Continuing on the threads regarding the Yakimas, consider this:

Bellingham Bay supports a healthy chinook run, thanks to a state run hatchery. It's closed every season to sports fishing. Reasonable return estimate 10,000 fish or more.

Samish Bay supports a healthy chinook return, thanks to a state run hatchery. It's closed to sports fishing every year -- and another 10,000 estimated fish return there.

Green River -- same story. The total return estimate by the state is typically in the 20,000 fish range -- and the total sports take on their meager opportunity is less than 2,000 fish.

It goes on and on folks -- we may as well face up to the fact that we've been screwed! There are many, many instances where the state resource is obviously managed for the benefits of Indian harvest.

One co-manager is very anal about barbless hooks and clipped fish while the other drapes nets across every log and piling from Longview to Bellingham.

Sounds like a perfect working relationship to me!!!!

Perky,

So where do you think those kings caught in the non-treaty fishery in the Straits and Pacific Ocean come from? Spontaneous generation? Those fish count against the non-treaty allocation, in case you weren't considering that.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

What I'm really amazed at is that Salmo has the patience to explain it again for the thousandth time...

The problem here is that I never get to see all three numbers laid out at one time. Sometimes I see one of the numbers, sometimes I see two, but never do I see tribal plus commercial plus sports caught. However, many an eloquent argument is made (like the previous two posts) based on this third set of numbers, the one that is always missing.

You've got to love the conspiracy theories.

Maybe I'm just an optimist, but I have a hard time believing the state and the tribes are secretly trying to screw us sportsmen out of fish. Again, maybe I'm an optimist, but my sense is the state does the best it can dealing with a nasty treaty situation that was handed to them by our ancestors and federal judge Boldt.

If you're going to start counting numbers, be sure to include the tribal hatchery production. Just my $.03.

It has nothing to do with the State and Tribes. It is all about the Indians being protected and fighting Whitey with our own money. The state would be crazy to try and stop them, The Indians would just take the State to court with OUR money and win as they have in the past. Until some group takes on the Federal government and gets rid of the treaties, we are screwed.
Oh, and by the way, you will need to get rid of the Whitey commercials to.
They all need to go, NO COMMERCIAL FISHING INSIDE OF THE STRAITS>BY ANYONE< PERIOD>

Salmo, I think if you add up the non-tribal catch records (both sport and commercial) and compare to Tribal catches that we'd find it's nowhere near 50:50.

That's the issue -- and for once I'd like to see the total catch figures. The Chinook allocation statewide is a joke. The take in Elliott Bay, Samish and Bellingham Bays alone are enormous -- and go almost exclusively to the Tribal groups.

Also, while we're on the topic -- why are some regions in the State denied reasonable access to the fishery. People who live in Bellingham are really screwed out of any terminal type fishery.

And, another point. If the treaty requires a 50:50 allocation, why don't we ensure the indians get 50% of the Pinks -- and we get 50% of the chinook? Go figure that one!

One of the problems is that the sport count is so inacurrate, and to me it looks like our own fault. For every card not turned in the state applies its formula to the card and this makes our count go way up. We need to get this addressed and taken care of because the state just loves to use these imaginary numbers to show that we caught our allotment of fish. We need to get it set up so the the only way you get a new catch card is by turning the old one in, or an affidavit if it is lost. Then we can get the numbers right and then do the comparison. I can not tell you the exact number they put in, it is on the website, but I do know the number is very high for cards not being returned

Hey perky, I think you are on the right track!!!

I also think that the magical allocation process has left us catching pinks and chums while the Indians catch the nooks and coho. After all, what fisheries in Puget Sound are good enough for the sportsman to count on??? Well, it is the Humpy Hollow affair every other year or the chum fishing. The rest of it is very hit and miss and requires alot of rod hours per fish with many times no fish being taken.

I will defend my map reading skills. The original owner of this post brought up the issue of allocation among the salmon species and I agree with that observation.

Aunty-
I guess I can't argue to much with you on the processors, they are crooks, but I do take issue about who controls the WDFW.
The Indian have the most control, all they do is run to the Feds when they think they are not getting what they want, so the WDFW has basically given up fighting with them. I have been following the whole issue for 40 years and listened to my grandfather and his buddies for 10 year before that.
At some point, it has to be determined that in this day and age, we just cannot allow gill net fishing in our rivers. If that means stopping the Indians and giving them money or more ocean access, so be it. The alternative is dead rivers, there will be no amount of habitat work that will fix our rivers until the Indians stop gill netting those rivers.
I do enjoy your posts, I have learned a bunch, And I thought I knew it all!

I would guess that AuntyM has the more persuasive argument. However, it doesn't matter whether the tribes, the commercials, the hispanics, or the Trilateral Seceret Committee controls the WDFW. What does matter is that it sure ain't controlled by recreational anglers.

BigFin.


Huzzah!

Yes, if only Salmo was ever in a position to analyze that kind of information. :p

No terminal fishery? And that's bad?

I think Aunty's point about the processors is a good one that most people never consider. I didn't until she brought it up.

Perky,

My post was in response to yours that initiated the thread. You isolated terminal area fisheries that are predominately treaty and left out the ocean and Strait fisheries that are predominately non-treaty. I wanted you to take a look at the broader picture in regards to harvest allocation. Maybe you have now.

I haven’t done a treaty:non-treaty catch comparison in some years. When I have, I saw catches more evenly divided than any of the treaty or non-treaty fishermen I knew believed they were. What I found interesting is that both felt the “other side” was taking the larger share.

Most fish stocks are never evenly divided in the final tally. There is too much uncertainty about run sizes pre-season, as well as variation in stock composition within the various fisheries. Managers can only try to hit the allocation targets, knowing full well that the target will move after they have taken their shot at it.

Some more recent, but incomplete, data sets indicate that catch sharing isn’t as equal as it’s supposed to be. The story I heard at WDFW is that as a part of budget balancing a few years back, and as a gesture toward “co-management”, WDFW reduced the intensity of monitoring of treaty catches. The treaty tribes self monitor and report their catches to WDFW’s catch reporting data base. This has made treaty catch reporting less timely for one thing. Whether it’s less accurate probably depends on your level of trust.

I’ll look up the most recent harvest by group statistics I can find for Green, Samish, and Nooksack chinook and post here or send to you.

As for why some people are geographically denied access to the fishery, well that’s all about the North of Falcon (NOF) process. Salmon harvests are allocated there, and it’s done by according to who shows up and participates. Terminal area and freshwater recreational salmon angling is the least represented constituent group in NOF. Treaty and non-treaty commercial and ocean and other mixed stock area sport are the most heavily represented. Hence, that is where the greatest focus and subsequent allocations are made.

The treaties do not require a 50:50 split. The treaties secure fishing rights to tribes. The catch allocation split is the result of the various federal court decisions that allow treaty tribes to take up to 50% of the harvestable numbers of salmon and steelhead in usual and accustomed fishing areas. It may seem like I’m overly anal retentive about stipulating details. However, distinctions do make a difference. If WDFW or anyone has evidence that any treaty tribe is taking more than 50% - subject to the stipulated exceptions -, then WDFW can obtain federal court approval to limit that tribe’s harvest.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.