North of Falcon/PMFC update

I've just concluded the morning conference call with WDFW staff and fellow PS salmon Advisors.

Without going into 1000 details on the fishery models, Tribal, WDFW, and sportfishing positions and seasons which are being proposed now, I am here to say that ALL advisors and individuals such as Ron Garner representing PSA in Washington state have all said "NO DEAL"
and compelled the WDFW Director Unsworth directly to walk away from the negotiations. If WDFW walks away in support of the chorus supporting that decision, WDFW and Co Managers would have 18 days to continue negotiations. the PS Salmon advisors are requesting that no deal is made at NOF and that a Section 7 permit is sought through NOAA to allow salmon seasons for sportfishermen and charter operations in PS this Summer and Fall.


I'll report back once there are more developments.

WOW... this is getting ridiculous. The meeting is already in overtime and they're still playing hardball.

Do you guys have the proposed king quotas for each catch area? Westport was proposed to be 14,800. What are Lapush and Neah Bay?

Thanks.

Wow! I guess that letter earlier from NOAA didn't help much.. Or maybe it did.

NO DEAL

NO DEAL!!! Thanks to you, Ryley, and the rest of the folks who are drawing a line in the sand.

While things are still being negotiated in the lower 48, Alaska is already making their plans for the summer. This quote came off one of the troller sites. I haven't seen the official announcement from ADFG.

"Abundance index for 2016 of 2.06 for a summer troll quota of some 260,000. 2015 AI was 1.45, it was 2.47 back in 2014.

Last year's announcement didn't come until June 26."


Most of these fish are headed south, especially on the outside waters. They'll catch this quota in <10 days in early July.

I'm surprised with all the turmoil here that they chose this year to make an early announcement.

Well, a public statement from one side: http://nwtreatytribes.org/treaty-tribes-...-low-coho-year/

Ocean package adopted just minutes ago....



Rec total of 35K kings and 18.9K coho

To put this into perspective, we ended up at Ocean Option 2 Plus

Recall PFMC Ocean Option 1 was 58.6K chinook and 37.8K coho
Recall PFMC Ocean Option 2 was 30K chinook and 14.7K coho

Apparently, Loomis thinks only one side cares about the fish...

"Unfortunately, the political leadership with the state Department of Fish and Wildlife did not provide a fisheries package that met the conservation needs of stocks of concern because of low abundance,” said Lorraine Loomis, chair of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. “The treaty fishing package is a conservative and appropriate approach to this historically low return."

They care so much about fish, especially endangered ones, that they refuse to adopt methods permitting encounters leading to overwhelmingly safe releases. Give me a HUGE break.

Link to coast-wide salmon info Doc?

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/no-deal-at-north-of-falcon-salmon-season-in-uncharted-waters/

No deal. About damn time. I sent a note to Director Unsworth thanking him for his stance. Let him know you have his back.

So what is the goal? Maximum sport harvest? I'm not sure if that is a really a goal worth fighting for given the dismal predictions.

I haven't been following the details, though, so maybe I'm misinformed. What is the enlightened sportfisherman hoping will result from this process?

50:50 .... in times of good AND in times of bad.

Conservation in times of bad means EQUAL sharing and reduction of coho impacts for 2016.

One co-manager should NOT be made to subsidize the disproportionate impacts of the other.

Are the treaty tribes proposing something other than 50/50? As I said, I have not been following the details.

The Seattle Times version...

http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/very-...ginning-july-1/

Thanks for leading the charge, Pat Patillo!

It's a bit hard to follow.

Can you explain to me your 50:50 comment? You say impacts, is that the same as catch, so equal catch? Also, the subsidize comment, can you explain? I've seen it thrown around at the non-treaty commercials. Is this the same with the tribes?

Just curious....

Catch and impact is NOT necessarily the same.

When you fish NON selective, they ARE the same. You catch it, you harvest it, it's a 100% impact.

These fisheries closures are the direct consequence of the state of Washington allowing the destruction of salmon habitat for decades,” Loomis said. “Dips in ocean survival will happen every so often, but we wouldn’t have to drastically cut back our fisheries if a better job was done protecting the habitat.”


Just cracks me up that the tribes have no ownership in their own impacts.

Okay, got it.

So if a selective fishery is designed to use an amount of "impacts" in the form of released fish, does that mean more released fish will survive the fishery (to spawn), or do the same amount of non-target (wild) fish die a in a non-selective fishery? If the same, then how is one technique better than the other, for the fish?

Also, how does the expanded catch, from the selective fishery, affect the total catch for the 50:50 split? In other words, how is it possible to split the harvestable fish and impacts, equally, when the parties fish differently, selective vs non-selective?

Thanks for entertaining my questions.

What will be the regs for Johns River, Willapa Bay and the Chehalis river ?

NOAA's letter suggested no Section 7 route for rec's and NT's, but the tribes had a faster (albeit not guaranteed) route. Is that set in stone, or was it "guidelines"?

Very interested to hear of the progress over the next couple weeks Sky Guy, and thank your for your time and effort in advocacy.

