We think this topic is significant enough to have it's own post, so we can discuss how this is viewed, and perhaps send a message to the Department and Commission. Here is a link to the Kitsap Sun article:

State plans to reopen fishing on Skokomish River

On the face value, this looks like a good thing, however, there is a caveat that we cannot overlook: in the article it states:

" Ron Warren, head of the Department of Fish and Wildlife's fish program, said the state will bring forward a fishery package for the Skokomish River during this year's North of Falcon salmon season-setting process."

There are two issues here:
1. Ron Warren
2. This will be discussed in the, still closed to the public, North of Falcon.

From many conversions we've heard, Ron does not have the most trustworthy reputation, and since we will have no idea what is discussed, we have no idea what Ron will bargain away!

As long as our most important co-managemnt fishery agreements are made in secret, we cannot trust to be given a fair and equitable deal.

Maybe, just maybe this might be Ron's way of securing enough favor to have a legitimate shot at the open Director's position.

Here is an email that we sent to Ron Warren, Mike Grossmann and the Commission:

Ron, Mike, Commissioners
It was very welcome news that after three years, the department has decided to challenge the take over of the contested Skokomish river.

After hearing two years ago that a plan was in place to re-open the river to create a nexus for challenge, it seems it is at last being put from words to action.
As you might imagine, it is welcome news that the department and the AG's office are at last willing to make a stand on this issue and say enough is enough.

I would however like to draw your attention back to the greater issue of the lack of transparency in our fisheries management.
Since both the Department leadership and our Commissioners have publicly stated their support for open meetings, and there is an overwhelming number of constituents who have told the state they want transparency, it seems the time for action for this issue has also arrived.

You asked us in our meeting of Oct 26, "What do you want us to do to fix this?" It seems the simple answer is the same one that you plan to bring about on the River. Create a nexus. Simply, inform the NWIFC that the state plans on having a live video feed in the negotiations. It is the right thing to do, and as you said Mike, there is no legal reason for exclusion. The only obstacle to opening the meetings is the tribes objection.

The transparency issue is very similar to the Skokomish claiming the entire river and the state objecting. WDFW and the Commission have both stated publicly that "transparency in government is essential, good and necessary", the tribes see confidentiality paramount. It is time to put your words of support to action. Unless of course, they were just that, an attempt to patronize.

If it is a Nexus of some physical form you need, there are a lot of stakeholders that are more than willing to attend the negotiations, just say the word.

Again, good news on drawing a line in the sand on the Skokomish, now stand up for the greater issue facing our fisheries, ending SECRET MEETINGS!

Sincerely,
Washington Citizen Sportsmen

I'd feel a lot better if it was a line drawn in concrete - sand being sand.....

So, will this become a deal breaker for NOF? If so, will WDFW have what it takes to just say they will take their (State's) share of the Skok bound fish?

I'd like to believe it. But I have my doubts.

If this effort finally comes off the column of the State AG's "TO DO" list, it will represent a most welcome and significant change in comparison to the Dep'ts past strategy and tactics re: good faith Tribal Relations, and the goal of fostering the proverbial "level playing field."

I can't heap enough praise on WDFW leadership for openly going public with their intentions to properly address this issue. Our stakeholders are optimistic...but must keep in mind that the enthusiasm needs to be tempered by all the factors that will play into the success or failure of this effort.

For years now, a sizable group residents along Hood Canal have voluntarily participated in a program to share their tidelands shellfish with the Skokomish Tribe. They are forward thinkers who have faith and trust in the principles set forth by the 1974 Boldt Decision.

Closing the Skokomish River to Rec Fishing two years back cast an ominous curtain over that working relationship. In short, how do you ethically justify coming on State and County taxpayer's property for 50% of your rightful shellfish, yet prohibit those same parties from coming to the banks of the river for their rightful 50% share of the salmon? The strides made forward then sadly gave way to back-peddling and negativity.

Commissioners, this is an opportunity to restore a working relationship that could serve as an example for generations to come. Use all possible legal resources available--public and private--and get it done.

Your Managers will soon be challenged to the very limit of their abilities and resourcefulness. This will be a fitting test as to whether they are the worthy individuals for some even greater complexities that loom ahead. And, above all else, strive now to bring about the genuine Transparency needed to garner the necessary positive public support for the good things that you do.

