Ok so lets take the quinalt area and pick a river like the queets where their is 7 days of full netting. Well I just got done reading about the pike place wild fish 5.99 deal and Stam interjected the notion of the freezer fish syndrome. Those fish probably came from March-May runs, well here is the million dollar question, how much cash do you guys/and gals (gals for Aunty and that hot stripper from fox's that keeps stalking me on here) think the tribes bring in on those fish annually. Next pondery I have going is say it is a number that the state could hand over to the tribe instead of the tribe netting the fish, do you think it would ever go down, occurr, fly, put the pen to the paper and sign the deal. I would be stoked if such a thing could be worked out. Try urrr out for a year or two and see what kind of massive numbers could be produced. Not to mention the massive sizes of those dandy's.

Totally uneducated reply here.
If it was possible to buy the rights from the indians the state would be way ahead in the long run. Most runs would probably come back and angler dollars would increase exponentially. State would benefit with the increase in revenue generated by the sportfisher's dollars and so would small towns around the state.
I don't know why I even replied because that will never happen.
The only scenario I see playing out is that our fish runs will become zero and then Washington State will be happy because they won't have to deal with this "problem" anymore.

Billy Frank's oft-repeated quote:

"Treaty rights are not for sale."

That's the line they've taken since the '60's, and is the line they are likely to take forever. It's about a lot more than the money.

Not exactly the same question, but I think it applies here to make a point...

What would you say if the state offered you two nice steelhead from the hatchery raceway rather than you having to go out and go through the extra expense and time of fishing for and catching them?

It's cheaper, easier, and a hell of a lot more successful, than fishing for them.

Who would be ready to jump at that offer? Not this guy, and I doubt many others would, either.

Also, those fish aren't very likely to have come from a freezer...they're probably coming out of nets on the Queets right now...in the fish business, "wild" means out of the river, not from a fish farm, and clipped or not, the great majority of those fish being sold at Pike's right now are Salmon River hatchery steelhead on their way up the Queets, with some Cook Creek hatchery fish being netted on the Quinault itself, too.

Starting in a couple months, though, they will be "true" wild fish, especially from the Queets.

Fish on...

Todd

Well ot damn, hmmm? So I guess my what if's scenarios are a Janet Jackson nipple on live tv never to be seen again. It is is a long shot and a very long one but I guess in my opinion if one didn't dream one wouldn't live life to the fullest. I could go with MLK and stick with I have a dream, or go with Rodney King ( I think that's his name) and shout "can't we all get along. Another idea? Bob book Bill Gates and Paul Allen and show them a good time on the riviera, toss back some Schmidts and get their eyes lit up on some bait diver take downs and heck maybe they would find a way to infiltrate the tribal system, and hook the fisherman and the tribes up with more fish/healthier runs. Well I am going to shut up have a good one.

While treaty rights are not for sale, I've been of a mind for the past decade that the opportunity will arise to cut something similar to the following deal with some tribe(s), negotiated from year to year:

Calculate the estimated harvestable number of steelhead for the subject river * 0.5. From that number, subtract the number of fish the tribe wants to take for ceremonial and subsistance use. Multiply the remainder by something reasonably higher than the ex-vessel price being paid for steelhead that year. That value becomes what WDFW or whatever entity steps up to the plate pays the tribe being negotiated with to leave those steelhead in the river, for the primary purpose of recreational fishing.

Three or four years ago, with steelhead going for $0.50 to $0.65/pound, it wouldn't have cost a lot of money to nearly double the number of steelhead available to the recreational fishery, with much greater regional economic benefits. Imagine, for a silly moment, negotiating a deal like that with the Quilayute Tribe, effectively allocating over 90% of the harvestable steelhead to recreational fishing and the subsequent economic impact to the Forks area. Makes that WSR regulation with the Forks City Council deal summer before last seem pretty stupid. Of course, I don't expect the Quilayute Tribe to be one of the first to attempt such a deal. More likely a more urban area Puget Sound region tribe.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

What was it that Ted Dibiase (of WWF fame) used to say? Everyone's got their price?

Actually, I'm sure Todd's probably correct in that it's much more than a $$ issue. Too bad - seems they could "license" or "lease" their rights to the fish without actually selling them. Or heck, they could just exercise their right NOT to take "up to" their 50% allotment. Seems there should be a way to structure it so they don't feel like they're selling out to the Man. Wonder if it would make a difference if it was an org. like Trout Unlimited rather than WDFW that was paying the $$?

Oh, and BTW, didn't see any steelies (hatchery or otherwise) at the Market today.