Let us know when and how to help. There are resources available.

fb

Done. And thanks to Sky-Guy for the updates and urging WDFW to stand up to the tribes.

Reading the NW Treaty Tribes press release is both entertaining and disturbing. The very first paragraph ends with "except in a few terminal areas where there are identified harvestable hatchery fish."

Sure sounds like a euphemism for "basically business as usual"

This is not even preliminary but off the last model run for GH and numbers did not make sense at all. It does give you and idea though. This at a 5% NOR impact on Coho as in a conference call WDF&W said they were moving toward the QIN preseason forecast of around 32K and not WDFW 40k.


Dates Bag Limit
Area 2D only Oct 1-Nov 30 1 Adult bag: release wild Chinook
Area 2C only Aug 1 - Sept 16 2 adults, release wild coho.

April 16 - June 30 1 Adult bag:
Chehalis River Mouth to Porter Sept 16-Sept 30 1 Adult bag: Release wild Chinook
Oct 1-Jan 31 1 Adult bag: Release wild Chinook and wild Coho

Chehalis River Porter up to High Bridge Sept 16-Sept 30 1 Adult bag: Release wild Chinook
Oct 1-Jan 31 1 Adult bag: Release wild Chinook and wild Coho
Hwy 6 to high bridge

Hoquiam Closed 0

Wishkah Oct 1-Dec 31 1 Adult bag: release Chinook and wild Coho


Wynoochee Oct 1-Nov 30 1 Adult bag: Release Chinook and wild Coho

Satsop Oct 1-Dec 31 1 Adult bag: Release wild Chinook and wild Coho
0 0

Black River Closed 0

Skookumchuck Oct. 1-Dec 31 1 Adult bag: release Chinook and wild Coho


Newaukum Oct. 1-Dec 31 1 Adult bag: release Chinook and wild Coho

Elk and Johns Closed 0

Humptulips River FW Sept. 1-Sept 30 2 Adult bag: 1 may be a wild Chinook, release wild Coho
Oct 1-Nov 15 2 Adult bag: 1 may be a Chinook, release wild Coho
Nov 16-Jan 31 1 Adult bag: release Chinook and wild Coho
Commercial Dates # days Details
Area 2A/2D 43 Oct 16, 2016 0 12 hr days, live boxes, short soak, release wild Chinook
44 Oct 23, 2016 3 12 hr days, live boxes, short soak, release wild Chinook

Area 2C 43 Oct 16, 2016 2 24 hr days, live boxes, short soak, release wild Coho
44 Oct 23, 2016 2 12 hr days, live boxes, short soak, release wild Coho

Ive been really busy with work so I am just going to post up some of the Advisor's sound bites about 2016 NOF for your consumption:


In the aggregate roughly 2/3 of the impacts fall on the tribal side of the ledger.


We agree that there is a conservation issue with our coho and with previous co-manager agreed management guidelines (comp coho) potential fisheries need to be managed to minimize impacts on coho.



The tribal managers seemed to focus on how the non-tribal fishers fished rather than on what the impacts were. In effect attempt to dictate when, where and how non-treaty fisheries occur.



The majority of the conservation burden has been placed on the non-treaty fishers.



The tribal managers position was that only coho impacts could occur in fisheries targeting other species; for example Chinook. Yet for fisheries target game fish in freshwater the tribal position was that those fisheries had to be closed.



The tribal desires on the Skagit that there be a rough balancing of sharing of treaty and non-treaty impacts but were unwilling to adopt the same sharing criteria for those basins where there were significant imbalance on the tribal side.


"Goals of recreational angling leaders have focused on:
* Conservation and escapement of spawning fish first
* Responsible "selective fisheries" designed to select harvestable hatchery fish and release wild fish.
* Meaningful and equitable fisheries across geographical areas and types of fisheries including catch & release fishing, marine and river fisheries.
* Our intent has always been to negotiate fisheries in good faith, respecting co-managers needs and traditions. We don't dictate how tribes conduct their fisheries and don't believe that tribes should dictate how we conduct ours.
* 2016 fisheries discussions broke down because tribes oppose how we conduct fisheries like "marked selective fishing" (in which hatchery fish are kept and wild fish are released) and catch & release fishing which has been a valuable tool for fish recovery in recreation fishing in countless global real world applications, even though the non-tribal fisheries impacted comprehensive wild Coho escapement at a lower rate than proposed tribal fisheries. Our fisheries were rejected by tribal representatives based their own values and not science or conservation, giving explanations like "we don't like the ocular effect" and "we don't like you playing with our food".



Right now, each and every Sportfisherman and woman is Washington state needs to back the department 100%, in support of negotiations of fair and equitable fisheries. We cannot and will not accept anything less.
Email the director, email the commissioners, email the Governor in support of continued negotiations with equitable impacts only, nd if not demand we file for our own permits through NOAA.

An impact is a dead fish. Catch is a dead fish in your boat. If you release a fish there is an impact (mortality) of 10-14% depending on location. In addition there is an impact assigned for fish that engage your gear but escape. Nets are also assigned a release mortality of 14-56% depending on net type and location. They also have an assigned net drop out mortality.

