Did you know that The Skokomish Tribe has claimed the whole river for themselves?

Please attend the demonstration on July 30th to protest this outrageous act.

Here is Ron Garner's very polite letter on the subject:




Ron Garner
24707 Florence Acres Road Monroe, WA 98272
June 27, 2016

Mr. Charles “Guy” Miller Chairman, Skokomish Tribal Council Skokomish Indian Tribe
80 North Tribal Center Road Shelton, WA 98584

Dear Chairman Miller:

This letter is in follow up to a visit by Frank Urabeck to your office on Wednesday, June 15, and his several subsequent telephone calls with your executive secretary, Darlyn Warren. Mr. Urabeck, as a representative of the Puget Sound Anglers, a well recognized long established sport fishing/conservation organization of more than 7,000 members, was seeking a meeting with you to discuss the Skokomish Indian Tribe’s decision earlier this year to not allow non-tribal sport fishing for hatchery Chinook salmon in traditional sport fishing reaches of the Skokomish River. Sport fishing for Chinook and Coho salmon has occurred here for many decades as these fisheries are extremely popular with many thousands of Washington citizens. Several years ago sport fishing was significantly restricted by the State of Washington to minimize gear conflicts between sport and tribal fishers. A number of other actions have been taken to accommodate tribal concerns.

The purpose of this letter is to ask the Skokomish Tribe to reconsider its position and allow sport fishing to continue for hatchery Chinook salmon during the coming month of August. We are responding to the public call by Lorraine Loomis, Chair, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, for the recreational fishing community and Puget Sound tribes to come together and cooperate where we have mutual interests of saving and restoring our salmon and steelhead resources to harvestable levels. We have read the U.S. Department of Interior’s Solicitor General’s January 15, 2016 opinion regarding the tribal reservation’s southern boundary. While we, the State of Washington and others may not agree with that opinion, we accept that this will likely have to be resolved in the Federal courts, which may take a number of years. Consequently, until the issue is resolved by the courts, we reluctantly accept that we can be denied access to that portion of the Skokomish River that you believe to be part of the southern boundary of the reservation – if the Skokomish Tribes elects to do this.

In a June 9 op-ed article, published in the Shelton-Mason County Journal, Lorraine Loomis, Chair of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, stressed the importance of cooperation between the comanagers of the salmon resource (Puget Sound tribes and the State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife), and the need to work together on fish habitat protection and restoration, as well as seeking greater production of salmon through our hatchery programs. We agree with Ms. Loomis. However, the co-managers must recognize a third partner. This is the non-tribal sport fishing community. We too care deeply about our fish resources as evidenced by the many fish habitat restoration and enhancement project accomplished by Puget Sound Angler chapters and other organizations. Our members also serve on a number of governmental/citizen committees dedicated to restoring ESA listed salmon and steelhead runs. Our citizen/constituent based political power is very significant, as has often been demonstrated. Without our involvement further significant improvements to habitat and increased hatchery production is unlikely. Also, just keeping hatchery production at current levels will continue to be a struggle and requires citizen support. Without meaningful fishing opportunities, that support will wane.

If sport fishers continue to see our fishing opportunities diminished, especially when not conservation driven, then we will question continued funding of hatchery programs where we receive little or no benefit. Consequently, we are approaching the Skokomish and all Puget Sound tribes in a spirit of cooperation. Unless we are all together, we all will lose. A good model of successful cooperation was the effort by three northern Puget Sound Tribes, three significant sport fishing/conservation groups (Puget Sound Anglers, Coastal Conservation Association and the Steelhead Trout Club) and the Department of Fish and Wildlife, that saved five early winter Puget Sound hatchery steelhead programs in April.

We will be sponsoring a gathering of the public at the George Adams hatchery on Saturday, July 30, at 1 p.m. to discuss the tribal closure of the Skokomish River Chinook fishery. You are invited to speak to the tribal perspective on this issue. A representative of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife may speak as well. Please let us know of your interest.

Again, repeating my earlier thought: “Unless we are all together, we all will lose.” Allowing a sport fishery to take place this August will demonstrate that the Skokomish Indian Tribe wants to work with the sport fishing/conservation community. Our hand is extended to you.

Mr. Urabek is our contact for the July 30 event and can be reached by telephone at 253-208-7323; by email: urabeck@comcast.net.

Thank you for giving our views consideration.

