release wild coho.

April 16 - June 30 1 Adult bag:
Chehalis River Mouth to Porter Sept 16-Sept 30 1 Adult bag: Release wild Chinook
Oct 1-Jan 31 1 Adult bag: Release wild Chinook and wild Coho

Chehalis River Porter up to High Bridge Sept 16-Sept 30 1 Adult bag: Release wild Chinook
Oct 1-Jan 31 1 Adult bag: Release wild Chinook and wild Coho
Hwy 6 to high bridge

Hoquiam Closed 0

Wishkah Oct 1-Dec 31 1 Adult bag: release Chinook and wild Coho


Wynoochee Oct 1-Nov 30 1 Adult bag: Release Chinook and wild Coho

Satsop Oct 1-Dec 31 1 Adult bag: Release wild Chinook and wild Coho
0 0

Black River Closed 0

Skookumchuck Oct. 1-Dec 31 1 Adult bag: release Chinook and wild Coho


Newaukum Oct. 1-Dec 31 1 Adult bag: release Chinook and wild Coho

Elk and Johns Closed 0

Humptulips River FW Sept. 1-Sept 30 2 Adult bag: 1 may be a wild Chinook, release wild Coho
Oct 1-Nov 15 2 Adult bag: 1 may be a Chinook, release wild Coho
Nov 16-Jan 31 1 Adult bag: release Chinook and wild Coho
Commercial Dates # days Details
Area 2A/2D 43 Oct 16, 2016 0 12 hr days, live boxes, short soak, release wild Chinook
44 Oct 23, 2016 3 12 hr days, live boxes, short soak, release wild Chinook

Area 2C 43 Oct 16, 2016 2 24 hr days, live boxes, short soak, release wild Coho
44 Oct 23, 2016 2 12 hr days, live boxes, short soak, release wild Coho

Ive been really busy with work so I am just going to post up some of the Advisor's sound bites about 2016 NOF for your consumption:


In the aggregate roughly 2/3 of the impacts fall on the tribal side of the ledger.


We agree that there is a conservation issue with our coho and with previous co-manager agreed management guidelines (comp coho) potential fisheries need to be managed to minimize impacts on coho.



The tribal managers seemed to focus on how the non-tribal fishers fished rather than on what the impacts were. In effect attempt to dictate when, where and how non-treaty fisheries occur.



The majority of the conservation burden has been placed on the non-treaty fishers.



The tribal managers position was that only coho impacts could occur in fisheries targeting other species; for example Chinook. Yet for fisheries target game fish in freshwater the tribal position was that those fisheries had to be closed.



The tribal desires on the Skagit that there be a rough balancing of sharing of treaty and non-treaty impacts but were unwilling to adopt the same sharing criteria for those basins where there were significant imbalance on the tribal side.


"Goals of recreational angling leaders have focused on:
* Conservation and escapement of spawning fish first
* Responsible "selective fisheries" designed to select harvestable hatchery fish and release wild fish.
* Meaningful and equitable fisheries across geographical areas and types of fisheries including catch & release fishing, marine and river fisheries.
* Our intent has always been to negotiate fisheries in good faith, respecting co-managers needs and traditions. We don't dictate how tribes conduct their fisheries and don't believe that tribes should dictate how we conduct ours.
* 2016 fisheries discussions broke down because tribes oppose how we conduct fisheries like "marked selective fishing" (in which hatchery fish are kept and wild fish are released) and catch & release fishing which has been a valuable tool for fish recovery in recreation fishing in countless global real world applications, even though the non-tribal fisheries impacted comprehensive wild Coho escapement at a lower rate than proposed tribal fisheries. Our fisheries were rejected by tribal representatives based their own values and not science or conservation, giving explanations like "we don't like the ocular effect" and "we don't like you playing with our food".



Right now, each and every Sportfisherman and woman is Washington state needs to back the department 100%, in support of negotiations of fair and equitable fisheries. We cannot and will not accept anything less.
Email the director, email the commissioners, email the Governor in support of continued negotiations with equitable impacts only, nd if not demand we file for our own permits through NOAA.

An impact is a dead fish. Catch is a dead fish in your boat. If you release a fish there is an impact (mortality) of 10-14% depending on location. In addition there is an impact assigned for fish that engage your gear but escape. Nets are also assigned a release mortality of 14-56% depending on net type and location. They also have an assigned net drop out mortality.

What is missing is the impact of seals and sea lions. At times they harvest as much from nets as the fishermen without an assigned impact.

Sorry this is off the thread topic but there was some miss understanding of what an impact is.

Thanks SB,

So between your explanation and what the Doc said earlier, I gather that the tribes only impacts (dead fish) are related to estimated net dropout? Other than that, no impacts, just catch (dead fish in the boat)?

Or, I suppose a by catch species?


Thanks,

Some of us will document the Sea Lions this year JC but it ran about 20% last year.

Dead fish is a dead fish. QIN count fish sold plus 4% drop out and they disagree with the 4% thing. The fishers take some home and ect but not much back door sales anymore as the QIN will pull their permit.

Directed or targeted is correct as the non target spices is incidental. They are counted also just separate.

Does anybody have numbers for the commercial catch by area? These will be the numbers that the commercial trollers will be allowed to catch.

Just in from the Seattle Times: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news...ound-fisheries/

"The tribal fishing plan has been submitted to NOAA Fisheries, according to a commission statement. And it could be approved without the months of delays that a separate state plan would face, said Bob Turner, a NOAA Fisheries assistant administrator who outlined the approval processes in a Jan. 19 letter to state and tribal officials. But on Friday, a commission staffer said the tribes did meet again with state officials to discuss a joint management plan."

Looks like the tribe's route for approval is moving forward, and NOAA is saying non-tribal is going to have to sit on the bank.

I'm sorry but I'm just having a bit of a problem here..


So THE STATE OF WASHINGTON can't fish in its own waters, but sovereign entities can?


Am I missing something?