What is missing is the impact of seals and sea lions. At times they harvest as much from nets as the fishermen without an assigned impact.

Sorry this is off the thread topic but there was some miss understanding of what an impact is.

Thanks SB,

So between your explanation and what the Doc said earlier, I gather that the tribes only impacts (dead fish) are related to estimated net dropout? Other than that, no impacts, just catch (dead fish in the boat)?

Or, I suppose a by catch species?


Thanks,

Some of us will document the Sea Lions this year JC but it ran about 20% last year.

Dead fish is a dead fish. QIN count fish sold plus 4% drop out and they disagree with the 4% thing. The fishers take some home and ect but not much back door sales anymore as the QIN will pull their permit.

Directed or targeted is correct as the non target spices is incidental. They are counted also just separate.

Does anybody have numbers for the commercial catch by area? These will be the numbers that the commercial trollers will be allowed to catch.

Just in from the Seattle Times: http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news...ound-fisheries/

"The tribal fishing plan has been submitted to NOAA Fisheries, according to a commission statement. And it could be approved without the months of delays that a separate state plan would face, said Bob Turner, a NOAA Fisheries assistant administrator who outlined the approval processes in a Jan. 19 letter to state and tribal officials. But on Friday, a commission staffer said the tribes did meet again with state officials to discuss a joint management plan."

Looks like the tribe's route for approval is moving forward, and NOAA is saying non-tribal is going to have to sit on the bank.

I'm sorry but I'm just having a bit of a problem here..


So THE STATE OF WASHINGTON can't fish in its own waters, but sovereign entities can?


Am I missing something?

While I really do want to fish over this upcoming run of clipped kings, I am willing to sit it out if the end result is a revised negotiation process for the future, where we don't get held hostage by negotiators in bad faith. I can get behind the state on this one, but we need to make it count (and not for just this season).

fb

WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/
April 15, 2016
Contact: Ron Warren, (360) 902-2799
Salmon seasons set for ocean, CR;
tate, tribes unable to reach agreement on Puget Sound
OLYMPIA – Anglers will have opportunities to fish for salmon in the ocean and Columbia River this year, although recreational and non-tribal commercial salmon fisheries in Puget Sound may be closed through much of the season.
After lengthy negotiations, state and tribal fishery managers could not reach an agreement on salmon-fishing seasons in Puget Sound. An agreement must be reached in the next few weeks or the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and treaty tribes in western Washington will each need to secure separate federal permits required to hold fisheries in Puget Sound waters where there are protected fish stocks.
That decision was made yesterday at the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s meeting in Vancouver, Wash. Salmon fishing seasons for Washington’s ocean waters and the Columbia River were adopted during the federal panel’s meeting. A summary of those fisheries is available on WDFW’s website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/attach/apr1516a.pdf
Jim Unsworth, WDFW director, said potentially forgoing salmon seasons in Puget Sound isn’t a decision the department took lightly.
“We realize that closing salmon fishing in Puget Sound for the foreseeable future is not only disappointing but is detrimental to many communities across the region,” he said. “As we work to secure the necessary federal permit, we hope to continue discussions with the tribes. I believe co-management can work, and we will do our part to improve the process of setting salmon seasons in Washington.”
This is the first time the state and tribes have not reached an agreement on salmon fishing seasons while working as co-managers, which began about 30 years ago. In previous years, the co-managers have been authorized to fish for salmon under a joint federal permit.
Ron Warren, head of WDFW’s Fish Program, said the department will begin working with NOAA Fisheries to secure a federal permit for salmon fisheries in Puget Sound. However, it is uncertain the department will receive federal authorization in time to hold salmon fisheries this summer, he said.
“We knew setting salmon-fishing seasons would be challenging this year due to the poor forecast for coho,” Warren said. “Our staff worked really hard to put forward a set of proposed fisheries that met agreed-to conservation goals. Unfortunately, we were not able to reach an agreement.”
About 256,000 coho are expected to return to Puget Sound in 2016. That’s about one-third the size of run predicted in 2015.
During the salmon season-setting process, state fishery managers consulted with numerous members of the department’s Puget Sound sportfishing advisory groups, who supported the department’s decision.
Puget Sound marine and fresh water areas that currently are open to salmon fishing – including marine areas 5, 11, 12 and 13 – will close to fishing May 1, if not scheduled to close earlier in the 2015-2016 Washington Sport Fishing Rules pamphlet.
Persons with disabilities who need to receive this information in an alternative format or who need reasonable accommodations to participate in WDFW-sponsored public meetings or other activities may contact Dolores Noyes by phone (360-902-2349), TTY (360-902-2207), or email (dolores.noyes@dfw.wa.gov). For more information, see http://wdfw.wa.gov/accessibility/reasonable_request.html.
________________________________________
This message has been sent to the WDFW Regulatory Information mailing list.
Visit the WDFW News Release Archive at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/
To UNSUBSCRIBE from this mailing list: http://wdfw.wa.gov/lists/unsubscribe.html

I have been thinking about the tribes argument for increased impacts based of tradition fishing methods. Do they really want to argue that they will not switch to lower impact methods based off of tradition? While gill netting may be traditional, the current methods, such as drift netting, using jet sleds, nylon nets, and such show they are perfectly happy to adjust to their advantage.

