From the Kitsap Sun

http://www.kitsapsun.com/outdoors/tribe-...-381592681.html

Those darned executive orders can certainly be troublesome.

Well now we can just sell the hatchery at Purdy Creek to them. Im sure the State will spend it on other recreational fishing opportunities. Right?

The Commission has directed WDFW to support the folks who pay the freight. Of course, taking the Skok fish in the Canal, Straits, and Ocean does count but I suspect that program size will be reviewed.

But, there is (or was) a component of George Adams that is mitigation for the Cushman Project so it will stay as long as Tacoma pays.

It will be interesting to see, as the Tribes "close" sporties off that hatchery production shifts.

The Washington Laws on private property along water ways are pretty clear, to me at least. Average annual high water mark, that includes gravel bars, are state property. Gravel bars are considered stream bed in Washington state. No one actually owns the water. The stream bed under the water is the States.

I have been yelled at by tribal police for standing on the north side of the river, and have never been arrested or even ticketed.

The Purdy Cutoff is a state (maybe county) owned road. As a Washington state resident, I have the right to free passage and the means where permitted, parking along side the road. So my question here is, can they really do this? If the stream bed, gravel bars and the main road with parking access is owned by the state(not to mention the hatchery) why can the tribe shut down access?

It really feels cut and dry. Washington law is fairly clear on the matter.

The contention is that the treaty establishing the Skokomish Rez gave them the stream bed as the border, not the edge of the river.

I can't see this one going down without a fight, I hope the AG's office is getting tuned up for it.

Fish on...

Todd

this is going to get ugly, as it gets closer to the normal opener .....I see a lawsuit or straight revolt and revolution or cowboys and indians wuth the state being the [Bleeeeep!] idiots for closing it down to sportsmen who pay for those fish and its a wdfw run hatchery.......how [Bleeeeep!] stupid this state is and the new top dog a complete [Bleeeeep!] idiot.....Phil would have never let this happen...............

Phil Anderson was a piece of [Bleeeeep!] as a director, the only thing he did was line his own pockets as the head of the Westport Charter Boat Association. He would continually push (and get!) extra chinook limits when quotas weren't met in what he considered a "late": run. It never was late, just paper fish projections. He bent us all over for commercial gill netters. What a sh*thead! Bob R

As Carcassman mentioned in his post, operation of George Adams fish hatchery is paid for in part by Tacoma Power as partial mitigation for the Cushman hydro project. If the Skokomish Tribe is granted ownership of the lower river, it stands to reason that WDFW shut down the state-funded portion of George Adams and any other state-funded anadromous fish production in the river basin. It seems like the Skok Tribe stands to lose by winning.

That would include McKernan which used to kick out a whole bunch of chum. Take away the chum hatchery production nd you'll have to take a while to restore all those HC chum streams and fish at a wild stock rate. I agree with Salmo that the Tribes may lose a lot by "winning".

The article in the Kitsap sun states.

So: We seem to be reasoning out that the Tribe will lose a bunch of hatchery fish if they win this. Do we really believe the Tribe didn't consider that risk and decide they would still benefit from getting whitey off the river? Is there precedent for WDFW closing hatcheries due to lack of sport fisher access to the fish produced?

There was another thread here recently that addressed what I thought was a ridiculous closure of Lake Cushman to non-tribal fishing. Turned out the justification lied in a Skok Tribe/Tacoma Power project (advertised) to restore salmon stocks to the upper North Fork that is just beginning to release smolts. This development makes me wonder if the Tribe's plan is to replace the harvest lost from closing the lower river to non-tribal fishing with harvest from their new hatchery. Consider the potential benefits to the Tribe:

$ Easy terminal harvest/egg take at the base of the dams.
$ PR points for restoring "wild" salmon to a stream in which they were practically (and functionally) extinct.
$ No more sharing of whatever catch is available with whitey.
$ No more enforcement issues on the river....

The big one for me is getting rid of the catch sharing. Even with less hatchery production (which I don't think will happen, whether we close our hatcheries or not), 100% of the available catch is likely to be very near or better than what they get from their 50% today.

The chum thing is a bit compelling, but I suspect they'll find a way around that issue.

Anybody else see shades of the Lower Quinault in this deal? Would anybody be surprised (should this deal go down) to learn that non-tribal fishers can fish the Lower Skok for kings or Lake Cushman for sockeye after all... provided they're with a tribal guide?

That was a long-winded way of saying that I doubt the Tribe will back down if we threaten to shut down our hatcheries. Pretty sure they have a Plan B in the works.

First off flicker, the Skokomish Tribe doesn't have the ability to guide, it's not written in their treaty, and I highly doubt that the QIN & Makah political machines will let them somehow change their treaty to allow it...they don't want to mess with their market of tribal guiding, as several people have told me in convos on the issue.

Second, I don't understand why just because the lower river is tribal you guys think it'll close...
Well it will, but the skoks have more than enough money to buy it and let the feds run it for them (like cook creek).
They can drop the run size and have a Wipeout fishery in the slough..