While I really do want to fish over this upcoming run of clipped kings, I am willing to sit it out if the end result is a revised negotiation process for the future, where we don't get held hostage by negotiators in bad faith. I can get behind the state on this one, but we need to make it count (and not for just this season).

fb

WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/
April 15, 2016
Contact: Ron Warren, (360) 902-2799
Salmon seasons set for ocean, CR;
tate, tribes unable to reach agreement on Puget Sound
OLYMPIA – Anglers will have opportunities to fish for salmon in the ocean and Columbia River this year, although recreational and non-tribal commercial salmon fisheries in Puget Sound may be closed through much of the season.
After lengthy negotiations, state and tribal fishery managers could not reach an agreement on salmon-fishing seasons in Puget Sound. An agreement must be reached in the next few weeks or the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and treaty tribes in western Washington will each need to secure separate federal permits required to hold fisheries in Puget Sound waters where there are protected fish stocks.
That decision was made yesterday at the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s meeting in Vancouver, Wash. Salmon fishing seasons for Washington’s ocean waters and the Columbia River were adopted during the federal panel’s meeting. A summary of those fisheries is available on WDFW’s website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/attach/apr1516a.pdf
Jim Unsworth, WDFW director, said potentially forgoing salmon seasons in Puget Sound isn’t a decision the department took lightly.
“We realize that closing salmon fishing in Puget Sound for the foreseeable future is not only disappointing but is detrimental to many communities across the region,” he said. “As we work to secure the necessary federal permit, we hope to continue discussions with the tribes. I believe co-management can work, and we will do our part to improve the process of setting salmon seasons in Washington.”
This is the first time the state and tribes have not reached an agreement on salmon fishing seasons while working as co-managers, which began about 30 years ago. In previous years, the co-managers have been authorized to fish for salmon under a joint federal permit.
Ron Warren, head of WDFW’s Fish Program, said the department will begin working with NOAA Fisheries to secure a federal permit for salmon fisheries in Puget Sound. However, it is uncertain the department will receive federal authorization in time to hold salmon fisheries this summer, he said.
“We knew setting salmon-fishing seasons would be challenging this year due to the poor forecast for coho,” Warren said. “Our staff worked really hard to put forward a set of proposed fisheries that met agreed-to conservation goals. Unfortunately, we were not able to reach an agreement.”
About 256,000 coho are expected to return to Puget Sound in 2016. That’s about one-third the size of run predicted in 2015.
During the salmon season-setting process, state fishery managers consulted with numerous members of the department’s Puget Sound sportfishing advisory groups, who supported the department’s decision.
Puget Sound marine and fresh water areas that currently are open to salmon fishing – including marine areas 5, 11, 12 and 13 – will close to fishing May 1, if not scheduled to close earlier in the 2015-2016 Washington Sport Fishing Rules pamphlet.
Persons with disabilities who need to receive this information in an alternative format or who need reasonable accommodations to participate in WDFW-sponsored public meetings or other activities may contact Dolores Noyes by phone (360-902-2349), TTY (360-902-2207), or email (dolores.noyes@dfw.wa.gov). For more information, see http://wdfw.wa.gov/accessibility/reasonable_request.html.
________________________________________
This message has been sent to the WDFW Regulatory Information mailing list.
Visit the WDFW News Release Archive at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/
To UNSUBSCRIBE from this mailing list: http://wdfw.wa.gov/lists/unsubscribe.html

I have been thinking about the tribes argument for increased impacts based of tradition fishing methods. Do they really want to argue that they will not switch to lower impact methods based off of tradition? While gill netting may be traditional, the current methods, such as drift netting, using jet sleds, nylon nets, and such show they are perfectly happy to adjust to their advantage.

The treaty tribes' fishing business model (one fisherman, one skiff, one outboard motor, one gillnet) is the most cost effective. Selective fishing methods require a significantly larger capital investment for seines or other selective gear. And alternative gear and methods involve group or communal fishing, which complicates the serious issue of "who gets the money?"

"About 256,000 coho are expected to return to Puget Sound in 2016. That’s about one-third the size of run predicted in 2015."

How many coho actually returned in 2015? I know it wasn't anywhere near what was predicted. Why should we think this prediction has any basis in reality?

"Ron Warren, head of WDFW’s Fish Program, said the department will begin working with NOAA Fisheries to secure a federal permit for salmon fisheries in Puget Sound. However, it is uncertain the department will receive federal authorization in time to hold salmon fisheries this summer, he said."

The tribes have already applied for their permit and apparently there is a streamlined process that will allow them to fish this summer. I think WDFW should start the process to apply for a permit for 2017 now.

What does this mean for areas 5 and 6?? IS the Strait considered Puget Sound????

Looks like I'll be trailering to Sooke this year....

Yes, Areas 5 & 6 are included in this situation.

Time for civil disobedience and fish wars 2.0. Violence is also acceptable.

[Time for civil disobedience and fish wars 2.0. Violence is also acceptable]


you got that right

I'd like to see recreational fishermen blockade the marinas when the tribes leave to fish their U&A in their fancy modern boats. Or take a page out of the sea shepherd douche bags and deploy some prop foulers. My first preference is to treat anyone fishing when it's closed to 99% of the states population with the tactics and prejudice we used against German Uboats in WWII but that's just wishful thinking.

maybe some one can enlighten me, but it seems that the permit the tribe is requesting, would, in being issued, have to address many of the same issues that the department would be facing. In other words, if the tribes come up with a valid number of exploitable fish and suitable numbers for them to take no more than their 50%, how much harder would it be to piggy back on to their data. If they get a permit that agrees X number of fish are available in a select harvest area, then couldn't the state just provide a model that shows the expect sport fishery exploitation and harvest rate. If the NOAA has accepted the exploitation rate in the past, why would they not accept it now?

This looks like the final draft. to be adopted in May.

http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploa...gt_measures.pdf

IF there's no summer salmon season in Puget Sound, the Canadians are going to have to build a border wall. Maybe they will get WDFW to pay for it....there's a lot of nice kings passing thru Ucluelet and Tofino, and the Broken Group islands can be lights out in July. Hell, even Sooke has good fishing, where the kings outnumber the fishermen.

From Salmon University section on Canada reports, 4/13:

Sidney

Salmon fishing was VERY GOOD near Sidney. There have been quite a good number of springs between 12-25 lbs being caught. The whole area east of the Inlet has produced nice fish. Springs have been caught by Sidney Spit, Sidney channel, Coal Island, Hamley Point, the Powder Wharf, Saanichton, Moresby Island and in Satellite channel. Many anglers are fishing using tiny strip or anchovies in Bloody Nose and UV Green teaser heads. Coho Killer, Gibbs Needle G and AP Tackle needlefish spoons have been working well.