The treaty tribes' fishing business model (one fisherman, one skiff, one outboard motor, one gillnet) is the most cost effective. Selective fishing methods require a significantly larger capital investment for seines or other selective gear. And alternative gear and methods involve group or communal fishing, which complicates the serious issue of "who gets the money?"

"About 256,000 coho are expected to return to Puget Sound in 2016. That’s about one-third the size of run predicted in 2015."

How many coho actually returned in 2015? I know it wasn't anywhere near what was predicted. Why should we think this prediction has any basis in reality?

"Ron Warren, head of WDFW’s Fish Program, said the department will begin working with NOAA Fisheries to secure a federal permit for salmon fisheries in Puget Sound. However, it is uncertain the department will receive federal authorization in time to hold salmon fisheries this summer, he said."

The tribes have already applied for their permit and apparently there is a streamlined process that will allow them to fish this summer. I think WDFW should start the process to apply for a permit for 2017 now.

What does this mean for areas 5 and 6?? IS the Strait considered Puget Sound????

Looks like I'll be trailering to Sooke this year....

Yes, Areas 5 & 6 are included in this situation.

Time for civil disobedience and fish wars 2.0. Violence is also acceptable.

[Time for civil disobedience and fish wars 2.0. Violence is also acceptable]


you got that right

I'd like to see recreational fishermen blockade the marinas when the tribes leave to fish their U&A in their fancy modern boats. Or take a page out of the sea shepherd douche bags and deploy some prop foulers. My first preference is to treat anyone fishing when it's closed to 99% of the states population with the tactics and prejudice we used against German Uboats in WWII but that's just wishful thinking.

maybe some one can enlighten me, but it seems that the permit the tribe is requesting, would, in being issued, have to address many of the same issues that the department would be facing. In other words, if the tribes come up with a valid number of exploitable fish and suitable numbers for them to take no more than their 50%, how much harder would it be to piggy back on to their data. If they get a permit that agrees X number of fish are available in a select harvest area, then couldn't the state just provide a model that shows the expect sport fishery exploitation and harvest rate. If the NOAA has accepted the exploitation rate in the past, why would they not accept it now?

This looks like the final draft. to be adopted in May.

http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploa...gt_measures.pdf

IF there's no summer salmon season in Puget Sound, the Canadians are going to have to build a border wall. Maybe they will get WDFW to pay for it....there's a lot of nice kings passing thru Ucluelet and Tofino, and the Broken Group islands can be lights out in July. Hell, even Sooke has good fishing, where the kings outnumber the fishermen.

From Salmon University section on Canada reports, 4/13:

Sidney

Salmon fishing was VERY GOOD near Sidney. There have been quite a good number of springs between 12-25 lbs being caught. The whole area east of the Inlet has produced nice fish. Springs have been caught by Sidney Spit, Sidney channel, Coal Island, Hamley Point, the Powder Wharf, Saanichton, Moresby Island and in Satellite channel. Many anglers are fishing using tiny strip or anchovies in Bloody Nose and UV Green teaser heads. Coho Killer, Gibbs Needle G and AP Tackle needlefish spoons have been working well.

Sooke

The salmon fishing was GOOD for springs this past week. Anchovies have been the top bait recently, especially with Cop Car and Purple Haze teaser heads. The 3”-4” Kingfisher, Gypsy and G-Force spoons, as well as hoochies, are also top choices for Sooke anglers. Good colors have been Kitchen Sink, Irish Cream and No Bananas. Hoochies in White Glow, Army Truck and Tiger Prawn have been catching their fair number of fish. The most popular flashers recently have been ones with Moon Jelly patterns such as the Madi and the Lemon Lime.

It's fine, I guess, that the tribes chose that business model. They should be required to stay within 50% (their share) on ESA impacts as well as harvestable fish. If they want to fish non-selectively, fine. But it should be their choice and the consequences are loss of access to stronger co-mingled runs.

Saw this posted over on iFish - NOF ocean fisheries hammered out in the eleventh hour thread:


This is a loser for the nonIndian fisheries in Puget Sound.

Haven't you folks ever wondered why say, in the Columbia the tribes get about 10 to 14x the ESA impacts on spring Chinook, or sockeye, or steelhead?

The reason is that's essentially the law. In the mid 90's the US government clarified how federal tribal trust responsibility intersected with ESA: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-w...ial-order.html

It states this: "Accordingly, the Departments will carry out their responsibilities under the Act in a manner that harmonizes the Federal trust responsibility to tribes, tribal sovereignty, and statutory missions of the Departments, and that strives to ensure that Indian tribes do not bear a disproportionate burden for the conservation of listed species, so as to avoid or minimize the potential for conflict and confrontation."

