So the BIA is not a fisheries-oriented agency, but they solicit for the tribes to net on endangered fish runs. The BIA says there are enough fish, so:

Who is counting the harvestable fish numbers vs the endangered ESA killed?

And, if our share is 50/50, shouldn't sport fisherman get a non-tribal fishing time to compemsate the catch ratio? To mame it 50/50 like the Decision says, sport fishers need time to catch up, and also to improve the economy.
(Yes, I know this is rediculous...but I still ask: Who's counting, either to make the BIA and NOAA eat crow, or to open a counterbalancing fishery?)

The above, after talking to a tribal enforcement officer from Suquamish. We talked about how I can go out with 2 pots and catch 10 crab (2 people) in one set. Then I'm done.

My tribal co-managere boat can go out with 38 pots. Because of their commercial size, lets assume conservatively they also catch 10 per pot. That's 380 crab per set. And they are done! No way! Tribal have a 24 hour a day to fish, no limit, to catch thier 50/50 share. Lets say 5 runs were made, again, conservatively. That's 1900 crab a day, for that one boat.

WHOS COUNTING THE CRAB (or insert your favorite species name here), and estimating it against the sport catch of 5 per person?? The tribe is. That's like asking shoopers to set their own price on something and expecting it to be fair.

So, back to the dock: I asked, "Where did you catch those, Eglon? Kingston?
Answer: "No way, we killed all the good crab here. We go to Everett, there's way more there. "

"Upper Skagit Tribe sues Suquamish Tribe over crab fishery encroachment "

http://www.goskagit.com/all_access/upper...c18c20679a.html

Based on the last published catch report from WDFW (2013 catches) there were 208,600 Puget Sound crab endorsements sold. Who is reporting the catch for those 208K+ fishers? The fishers themselves. Any room for misreporting in this system?

From the same report that OncyT referred to the reported Puget Sound recreational crab catch for 2013 for summer and winter combined was nearly 2,000,000 million pounds or more than 1.2 million crabs. That of course you believe the punch card information that folks are turning in.

Curt

It would surprise me if the state was not using fish-checker data to account for offset reporting inaccuracies. The fish-checkers provide a highly accurate crabs/boat check, and a count of boats, which provides a way to do better mathematically than just counting what is turned in.

The WDFW crab bios are definitely performing creel checks. Their doing so is apparent in the comparison of on the water LE noted violations versus violations observed by the bios during creel checks as reported during the required crab season report to the Commission.

From the WDFW website:"Fishery managers rely on catch information provided by fishers to manage the Puget Sound Dungeness crab fishery and plan future seasons. Just as fishery managers rely on fish tickets to track commercial harvest, they depend on CRCs to estimate recreational crab catch. CRCs are also used to account for recreational harvest of other species such as steelhead, salmon, sturgeon, and halibut."

While other methods are certainly used, I suspect that CRC's are still the primary basis for estimation of crab, salmon and steelhead. Certainly the in-sample returns of salmon CRCs is still very important to sport catch estimation, and if voluntary returns of crab CRCs were not important to estimating that catch, why would you be fined $10 for not turning in your card? Creel checks which certainly are used in some places are notoriously expensive when asked to provide precise estimates, and those too, rely on voluntary, accurate reporting of catch to the census takers. Numerous posters on this board have even stated that in recent quota fisheries for Chinook in northern Puget Sound they routinely report no encounters with Chinook to the creel people to attempt to keep fisheries open longer. The point I'm trying to make is that both treaty and non-treaty catch estimation relies on voluntary information provided by fishers. Make whatever you want out of that fact.

So again, if the current netting is putting fish in the boats, then into the trucks to haul,
Who is counting the "harvestable" fish numbers vs the endangered ESA killed?

BIA endorsed the fishery, NOAA is apparently going to sign off on it, there is debate on how many of those are ESA and how many should be harvested (hatchery)...and it would seem real hard numbers would be easy to get.

Oh so damn silly as this is the $64,000 question no one wants to answer! Oh it must be me and my "negative attitude" UGH!

One thing that my experience showed me (back when) is that no group of fishermen was scrupulously honest about reporting all of their catch (retained and released), the location, and so on. Competent managers know this, strive to find ways to improve it, and assume (hope??) that the unreported catch is at least a constant.

