[quote=Carcassman]In the Boldt Decision, WDFw and WDG were given/directed/whatever that they were responsible for conservation while the tribes managed the tribal fisheries and the state managed the state fisheries.

That was given away by Wilkerson in the 80s with both sides assuming responsibility for conservation. Equally. More or less, kinda sorta.

The state, through a series of mis-steps, did get to the point where a tribe had to agree that a closure for conservation was appropriate before it could be done.]

And the tribes take FULL advantage. Policing themselves and trusting them to do so is an absolute joke.

The Tribes would say the same thing about the NI enforcement. All they need to do is read the Internet to see who claims not to report. Some WDFWers have told me that the best numbers we have on salmon catch are in the Columbia because everybody is closely watching everybody else.

But to answer Larry, at least way back when anybody who was actually working in management knew of folks, fisheries, areas, species, etc. that were "under-reported" by all groups. I doubt human nature has changed a whole lot.

And the answer is that no one on this board can answer the question. Only the tribes that are fishing can describe how they are keeping track of the catch.

But as I opined earlier I do believe that a smaller percentage of recreational folks fudge the numbers and that their adverse impact on overall accuracy of recreational harvests is far less than to be found with other harvesters if for no other reason than the risk/reward relationship.

When the cop is your brother, father, uncle, or cousin you are far less likely to be cited and if those same related folks are in the judicial system you are far less likely to be found guilty or suffer a harsh penalty.

So as the thread gets hi-jacked into finger pointing and speculation, the answer seems to be "Who Cares", because we can Inter-bitch all we want, but neither co-manager or the new manager in town, the BIA, seem to care or even talk about it.

From their desks, as long as the AC and coffee machine works, who cares.

I was active on the Point No Point launch issue, and the same thing happened. When things get tough, the contacts go dark, don't answer lphones, and you get some Public Info Officer jackass that wants you to send in a Freedom Of Information Act inquiry.

Why oh why do I ever expect any common sense from these jokers. They should be ashamed of their positions. NOAA, Corps of Engineers, even WDFW , senators, county commissioners, all court jesters watching the clock as a career.

I'm afraid that you are still assuming that no manager cares as we still don't know how the fishing tribes are keeping track of this, and I suspect that they would have no interest in coming here to explain it to you.

What we do know is that neither the BIA or NOAA has ever done the monitoring of tribal of non-tribal catch. If you really want the answer rather than just insinuating that the tribal catch estimates are bogus, as you do in your second post, you should probably contact one of the tribes that are fishing. I'm sure they know.

Oncy, Isnt your suggestion akin to asking the fox guarding the hen house if the hens are fine?

So then you too are assuming that the tribes can't manage their own fisheries. Sorry, but I don't buy that anymore than someone saying the state can't manager its own fisheries.

I have absolutely no idea how the tribes fishing in the Skagit right now are monitoring their fisheries, but I do know something about how some tribes would be monitoring those fisheries. They would have tribal staff at all the landings on the river checking the catch (I am assuming here that the current fisheries for spring Chinook are probably ceremonial and subsistence more than commercial fisheries, since tribal commercial fisheries would have fish tickets to document sales. I am also assuming that there are probably just a handful of fishers operating, so it would be pretty easy to get a high sample rate.). If they were doing that sort of monitoring would you assume that the tribal staff would be willing to falsify what they saw? Just curious whether or not there is any point in responding further on this thread.

+1 Unfortunately

",,, I don't buy that anymore than someone saying the state can't manager its own fisheries. "

Really?

The same managers that lower escapement goals just so they can make the numbers.

Three times you used assume to make points. I assume that makes your points hypothetical and therefore meaningless.

I am using "assume" since I do not know the exact details of their fishery. The first assume can be removed if they are having a commercial fishery, in which case they would have fish tickets to document the sale of their catch. The same method of catch accounting the State uses. The second assume is very safe given the size of these tribes and my existing knowledge of their fisheries even though I can't provide the exact number. In any case the number of fishers they are trying to keep track of is for sure less than the 300,000 the State has to account for, which I documented in another comment. Finally the third assume is about what you might assume, not me. That is purely a guess. Please feel free to update any of these assumptions with any exact numbers you may have.

While none of us knows the inner workings of individual tribal management/enforcement programs I think it is safe to say that certain tribes have (for non-tribal members) some serious issues.

http://komonews.com/news/local/accused-crab-poachers-arrested-in-marysville

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/headlines/dish...-investigation/

Remember that Hatch was a natural resource manager for the Tulalips.

And then there was the big sting operation in Bellingham involving Lummi tribal crabbers and undocumented/illegal buyers.

Why did the Nisqually tribe decide to stop negotiating and agreeing to a set amount of crab out of MA 13? Well, one answer is derived by the fact that in 2012 and 2013 they grossly exceeded their agreed upon poundage and were castigated for not controlling those fisheries. Easy solution; just don't agree to anything and crab until they are gone.

And those are the ones we know about......

So, with that track record and a lack of transparency into the tribal judicial system we are left with the "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is probably a duck."

From one of your referenced stories - "This case represents a collaborative and coordinated effort between State and Tribal enforcement. On July 24, the Washington State Fish and Wildlife Police (WDFW) and the Tulalip Tribal Police concluded a joint and long term investigation involving large scale shellfish poaching and trafficking by serving a number of state and tribal arrest and search warrants."