Don't forget the fact that fishing and hunting is part of the Indian heritage and way of life. I'm sure they wouldn't want to give up that part of their religious past for any amount of money. I, for one, thought that once the casinos got up and running that the fishing pressure would be reduced to next to nothing. Why sit out in a boat in the middle of the night freezing your butt off when you could be making 10 times more $$ working at the casino? Or, not even having to work at all with casino $$ distributed to every tribal member. I suppose there are still some tribal members who have deep a rooted heritage thing going on and they are trying to preserve that by fishing the way their ancestors did.....you know, with gill nets and outboard motors...... I have said it before and I'll say it again, no use losing sleep over this as it was a battle we fought and lost and now we have to live with it.

Todd,
Can you explain how it's so different to sell their fish in the market, instead of live and still in the river? If we buy em live in the river, and have a chance to fish for them, they still are abiding to their treaty, aint' they?
Catarafter

Cat,

It's like what I was trying to drive home with the "get your fish at the hatchery" question above...netting rivers for fish is what they do, it's part of being a PNW tribal member for lots of folks, and they'd do it even if it lost them money...

...just like it is almost always cheaper for us to buy fish at the store, especially with gas prices the way they are now, without the expense and time of buying gear, bait, gas, food, and spending the time, to go out and catch them ourselves.

For me, catching fish is the sh!t, and if I spend $20 a pound to catch fish that I could buy for $6 a pound at the store, it's still a bargain in my book. Same for them.

At the risk of going off on a tangent, this is an area that sportfishing advocates really have to firm up their understanding of...

As far as the motivation to go out and do it goes, tribal netters and non-tribal commercial fishers like to go fishing...they are just like us, only they use nets.

We, of course, expend a lot more money to do it, and don't have much financial renumeration coming from it (except for some guides who know how to run their business), but we do it for the same reason they do...we like and enjoy it.

Asking them to just take the money and stop fishing really REALLY is just like them asking us to pick up our limit at the hatchery and not use fishing gear to collect our share.

I can't stress that enough...it REALLY is the same type of motivation for them as it is for us...and they are just as likely to voluntarily give up their activities as we are, and speaking just for myself, it will be a cold day in hell when I voluntarily stop fishing forever.

Fish on...

Todd

I am not suggesting they give up their right to fish. Hell who ever steps up to the plate, god bless em' make for damn sure every one of those individuals that like to fish get their curados attached to a set of poles and some gear and maybe even give them a native amerian rights hole or stretch of river to fish for ceremonial or historic deals. And they can float any part or fish any part of the river as you and I. I just can't get over the idea of say a river like the queets being netted for a miniscule period every year for each species for ceremonial purposes or what ever, and the rest of the time those folks get to fish just like the rest of us perhaps with a few perks, and paying green for chrome for a couple years and see how friggin bad ass the runs could get. Every one does have their price and if the tribes wanted to do this they could do it very smart by going media with it, and giving it a tribal spin, hell what ever it takes to get the pie in the oven. And what a sweet sweet pie we call could be tasting down the road in say a couple years.

How about buying out the commercial fishing licenses? Since I'm sure the tribes are never going to quit. Would that put more fish in the rivers?

Ditto what Todd said about their motivations for going out to fish.... simply put, the commercials like to fish, just like you and I. They just do it with a net, and actually get a paycheck for their efforts.

While the non-tribal commercial fishers also do it because they like to, they don't have a "right" to do it like the treaty fishers do...they can have restrictions placed on them whether they like it or not...on that call, they're on the same level as us.

Fish on...

Todd

Just a thought - apparently they're not interested in money in exchange for fish. I probably wouldn't be either. But maybe they're interested in something else? Might they consider giving up the right to fish on x, y and/or z river in exchange for some non-monetary consideration elsewhere? Maybe it's land? Maybe it's more whales? Maybe it's a couple new, shiny crab boats? Just brainstorming.

It's really a moot point, nothing is going to change.

I've got alot of family members that commercial fish and they don't do it for the money anymore. They do it because they LOVE what they do. Getting them to just give it up for some coin is pretty inlikely. How many on here are going to give up their fishing for some coin??

I've got a way you guys up there in forks can get the netting stopped on the Hoh. Just prove they are netting the bull trout. Then its in the Fed's ballpark.

This is one of the best discussions I've read regarding how to reduce take of wild steelhead on the ONP. I like Salmo G's ideas. Actually I like alot of the ideas on this thread, mostly because they have an abdundance of thoughtful consideration, and a minimum of the usual outright hostility. I think this kind of discussion increases the chances of getting a meaningful dialogue going between sporstmen and the tribes with regards to improving wild runs.

AuntyM is right....Not going to happen. The tribes, as articulated over and over by Billy Frank, are suspicious of us non-indians and are on guard to make sure no one messes with their treaty rights. They are concerned that we might try to take them away...wonder where they got that idea? Salmo's government grant idea may work for others who prefer the dole to work but to the tribes the treaties are paramount. Much of the netting is not done by the adults but the kids. The adults get all that free casino cash and the kids need the money....

I forgot to add that the tribes think totally different from you and I so what we might think is totally logical may not be at all to them.