All the while, and thru this threads time, the native chinook production continues to get driven harder into the mud, soon to be followed by others

DOI's opinion is that Skok v. France established the boundary for tidelands only, and not along the river, even though the river is tidally influenced along the reservation.

best reasoning so far.

the injuns eventually win. injuns love sticking it to the whiteman these days.

Salmo,
Do you know where I can get a copy of the opinion and who made it. It does not appear to be readily available from the Department of Interior's web site. I think you are right in what they did in regards to Frqnce, but I would like to see if they included any reason for making that decision and what they relied on. In addition, I think I might try to file a freedom of information act to see who else may have influenced the decision or weighed in on it. . It would be interesting to see what, if any, political influence was exercised. I would also like to see what the original request from the tribe looked like. It feels a bit unfair that no one was allowed adequate time to file briefs or opinions on the matter before a decision was made.

Thanks

Does this mean I have to return the new step ladder I bought for this season on the Skok?



I was looking forward to getting away from Reiter and on to a nice quiet river all to myself......

always keep in mind the injuns have more $$$$ in fighting in court over "their" rights. Keep in mind their attorneys love this kinda stuff.

"a bit unfair"

It was a bit unfair how the whiteman stole, desecrated, slaughtered and committed a near total genocide of the injuns.


just saying in our modern times the tribes pretty much can AND DO what EVER the f u c k they want. WDFG is powerless to stop or counter them. or any else .... just saying.

Here is the opinion... https://solicitor.doi.gov/opinions/M-37034.pdf. A quick reading reveals several problems with this opinion. First, they basically ignore the Skokomish/France decision. By doing so, they are able to ignore the conclusions in it and make their own. A quick review of all the maps attached appear to not include the river or its bed. Second, the decision mentions the need for fishing, ignoring the fact that the tribe raised this question and was assured that the reservation was not for hunting and fishing, but rather only for residing and that they were able to utilize all their traditional areas (as can be seen in the attachment to the decision). This explanation is clearly at odds with the decision. The decision also tries to assert that owner ship of the bed and water is essential to the fishery. They neglect to understand that the tribe no longer uses weirs, that the weirs would be explicitly allowed if the tribe opted to use them, and that sharing of the water and river bed has been done for the last hundred years. Further more, the tribe itself at one point issued non-tribal permits at a cost, further implying that shared use did not prevent their ability to use the river.

All in all, its a very poor decision in my opinion and does not stand up to historical or common knowledge

Also just sayin', everything people on this board accuse Indians of doing is the [Bleeeeep!] white people are doing all the time everywhere on planet earth.

If a white guy stole your stereo would all white guys be thieves?

So why when an Indian does it are all Indians thieves?

Just remember that corporations, governments, developers et cetera get away with this type of crap all the time and people get [Bleeeeep!] and go unheard but in this case since its over fish and fishing rights and separate classes, people are paying attention and the racism comes out full force.

You ignore the rather incestuous relationship between the Federal Government (Dept of Interior/BIA specifically) and the tribes.

The Federal Government signed those treaties representing the Government and its citizens while the tribal representatives signed for their citizens. But good luck trying to get the Feds to fight the tribes to ensure that the terms of said treaties are adhered to by both sides.

I tell people all the time that we taught the Tribes most of what they know about dirty dealings, so we ought not be so surprised when they start playing the game by our rules. Their first move was monopolizing gambling, and that's proved to be a pretty good one. Now that they've got money to throw around, they've become a political force to be reckoned with. The irony of how they've gotten here is quite rich. Americans are gluttons for all things sinful. The Tribes know it, and they're all too happy to let us choke ourselves to a slow death while they buy back what our ancestors took from them with the profits. Pretty good, downright Capitalistic plan, if you ask me.

Understood. Just pointing out that the Federal government doesn't feel bound by the decision because they were not a party to the lawsuit.

The BIA is supposed to error in favor of the Tribes whenever a question, ambiguity, or dispute arises.

Its fairly clear that this is a hostile opinion. I am having a hard time wrapping my head around the statement that they are not bound by a court decision because they were not party to it. They clearly had the right to adjoin the tribe at the time and felt no need. Furthermore, as guardians for the tribes, it would only stand to reason that if they found the decision in error they would have been obligated to appeal it further. Since all claims of the BIA would have to be done under the authority as a guardian for the tribe, I fail to see their reasoning. All facts would be the same. Basically it appears the BIA is saying it could ignore the decision in France, since they were not specifically included, and give the tidelands back to the tribe. This is quite different then just saying they feel the case does not apply. Are they really saying that if Skokomish vs. France actually applies, they can just ignore it and force the state to sue for ownership,with the tribe's only claim having already been determined by the ninth circuit to be in error?

Apparently that is what they are doing.

I wonder if it would be possible for the state to get a emergency or preliminary injunction on this.

the skok is a cess pool... too bad WDFW didn't trade it for something better at NOF...

