That rationale perpetuates a chosen method (non-selective gillnet) rather than the ONLY method which could be utilized by the tribes to achieve their 50% harvest. Looking at this from a different angle accepting that rationale penalizes recreational fishers for the pro-active steps they have taken to reduce impacts such as mass-marking of hatchery releases and marked selective fishing, use of single barbless hooks, closures of winter fisheries where excessive sub-adults are being encountered etc., etc.

A State argument could well be that non-tribal fisheries have already been restricted
for conservation purposes and any tribal restrictions would be to impose corresponding conservation measures (and impact reductions) on the tribes.

Larry B - That’s one way of looking at it.

Or…….

The use of mark selective methods by the recreational anglers has provided additional fish for both State and Tribal fisheries. Indeed, without mass marking and mark selective fisheries, both sides would be arguing about a lot fewer fish since both sides would quickly use up whatever incidental take NMFS makes available.

The result would be that a lot of hatchery fish would be making it back to the rivers, but nobody would be able to harvest them, given the potential for incidental take of ESA fish above what NMFS authorizes (i.e., exempts from take).

This highlights the importance of mass-marking all hatchery fish.

Hoh v. Baldridge held that the State could not, by fishing in front of the Tribes, create a conservation problem forcing Tribal closure. Makes sense. But, should the Tribes be able to force the NI side to be closed because they CHOOSE to be non-selective and thereby create a conservation problem?

And, if mass -marking hatchery fish was/is such a good idea why are not all Tribal fish marked?

NMFS does neither of these things. NMFS determines the overall impact rates and whether a fishery plan meets them or not. Dividing up that impact and catch is a state/tribal matter, not a fed matter. At least for Puget Sound fisheries.

One thought is that if a crisis occurs with wild fish the tribes will be the only ones able to fish, so let it get to a crisis stage, shut out the non-tribal fisheries and cut out all competition. Then maybe they can restore the runs(???) as they see fit and totally control the resource.
Crazy theory, eh? Bob R
P.S. And if this sounds screwed up ask why the state considers themselves co-managers when the Nisqually tribe will not even provide the state with catch numbers for tribal crabbers in the South Sound? Hell of a way to preserve a resource and be responsible fisherfolk.

[/quote] NMFS does neither of these things. NMFS determines the overall impact rates and whether a fishery plan meets them or not. Dividing up that impact and catch is a state/tribal matter, not a fed matter. At least for Puget Sound fisheries. [/quote]


I agree. It’s not as linear as I made it sound. NMFS sets the overall incidental take, the State and Tribes divvy up the incidental take to ensure both can take their share, and then NMFS okay’s the overall plan to ensure the incidental take limits are maintained.

But my basic point was that the State and the Tribes are NOT dividing up the allocation. They’re divvying up the incidental take. And that’s NOT a 50/50 split.

Carcassman - Why would the Tribes want to mark fish from their facilities? That would only provide more fish for the recreational anglers and NI commercial fleet. After all, the Tribes are okay with mark-selective fisheries as long as there are no marked fish……. It’s mass marking that they oppose.

Mass-marking only makes sense if you also participate in a mark-selective fishery. If you don’t, mass marking works against you. That why the Tribes don’t mark their fish.

My sense is that if the Tribes could fish selectively, with a similar level of efficiency, they would. But given the nature of their fishery, and their historic reliance on gill nets, they can’t.

That is not in any way inconsistent with my prior post. One might speculate that the tribes dislike mass marking because it provides a reasonable way for all fishers to fish selectively and puts their non-selective fishers in a position of having to explain why they continue to kill ESA listed fish particularly in the face of a crisis currently being experienced.

if i may ask...what tribal hatcheries aren't mass marking their fish? also the squaxins are paying for tumwater falls which provides up to 15000 chinook to areas 9,10,11 in most years(when it's open) and the nisqually hatchery provides up to 25000 chinook to areas 9-11 too...all mass marked except for DIT fish as far as i know.

the tribes try selective fishing in PS..beach seining etc...especially for coho...i don't see any NI guys seining...

if you want salmon back to puget sound i woukl think the tribes are your allies more than enemy...WDFW people hate the tribes...at least all that i've known...

i'm not convinced on mass marking anymore after working on it for 20 years either...the tribes original position is sounding better and better...

maybe time to end mass marking?

norm dicks was wined and dined by Northwest Marine Technology to push mass marking thru anyways as a benefit to them and they have benefited greatly from it $$$$$

I am apparently not connecting the dots here. Exactly how would eliminating mass marking improve fishing opportunities for recreational salmon fishers in Puget Sound?

Non-selective fishing, combined with hatchery production, has been shown to wipe out the wild stocks. Hatchery stocks can be harvested at 90-95% of the adult returns. The wild stocks cannot be harvested at anything close to that. If fishing is non-selective, the wild fish will be harvested at the same rate as the hatchery fish. So one of two things happen. Either there is a huge, unharvested population of hatchery fish; or the wild stocks go extinct.

Which do you think will happen?

Lemme answer my own question:

History is clear. When a watershed contains a fish hatchery, all stocks are harvested at the higher rate. And the wild fish are quickly eliminated. That is the legacy of non-selective fishing, and hatchery production.

WORD!

When someones opinion of catch and release is you are playing with your food, good luck trying to convince them to fish selectively.

Same goes for when fish, either wild are hatchery are viewed the same.
There is little to no incentive to fish selectively.
SF

Dang, you guys gave away the answer......

Generally and especially when there are listed stocks involved, total exploition rates are significantly lower than those historic rates, even when the are mixed H&W. Your argument is somewhat of a false choice as nobody fishes to those rates anymore and the wild fish don't really care who kills them or how or where. If you want to say that selective fishing is a more efficient use (economic benefit wise or NI rec fishery season length wise) of each dead wild fish, regardless of ER limitation, ok. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking we don't kill wild fish though, please.

I said the same thing, but used less words. To wit:

"If fishing is non-selective, the wild fish will be harvested at the same rate as the hatchery fish."

I never said we don't kill wild fish. I simply stated that if we can't differentiate between wild fish and hatchery fish, both will be harvested at the same rate. Either high, low, or anything in between.

If we harvest at a rate that is consistent with wild fish productivity (i.e., low), there will likely be lots and lots of hatchery fish that aren't harvested.

We can argue about the value of putting lots of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds with the wild fish, but that's a different issue.......