That's fantastic.

Really excellent.

I think we should give them and the non-tribal commercials every single fish.

And then I hope a meteor destroys the whole fuckin' planet just to even the playing field. It will solve our political and fisheries issues in one bright flash.

A quick start would be to open the entire Hood Canal rather than just South of Ayok Rock. The Northern part of the canal has been closed for 20 years for a variety of reasons that don't make sense. Those fish could be targeted by more than just a few. Also, it's time to include sockeye as well before they become an issue.

I haven't heard anything about Black River, but I know they are starting to seek claim to the Satsop. All hell would break loose if they were to make this happen.

Could you imagine nets on the Satsop? Neither can I, but at this rate anything is possible. Judges are big on precedent, and this closure has set a precedent for sure. They make a claim, they get what they want. The Dept. of the Interior and the BIA will never side with us. A judge will lean on their opinions nearly 100%.

Its not as simple as that right? It has to be harder then that for them to bend us over and go in dry right?

I think it really is that easy, hold the KY.

"long time listener-(near) first time caller" sort of deal...
so apologies for jumping in.

Trying to get this all configured.
The Skoks are trying to claim the Satsop? or is it Quinault wanting to net the Satsop-eventhough they get first chance on the lower Chehalis?

The Chehalis tribe have a very small hatchery on lower Black River and they net near their reservation on the Chehalis but the lower Chehalis is all Quinault-yes? Do I have that right-or correct me please.

This will be a year that will start a big, big shift away from recreational opportunities for the normal citizens of the US locally, and as seasons get slimmed down (does anyone think there will be ANY salmon season on the Chehalis?), the days of old are going to be sealed it sadly seems.

What a turbulent time, fighting over hatchery fish and endangered fish with different definitions and different players with different powers and agendas..what a mess.

Not saying right or wrong, just becoming obvious that the tribes have all the power and the fish and game department can't or won't do anything or even try. Yes, two "countries" and treaties hold big power. I get that for sure. Seems to be the door was cracked and now, it is time to see how far they can swing it. I see no hope in slowing down the inevitable that as fish stocks shrink to nothing, there will be only one player left. Only by their choice will the killing stop until the last runs ceases-and I hope someone gets the bigger picture and not the payback for payback picture. Alot of mistakes are coming back to haunt all involved-mostly the fish.

The northern portion of Hood Canal will probably never be open again, well, at least while those mid-Canal independent tribs (Dosie, Duck and Hamma Hamma) need to be recovered. Their productivity is so low that I'm pretty sure they are overharvested before they even reach Washington waters.

Guys off thread this is a PS thing thread and I probably should have kept my trap shut. Anyhow I have to do some chores to do and I think if you go back through the FTC thread the tribal legal action was hit but I will do it again when I get back. Lets not hijack a PS thread.

Melanie and I went to the meeting this morning for public input, gave them hell for not advocating against AG's ruling on no rec fishing per tribe's assertion of river ownership. Long story short they have been told by legal to not give an opinion so as to threaten future possible legal actions by A. G.'s office. In other words, give in to them now as the feds will protect their interests. Still didn't make us happy by a long shot. Melanie is the more reasonable of the two of us , that's for sure. I don't make any friends there, I guess. Bob R

THX Bob. You know your right though because as in all things with us as a people if you allow the government to sell someone else down the road ( in this case a it is as simple as a few hundred citizens right to fish ) one should always remember this. Next time they will come for you and yours just as surely as the sun will rise in the East.

Little edit as this was forwarded:

Attached is a word file of the doc that is somewhat blurry. Had to convert the pdf due to the file size. Here's the link to the PDF and its posted on the DFW website. Go to "North of Falcon" on side is a table of "2016 Fisheries Plans and Model runs" and you'll see "2016-17 Co-Managers List of Agreed Seasons". That takes you to the doc at the link below. Hiding in plain sight.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/tribal/2016-17agreement.pdf
On page 37 it starts with Skokomish tribal and rec is below that. Down a little and it shows the rec closure on the Skok. Couldn't find a permanent rule for Nt nets.
I relooked and found two notices on the commercial hotline for NT beach seines. One we hadn't seen before is for August 1-3rd. http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/hotline/2016/2-jul29_2016.pdf
Then, I found the how it went down. The regular rules coming out of the agreed to seasons doesn't have a NT fisheries over by Hoodsport. Then, maybe a slap at the Skoks? Here's an emergency rule that sets up a bunch of days in July and August "due to surplus of Chinook available" for NT beach seines

http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/emergency_rules/2016/wsr_16-16-020.pdf

I'm pretty sure that by closing the river, they already gave an opinion.........and it wasn't the right one.

Thanks for taking the time, bob r.

R Guy. The Hoodsport NT net fishery is on page 34 of the Agreement.

There was an interesting dispute about the Lummi Res boundary in the 80s. The AG wanted to pursue it, WDF leadership did not. Ads went ahead and won.

The issue of challenging the tribes is highly politicized in WA and I doubt that any elected Dem will challenge them. Too much money at stake.

That is very true, it is a sad situation that we find ourselves in.

One of the things mentioned by one of the members of the comm. was that they had heard from a lot of displeased fishermen but that they had to wait for the A.G. to respond legally. bob r