I agree Piper, but I thought perhaps there was hope during the early season bobber only period last year. In addition, there is a fairly strong late coho and chum season that is not anything like the early chinook fishery.

I don't fish the Skok, but it will be interesting to see how long it takes the AG to investigate the tribes claims and the BIA's opinion / ruling.
Time to write some more emails and make some calls.
SF

I probably shouldn't be so hard on the skok... having it around keeps the inbred, toothless, sandbar shitters out of the good fishing area's...

I agree, it will be interesting to see this play

this thread has 5 star potential to be a in the park home run. these days only the rich g posts ignite with such fervor.

long live the modern injun wars of the west!

The Green river stock gives to Canada for Alaskan take. Same thing with the chum and the pollack trawls.

Looks like sport anglers are getting no reach around any longer...


When I was a cop in La Push my sergeant showed me a Washington State law which is apparently still on the books which states; if three or more natives are seen off the reservation it is considered a war party and they can be shot on site. Have never been able to find that law in print again but thought it was pretty funny at the time, remember thinking how times have changed...

Not promoting laws like the one above by any means but there are literally thousands of laws still on the books which are thought to be outdated or no longer useful, some are really crazy laws which make no sense at all today, but some although not at all progressive and maybe a little oppressive should be researched any maybe enforced again as useful tools.

I mean if you want to enforce your sovereignty that's fine but the people of Mason County could also build a fence around your reservation and not allow you to leave, that's if you want to have your cake and eat it too, the road goes both ways and can get really stupid in a hurry.

what ^^^^ he said.

I was lookin forward to leavin a steamer on a sandbar.
Guess I'll have to stock up on straw bales and grappling hooks.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone did get shot. Can you imagine the tribal cops attempting to seize your boat and drawing on you like they did that elk hunter and his 2 year old son in Brinnon a few years back?

http://www.sequimgazette.com/news/251049621.html#

Where am I going to sh!t?

You're an idiot.

Time to go on the Warpath!!!

Problem solved....multi purpose "Skok Blind".
Sneak up on some kings while doing your business.....

Has anyone tried bow fishing there?

I'm sure someone from the other side of the river has done that. I've seen Penn Pier Sticks (aka Tuna poles) used to yard in salmon. Nothing prevents them from resorting to a bow that I know of.

I would bet that a good portion of the fecal contamination came from the rez itself, toilets flushing to "nowhere". I doubt that many people fishing take a crap on the bank enough to do whatever they're saying it did. It's more a "take advantage of the situation/publicity to blame whitey" thing.

Krijack,

Please, the 1963 9th Circuit decision is Skokomish v. France, NOT French.

Second, the DOI document is a legal opinion of DOI's Solicitor's Office and is not a "decision." They might like you to think that it is, but it isn't a decision until a court ruling makes it so. As an opinion, the document carries only as much weight as a reader decides to give it. WDFW decided to agree on a river closure while they review the opinion. It remains to be seen if WDFW's AAG agrees with the validity of the opinion or not. WDFW might decide they don't agree with the opinion and reopen the river to non-Indian fishing. The Skokomish Tribe and DOI would then have to sue the state in federal court to have the opinion adjudicated. The ruling by a federal court would be the "decision," and it could be appealed if the losing party chose to.

Post of the year? Skok rec-blind...I can't stop spitting coffee everytime I see this

Sorry Salmo,
You are, of course, correct. I went back amended the posts to the Skokomish VS. France decision and changed the Federal response to opinion. I need to stop being so sloppy.

Translation is that WDFW didn't have to screw over those that fish the Skok, but did it anyway.

Lame, but not surprising.

back in the 80s there was a dispute over the Lummi Rez boundary in Bellingham Bay. Over the (what I was told) objections of WDF the AGs took it on and won a decision that favored the NI position, especially the gill net fleet. So, it is up to AG's office so if you might try to lobby them rather than WDFW.

The AG's office doesn't readily respond to requests from ordinary citizens. they will however take action, or look into taking action on the request from an elected representative, or various .WA.GOV departments.

You might be better served contacting your elected officials. Sheldon, Blake, Hargrove would be good places to start.

Interestingly enough, I contacted the AG's office not too long ago (about a non-fishing-related topic) via their public contact information and got a non-canned response not too long after that. I was pleasantly surprised.

No doubt.

Lol. That issue was about non-native invasive poop. It is different.

It's missing the customized trap-door poop shoot on the bottom. Other than that, it'll fish.

There is a trap door. It was closed at the time of the photo shoot.
Not designed for pooping though, but for vertical hover flossing.
SF

They will answer some questions and also extend professional courtesy to other attorneys not working for the State, but to get an action started, or to get an opinion, it take someone on the State payroll to get something going.

Hmmmm....vertical hover flossing you don't say? Do I need a yellow rod lined up with 65 lb braid for that? What color they bite'n on? The standard brown or the brown with the yellow spots? Any garlicky Italian scents or do they slam the hot curry scent the best?

Black corkie, 5/0 treble and some meth residue scent.

so basically just rub the corky along the gum/tooth stump line before every cast?