http://centralpt.com/upload/560/Advocacy/19637_201605-20CoManagementPerspective.PDF

+1

It is good to see many organizations ready to work together for solutions on Puget Sound salmon allocation inequites.

Thanks for posting that....puts some actual scale to what we already knew

Yes, Thank you Lucky for finding this and posting it.

Pay attention to the logos at the top of the page! Big guns!

And now, here we are, well into the 2017 season setting process and nothing has changed! In fact, the very same situation is once again lining up.

What's the saying? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me!

What exactly has WDFW done to create a fair and equitable co-management process....absolutely nothing. Oh..excuse me, they have fought very hard to KEEP THE SECRET MEETINGS GOING!!

Awareness comes in many ways, shapes, and forms and the piece inside the link tells a compelling story that should get you more signatures as it makes it way around at various levels.

Sent you a PM Lucky

If you guys reading this post have not already done so, you need to sign the petition to have the Tribal NOF meetings opened to the public.

Now, more than ever, we need to swell the tidal wave that is about to crash over this whole dysfunctional co-management mess.

Heres the link:

Open Tribal NOF Secret Meetings

Don't let putting your email stop you from signing. It's ONLY used to keep you posted on updates and verify people aren't signing a hundred times...Get all your group to sign as well! Strength in numbers!

It looks like Bay Wolf is excited about looking for more signatures.


The explanation and reasoning behind the recent co-manager negotiation quandary with graphs showing the inequities that are located in one paper is handy for future reference.

Hey thanks for posting this. Anyone know where they got the data for their figures (more specific than the WDFW)? More importantly, does this include harvest taken from intercept fisheries which I thought were suppose to come out of our half of the harvest?

Thanks again.

Define "intercept". The Boldt sharing in in WA waters. So, Wesport county against NI share but nothing in BC or AK does (legally). Who knows WTF has been agreed to by the Co-Managers.

Referring to BC and AK fisheries. I was under the impression the State's share also included fish taken under the Pacific Salmon Treaty. I could very well be wrong.

That would put undue burden on OR and CA, whose fish also get intercepted in those fisheries. Pretty sure Boldt is WA waters only.

The Tribes were threatening to file an "All Citizens" suit. It wanted to make the sharing all US Citizens/Treaty Indians. So, that would have included AK in the sharing. AK said if the Tribes pushed the suit, they would not support the first US/Canada treaty. WA and OR really wanted that treaty because BC was taking WA/OR fish since AK was taking theirs.

Since nobody took AK salmon there is no hammer to hit their stocks with. BC can hammer southern stocks and WA can, when diversion is right, hammer Fraser stocks. So there is some reason for BC and WA to play nice.

Tribes may need to roll that suit out again....... That may be the only way to get AK off of WA salmon.

Thanks for the clarification.

That would be interesting to watch! However, given the huge financial gains by many of the treaty tribes they may not want to end up in Federal court and have the Supreme Court's little qualifier (when supporting the Boldt decision) that an improvement in tribal economies could be the basis for a reduction in treaty fishing rights.

The State has apparently forgotten that little tidbit or simply decided not to pursue it. Again, not sure the tribes would want to generate an opportunity for the State to say "Oh by the way Judge, there is this little part of the Boldt decision we would like to enter into evidence."

The non-Indians berated WDF to take the Tribes to court on the Moderat Living standard. State would not do it. Wonder what stakeholders they were protecting.

Another tidbit is that Boldt and the Supremes did not give the Tribes Co-Management. The State was responsible for conservation. Period. The Tribes managed their fisheries but the state set the conservation standard. If the Tribes disagreed, it went to FAB and then to Court.

But, when the new US/Canada treaty came up, WDF wanted it so bad that Co-management was offered in trade for the All Citizens Suit so that AK would not torpedo the treaty. We got the Treaty..

Larry,

Can you show us where the part about improvement in tribal economic conditions is in the B. decision?

Thanks

Liar's Dice. Time to roll 'em again and see what shakes out?

So, no co-management until 1985? Interesting.

Came out of the second review by the Supremes. The tribes share is 50% of the harvestable or a moderate living, whichever is lower.

Yep. Thank Bill Wilkerson