I am really not sure how to feel about this. While I am glad the state is willing to go to court, it in contrast from what I was told last year about negotiations with the tribe. I talked to a staff member who was confident that the tribe was willing to work something out with the state, they just wanted changes to the current cesspool the fishery had become -- something the state wanted too. I was told it was just a process of coming up with the proper changes but he was sure it could be done. Well, from what we are hearing now either he or the tribe was lying, or Mr. Warren is up to something. The way this appears to have worked out is the tribe did not like the past fishery and eventually went through the process they did to get it closed. But, like anyone else with critical thinking, they knew their claim was very weak. It did, however, give both them and the state a chance to make changes to the fishery.

With the latest announcement, I think that several things may be happening. 1. A tentative agreement has been reached and with all the pressure and negativity that the State has been getting, they trying to look like they are the driving force behind the change.
or 2. Ron and the department know they can win this and are tossing out the negotiations and trying to look tough. In the end, they will win but we may end up with the same broken fishery we had before and more conflict with the tribe.

In the end I am sure we will end up fishing, the question is going to be at what cost? The state likely had a perfect chance to work with the tribe and get something done that would benefit both the tribe and the fishery. It could be true that the tribe is the problem, but given all we have been seeing, I feel it is just as likely it is the leadership at the department.

Damn sharp analysis that makes a great deal of sense. The little things once again become blown out of proportion. Let's wait and see what comes of it all...and if the Mgrs wear their big boy pants to the NOF sessions.

Great news, as long as it doesn't cost us rec's something else in the NOF horse-trade-a-thon,

fb

+1.

What would happen if the state opened a season and 100 people showed up and fished the normal spots. What would or could Tribal enforcement do?

Since they claim that the river bed is on-reservation they could use their on-reservation enforcement powers (granted by the State and Feds). Not sure where a citation would be heard as I am not sure if Tribal Courts have jurisdiction. They would probably call in Enforcement. If WDFW wouldn't then they would probably hand it over to the Feds as a violation of the reservation. There is likely some sort of enforcement action they could take. Whether it would eventually hold up in Court is another question.

State Attorney General's office may get involved.
http://www.khq.com/story/37576676/state-planning-to-reopen-fishing-on-a-river-owned-by-a-tribe

Aren’t we giving them Sockeye eggs at the cost of the Baker lake fishery? Maybe they will let us have back our half of the river if we give them more eggs....ummmm. Just saying.

That, or else we completely defund the Adams hatchery if they don't let rec's fish there. . .see if they call the bluff, and if they do, then show it's not a bluff and shut it down.

Here you go. . .this sterile POS river-without-a-hatchery is all yours now!

fb

Adams is at least partially funded by Tacoma for Cushman mitigation. Way before the recent Cushman agreement. Can't "defund" the mitigation side.

Baker is a Puget Sound Energy-funded hatchery.

Tacoma funds part of the George Adams hatchery operation as partial mitigation for the Cushman hydro project. WA has no obligation to operate GA however. So absent an agreement with the Skokomish Tribe, WDFW could shut down most or all of GA if a sufficient harvest does not accrue to the non-treaty fishery. It has been my contention since the 2016 announcement closing the Skokomish River to sport fishing that WDFW should close GA hatchery because funds should be spent on fish resources that benefit the primary constituency that provides the license fees and tax dollars to the WDFW budget.

Baker sockeye eggs are provided to the Cushman hatchery by the consent of WDFW and the Skagit tribes. The eggs must pass a disease protocol screening. The Baker facility is owned by PSE, but management decisions are made by the co-managers.

I wonder how the guys who enjoy the Baker Sockeye fishery feel about giving up more fish so the eggs can be given to the Skokomish to start up a fishery that recreational fishermen may not even be able to harvest?

We don't like it.

Nor should you, especially in a basin like the Skagit, where those "excess" eggs could translate to nutrients the system needs to support other species of salmon and steelhead fry. The idea that we should share the wealth between systems is foolishness. Those who already destroyed their local fish runs should not benefit from more responsible management elsewhere.

My point being...

Why are we cordially supporting the Skokomish in their efforts to establish a sockeye run at a time when they have aggressively and overtly shut out recreational fishermen from harvest of hatchery fish and have given no indication that IF the sockeye fishery is established that they intend to "allow" anyone to harvest these fish other then them!

Now , lets look at this another way: The WDFW is engaged in negotiations with a party that declared a piece of real estate as belonging to them, without a complete legal basis. Prevented tax paying citizens from access to this piece of real estate effectively prohibiting shore based fishermen from access to public property and hatchery fish. In these negotiations, the Skokomish are demanding an increase in the number of eyed eggs (double) for access to the river.

