This guy gets it. Fishing is never the problem until we've run out of misguided digits to point elsewhere. The most frustrating thing about history repeating itself is that we refuse to accept that's what's happening every time it does... Which is why it always does.

Herschel and buddies beginning 1981. Going on 40 years and we still haven't figured out that the MMPA needs to be amended to allow managers the ability to address the needs of (at a minimum) ESA listed species which includes P.S. steelhead, Chinook, Orcas and several rockfish species.

That's also history, and I think we should heed its lesson, too. I do think predation needs to be addressed, but I am confident that addressing our own impacts would do more to save salmon in the long run.

I believe that the problem is that there is no one single thing that will "save" salmon, "save" SRKW, and so on. So, one can say (rather factually) that "they" need to fix their thing but I don't. So, remove dams, remove culverts, remove bulkheads; anything but stop fishing.

But, doing only one won't work. If we don't fix the habitat, closing fisheries won't accomplish much. And, we never learn from the past.

Reducing pinniped predation probably offers the most bang for the buck in the short term for Orca recovery and, if maintained, would also have long term benefits to include allowing better utilization of any habitat improvements.

Outlaw commercial harvest and commercial processing of wild stocks like we did with market hunting a century ago (and what they ended up doing to the Atlantic cod fishery AFTER commercial fishing destroyed it). Problem solved for the next century at least...

All our seafood needs can be met with aquaculture.

Tribes will never willingly give up commercial fishing unless bought out (treaties). Further, if there are "harvestable" fish and the NI side does not take them the Indians will under foregone opportunity. Having tried to put NI fish into the escapement rather than fishing on them and being rebuffed.............

I'm pretty sure if the state had the will to, they could trade exclusive gambling for tribal commercial harvest. They could still catch all they want for recreation and ceremony just not commercial. I have a feeling their take would dwindle substantially if this were to happen.

You assertion that the state has any say in the matter is false. Tribal sovereignty is a federal matter.

That is correct. And Tribal sovereignty is not for sale, trade or barter.

The Feds tried to extinguish the Tribes in the past (e.g., the termination era in the 1940’s and 1950’s), but that failed. And won’t likely be repeated.

The Tribes will continue to fish in their usual and accustomed places as long as there are salmon to catch. However, the tribes target these fish only after they’ve completed their growth in the ocean. For the most part, they harvest salmon only after the adults have reached their terminal size, and have returned to spawn. That makes it much easier to manage these stocks, and protect them, if need be.

However, fishing in the saltwater is much more wasteful since it could be taking fish originating in tributaries where the adult productivity may be very low, and cannot take a lot of harvest. Given current technology, we cannot determine the origin of the salmon harvested in the ocean. So we’ll never know where these fish are coming from, or whether they can sustain any harvest pressure.

In other words, by fishing in the ocean, we may be catching fish from tributaries that do not have a harvestable surplus of adults. That’s a recipe for extinction in these tributaries. If that’s not wasteful, I don’t know what is.

Plus, since these fish are actively feeding and growing, ocean harvest cuts off any further growth that may occur, had they not been caught. After all, nobody throws back a 50lb Chinook hoping it will grow to 80lbs, even though it might.

Ding ding ding.

The chemist clearly spent too long sniffing around the glue bottle as a kid.

I guess the subtleties of English are lost on you ugly.

The state doesn't have the FINAL say in the matter. To claim the "state doesn't have any say" is just stupid.

If the state doesn't have any say why are we co-managers?

Whats the point of NOF? (Even though I've asked this multiple times in recent years)

We have plenty of say for setting escapement goals, carrying capacity, harvest limits ect. We don't have the final say.

Again if the state had the will power (which they don't) they could leverage gambling to get concessions on limiting commercial harvest.

Chem - My sense is that the original comment was directed at the prospect of the State taking a role in the future of the Tribes by asserting that sovereignty could be traded or otherwise extinguished by State authority. Clearly that can't happen. It has been attempted at the Federal level, as I stated.

But you are correct that the State has a very important role in fisheries management (escapement goals, carrying capacity, harvest limits, etc). Indeed, the role of the State is equally important as the Tribes. They are co-managers, which means they share jurisdiction and authority. It doesn't always mean the State and the Tribes are actually working TOGETHER. That remains a work-in-progress.

If management were truly "Co" then all fisheries would be agreed to, all numbers (forecasts/goals/catch) would be agreed-to.

Two things:

1. Your assertion that tribal fisheries only target salmon which have achieved terminal size and have returned to spawn is simply not accurate. For example, how about the Makah's winter troll fishery? One thing about growing older is that one has a fair amount of information tucked away such as recalling how in one season the Makah's took something like 20K winter (immature) fish - far over what was understood they would harvest and basically decimated the recreational blackmouth fishery. That and the fact that their fish tickets were being sent in and no one with the State was keeping a running total.....or was told to not keep track (as in, don't rock the boat).

2. We do have the technology to identify genetics but another reality is that most of our stocks have been altered genetically by massive out of basin relocations as BushBear has documented.

I doubt that the tribes would ever sell their rights to fish, even for an outrageous amount. However, I've wondered that if under the right conditions, weak runs, etc., that they might sell their treaty allotted catch, (to the government, of course) but leave the fish in the river to spawn and jump start successive generations. I've heard some suggest naively that we could "lease" their fishing rights, but that will NEVER happen because their right is too important to them.

Perhaps to give it some context, I think that Treaty Fishing is their Second Amendment.

the tribes manage the fisheries that they want to manage, the state has already proven that they are willing to sit in the back seat rather than stand up for the rest of us.