Sooke

The salmon fishing was GOOD for springs this past week. Anchovies have been the top bait recently, especially with Cop Car and Purple Haze teaser heads. The 3”-4” Kingfisher, Gypsy and G-Force spoons, as well as hoochies, are also top choices for Sooke anglers. Good colors have been Kitchen Sink, Irish Cream and No Bananas. Hoochies in White Glow, Army Truck and Tiger Prawn have been catching their fair number of fish. The most popular flashers recently have been ones with Moon Jelly patterns such as the Madi and the Lemon Lime.

It's fine, I guess, that the tribes chose that business model. They should be required to stay within 50% (their share) on ESA impacts as well as harvestable fish. If they want to fish non-selectively, fine. But it should be their choice and the consequences are loss of access to stronger co-mingled runs.

Saw this posted over on iFish - NOF ocean fisheries hammered out in the eleventh hour thread:


This is a loser for the nonIndian fisheries in Puget Sound.

Haven't you folks ever wondered why say, in the Columbia the tribes get about 10 to 14x the ESA impacts on spring Chinook, or sockeye, or steelhead?

The reason is that's essentially the law. In the mid 90's the US government clarified how federal tribal trust responsibility intersected with ESA: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-w...ial-order.html

It states this: "Accordingly, the Departments will carry out their responsibilities under the Act in a manner that harmonizes the Federal trust responsibility to tribes, tribal sovereignty, and statutory missions of the Departments, 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."

Essentially, the feds have to err on the side of the tribes. You could add that portions of the Boldt decision (the major decision affecting Puget Sound salmon fisheries) also directs that the tribal fisheries are the last to close. Folks can get bent out of shape by this, but its all case law that's been in place for close to 40 yrs now. Plus its how fisheries have been set for decades now. Good luck going it alone, as NOAA already went on the record saying it would be near impossible for nontribal fisheries to get approval w/out agreement with the tribes back in January: http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/u..._MAR2016BB.pdf

I don't know what your point is in context to that quote is but the key word I see is "disproportionate". That verbiage is designed to indicate that the burden should be carried equally....

Having reread the letter by NOAA to WDFW about “going alone,” there are plenty of incentives for the tribes and WDFW to come back to the bargaining table because an agreement would be beneficial to both sides. We will see if both sides do sit down, as has been proposed, before the short window of opportunity closes.

As it stands, it appears that both sides could be sitting on the shore this year without an agreement and NOAA is probably reminding both sides of that very possibility if they don't come to terms.

Quote from the letter,
“In addition, a separate tribal plan could require a new NEPA assessment by the BIA. While NOAA Fisheries believes proposals for tribal only fisheries could receive ESA approval so long as conservation objectives were being met, it is likely that the analysis and review of the newly-structured proposals would be time consuming, and might not be completed before the proposed fisheries would be over.”

How is it I can kill and transport across State and International boundaries endangered Wild King Salmon?? If anybody wants to get a Polar Bear carcass thru Sea-Tac just place it in a fish box from Sitka!

If it was the tribes killing all of our ESA listed fish in Canada and Ak we, the sports fishermen, would be taking the exact same stance that they are!

The two groups at the end of the line arguing over the scraps is tiring as hell and sad!

But hey, at least we can low hole ourselves

Just sayin!

JustBecause,

I've read the "working with tribes" memo, and am unclear how you think a 50/50 split places a "Disproportionate" burden of conservation on the tribes?

Isn't 50/50 proportionate?

Wasn't my post, I reposted it from iFish.

However, I would guess that the point is that if it takes more that half the impacts (ESA) for the tribes to get half of the catch, then that would be the way it would go, based in the decisions on the Columbia, for example.

Jim Unsworth
WDFW Director
jim.unsworth@dfw.wa.gov

Ron Warren
Assistant Director Fish
ron.warren@dfw.wa.gov

John Long
WDFW Salmon Policy
john.long@dfw.wa.gov

A respectful and supportive email sent to all 3. I also copied/pasted my email into the governor's message page:
https://fortress.wa.gov/es/governor/

So, does all this mean the Baker Lake sockeye season is in jeopardy. I was thinking of trying that out for the first time this year.

If AK and BC stopped intercepting fish today, how long would it take for WA and the tribes to manage us right back to where we are today? I don't think it would take long.

Today, you can plan a trip up north and know that it won't be suddenly closed or that it won't be dialed down to catch and release. If intercepts stopped and an additional 300k kings swam into our waters, would we have that kind of dependable fishery in WA? Would we have liberal limits and be able to schedule a yearly trip with family/friends? Could you count on Elliot Bay opening again?

I wouldn't put my money on it! I think even if we had every fish destined for our rivers, we would still be severely constrained. It's too bad because I think we should be able to expect a consistent share of those fish.

The tribes have control of this state, the recs are just a nuisance. They've already gone their separate way with regards to Puget Sound. It won't be long before they thumb their noses at any suggested season and just do what they want. The state can put their foot down and it won't make a difference. I wouldn't be surprised if in the future we have to buy a tribal permit to go catch one of "their" fish!!

I don't look at AK and BC as taking our fish, I look at it as an opportunity to go catch our fish before the tribes get their greedy little fingers on them. I pay to raise them, I pay for habitat and I pay for management, I'll continue to go north and catch a few of what I payed for.

Low Holer!

Now go read your post again from a tribal perspective and tell my why you'd negotiate in good faith with sport anglers. I mean you can always plan a trip to Ak and know you'll catch your fish while they stand at the mouth of a river and hope they can catch fish.

Now I'm not really criticizing your position as those of us who love fishing are going to go fishing. I'll most likely retire north of here just to be part of the problem instead of being the guy standing at the mouth of the river hoping to go fishing.

But hey just as long as we have some "other" to blame this all on we're golden

Ain't humans awesome!

The Tribes and State are meeting again right now.

I hear what you are saying but doesn’t this issue not only affect the Puget Sound tribes but also the Puget Sound sport anglers and the Puget Sound NT commercials?

Shouldn’t all three entities wanting more fish to come back to Puget Sound be working together on this issue instead of what is going on right now?

WDFW to seek federal permit for Puget Sound
fisheries after talks with tribes end

OLYMPIA – State fishery managers have decided to separately secure the federal permit required to hold salmon fisheries this season in Puget Sound.

