After all the attacks on hatchery fish made by the WFC, why in the world do we still have a bonk a nate season on the coast? Maybe I'm just out of the loop. I'll admit that i've done no research to see if the WFC has been trying to get that rule overturned or not. Just seems to me that a wild fish kill season should be stopped before shutting down 99% of hatchery winter steelhead programs on our puget sound streams.

Have the guys here fill you in on "foregone opportunity" and all of a sudden things will get mucho more complicated.

I wish there was a simple close it down to take solution but theres other hands in the pot... more powerful ones at that.

The way I see it their are two reasons that you can still bonk nates on the coast. The first reason is that the guides have a lot of pull and have a lot of clueless clients who expect to be able to bring something home for their money spent. The second reason are their are enough high water events to allow spawners to get past the nets and fishermen.

This is the saving grace for all the fall/winter/spring fish runs on the west end...the one thing that man can't mess with is the weather.

Fish on...

Todd

She has said that she fought the measure "all the way to Olympia and won. So our local fishermen can get one native steelhead a year and feed their families with that fish."



http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20091217/news/312179987

As posted prior the issue is dependent on which watershed being discussed. So lets do GH & QIN. Once PFMC agrees to the preseason forecast and sets the Ocean harvest it is " at the bar " coming in numbers. The QIN work to all paper fish must die and "foregone opportunity" is if the state passes on its share at which time the QIN will gladly accept the additional harvest. Now the QIN cannot set a season that would violate court agreed to escapement goals or one that would infringe on the ability for the state fishers to get its share but they do accept donations to their harvest. A glaring example is state C&R for Steelhead which simply did little for the fish in GH but rather simply took the pressure off eliminating the impacts of one harvester. Much easier to manage harvest with a 40% pad.

Many try to impose their views of harvest and the mechanics of harvest rather than fully understand how the courts decisions work. ( US V Washington & Boldt ) In GH the QIN has access for harvest to H + W + Summerrun Steelhead divide by two. In other words they take their share of Summerrun in the winter harvest. Salmon is more complicated due to multiple harvesters ( three ) on the states side but it tracks pretty much the same.

To the courts a Steelhead has the same protection as a Salmon or ANY other living creature and ESA works the same way. To the QIN a Steelhead is just a fish just as Chinook, Chum, Coho are fish, no difference and that is exactly how the courts view it.

So are you guys saying that if we don't have a kill season for wild fish then they will just add those fish to the netting quota?

Yes.

Alright. Sad state of affairs right there. I've been living under a rock with blinders on I guess too. I'm sure this has all been covered a million times before on these boards since I've been a member but I never took the time to read into it.

Thanks for the replies.

While it may make sense that the C&R mortality is applied to encounters, there is at least one tribe that asserts that the NI share assumes 100% C&R mortality. Each encounter is a dead fish.

It is location location as not all tribes think a like. I am sticking with GH & the QIN so take this year. The harvestable Chinook were around 3500 each state / tribe but the NT share was blocked by the new management plan for failing to reach escapement 3 out of 5 years. The QIN took a day or so extra but basically set its traditional season. Now due to the fact the state share was passed on they picked up a bunch of Chinook but did they ramp up and go for the gusto? Nope in fact they could have went damn near seven days a week on Coho & Chum and not blown escapement.

The concept that just because a NT fisher places a different value and priority than the QIN is not new. If the Commission had not blocked WDF&W from doing as they always have we would of had gillnets seven days a week like last year. So yup the QIN benefited but so is the REC fishers as the river will be net free three days a week below Oakville with the new GHMP.

Any management plan that passes fish upstream will benefit the tribes, Recs, AND the fish. Now it would be nice if the QIN would allow anything above their 50% to pass but it is not required by law. WDFW has always utilized a wipe out NT gillnet fishery to access its share and did everything possible to limit the Rec to enable the NT nets. That it could have turned the Recs loose and got a huge portion of the states share is true but in the past that is / was NOT the WDF&W way.

Rivrguy is talking about "Wise use" decisions. Early on in Boldt the court held that each side decided its own wise use. The tribes can pretty rightfully argue that it is wise use to harvest only mature fish in the rivers where stocks are pretty separate. The State argues that wise use is taking recreational fish in the ocean fishing on immature fish in mixed stock situations. Each side has (more or less) valid arguments.

And, as an historical note, it was the non-Indian commercial fleet that first used foregone opportunity when the tribes were ramping up their fleets.

is foregone opportunity codified into law? i ask because my understanding is that the state and tribes have never dealt with foregone opportunity in court.

managing based on assumptions on what a court may or may not say seems like a pretty stupid way to manage. even if you end up losing in court at least you know the rules from that point forward versus presumptive management.

Not much of the management paradigms are "in the law"...the two parties were told to split the harvestable fish 50/50, and then given some general guidelines on how to make sure that happens.

Neither side wants to litigate any more about it...the wiggle room in management decisions makes their jobs a lot easier...and at least from the State's side there is some well-earned trepidation since they got their asses kicked on every single issue every time they tried to limit the Tribes' activities and pretty much made it worse every time they tried to make it better.

Fish on...

Todd

The court has dealt with foregone opportunity before. The first reference I can find is an amended final order by Judge Craig, in January 1984. It dealt with claims for equitable adjustment to 1981 Puget Sound catches filed by both the State and the Tribes. In this order the court laid out three steps that have to be followed when one party claims equitable adjustment is not warranted because of "foregone opportunity."

I do not know if foregone opportunity was dealt with prior to this time (and honestly don't have the time to dig through the entire record of US v. WA and all substantive post-decision orders), but it is definitely in the court record. Others may have more details on specific cases where it was sought or where it was applied, but at least this order makes it clear that it exists for the court and was sought by at least one of the parties (probably the State) in dealing with catch imbalance in the 1981 Puget Sound salmon fishery.

I know. I'm still trying to figure out how one nate can feed a family for a whole year!

Extremely small portions......one fish cube per meal to get their nate Omega 3's.

Foregone opportunity was dealt with in the 70s and would show up in the court orders at that time and probably in Fisheries Advisory Board hearings. The FABs were a "pre-Court arena where the two sides presented their case and then the Court-Appointed Chair indicated how he would advise the Judge.

Foregone Opporunity (as was equitable Adjustment on occasion) was also handled directly by the State and some tribes. Basically "You can't catch them all so we will" As related to me, it went both ways and worked just fine.

Thanks CM, I know that it was. I just couldn't find documentation and my memory is getting a little questionable. I do find it interesting that there are so many myths about what did or didn't happen during these contentious times.

Just because the "courts" ruled does not make it right!
What was wrong in the 70's is wrong today.