You can challenge the "count" of whomever you want but they can come back and point out that you do just as poorly. The system relies, for economic and social reasons, that the catch be self-reported. History has repeatedly shown that while intensive creel samples, intensive monitoring of fish buyers, and so on will provide more accurate numbers that the costs of doing so are prohibitive.

Much as I hate the current love affair managers have with models over data, there is no time sensitive, economically viable way to identify the actual source of each fish in the catch. Sockeye fisheries being the one I know of where it can be done relatively cheaply.

WDFW, the Tribes, and NOAA have all done a very poor job of educating all users about how management happens, why, the risks, and so on.

It is rather appalling to see, 40+ years post Boldt that the details are still so unknown among the general populous.

The requirement to immediately record a retained catch starts the accountability process for recreational fishers. Failure to record puts one at risk of a citation and repeat offenses could lead to loss of license to include future years. Are there folks who intentionally don't record? Probably, but they are IMHO a small minority. Then there is the issue of getting the CRCs submitted timely.

I know for a fact that WDFW spent considerable time and money chasing down folks who had obtained a P.S. crab endorsement and did not return their CRCs. Not only were they able to calculate a harvest figure for those non-returned CRCs they also found that the harvest rate was substantially lower than for those who returned their CRCs. Again, there are always a few who intentionally do not report but how significant is that number?

On the other hand the tribal fishers from certain tribes appear to have little risk associated with non-reporting. Hard to believe that there is accountability when the tribal resource manager is caught crabbing illegally and any tribal action is kept from the general public.

So exactly how does our Federal Government which signed the treaties for its citizens ensure that the tribes and their members adhere to the Boldt decision and subsequent Federal court rulings?

There's been discussions about instant reporting on our phones. Recs seem to be open to anything that's easier and more accurate. I'm sure some would dispute this but I think most of the recs follow the rules. Unfortunately, the actions of a few allows some to call our honesty into question.
The recs supply creel checkers at all the launches. We supply sampling boats that fish along side us. In season catches are monitored, questionable formulas are applied, and seasons are adjusted based on the information.

The tribes might be just as honest but who knows. There is no system to verify the information they supply.

A program could be developed to independently monitor the tribes as well but it will never happen. Unfortunately, the state has no authority and the feds don't care. The tribe can tell us we have to be monitored but we can't say the same.

Imagine if this was the other way around, all hell would break loose! There would be claims of discrimination and everyone would be falling all over themselves trying to make it fair. What's appalling is that nobody cares in this case.

The Boldt Decision allows the State and tribes to agree to whatever they want to. As long as they agree it is fine with the Feds. Share 60:40 or 70:30 is fine, regardless of what the Court said because they can agree to do differently.

Up until this year the way things were managed apparently suited the State just fine. The whole state, not just the sporties. If sacrificing the sport fishery achieves the over-arching goal of the (non-publically explained) State then all is well.

No one counts, the tribal fishers self report... It's always been that way, but in reality those numbers don't really mean anything because the tribes make up whatever numbers they like. The State is aware of this but they turn the other cheek.

It hasn't always been "that way". Pre-co-management (mid-80s, Bill Wilkerson) WDF had samplers who daily visited all the fish buyers and checked all the fish tickets, Indian and non-Indian.

Just out of curiosity, when was that monitoring discontinued? If it was done in the past, it could be done now. Maybe our fish checkers could count the tribes fish since they can't count ours. Last I checked, the numbers they produce are trustworthy and we've already got them in the budget. Should be as simple as re-assignment!

I don't know for sure. Late 80s probably as co-management took over. I doubt they have enough staff now. They changed the rules, too, no longer requiring that all buyers be state-licensed.

Need to understand the leadership mindset that used to be in WDFW. The Fish Program leaders thought spawner surveys could be done using Google-maps if there even was a need to count spawners.

Can somebody clarify...does the state have certain enforcement rights in regards to tribal fishing if it's a conservation measure? It would seem that catch reporting relates directly to conservation.

I'm sure WDFW wouldn't want to touch that with a 10-foot pole, but just askin.

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.

Back pre-Wilk, the state would close a waterbody (marine catch area, river, lake, etc) for conservation and it would apply to all. Now, they just manage the non-Indians. That is why you will see one side or the other taking the high ground and say "We are closing our fisheries for conservation, you should too."

And back to the initial question.....no one whose data is (IMHO) reliable.