The decision was made Tuesday after negotiations over salmon seasons with tribal leaders again came to an impasse. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the tribes last week could not reach an agreement during the annual season-setting process.

“We had hoped additional conversations with the tribes would result in fisheries that were agreeable to both parties,” said Jim Unsworth, director of the department. “Unfortunately, that did not happen, but our door remains open to further discussions.”

WDFW officials said it is uncertain whether the department will have the permit in time to hold recreational and non-tribal commercial salmon fisheries in Puget Sound through much of the season. The permit is necessary to hold fisheries in Puget Sound where there are fish stocks protected under the federal Endangered Species Act.

Tribal fishery managers are expected to separately seek federal permits from NOAA Fisheries for salmon fisheries in Puget Sound.

Over the course of negotiations, the department proposed fisheries that maintained some fishing opportunities and met conservation objectives, said Ron Warren, head of WDFW’s Fish Program.

“This isn’t the outcome we had hoped for, but we will do our best to obtain a federal permit as quickly as possible,” Warren said.

******************

Fish on...

Todd

. . . .strike two. . .

fb

I'm still pleased WDFW didn't agree with the tribes on no PS season this year.
I'm sure there are some upper end politicians in Olympia that aren't pleased with WDFW right now, especially considering where some of their political support and donations come from.
If you'd like to let Jay Inslee know your thoughts on these negotiations if that is what you'd call them, here is link that will let you voice your opinion to him.
I sent him a note letting him know I back WDFW's decision not to agree with the tribal demands of having no PS fishing season this year.
Even if we end up with no season, I commend WDFW for having the backbone to say no to the tribes.
SF

https://fortress.wa.gov/es/governor/

In the words of the great Bart Simpson,

"You're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't."


Agreement or no agreement it doesn't really fvcking matter. We aren't fishing. The tribe gets their cake and'll eat it too.

Yup they beat us this year. We're easy to beat. Bunch of one-on-one dribble-drive stuff, very little ball movement. Not playing team ball.

If the rec's could get together as a user group we'd be formidable; way more money and upside than the opponent. But we just don't play team ball. Maybe we need a new coach, or new uni's,

fb

It was brought up to seek a Federal permit to recreational fish PS. It also was stated the permit process might take longer than the season itself, which still would mean no fishing. The Tribes have stated they would also seek a Federal permit to fish. My question? Would or could their permit process take just as long preventing them from fishing? This almost seems like an end around to negotiate in good faith, by either party. No agreement, no fishing for anyone, period!

I read somewhere,maybe here,that the tribes get precedent on approval because of the treaties and ESA listings.To me it kind of looks like a game. WDFW is pretending to stand up for the license buyers and will ultimately blame the closed season on the feds. WDF is playing us.Hope I am wrong but no saltwater money from me this year and letters to Unsworth and Inslee saying why.

Both sides could be in jeopardy of being shore bound in Puget Sound and not fishing without an agreement, according to the NOAA's letter regarding "going alone."

“In addition, a separate tribal plan could require a new NEPA assessment by the BIA. While NOAA Fisheries believes proposals for tribal only fisheries could receive ESA approval so long as conservation objectives were being met, it is likely that the analysis and review of the newly-structured proposals would be time consuming, and might not be completed before the proposed fisheries would be over.”

If it really is NOAA’s intent to have both parties come to an agreement then they could help that process by applying equal measures like warned in the the letter.

Well deep in the bowls of the Governors staff one might try JT as she pulls most of the strings. I doubt if this Governor has any real feel for the issue other than staff reports.

Who is JT, Inslee's chief of staff or something like that?
If so, got an email address?
I've been on an email binge.....
Thanks
SF

JT Austin
Policy Advisor
(360) 902-0638
jt.austin@gov.wa.gov

JT AUSTIN – POLICY ADVISOR 360.902.0638 JT.AUSTIN@GOV.WA.GOV
AGENCIES
Agriculture, Department of
Fish and Wildlife, Department of
Natural Resources, Department of
Recreation and Conservation Funding Office
State Parks and Recreation Commission
WA State Conservation Commission
ISSUES
Columbia River BiOp
Culverts Case
Farmland Preservation
Fish Consumption and Public Health
Fisheries Management
Forest Management
Genetically Modified Organisms
Marine Spatial Planning
Mining
Outdoor Recreation
Salmon Recovery
Treaty Rights at Risk
Voluntary Stewardship Program
Wildlife/Wolf Management
Working Natural Lands

What you wont read in the news releases are how the meeting went down yesterday.

The story I have heard second hand is that the meeting started with the Puyallup Tribe representative standing up and saying there would be zero sportfishing allowed in the Puyallup River and no sportfishing anywhere in PS should have any impacts on Puyallup Chinook this year.

Then The Muckleshoot Tribe stood up and demanded no Fishing in MA 10, and only in the northern half of MA9 for Chinook only(this is new) and no fishing in Elliot Bay, the Lake, etc.

Director Unsworth then got up and said (and I paraphrase) I guess we dont have anything to discuss here after hearing those ultimatums, and the meeting adjourned.



We must all stand behind the Director and WDFW staff 100% for saying "No Deal" to completely unreasonable demands!

As a PSA South Sound board member I have been waiting for some kind of statement to come out after the email that we received yesterday.

Fact is there was a unanimous vote of the Puget Sound Sportfish Advisors for WDFW, CCA, PSA, and some other sports groups to go forward with the "No Agreement".

The new Director and his staff them went into the meeting with the tribes and you know he rest.

The director has stuck his neck out for us and is under a tremendous about of pressure because of this and we need to step up and stand behind him. I'm sure there will be more about this by others further up the chain than I and I'm sure I will hear more tonight at our chapter board meeting.

Thank you for the info Rg.
Email will be sent tonight in support of the director and his staff.
SF

My understanding is that Dir. Unsworth has the full support of Gov. Inslee for everything he has done thus far.

Fish on...

Todd

I have taken some comments from the email that went to members. After the meeting tonight and if there still has been no statement from those at the meeting I will post the entire email in the morning.

Tom Nelson from the Outdoor Line talked to the Governor's Office on a conference call yesterday and was told just that..that the Governor supports Dir. Unsworth in walking away from the table and going straight to NOAA-F.

Fish on...

Todd

My understanding is that unsworth now has the governors support but that wasn't necessarily the case prior to this past weekend.