What you seem to be confusing here are the actions of an Indian outlaw (whether or not he was a commissioner of anything) versus the management actions and ability of the tribe. In this case, as Deputy Chief Cenci indicated the tribe (the management entity) assisted in the investigation, issuance of search warrants and arrest. Specifically in this case we are not talking about shellfish, but finfish fisheries and how tribes monitor their catch. I worked in and around Indian country for 30 years and my experience is that in fisheries like the one this thread is about, tribal programs are much better than the State of Washington at monitoring. This is not meant to be an indictment of the State, but a simple comparison where tribal programs have an advantage because three things. First the fleet that they are monitoring is relatively small versus the State "fleet." That would be all of us. 2nd, the geographic area that they are responsible for monitoring is relatively small versus the area the State has to monitor, and third, the tribal staff, particularly in terminal areas, has relatively more dedicated staff than the State to do the monitoring.

For many of these fisheries, the tribal fleet is literally a couple of handfuls of fishers. The tribal staffs that I was familiar with knew every fisherman. They knew where they fished, when they fished, and when and where they landed their catch. If they didn't catch them on the river they knew where they lived and had no problem going to their house and sampling the catch. They routinely sampled (eyes and/or hands on) 80% + of the catch (many sometimes 100%). Compare that to the desired sampling level in most fisheries of 20% or the 30% voluntary return (no eyes or hand on) return of your shellfish CRC's. Again, this comment is not meant as an indictment, rather a comparison.

I will say again, that I do not know the effort that will be put in to monitor the specific fishery this thread was addressing, but I also know that anyone that simply assumes that the tribes, as a whole, are not capable of monitoring their fisheries, doesn't know what they are talking about.

Did someone actually say that they assume that "the tribes, as a whole, are not capable of monitoring their fisheries" or is that an assumption on your part?

The added emphasis is mine.

"Compare that to the desired sampling level in most fisheries of 20% or the 30% voluntary return (no eyes or hand on) return of your shellfish CRC's. Again, this comment is not meant as an indictment, rather a comparison."

Well, if that is any indication of the validity of your other statements you have a ways to go. For 2015 the actual CRC stats are 52% reporting for summer and 64% reporting for winter. Public record.

Again, the issue isn't with all tribes nor is it with the tribal capability to manage their individual fisheries and permitted fishermen. The issue is the willingness and lack of transparency.

If, as you assert, the tribal staffs know of every finfish fisherman they should also know about shellfish - especially when the tribal resource manager is a large scale poacher.

Sorry but if the tribes are going to be held accountable for the actions of a tribal outlaw (I don't give a [Bleeeeep!] who he might be), then the state should also be held accountable for the actions of non-treaty outlaws, don't you think? And I will say again that the tribe participated in the investigation and arrest of this particular individual. I'm having a hard time seeing that as an indictment of the tribe. And yeah, I'll put 30 years of on the spot observation up against a couple of news articles or a 2015 return of CRC's no matter what the percentage. Oh and also a part of the public record is the reason for initiating the $10 penalty for failing to return your CRC. Looks like at the beginning ~ 2/3 of your licensed crab fishers were outlaws. Now you've got that portion of those breaking the law down to about 1/2. Good going!

WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/

September 8, 2008
Contact: Susan Yeager, (360) 902-2267

Commission approves penalty for
failure to report crab catch

OLYMPIA - A $10 penalty for failing to comply with Puget Sound crab catch-reporting requirements was approved by the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission during a meeting here Sept. 5-6.

The citizens commission, which sets policy for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), approved the department's proposal to begin enforcing the fine starting next year with catch reports due after the 2009 crab season.

Sport crabbers in Puget Sound are required to record their Dungeness crab catch on separate catch record cards - one for the summer season and one for the fall/winter season. People have the option of reporting that harvest information on the Internet or by mailing in their catch cards.

Under the new rules, crabbers who fail to report their catch will be required to pay $10 before a license vendor will issue a new catch record card for the following Puget Sound crab season. [/i]According to WDFW, less than a third of the 200,000 people licensed to fish for Dungeness crab in Puget Sound reported their catch as required.[i]

Also a part of the public record of any sport catch estimate reports for salmon is that only 25% of the CRC's are even being sampled. I don't know and really don't care how many are actually returned.

As I have said before, there is no group out there that can take the high road on "we report all our catch, every damn fish". Anyone who has been around long enough and talked to folks of all stripes knows this.

It really serves no useful purpose to complain unless you have actual data. How many fish were seen being taken out of the nets on those fisheries vs. what is reported? What is reported? It has been a while; all the numbers should be in the system.

The fact that the Tulalip guy was poaching carries as much weight as the constitutional issues being litigated against WDFW. There are bad apples all over.

As long we point fingers instead of actually working together we will, collectively, destroy the resource.

Sorry for not keeping up with this thread. I went trout fishing for a few days.

At this point I mainly want to corroborate what OncyT posted regarding tribal monitoring of tribal harvests. It isn't perfect, but it is highly accurate, and like he mentioned, both the state and tribes assume that the unreported and unaccounted catch remains a constant, or near constant, from year to year and does not significantly affect any fish management outcomes. The big difference is that in the 1990s sometime, the state, not due to co-management really, but due to budget reductions, discontinued the daily sampling of all fish buyers, so the state no longer has the real-time soft data harvest information that they used to have. That was critical information in fisheries where in-season runsize updates were done. Some, and maybe all, tribes - I don't know - still have their real-time not-so-soft data because they are able to account for catch on a daily basis. The Swinomish are one of those Tribes. But I'm told the system for daily reporting and accounting for catch at WDFW no longer exists, or at least doesn't exist as it once did. So eventually the data all makes its way to WDFW, and the annual hard data catch reports are still done. And this information is posted on WDFW's website, usually 2 to 3 years behind the current date.

Sg

Yeah. You'll recall the Makah "overage" on winter trolled Chinook. While it is true that they had the data in handing did not respond, WDFW also had it and from what I heard did not even look at it.