Dear Gov. Inslee:

Recently, I purchased a combination fishing license, hoping to continue my lifetime pursuit of salmon and steelhead along the ocean shores and river stream banks of Washington State. As I understand it, the current political stalemate between fisheries co-management groups might lead to the curtailing of fishery opportunities for recreational fishermen in Puget Sound. I urge you to consider the social and economic impacts such a prohibition might entail.

Besides fuel, besides bait, besides dock fees and watercraft licensing, besides the restaurant and hospitality industry dollars that I willingly (gleefully!) shed each year, there is another balance to be tallied: the soul of the resident of Washington State. Who has been raised to take a fish or two by rod and reel for the Sunday dinner table. Who has learned to smoke fish, and send vac-packed samples to relatives in Wisconsin. Who is willing to trudge along miles of muddy riverbank in the rain, fueled by a gas-station burrito and quickly-cooling cup of weak coffee, yet trudging nonetheless, because the fish are there, or might be there, and because Netflix-and-Chill is decidedly not.

Alas, the soul of Washington lies in its waterways, in its wildlife, in its salmon and steelhead—not in Netflix. I heartily encourage you to undertake whatever means you deem best to protect the rights of Washington’s recreational fishermen in these troubling times. Our very souls depend upon our fisheries.

Don’t have to walk very far down a Puget Sound beach to hear a couple of seagulls screaming at each other over the last scrap of fish. Sometimes, most of what parades as management science sounds much alike. (And I apologize here if this is but one more scream in the cacophony.)

Thanks for your patient consideration—

Maurice Austin
Eastsound, WA

:APPLAUSE:

Well stated fishkisser99! Thank You for expressing what many here are thinking at the moment!

like!

Nicely stated sir

Very nice polite letter. Well written.

The governor knows the importance of recreational fishing on Puget Sound. And so does the Director of WDFW. His job depends on it.

And the Puget Sound and Oly Pen Tribes know how important fish and fishing is to their culture and society.

When fish returns are low, competition for scarce resources becomes difficult and contentious. That's where we are now. But with some patience and understanding, both sides will come to a resolution; and fishing will occur. Nobody will get everything they want. Nobody will be completely happy. But everyone will understand how important these fish are to their interests. I'm optimistic about a deal for Puget Sound. But let's not expect recreational anglers to get everything they want.

And if you want to get a better sense of the concerns of the Tribes, do an internet search on "Treaty Rights At Risk". Read the issues the Tribes have brought to the Federal government, and have asked for specific actions. The focus is on habitat, but the real problem is the lack of fish.

To wit: At the time of the Boldt decision, the Tribes were getting 2% of the available salmon harvest. Because of Judge Boldt, they subsequently got 50% of the harvest (as we all know). But as of 2015, 50% of the current harvest is LESS (in numbers of salmon) than the 2% they were getting in 1975 when Judge Boldt issued his famous decision! That's how far the salmon stocks have fallen in the past 40 years. The Tribes are well aware of this, but I'm a bit surprised how few people on this BB are.

2 X 0 = 0

What cohoangler says is true, to a point. How many Indians (or non-Indians) were sharing the fish in '74? Even returning to '74 levels of total harvest will probably mean that each individual gets fewer (on average) fish.

In parts of the Skeena, the fastest growing human population segment is the First Nations, with subsistence fishing rights. At some point. even if they get all the fish, there won't be enough to sustain them and the ecosystem.

HMMM ... today's 50% tribal share translates to less salmon than the original 2% share pre-Boldt, a decline of at least 25-fold.

The corollary to this is that the 98% whitey used to get before Boldt would amount to more than 49 times the salmon in today's currrent 50% share.

Sad beyond belief.

People suck.

Apologies if letter seemed insensitive, or if following does.

Percent means share of available, not share of what used to be available. A claim based on numbers, rather than on percent, is a useful plea to ethos, but has no bearing on logos. Or in law.

We're all buffalo hunters here, no? And shocked at how small the range has become, and so suddenly!

What is the end game here?

What is the end? End market hunting. If the salmon are a resource for the citizens of Washington state then WTF are we supplying Las Vegas and New York with our resource? They eat while we starve.

Why'd the buffalo hunters quit? It wasn't shrinking range, it was because they damn near wiped them out. That's the correlation. Killing and taking a resource at an unsustainable, albeit efficient, rate. MONEY

Only this time around the tribes were complicit in the destruction of the symbol and spirit that represented a once great people.

Hi How Are Ya?
Hi How Are Ya?
Hi How Are Ya?

+1 here tonight! Unfortunately it is all about the $$$$$

No problem. Now that there are no fish the price will go up, people will buy less of them and they will come back.

Does this mean fishing websites will suffer?