Essentially, the feds have to err on the side of the tribes. You could add that portions of the Boldt decision (the major decision affecting Puget Sound salmon fisheries) also directs that the tribal fisheries are the last to close. Folks can get bent out of shape by this, but its all case law that's been in place for close to 40 yrs now. Plus its how fisheries have been set for decades now. Good luck going it alone, as NOAA already went on the record saying it would be near impossible for nontribal fisheries to get approval w/out agreement with the tribes back in January: http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/u..._MAR2016BB.pdf

I don't know what your point is in context to that quote is but the key word I see is "disproportionate". That verbiage is designed to indicate that the burden should be carried equally....

Having reread the letter by NOAA to WDFW about “going alone,” there are plenty of incentives for the tribes and WDFW to come back to the bargaining table because an agreement would be beneficial to both sides. We will see if both sides do sit down, as has been proposed, before the short window of opportunity closes.

As it stands, it appears that both sides could be sitting on the shore this year without an agreement and NOAA is probably reminding both sides of that very possibility if they don't come to terms.

Quote from the letter,
“In addition, a separate tribal plan could require a new NEPA assessment by the BIA. While NOAA Fisheries believes proposals for tribal only fisheries could receive ESA approval so long as conservation objectives were being met, it is likely that the analysis and review of the newly-structured proposals would be time consuming, and might not be completed before the proposed fisheries would be over.”

How is it I can kill and transport across State and International boundaries endangered Wild King Salmon?? If anybody wants to get a Polar Bear carcass thru Sea-Tac just place it in a fish box from Sitka!

If it was the tribes killing all of our ESA listed fish in Canada and Ak we, the sports fishermen, would be taking the exact same stance that they are!

The two groups at the end of the line arguing over the scraps is tiring as hell and sad!

But hey, at least we can low hole ourselves

Just sayin!

JustBecause,

I've read the "working with tribes" memo, and am unclear how you think a 50/50 split places a "Disproportionate" burden of conservation on the tribes?

Isn't 50/50 proportionate?

Wasn't my post, I reposted it from iFish.

However, I would guess that the point is that if it takes more that half the impacts (ESA) for the tribes to get half of the catch, then that would be the way it would go, based in the decisions on the Columbia, for example.

Jim Unsworth
WDFW Director
jim.unsworth@dfw.wa.gov

Ron Warren
Assistant Director Fish
ron.warren@dfw.wa.gov

John Long
WDFW Salmon Policy
john.long@dfw.wa.gov

A respectful and supportive email sent to all 3. I also copied/pasted my email into the governor's message page:
https://fortress.wa.gov/es/governor/

So, does all this mean the Baker Lake sockeye season is in jeopardy. I was thinking of trying that out for the first time this year.

If AK and BC stopped intercepting fish today, how long would it take for WA and the tribes to manage us right back to where we are today? I don't think it would take long.

Today, you can plan a trip up north and know that it won't be suddenly closed or that it won't be dialed down to catch and release. If intercepts stopped and an additional 300k kings swam into our waters, would we have that kind of dependable fishery in WA? Would we have liberal limits and be able to schedule a yearly trip with family/friends? Could you count on Elliot Bay opening again?

I wouldn't put my money on it! I think even if we had every fish destined for our rivers, we would still be severely constrained. It's too bad because I think we should be able to expect a consistent share of those fish.

The tribes have control of this state, the recs are just a nuisance. They've already gone their separate way with regards to Puget Sound. It won't be long before they thumb their noses at any suggested season and just do what they want. The state can put their foot down and it won't make a difference. I wouldn't be surprised if in the future we have to buy a tribal permit to go catch one of "their" fish!!

I don't look at AK and BC as taking our fish, I look at it as an opportunity to go catch our fish before the tribes get their greedy little fingers on them. I pay to raise them, I pay for habitat and I pay for management, I'll continue to go north and catch a few of what I payed for.

Low Holer!

Now go read your post again from a tribal perspective and tell my why you'd negotiate in good faith with sport anglers. I mean you can always plan a trip to Ak and know you'll catch your fish while they stand at the mouth of a river and hope they can catch fish.

Now I'm not really criticizing your position as those of us who love fishing are going to go fishing. I'll most likely retire north of here just to be part of the problem instead of being the guy standing at the mouth of the river hoping to go fishing.

But hey just as long as we have some "other" to blame this all on we're golden

Ain't humans awesome!

The Tribes and State are meeting again right now.

I hear what you are saying but doesn’t this issue not only affect the Puget Sound tribes but also the Puget Sound sport anglers and the Puget Sound NT commercials?

Shouldn’t all three entities wanting more fish to come back to Puget Sound be working together on this issue instead of what is going on right now?

WDFW to seek federal permit for Puget Sound
fisheries after talks with tribes end

OLYMPIA – State fishery managers have decided to separately secure the federal permit required to hold salmon fisheries this season in Puget Sound.

The decision was made Tuesday after negotiations over salmon seasons with tribal leaders again came to an impasse. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the tribes last week could not reach an agreement during the annual season-setting process.

“We had hoped additional conversations with the tribes would result in fisheries that were agreeable to both parties,” said Jim Unsworth, director of the department. “Unfortunately, that did not happen, but our door remains open to further discussions.”