This sounds like extortion to me...

Now, where are those eggs coming from? Perhaps fish that are supposed to be put into Baker lake?

Why hasn't this "negotiation" been put out in the public? Maybe because the Skagit/Baker fishermen wouldn't roll over??

Somebody needs to start asking questions....

Thank you, I agree with you, and I'm a little surprised this hasn't been used as leverage up to this point, at least as it pertains to the Skok,

fb

No, turn the question the other way. WDFW, please explain and justify to the satisfaction of your stakeholders why, all factors considered. you continue with this program?

Going back to what I feel was being said by the staff member, there was no real effort to close the Adams Hatchery because the tribe was actually willing to work with the state in getting the fishery back open. The closure, in reality and hopefully, is just a reset on the way the fishery is being conducted. Had the state made any real effort to clean it up, I don't think the closure would have happened. If you were ever there, it would be hard to argue that there were not a fair number of idiots and sketchy individuals participating. I tried to fish eggs and was yelled at because it would scare the fish out of the hole. This was by guys fishing black yarn or, in one case, just a bare hook. To think that none of these guys ever said anything to the tribal members conducting their fishery is hard to believe. I know I have felt uncomfortable in saying anything about what I was witnessing, so I would guess some the netters would have too. I am really hoping the state gets their act together and makes some rules that benefit the overall fishery, and then makes the effort to enforce them.
I guess we will see what happens, but I am betting on a fishery with some limited entry days and restrictions on fishing methods.

Thinking we can use anything as leverage against the tribes has not worked so far.
Plant fish stupid!

Although a digression, a few more words about sockeye transfers. The Baker hatchery collects more sockeye than needed as broodstock - just in case. It is from this surplus that excess eggs that pass the disease protocol screening are made available for transfer to Cushman. Anyone getting hot and bothered by this is truly being mindful of minutiae. The number of fish that might have been othewise made available for recreational harvest is in the category of a rounding error.

When the decisions were being made to re-introduce sockeye to the Skokomish system, the lower river was open to non-treaty recreational fishing. No one at that time imagined a future condition where those eventual sockeye would not be accessible to both treaty and non-treaty fishermen. Since it remains unknown how long it will take before harvestable numbers of sockeye return to the Skokomish, there is time to figure out a way for allocations to be shared.

Considering the despicable snagfest that passes for Chinook fishing in the lower river, I am all for some kind of management changes being made, lest the returning sockeye be subject to the same unsporting treatment.

Way too intelligent and reasonable Salmo. . .that sh!t will never pass muster around here.

fb

SG is spot on. Puget has very successful program at Baker with plenty of eggs to share. If it can be used as a bargaining chip for opportunity, have at it!

Sorry, but I am somewhat unclear about what is being suggested. If one "negotiates" now for opportunity to fish that would seem to be accepting that the tribe's and BIA's position is correct.

If the underlying issue is really about trash and sanitation then fine, have those negotiations with the State and adjacent NT landowners promising a long term commitment to improved site conditions with the tribe/BIA then withdrawing its claim. I seriously doubt that such a NT offer would elicit the desired tribal/BIA response because those site conditions were, in my opinion, merely a convenient launching platform.

The alternative is to take this to court and if the tribe/BIA prevails on the facts then negotiate for NT access as a condition of continuation of WDFW monies for Adams hatchery ops.

Baker Lake 2017
16360 Trapped
8704 Transferred to Baker Lake

To my untrained eye, that doesn't look like a windfall of sockeye.

The potential for sockeye in the Skok seems unlikely to reduce snagging, but if they can get established in Cushman (and we're allowed to fish it), there could be some interesting opportunities in the future...

At best, Cushman could produce about half as many sockeye as Baker. But that would be many thousands more than are produced currently. The intent of the sockeye re-introduction to Cushman is to restore an extirpated fishery that will provide enhanced fishing opportunity for both treaty and non-treaty fishermen. If that were not the intent, the agreement would not have occurred.

With respect to the lower Skok being open or closed, I would a whole lot rather it were closed if "sport" fishermen will not refrain from snagging fish than because WDFW chooses to honor the Tribe's claim of ownership prior to it being adjudicated. If the Tribe or BIA/DOI sues and wins the claim, then WDFW needs to totally re-think fish management within the Skokomish basin.

. . .perhaps including the Satsop (different issue I know, but still. . .),

fb