Picking up a conversation that worked it's way into the 'commission disband thread' and moving it to it's own post.

In a nutshell, why can't we get NOAA to be more cooperative considering the current US political climate?

NOAA is an agency with the COMMERCE DEPARTMENT. The Commerce Department 'promotes job creation and economic growth by ensuring fair and secure trade, providing the data necessary to support commerce, and fostering innovation by setting standards and conducting foundational research and development.' The Commerce Dept. is run by W. Ross, an extremely wealthy banker/leveraged buy-out specialist. Ross answers to Trump. If ever there was a time to get NOAA under control and for the state to pursue it's own plans (separate from the Tribes) this is it.

Sure, WA is blue, but 2/3 of the counties in this State were red in the last election, voting for Trump. Effectuating change within NOAA should be a focus for the next couple years.

It is interesting that NOAA seems unaffected by all the turmoil in DC. Especially given the EPA has been turned upside down.

I am curious to know...what do you guys want from NOAA?

My wish list would be something like:

- stop overtly advocating the tribes wishes (over the state's)
- relax ESA restrictions on watersheds that have shown no sign of recovery (give us the green light to throw in the towel)

I realize both of these would be fairly well unpalatable politically and by the public. But hey, a guy can dream.

71.1% of Stillaguamish Chinook are caught north of the border.
How much do you want to ease restrictions? 75%? Go any further and we won’t get any fish back to Washington.

Harvest abuses on virtually ALL of WA chinook stocks need to be curtailed in the northern intercept fisheries of AK and BC.

Clarification, 71.1% of all the unmarked Stilliguamish Chinook, that are harvested, are harvest in the North. The actual total harvest rate (exploitation rate) has been 25% for unmarked fish (75% escapement). So, ~18% of the Stillaguamish unmarked fish are harvested in the North.

Based on the info in the Stilly Chapter.

NOAA to stop overtly advocating the tribes wishes? I wish the Federal Gov't (and WA State) would re-assess their relationships with the tribal Governments (that tribal Sovereignty issue) versus their non-tribal citizenry. Easy for NOAA to recommend MPAs and RCAs but they were silent over the issue of how to prevent tribal fishing within such areas. Another: how about non-selective gillnetting and ESA listed Chinook stocks. Want another and probably more egregious Federal agency? Try the Corps of Engineers and their permitting process for anything below high water.

I am not sure NOAA/NMFS could simply give up on certain watersheds w/r/t ESA listed species until such species go extinct (extirpated). That said, beyond my above comments a couple of my complaints about NOAA are:

(1) Using data to make decisions but not obtaining sufficient and most accurate data to ensure that their decisions are based upon the best available information. Example: They are now in the process of delisting one of the three listed rockfish in Puget Sound because it was determined to genetically the same as those on WA coastal waters. They have not been able to obtain genetic material from another while genetic data from the third found both coastal and supposedly unique Puget Sound genetics mixed within Puget Sound. Is there natural selection occurring?

(2) Making recommendations and/or mandating actions by others without NOAA putting any skin in the game. Their rockfish recovery plan espouses the use of MPAs and RCAs but did not commit NOAA to ensuring that there were sunset provisions tied to established recovery goals, determination that those areas were not accomplishing the goals for which they were established, or a failure to actually perform regularly scheduled population monitoring.

(3) Failure to take action to reduce the impact of pinniped predation when those animals are otherwise protected under the MMPA for which NOAA is responsible. Commissioner McIssac made a point this morning of the need for reducing that predation during this morning's presentation. Good for him!! But NOAA should not require the State to go through hoops to first get a permit and then fund an action that is needed to effect their (NOAA's) mandate under the ESA to recover ESA listed Chinook.

Until we manage pacific salmon the same way we do waterfowl they will continue their free fall. What saved waterfowl?

1. End of all market hunting
2. Manage for sport thru their life cycle, ie Alaska gets a quota so they don't shoot all of Louisiana's birds.

Just like we forecast duck/geese populations by surveying their breeding grounds we can do the same for salmon.

Of course this means the feds need to take over all management which totally makes sense since salmon, you know, swim across state and national borders.

And this wouldn't need to effect the native fisheries just as long as we left a few to swim back to their rivers. In fact that is actually a pretty good way to do accurate surveys.

It's one reason why you don't see me getting too deep into the WDFW fiasco. Anything they do right, even if by mistake, will just be undone by Ca and Ak.

Too true. As we dump billions into restoration and monitoring we see 0 return in investment as all of the fish are swooped up in norther intercept fisheries. Until this issue is addressed we will continue to be fvcked by the ultimate low-hole. Combine this with the state co-management practice of harvesting all stocks down to the minimum allowable escapement and it's no wonder we have not seen "recovery".... even over the course of decades.

CCA National, located in Houston, TX, appears to have a lot of Republican leaning political clout. I wonder if the WA/OR CCA Directors could get the National office to find some executive branch politicians willing to pressure NOAA to change it's ways, even things out a bit. Is CCA doing that at all, working to affect policy or staffing changes at NOAA? I don't ask to be critical, just genuinely interested if anyone knows.

Yes there is never a abundance because everyone already has a hand out and the the fish are appropriated by forecasts. All our runs have been hammered into shape. Good runs are harvested heavily and bad runs are harvested. Over and over this is not sustainable. Yet you will see everyone scream “habitat”! Then lower the escapement goal...

A lot could be gained by looking at how hunting is managed.
Tags for example. Imagine Puget Sound crab and Shrimp tags. Buy your shrimp tag and go fish any day of the week you want and weather you want. You register online before you go out.
Currently, a non resident can buy unlimited crab, Salmon, Steelhead tags for $12 each card.