WDFW officials said it is uncertain whether the department will have the permit in time to hold recreational and non-tribal commercial salmon fisheries in Puget Sound through much of the season. The permit is necessary to hold fisheries in Puget Sound where there are fish stocks protected under the federal Endangered Species Act.

Tribal fishery managers are expected to separately seek federal permits from NOAA Fisheries for salmon fisheries in Puget Sound.

Over the course of negotiations, the department proposed fisheries that maintained some fishing opportunities and met conservation objectives, said Ron Warren, head of WDFW’s Fish Program.

“This isn’t the outcome we had hoped for, but we will do our best to obtain a federal permit as quickly as possible,” Warren said.

******************

Fish on...

Todd

. . . .strike two. . .

fb

I'm still pleased WDFW didn't agree with the tribes on no PS season this year.
I'm sure there are some upper end politicians in Olympia that aren't pleased with WDFW right now, especially considering where some of their political support and donations come from.
If you'd like to let Jay Inslee know your thoughts on these negotiations if that is what you'd call them, here is link that will let you voice your opinion to him.
I sent him a note letting him know I back WDFW's decision not to agree with the tribal demands of having no PS fishing season this year.
Even if we end up with no season, I commend WDFW for having the backbone to say no to the tribes.
SF

https://fortress.wa.gov/es/governor/

In the words of the great Bart Simpson,

"You're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't."


Agreement or no agreement it doesn't really fvcking matter. We aren't fishing. The tribe gets their cake and'll eat it too.

Yup they beat us this year. We're easy to beat. Bunch of one-on-one dribble-drive stuff, very little ball movement. Not playing team ball.

If the rec's could get together as a user group we'd be formidable; way more money and upside than the opponent. But we just don't play team ball. Maybe we need a new coach, or new uni's,

fb

It was brought up to seek a Federal permit to recreational fish PS. It also was stated the permit process might take longer than the season itself, which still would mean no fishing. The Tribes have stated they would also seek a Federal permit to fish. My question? Would or could their permit process take just as long preventing them from fishing? This almost seems like an end around to negotiate in good faith, by either party. No agreement, no fishing for anyone, period!

I read somewhere,maybe here,that the tribes get precedent on approval because of the treaties and ESA listings.To me it kind of looks like a game. WDFW is pretending to stand up for the license buyers and will ultimately blame the closed season on the feds. WDF is playing us.Hope I am wrong but no saltwater money from me this year and letters to Unsworth and Inslee saying why.

Both sides could be in jeopardy of being shore bound in Puget Sound and not fishing without an agreement, according to the NOAA's letter regarding "going alone."

“In addition, a separate tribal plan could require a new NEPA assessment by the BIA. While NOAA Fisheries believes proposals for tribal only fisheries could receive ESA approval so long as conservation objectives were being met, it is likely that the analysis and review of the newly-structured proposals would be time consuming, and might not be completed before the proposed fisheries would be over.”

If it really is NOAA’s intent to have both parties come to an agreement then they could help that process by applying equal measures like warned in the the letter.

Well deep in the bowls of the Governors staff one might try JT as she pulls most of the strings. I doubt if this Governor has any real feel for the issue other than staff reports.

Who is JT, Inslee's chief of staff or something like that?
If so, got an email address?
I've been on an email binge.....
Thanks
SF

JT Austin
Policy Advisor
(360) 902-0638
jt.austin@gov.wa.gov

JT AUSTIN – POLICY ADVISOR 360.902.0638 JT.AUSTIN@GOV.WA.GOV
AGENCIES
Agriculture, Department of
Fish and Wildlife, Department of
Natural Resources, Department of
Recreation and Conservation Funding Office
State Parks and Recreation Commission
WA State Conservation Commission
ISSUES
Columbia River BiOp
Culverts Case
Farmland Preservation
Fish Consumption and Public Health
Fisheries Management
Forest Management
Genetically Modified Organisms
Marine Spatial Planning
Mining
Outdoor Recreation
Salmon Recovery
Treaty Rights at Risk
Voluntary Stewardship Program
Wildlife/Wolf Management
Working Natural Lands

What you wont read in the news releases are how the meeting went down yesterday.

The story I have heard second hand is that the meeting started with the Puyallup Tribe representative standing up and saying there would be zero sportfishing allowed in the Puyallup River and no sportfishing anywhere in PS should have any impacts on Puyallup Chinook this year.

Then The Muckleshoot Tribe stood up and demanded no Fishing in MA 10, and only in the northern half of MA9 for Chinook only(this is new) and no fishing in Elliot Bay, the Lake, etc.

Director Unsworth then got up and said (and I paraphrase) I guess we dont have anything to discuss here after hearing those ultimatums, and the meeting adjourned.



We must all stand behind the Director and WDFW staff 100% for saying "No Deal" to completely unreasonable demands!

As a PSA South Sound board member I have been waiting for some kind of statement to come out after the email that we received yesterday.

Fact is there was a unanimous vote of the Puget Sound Sportfish Advisors for WDFW, CCA, PSA, and some other sports groups to go forward with the "No Agreement".