Oh I go 50 / 50 on that one with JT in the mix. The one I have not figured out is what Bob Turner did around some meeting or process with the tribe that the Director was not to be ( intended or not the question ) present. That one I find puzzling but about right for the Feds.

It seems like the courts have already decided who has the rights to the fish. The recs have been cornered and not even a politician can fix it.

I think it's time to legalize gambling in WA. That would be a fight we would have a chance at winning and would bankrupt the tribes.

Maybe the press would be interested in printing the truth?

How this will affect the rivers, like spring salmon in the Quileute??? And in the ocean, at LaPush???

I also wonder if this will affect marine area 7. I know Canadian stocks (not ESA listed) make up a large percentage of the salmon caught here during the summer and fall, especially in the outer islands. The southern and eastern portions of 7 are already closed for most of the summer to protect Skagit and Nooksack chinook but I am probably being too optimistic to hope the rest of 7 will be open with a normal season. Does anyone have any insight on area 7?

Pretty sure this shuts down MA7

But not the ocean or coastal cricks. LaPush will fish July 1 if I'm not mistaken.

fb

Tom Nelson has stated on the Outdoor line show that the tribes have been invited to the show to hear their side of the story but to no avail so far.

Considering what has happen in past NOF negotiations with the tribes apparently not bargaining in good faith with last minute shenanigan and now these demands, it is good to hear that the governor and many sport anglers do back Director Unsworth and not surprised the tribes have declined up to this point to go on the air to defend their behavior/actions.

I know that the tribal reps have been offered airtime on Northwest Wild Country to come and explain their actions and thoughts, too, but refuse every time.

Fish on...

Todd

IS area 6 still open, until 1 May???

MA 6 is closed. MA 5 is still open.

It is quite a poker game going on between the state and tribal co-managers.

Going into this upcoming Wednesday’s meeting, both are holding virtually the same hand of no fishing for salmon in Puget Sound without an agreement or both going it alone in applying for permits separately without the agreement.

NOAA’s letter has pitfalls from top to bottom of the letter showing possible processes with these being time consuming, which can leave both sides sitting on the beach this year.

It should be interesting to see if the tribes continue to bluff a better hand, with an all in bet this time around instead of negotiating in good faith and also seeing if WDFW will continue to call their hand instead of folding.

It is a high stakes game with plenty to lose for both sides. A FAIR compromise leading to an agreement leading to splitting the pot is better than nothing. FAIR and splitting, and not the same ol’ stuff, being the optimal words.

State/recreationals finally have the will to walk away, which makes it really interesting to watch!

Hi All

So a few questions.

I know what no agreement means to the Sound fishing but what about the rivers. Listening to the KIRO Outdoor Line POD Cast, the Rep from Northwest Marine Trade Association indicated it would most likely close rivers as well.

Does that mean No Fishing for Skagit Sockeye, Sky Kings, Skok Kings, Samish Kings etc? Runs that have no problems and per Mill Creek NOF meeting have seasons planned.

NO DEAL includes the rivers.

It may also include no "trout" fishing in those rivers. Appears it will knock out the sea-run cutt fishery in the salt due to incidental take of Chinook, even in a C&R situation.

So is it okay if us Recreational fishermen stand on the shore, without fishing gear of course, and wave to the tribal boats as they head out to fish?

Should also sing "Kumbaya" as they go out. And remember to buy fish from them.

If I don't wave with all 5 fingers is it a hate crime?

So, the Puget Sound tribal commercial fishermen are on board with their leadership putting their season in jeopardy this year?
The NOAA letter clearly states that could be the case considering what NOAA would need going forward into these uncharted waters.

If the tribes want to continue with ultimatums instead of compromise to set the seasons in Puget Sound--- NO DEAL!

The Tribes believe that the Feds, because NOAA has the twin obligations for ESA and the Indian Treaties, will find a way for them to fish. It may be convoluted, but they'll find a way.

Note that in his letter, if memory serves, that Turner said approval for the Tribal fisheries might come after the fisheries. It didn't say after they were scheduled to occur, it said after the fisheries.

This situation sets up an very interesting legal fight. Essentially, what law is supreme. ESA or Treaty. One has to be supreme. Either conservation or fishing. I doubt that NOAA or the Tribes really want to litigate that, and WDFW probably deep i its soul (assuming one exists) doesn't either.

If ESA is superior, then habitat had better be protected and restored now, not in 50 or 75 years when the "budget is better. Plus, the issue of growth and development will run flat into conservation and if conservation is the Law of the Land..... On the other hand, if the Treaties are superior I see loss of all habitat protection and interest because the tribes gotta fish and the state can just give over the fish to the tribes and let the have them while the state grows. Plus, hatcheries will greatly expand.

Someone mentioned that it seems odd the Tribes would be so obstinate in negotiations, considering the significant jeopardy their own seasons may be in....

Seems to me the Tribes hold all the cards here, and they know it. What they don't take in fish, they will take in entitlements or via lawsuits. If they don't get to fish because NOAA takes too long to approve their plan, they'll simply claim economic hardship and get paid more than they would if they went fishing in a down year like this. That's what the Quinaults did after their ill-advised gillnet fisheries overharvested the weak returns last year in Grays Harbor.

The reason co-management isn't working is that there is no incentive for one side to compromise when they can't take what they want with cooperative planning.

Here are a couple things I've been wondering about and can't seem to find answers to...

From what I am hearing, the Muckleshoots and Puyallups have been driving the "negotiations" from the tribal side. But, there are at least 19 other Treaty Tribes. I can't imagine they are all in agreement with these two tribes. Do those two tribes have more influence than the others? I am pretty sure the Lummis and the Makah are are larger in terms of fishing. And the Makah tribe has a vested interest in there being a sportfishing season since alot of their tribes income is from tourism.

Can anyone shed some light here?

Secondly, if the end of the month comes and there is no deal...

I assume the tribes have already applied for their NOAA-F permit, and it's been alluded to that they will get it fast-tracked. IF that happens and they hit the water and we are not permitted, how does that jive with Boldt? Seems like it would be outright discrimination on the part of the feds and would open them up to a lawsuit by WA.

From what I heard on Tom Nelson's show, NOAA is essentially trying to strongarm WDFW to cave to the tribal demands "or else" (I guess "or else" means that they are threatening a long, drawn-out permit process).



I wonder if ultimately this should be legitimized and tribes could be compensated to NOT fish commercially and instead back off to just sustenance and ceremonial catch.