Sincerely yours, Ron Garner President Puget Sound Anglers State Board
16 Chapters Statewide

Cc:
Lorraine Loomis
WDFW Director Jim Unsworth
WDFW Ron Warren
WDFW John Long Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
Senator Maria Cantwell
Senator Patty Murray
Senator Rick Larson
Governor Jay Inslee
NOAA Will Stelle-West Coast Administrator
Senator Kirk Pearson, Chair Senate Natural Resources
Senator Pam Roach, President Pro Tempore


Here is a map to the hatchery:
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.3015869,-123.1843062,16.25z

An interesting letter, to be sure. If the Skokomish Tribe decides to continue the closure of the lower river, I wonder what WDFW's reasons will be for continuing to operate the George Adams fish hatchery.

WOW... just WOW!

I'm confident that neither WDFW nor the tribe will choose to do the right thing.

Just sell them the hatchery. $500 million sounds fair. No? Well boo hoo. The tribe can suck it for all I care. They don't own the stream bed (including gravel bars). Why can't the state just tell them that until the litigation is finished things will at least continue as scheduled? Shouldn't the state have judiciary power in this matter? It is a state funded hatchery, not federal. Unless I'm missing something.

they have had since 1855 to argue this, and they are just doing it now?

I think the new sockeye fishery they are implementing is the real reason. They don't want to share in the catch if it takes off. An early July Sockeye season would be great! They want all the fish with none of the burden of paying for it.

The stream bed ownership/reservation boundary is, I believe, the issue. An opinion from the Dept. of Interior supporting the tribe is no different than that of a parent supporting their child. In short, not necessarily the most rationale, impartial posturing.

I strongly object to the WDFW closing what has been State waters absent a court order.

And while I understand the argument for closing what is a State hatchery so doing would, IMHO, undermine the State's position in ongoing litigation. Keep that closure idea on the shelf but clearly visible.

I agree. And to rub salt, they say they'll have someone out there patrolling to make sure their idiotic ruling is strictly enforced.

I told my buddy a couple years ago when they started construction on these big new hatchery projects that we'd never get a crack at those fish because the Skok tribe was going to lay claim to the river and boot us off of it. I just didn't think WDFW would actually assist them in doing so by being such pussies.

You're pathetic WDFW.

At least part of the George Adams production is mitigation from Tacoma. WDFW could and should close facilities that do not produce fish harvested by those who pay the bills.

If you follow more than just WDFW you will see the many ways in which the Tribes control the state; they own the D's.

Years ago, many of the folks I was working with noted that the Tribes were slowly taking away non-Indian fisheries, particularly sport. A little here, a little there. The frog in the pot on the stove and the water is about to boil.

But we kept the ocean, B10, and the outer Staits open at least some...

agree that this is bs to close state raised fish to residents of the state. that being said, wdfw did increase the limit in the salt to 4 fish... if sport anglers would cooperate and share intel and technique for intercepting the chinook in the canal - that would be the best response. If we were able to put a serious dent in the return by getting em in the salt , how sweet would that be!!?!!???

so, who knows the where, when and how?

It would raise the impact on the wild Chinook and get the fishery shut down sooner.

CM, I believe that allowing four in the Canal versus two in the Canal and 2 in the Skokomish (sort of making that up as I'm not sure what the limit in river would have been) could actually extend the fishery as catches in the Canal would be diluted by both hatchery programs from Hoodsport hatchery and George Adams hatchery, while in-river impacts would only be diluted by GA fish.

But the Canal would also have the Dose, Duck, Hamma squared, Quil, and probably other wilds.

It is really complex when we insist on producing hatchery fish that will be co-mingled with wild fish that we give lip service to recovering.

I was thinking primarily of the impact on Skokomish fish and I believe that impact would be reduced. I think you are right, though, if 4 fish could actually be caught in the Canal versus two there and 2 in the river, the impact on the independent 12B populations would be higher. But since the fishery is typically open only below Ayock Pt. (12C), I'm not sure it would be much higher. I'm not sure how the fishery model allocates fish in that area.

I haven't seen a quota for that area. .. have you?

I would be surprised if they shut it down in the salt, as all our impacts from the Skokie are transferred there.

I want to take my boat out and kill 4 skok hatchery fish. .. anyone care to share some intel? They are good biters in river, so I would think they would be in the salt too.

Not great biters the further south they go, Coho killers off Bald Point,. maybe Jiggs

The Skok Laddermen's Association will have something to say about this.
Might have to bring in Tom Horn.

Buddy of mine whackem last year in the salt water at the mouth of the river jigging Point Wilson type jigs.