The new Director and his staff them went into the meeting with the tribes and you know he rest.

The director has stuck his neck out for us and is under a tremendous about of pressure because of this and we need to step up and stand behind him. I'm sure there will be more about this by others further up the chain than I and I'm sure I will hear more tonight at our chapter board meeting.

Thank you for the info Rg.
Email will be sent tonight in support of the director and his staff.
SF

My understanding is that Dir. Unsworth has the full support of Gov. Inslee for everything he has done thus far.

Fish on...

Todd

I have taken some comments from the email that went to members. After the meeting tonight and if there still has been no statement from those at the meeting I will post the entire email in the morning.

Tom Nelson from the Outdoor Line talked to the Governor's Office on a conference call yesterday and was told just that..that the Governor supports Dir. Unsworth in walking away from the table and going straight to NOAA-F.

Fish on...

Todd

My understanding is that unsworth now has the governors support but that wasn't necessarily the case prior to this past weekend.

Oh I go 50 / 50 on that one with JT in the mix. The one I have not figured out is what Bob Turner did around some meeting or process with the tribe that the Director was not to be ( intended or not the question ) present. That one I find puzzling but about right for the Feds.

It seems like the courts have already decided who has the rights to the fish. The recs have been cornered and not even a politician can fix it.

I think it's time to legalize gambling in WA. That would be a fight we would have a chance at winning and would bankrupt the tribes.

Maybe the press would be interested in printing the truth?

How this will affect the rivers, like spring salmon in the Quileute??? And in the ocean, at LaPush???

I also wonder if this will affect marine area 7. I know Canadian stocks (not ESA listed) make up a large percentage of the salmon caught here during the summer and fall, especially in the outer islands. The southern and eastern portions of 7 are already closed for most of the summer to protect Skagit and Nooksack chinook but I am probably being too optimistic to hope the rest of 7 will be open with a normal season. Does anyone have any insight on area 7?

Pretty sure this shuts down MA7

But not the ocean or coastal cricks. LaPush will fish July 1 if I'm not mistaken.

fb

Tom Nelson has stated on the Outdoor line show that the tribes have been invited to the show to hear their side of the story but to no avail so far.

Considering what has happen in past NOF negotiations with the tribes apparently not bargaining in good faith with last minute shenanigan and now these demands, it is good to hear that the governor and many sport anglers do back Director Unsworth and not surprised the tribes have declined up to this point to go on the air to defend their behavior/actions.

I know that the tribal reps have been offered airtime on Northwest Wild Country to come and explain their actions and thoughts, too, but refuse every time.

Fish on...

Todd

IS area 6 still open, until 1 May???

MA 6 is closed. MA 5 is still open.

It is quite a poker game going on between the state and tribal co-managers.

Going into this upcoming Wednesday’s meeting, both are holding virtually the same hand of no fishing for salmon in Puget Sound without an agreement or both going it alone in applying for permits separately without the agreement.

NOAA’s letter has pitfalls from top to bottom of the letter showing possible processes with these being time consuming, which can leave both sides sitting on the beach this year.

It should be interesting to see if the tribes continue to bluff a better hand, with an all in bet this time around instead of negotiating in good faith and also seeing if WDFW will continue to call their hand instead of folding.

It is a high stakes game with plenty to lose for both sides. A FAIR compromise leading to an agreement leading to splitting the pot is better than nothing. FAIR and splitting, and not the same ol’ stuff, being the optimal words.

State/recreationals finally have the will to walk away, which makes it really interesting to watch!

Hi All

So a few questions.

I know what no agreement means to the Sound fishing but what about the rivers. Listening to the KIRO Outdoor Line POD Cast, the Rep from Northwest Marine Trade Association indicated it would most likely close rivers as well.

Does that mean No Fishing for Skagit Sockeye, Sky Kings, Skok Kings, Samish Kings etc? Runs that have no problems and per Mill Creek NOF meeting have seasons planned.

NO DEAL includes the rivers.

It may also include no "trout" fishing in those rivers. Appears it will knock out the sea-run cutt fishery in the salt due to incidental take of Chinook, even in a C&R situation.

So is it okay if us Recreational fishermen stand on the shore, without fishing gear of course, and wave to the tribal boats as they head out to fish?

Should also sing "Kumbaya" as they go out. And remember to buy fish from them.

If I don't wave with all 5 fingers is it a hate crime?

So, the Puget Sound tribal commercial fishermen are on board with their leadership putting their season in jeopardy this year?
The NOAA letter clearly states that could be the case considering what NOAA would need going forward into these uncharted waters.

If the tribes want to continue with ultimatums instead of compromise to set the seasons in Puget Sound--- NO DEAL!

The Tribes believe that the Feds, because NOAA has the twin obligations for ESA and the Indian Treaties, will find a way for them to fish. It may be convoluted, but they'll find a way.

Note that in his letter, if memory serves, that Turner said approval for the Tribal fisheries might come after the fisheries. It didn't say after they were scheduled to occur, it said after the fisheries.