I'm going to go ahead and guess that's been proposed before and is a hot-button issue.

Chasin, In my experience the tribes don't GAF what the rules are, they'll fish anyway. They know Cenci and her green goons won't do shlt and that they're virtually untouchable. The tribes do whatever they want whenever they want WITHOUT repercussions. They'll fish, they'll wave and they'll laugh at enforcement and they'll laugh at us. They've been doing it for years with NO repercussions why would they do any different this year?

"I wonder if ultimately this should be legitimized and tribes could be compensated to NOT fish commercially and instead back off to just sustenance and ceremonial catch.

I'm going to go ahead and guess that's been proposed before and is a hot-button issue."

It was certainly proposed in terms of fishing for steelhead. Yes, it is a hot button issue and the fact that tribes still fish commercially for steelhead should indicate their position.

I am still a bit confused on the NOAA permit. Does the tribes application still have to address Boldt, or would they be able to ask for all the available fish and show how they meet the ESA requirements. If so, then would the state be able to file a quick injunction to show that Boldt was being violated? If they do have to address Boldt in their application, does the state get to put in a response and wouldn't any permit then have to tactically agree to the allowable take by the non-treaty fisheries. I realize that the non-treaty side would have to show how they are meeting the ESA take limitations via the different fisheries and methods, but it should be a lot easier if we all agree on an allowable take number. It would also seem it would make it very easy to meet the requirements for a lot of the in river fisheries.

The restrictions of the Boldt Decision still apply.

Even if the State/Tribes agreed their plan would have to go to the Feds to make sure it complied with ESA/conservation requirements.

In this case they will presumably be attempting to get their individual plans approved by the Feds, and those plans will still have to satisfy Boldt, ESA, and conservation requirements.

Fish on...

Todd

Or, if the NI don't have a competing plan that is either approved or will be approved before the fishery takes place they could go for foregone opportunity.

That's a real nightmare scenario.

Im tempted to comment on a lot of the questions here, but I'll wait to see what happens this week.

One major issue right now for the tribes is that in years past, their fisheries ESA impacts have been partially absorbed by a reduction in sport fishing quota and seasons in order for their proposed fisheries to occur and fall under the total allowable impact. Yes, part of the horse trading includes a transfer of impacts. Without agreement this year, the tribes will be required to meet the ESA standards on their own. A tough pill to swallow.... in many cases.

I've already posed this question directly to Ron W, and he indicated under this scenario Forgone Opportunity is not an issue in the event we aren't fishing.

Good Luck Ryley and thanks for all the hard work!

Certainly not something I'd be very good at .

If you're not fishing you have chosen not to take the fish. For whatever reason. Not to catch them certainly foregone.

Here’s more information on this issue that may be "news" to some folks on this BB.

The Boldt Decision said the Tribes have the right to 50% of the available harvest. Everyone knows that. But the Boldt Decision did NOT say the States have the right to the other half. So it’s not a 50/50 split as most folks seem to suggest. The Tribes have the right to 50% of the available harvest. Period. If the State can secure the other half, great. But if not, there is no violation of the Boldt decision. It’s not an enforceable statute on the part of the State. Only the Tribes can ask for enforcement since the decision (the original Treaties) was between the Federal government and the Tribes. The States were not yet in existence so they’re not a signatory to the Treaties. So the State can’t ask for enforcement of an agreement their not a party to. But the Tribes can, and they will.

Further, the fishing rights assured in the Treaties is a reserved right. That is, the Treaties recognized that the Tribes ALREADY have the right to fish in their usual and accustomed places. The Treaties did not provide them with that right. The Treaties just recognize the right was already there, and would continue in perpetuity. So even if the Treaties were to vanish today (which won’t happen), the Tribal rights to fish in their usual and accustomed places in perpetuity remains.

The Federal government (in this case the National Marine Fisheries Service) has a trust responsibility to the Tribes. They don’t have a trust responsibility to the State. Clearly, NMFS does not want to get between the State and the Tribes on this issue. But if it happens, the Tribes will play the “trust responsibility” card on NMFS. At that point, NMFS has no choice. They need to address the needs of the Tribes before they address the needs of the State. That is, they would need to secure the Tribal allocation (50%) before going any further.

In my view, there is more at stake than just one season’s worth of fishing in Puget Sound. The breakdown of fisheries management between the two entities authorized to manage the fisheries (Washington State and Tribes) puts the Federal government in charge of fish management that historically been the primary role of WDFW and the Tribes of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. That's not a good outcome for anyone, even the Tribes.

I sincerely hope for a equitable resolution to this issue that enables the appropriate level of fishing to occur, and to preserve the traditional role of the States and the Tribes to manage the fishery for their constituents, and the fish.

Although neither side is "entitled" to more than 50% the implementation of Boldt, court orders, etc. allow for one side or the other to take more than 50% to prevent wastage. Both sides agree that one fish above the escapement goal is wasted and the Boldt Court allowed "foregone opportunity" to ensure that harvestable fish were not wasted. Initially, this was used by the State when tribal fisheries were unable, due to lack of fishing power, to take their share. Even into the late 80s/early 90s there were claims of "foregone opportunity" on both sides that were allowed to proceed.

One of the reasons for a foregone opportunity claim was that if one side exceeded their share they "owed" these fish as an "equitable adjustment". This could create the situation where, if one side didn't fish on harvestable fish the other side would "owe" playback since they fished.

If memory serves, though. equitable adjustment and foregone opportunity did not, by court order, apply to steelhead.

What you guys outlined is horrifying. Sounds like the state has everything to lose, and no leverage. Basically, the worst negotiating position. Ever.

HMMM... in perpetuity, eh?

That's like a REALLY REALLY REALLY long time, right?

Some reporting on the issue:

Story: Impasse-between-fishery-and-tribal-leaders-puts-salmon-season-in-jeopardy



Then an update, with some mention of permitting timelines

Story: Without-agreement-puget-sound-salmon-season-in-jeopardy

I would hope that our sport advocacy groups are planning for the possibility that the tribes will be fishing and sport fishermen will not... The silver lining to that scenario would be to put the tribes on trial at the highest court in the land. The court of public opinion. I know most probably think that the public doesn't care, but then again when have we had this scenario? Runs falling well short and the only ones on the water killing them are the "stewards of nature"...
For the tribes to put out the publicity that they have, bemoaning the dire situation the fish are in, how hypocritical would it be for them to fish - when we are not
The gambling angle is yet another potential way to gain leverage.
We can, as we all know, forget about negating the treaty. So, we are left with negotiation (failed) or gaining leverage. Directing public opinion (about fish and fishing) and going after gambling laws in the state are the two ways I see us gaining the leverage needed to get what we want.
They chose to make this a fight.