Only 7% mortality of Stilly Chinook occurs in Alaska. We need Trump to tell Alaska to lay off Canadian Chinook, so liberals who did not vote for him in Washington State benefit.
How likely does that Sound?

One thing that baffles me (as just a guy, not a scientist) is the micro level of management. I.e. the S fork Stilly chinook being distinct from N fork fish. Why does it need to be so specific? If it weren't so specific it might be easier to rebuild perhaps with broodstock(?) But even that might only be a temporary fix.

2/3 of the counties in WA voted for Trump. Closer to 3/4 of the counties in Oregon voted for Trump. Plenty of CCA dues from those two states go back to Houston, TX each year. Now would probably be the time to leverage that by demanding some help at the national level.

And again, NOAA is part of the Commerce Department. While resource conservation and sustainability should be addressed as part of commerce, I really see no reason why an agency within the Department of Commerce (or the Corp of Engineers for that matter) should be continually bending over backward to further the interests of tribes, who often operate as their own government free of tax obligations.

The Federal Government, and its agencies, see that they have a "Special Relationship" with the tribes vis-a-vis treaty rights. They have often expressed that the tribes have "rights" while the non-indians have privledges.

Regardless of where NOAA is, the ESA law is the defining rule. The law says "recover". That trumps harvest.

I respectfully disagree with the prior post. The Department of Commerce has no special relationship obligation to any tribe. Frankly that whole concept makes little sense for most WA tribes anymore. Many tribes are accumulating wealth through casino operations and harvest and sale (sometimes export) of natural resources. Some are good stewards, some engage in conduct that could be considered criminal. Most importantly, they’ve mostly all lawyered up with some of the best local law firms. This, I believe is a big part of the reason that the WDFW Director gets weak in the knees every time litigation is threatened and ends up capitulating to the Tribes instead of standing up for his recreational and commercial constituents. Need a Director with more brains and more guts. Also need help at the federal level with NOAA. Seems like PSA is stepping up on the Director front. I wonder if CCA is using any national lobbyists to help at the federal level with NOAA?

Take-Down,

Although Commerce has the legislative mandate to promote and facilitate commerce, NMFS - the National Marine Fisheries Service - under NOAA and Commerce is tasked with the mission of "the conservation of living marine resources." Looking at the track record of over-fished stocks and near-term goals like "reducing over-fishing" as opposed to flat out putting a stop to over-fishing, many would argue that NMFS does lean more toward the commerce of fish than the conservation of fishery resources.

Chasin' Baitman,

Federal agencies like NMFS are required under the Federal Trust Responsibility and a couple Executive Orders (at least one from the Clinton administration) to be attentive to tribes' legal rights as a matter of law. It falls in line with the federal court decisions that define treaty tribes as having fishing "rights" while you and I have a "privilege" to fish.

The NOAA General Counsel attorneys make clear in no uncertain terms that "throwing in the towel" for any ESA-listed species is off the table. This creates some impossible situations like the Stilly, where the data tell us that the Chinook simply cannot recover until the habitat recovers to the point that fish survival can dramatically improve. The flip side is the slippery slope, where if NMFS could throw in the towel on the Stilly, groups whose economic interests rely on degrading fish habitat would lobby to throw in the towel on the next weakest stock, and then the next weakest, etc., until all are gone and functionally extinct.

Sg

Salmo g, as usual, I appreciate and generally agree with your posts.

Regarding the "right" vs. "privilege" issue, you're correct that the tribes hold a treaty right to fish, and that individual non-Indian fishers only have a privilege to fish which is granted by the state.

However, is there not an argument to be made that the state, as the modern representative of the "citizens of the Territory", also holds a treaty right in common with the tribes to take a fair share of the fish?

"The purport of our cases is clear. Nontreaty fishermen may not rely on property law concepts, devices such as the fish wheel, license fees, or general regulations to deprive the Indians of a fair share of the relevant runs of anadromous fish in the case area. Nor may treaty fishermen rely on their exclusive right of access to the reservations to destroy the rights of other 'citizens of the Territory.' Both sides have a right, secured by treaty, to take a fair share of the available fish. That, we think, is what the parties to the treaty intended when they secured to the Indians the right of taking fish in common with other citizens."

Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association, 443 U.S. 658, 684-85 (1979).

Forty years later, and a lot of water having flowed under the bridge (new justices, casinos, ESA listings, population growth, continuing habitat degradation, etc.), it will be very interesting (to say the least) to see how the Supreme Court now views the treaties and the respective rights of the parties when it hears the culvert case. Both sides (and all stakeholders) have a lot at risk.

Brian McLachlan

Salmo,

Thanks for your answer. I am interested to know though, about the specificity of the stocks. Are S fork stilly chinook viewed as a separate stock than N fork stilly chinook, and if so, why? And who is making that distinction?

I've heard alot about the 100 remaining S fork stilly chinook. Which makes me think they ARE viewed as separate. And that apparently it's hard to broodstock a population that small, which hampers hatchery-aided recovery(?)

So why couldn't the stilly be viewed as a single system and the fish in it as genetically similar *enough*. Then we'd have roughly 1000 fish to work with rather than 100.

I'm just asking as a guy who likes to fish for salmon, I obviously have no scientific background. I do want to know more though.

If there are differences between the fish in the two forks then aggregating them will help one over the other. Often, forks of a river have different environments. At its extreme, there are some streams where winter steelhead exist in one fork and summers in another.

I don't know just what the actual differences are but one maxim of resource management is that when tinkering, save all the parts.