Based on the last 20-25 years they bet the State would, as it always did, fold. Statistically, that was the way to bet.

I never realized how well the tribes have positioned themselves and it makes me wonder how the co-manager arrangement was ever supposed to work? WDFW is not an equal partner and the tribes have everything to gain by being difficult. It sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

How long do you think it will take for a few of the other 17 treaty tribes to follow the trail blazed by their Puget Sound brothers? Imagine if the QIN insisted all of Grays Harbor was closed, including all freshwater, and the salt out front as well. Impossible?

A CCA Flyer.



If you have been following the twists and turns of this year's state-tribal "North of Falcon" Puget Sound salmon fishery negotiations, you know we are in unchartered territory. For the first time in decades, WDFW and the Puget Sound treaty tribes failed to reach an agreement on fishing seasons. Without federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) approval of a joint state-tribal fishery agreement - or separate approval of a stand-alone state plan - there will be a complete closure of all Puget Sound sport fisheries.

We can't let that happen. Please urge your elected representatives and federal agency officials at NOAA Fisheries to take action!

NOAA Fisheries must take immediate action to prevent the complete closure of a $100-plus million Puget Sound sport fishery. It is also time to fix the broken "North of Falcon" season-setting process by restoring transparency, fairness, and common sense to these negotiations - fundamental hallmarks of cooperative management (aka "co-management").

We commend WDFW Director Jim Unsworth and his staff for negotiating in good faith, with conservation as their first priority. Despite the serious challenges posed by reduced Coho and Chinook abundance, WDFW fashioned a plan that fell within conservation guidelines, met ESA requirements, and provided meaningful recreational fishing opportunity. WDFW has been consistent in seeking a balanced, fair agreement. Unfortunately this has been met by uncompromising negotiating tactics from a small handful of tribes - something that has become common in recent North of Falcon negotiations.

The state and tribes are scheduled to meet again this week. We hope an agreement can be reached on a responsible and equitable fishery agreement. If not, NOAA Fisheries should take action on WDFW's balanced, conservation-based fishery proposal, and authorize their fisheries independently of any tribal agreement.

This latest crisis facing our fisheries comes on top of the failure of NOAA Fisheries to provide needed ESA permits to over a hundred salmon and steelhead hatcheries and provide the necessary reviews for the Mitchell Act program that funds 1/3 of all Columbia River hatchery salmon production- putting our fisheries at extreme risk to closure due to litigation from anti-hatchery organizations!

Please weigh in with your elected officials and NOAA Fisheries on behalf of conservation, fairness, and a Puget Sound sport fishing season!


________________________________________

Is it just me, Or does anyone else think its time the tribes join the rest of us humans in the 21st century.

Could this end up being the first shot over the bow?

Economic Market Study on Gambling
Underway in Washington State!

http://www.wsgc.wa.gov/publications/press-releases/market-study-awarded.pdf

I am sure that it must have already been planned, but the timing is perfect. I am sure so real interesting data could be gleaned from a study like this.

I think it is telling that the Makah's have been pressured into not whaling. If political will gets strong enough, there is plenty on the table to make the tribes come around.

The state is leaving a lot of money on the table by not allowing non tribal gaming establishments to offer the same type of gaming.
The state got out of the booze business, which was a good move in my opinion.
They are now heavily into the weed business.
They already offer Lotto.
Why not full blown gaming as well? One group shouldn't have a monopoly on gaming.

Sorry, but sin helps pay the bills regardless of what some church and other organizations say against it.
Cha-Ching!
SF

I probably have no idea what I'm talking about but tribal casino money used for lobbying wouldn't have quite the same affect if state casinos were established.

Brian- I never thought pot would be legal but here we are. Why not privately owned or state casinos?

Danny

On the topic of casino money, just in case ANY of you go to Tribal casinos or buy booze, smokes, etc. on reservations, please cut that $hit out. It's cheap to fly to Vegas. If you must gamble, see that your hard-earned, but so easily lost gambling money won't be used to deny you citizens' rights.

Losing your @$$ at the casino takes on a whole new level of crappy when the money you lose goes to political efforts to undermine your quality of life. We don't have a lot of control over the fish situation, but we definitely have control over where we spend our money. Spend wisely.

+1,

fb

I don't spend a dime at any casino.

What time was the meeting today???

The Tribes would say their fishing rights extend back to "time immemorial" and into the future "in perpetuity".

The frustration on this BB over this issue is understandable. But the Tribes have similar but different frustrations. They see massive development all over the Puget Sound and Oly Pen area. They see important salmon habitat being lost daily to ever encroaching development. Strip malls, housing developments, single family homes, hotels, roads, bridges, farms, condos, flood dikes, etc, etc.

We all see it. But the Tribes don't see "progress". They see habitat destruction, if only through the loss of water needed to support this infrastructure. And they see the State unwilling or unable to slow down or stop the development. They've petitioned the Feds, but the Feds are almost as unwilling and unable to stop it either.

The loss of habitat mirrors the loss of salmon. As one goes, so goes the other. We are arguing over scraps of whatever fish remain in Puget Sound, in part because of poor ocean conditions, but also because salmon habitat is not producing anywhere near what it once did. The Tribes believe that if the State was better able to regulate habitat loss, and habitat were in better shape, we would have alot more than just scraps to fish on. We would have a decent fishery. But we don't.

So who is to blame? I'm not going to point at the Tribes for the loss of salmon habitat, and I'm not going to point at the State for being unable to stop development. Our government (local, State, Federal) is ill equipped to restrict the freedoms that we've all come to expect. We expect to be able to buy land and build a house or a business. We expect to drive to various places on reasonably safe roads. We expect to be able to drink clean water, buy good and services at our local stores, raise a family, and to be fairly safe from natural disasters such as floods. But all these things adversely effect salmon habitat. And the more people we have, the more we compete with the resources that salmon need.

I understand the Tribes concerns but the solutions may not be realistic. But solutions begin with understanding. So if nothing else, perhaps we can all understand the "other guys" point of view.

Thankfully there isn't any development or strip malls on tribal reservations, especially along I-5 north of Marysville.

Looking forward to hearing how the meeting went today.
SF

And they have kept their human population at treaty era levels so that they do not increases demand.

Just to be clear, I'm trying to promote understanding. I'm not an apologist for the Tribes. They can do that for themselves. But if a long-term solution is to be found (past this year, and this issue), a better understanding of both the State and the Tribal views on the issue is a good place to start.

I recommend the following:

http://treatyrightsatrisk.org/

You don't have to swallow all the rhetoric, but you will get a better sense of the Tribes frustration. We should all be as concerned as they are.

The Tribes need to be part of the solution that includes restrictions on land use, water use, development, and so on. To act as if the rest of the community needs to make changes while they just keep on keeping on is wrong. We should all be in this together.

This just out. Advisors meet with the department tomorrow for a follow up:

WDFW, tribes again call off talks on Puget Sound salmon fisheries





OLYMPIA – After additional discussions Wednesday, state and tribal fishery managers did not reach an agreement for this year's Puget Sound salmon-fishing seasons.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and treaty tribes separately will continue to seek federal permits necessary for holding marine and fresh water fisheries in Puget Sound, where some fish stocks are protected under the federal Endangered Species Act.

"We had one last round of negotiations in hopes of ensuring salmon seasons in Puget Sound this year," said Jim Unsworth, director of WDFW. "Regrettably, we could not agree on fisheries that were acceptable to both parties."

The department proposed salmon fisheries that allowed anglers to harvest chinook while protecting coho, which are expected to return in low numbers this year. The state's proposed fisheries met conservation goals that WDFW and the tribes had previously agreed upon, Unsworth said.

State fishery managers are uncertain whether the department will receive the necessary permit in time to hold salmon fisheries in Puget Sound through much of the season.

WDFW and the tribes typically secure a federal permit together for holding Puget Sound salmon fisheries. State and tribal fishery managers did not reach agreement during the annual season-setting process, which concluded in mid-April. Further talks last week were also unsuccessful.

Unsworth said he is hopeful the state and tribes can work together in the future to develop plans to bolster salmon stocks as well as improve the season-setting process.

"We want to work with the tribes to address long-term resource management concerns, such as restoring habitat and increasing hatchery fish production," Unsworth said. "The breakdown in this year's negotiations demonstrates the need for a change to the process of setting salmon-fishing seasons."

Absent an agreement, all non-tribal commercial and recreational Puget Sound salmon fisheries, including Marine Area 13 and year-round fishing piers around Puget Sound, will close May 1 to salmon fishing until further notice.

Any updates on Puget Sound salmon-fishing seasons will be posted to WDFW's webpage at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/northfalcon/, where summaries of this year's salmon fisheries for the Columbia River, Washington's ocean waters and north coastal rivers can be found.

FYI, the Makah are still pursuing a whaling permit: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/marine_mammals/cetaceans/whale_hunt.html

S-G
As always, appreciate your work and keeping us updated.
SC

Sky-guy - thanks for the update. Kind of bummed nothing could be worked out, but it might be best to navigate the uncharted waters in the hopes of getting to a better place.

This also means that the NI Commercials get no fishery for Fraser sockeye? Just the Tribes might get approval??

All the WA stakeholders would be allowed to fish this year were it not for the majority of all impacts being allocated to ocean fisheries...

...and the habitat is what we're focused on?

This same habitat produced huge returns of coho and solid runs of chinook in 2014. It ain't what it was (and won't ever be again), but if we quit perennially overharvesting whatever is out there each year, even the existing habitat can sustain good runs. It's proven that.

Not saying we shouldn't try to improve it, however....

You know I kinda' like this idea I posted a similar idea about building a Trump like wall to prevent WA state fish fleeing to the Northern Pacific waters to hang out for awhile waiting their return to their home waters but never got a response... Silly me Looked at California regs tonight and not much mayhem or finger pointing going on down there! Saved a link I'll try and share here soon! Season on down there and their numbers are a bit off last year but still 2 a day Chinook in the ocean> Imagine that!

Didn't they waste most of the last whale they shot with a .460 Weatherby? Just like their ancestors did....

why aren't they going for half the states deer, elk, ducks and geese... these are all delicacies that can be sold to the highest bidder...

Most on here don't remember, too young but we had pinball machines, pull tabs, cards rooms every where.....then in 1970 the voters of this State said NO TO LEGALIZE GAMBLING........there went the pull tabs, pinball machines, and most of the card rooms. WE could have had Reno/Vegas type gambling but it was not to be......

Tribes, not so righteous.....got'um all the Casinos and lots of $$$$$$$$$

Makah tribe, had a legal Whale hunt in May 1999. As I remember, they used "long boat", and chased whales but never got close enough to kill with a harpoon.....so they cheated just a bit, used a 50 caliber to kill a whale. There was such a uproar that there has not been one since.

I'd like to see Washington State have legal Casino gambling.....would sure help with a new better tax base, which we need.

I read the comments about "never going to a tribal casino" or smoke shop but I'm here to tell you there are 10's of thousands of your neighbors that are going, and spend LOTS OF $$$$$$$$$$$ and don't pay the taxes because they are tribes......

cohoangler,
Fantastic couple of posts there.
Thank you for that,
fb

DrifterWa, you are almost correct. The judge made the decission that after a whale had been harpooned and it was clear it was not going to escape they would have to dispatch it with a long gun so it did not suffer. I hated the whale hunt but I could not disagree with the last part.

BW:

Old age, I forgot that part......Thanks for filling in that blank area..

There was a second whale that they shot without the permit and had to just sink out in the bay.

Can someone clarify exactly what the state and tribal positions were going into the last meeting?

As I understand it...

WDFW was fighting for a chinook season in the sound (meaning areas 5-13), and then closed for coho. Tribes said no, because of possible coho impacts. Yet, the tribes are planning to net for chinook, sockeye and chum - all of which will yield coho bycatch (and wild ones, too). A NWTT press release even said there would be netting for coho "in a few terminal areas where there are identified harvestable hatchery fish"

Is that correct? If so, on what planet can the tribes be claiming that the WDFW plan was not conservation focused, and theirs is? Is it because of the agreed-upon sportfishing ocean season?