This situation sets up an very interesting legal fight. Essentially, what law is supreme. ESA or Treaty. One has to be supreme. Either conservation or fishing. I doubt that NOAA or the Tribes really want to litigate that, and WDFW probably deep i its soul (assuming one exists) doesn't either.

If ESA is superior, then habitat had better be protected and restored now, not in 50 or 75 years when the "budget is better. Plus, the issue of growth and development will run flat into conservation and if conservation is the Law of the Land..... On the other hand, if the Treaties are superior I see loss of all habitat protection and interest because the tribes gotta fish and the state can just give over the fish to the tribes and let the have them while the state grows. Plus, hatcheries will greatly expand.

Someone mentioned that it seems odd the Tribes would be so obstinate in negotiations, considering the significant jeopardy their own seasons may be in....

Seems to me the Tribes hold all the cards here, and they know it. What they don't take in fish, they will take in entitlements or via lawsuits. If they don't get to fish because NOAA takes too long to approve their plan, they'll simply claim economic hardship and get paid more than they would if they went fishing in a down year like this. That's what the Quinaults did after their ill-advised gillnet fisheries overharvested the weak returns last year in Grays Harbor.

The reason co-management isn't working is that there is no incentive for one side to compromise when they can't take what they want with cooperative planning.

Here are a couple things I've been wondering about and can't seem to find answers to...

From what I am hearing, the Muckleshoots and Puyallups have been driving the "negotiations" from the tribal side. But, there are at least 19 other Treaty Tribes. I can't imagine they are all in agreement with these two tribes. Do those two tribes have more influence than the others? I am pretty sure the Lummis and the Makah are are larger in terms of fishing. And the Makah tribe has a vested interest in there being a sportfishing season since alot of their tribes income is from tourism.

Can anyone shed some light here?

Secondly, if the end of the month comes and there is no deal...

I assume the tribes have already applied for their NOAA-F permit, and it's been alluded to that they will get it fast-tracked. IF that happens and they hit the water and we are not permitted, how does that jive with Boldt? Seems like it would be outright discrimination on the part of the feds and would open them up to a lawsuit by WA.

From what I heard on Tom Nelson's show, NOAA is essentially trying to strongarm WDFW to cave to the tribal demands "or else" (I guess "or else" means that they are threatening a long, drawn-out permit process).



I wonder if ultimately this should be legitimized and tribes could be compensated to NOT fish commercially and instead back off to just sustenance and ceremonial catch.

I'm going to go ahead and guess that's been proposed before and is a hot-button issue.

Chasin, In my experience the tribes don't GAF what the rules are, they'll fish anyway. They know Cenci and her green goons won't do shlt and that they're virtually untouchable. The tribes do whatever they want whenever they want WITHOUT repercussions. They'll fish, they'll wave and they'll laugh at enforcement and they'll laugh at us. They've been doing it for years with NO repercussions why would they do any different this year?

"I wonder if ultimately this should be legitimized and tribes could be compensated to NOT fish commercially and instead back off to just sustenance and ceremonial catch.

I'm going to go ahead and guess that's been proposed before and is a hot-button issue."

It was certainly proposed in terms of fishing for steelhead. Yes, it is a hot button issue and the fact that tribes still fish commercially for steelhead should indicate their position.

I am still a bit confused on the NOAA permit. Does the tribes application still have to address Boldt, or would they be able to ask for all the available fish and show how they meet the ESA requirements. If so, then would the state be able to file a quick injunction to show that Boldt was being violated? If they do have to address Boldt in their application, does the state get to put in a response and wouldn't any permit then have to tactically agree to the allowable take by the non-treaty fisheries. I realize that the non-treaty side would have to show how they are meeting the ESA take limitations via the different fisheries and methods, but it should be a lot easier if we all agree on an allowable take number. It would also seem it would make it very easy to meet the requirements for a lot of the in river fisheries.

The restrictions of the Boldt Decision still apply.

Even if the State/Tribes agreed their plan would have to go to the Feds to make sure it complied with ESA/conservation requirements.

In this case they will presumably be attempting to get their individual plans approved by the Feds, and those plans will still have to satisfy Boldt, ESA, and conservation requirements.

Fish on...

Todd

Or, if the NI don't have a competing plan that is either approved or will be approved before the fishery takes place they could go for foregone opportunity.

That's a real nightmare scenario.

Im tempted to comment on a lot of the questions here, but I'll wait to see what happens this week.

One major issue right now for the tribes is that in years past, their fisheries ESA impacts have been partially absorbed by a reduction in sport fishing quota and seasons in order for their proposed fisheries to occur and fall under the total allowable impact. Yes, part of the horse trading includes a transfer of impacts. Without agreement this year, the tribes will be required to meet the ESA standards on their own. A tough pill to swallow.... in many cases.

I've already posed this question directly to Ron W, and he indicated under this scenario Forgone Opportunity is not an issue in the event we aren't fishing.

Good Luck Ryley and thanks for all the hard work!

Certainly not something I'd be very good at .

If you're not fishing you have chosen not to take the fish. For whatever reason. Not to catch them certainly foregone.

Here’s more information on this issue that may be "news" to some folks on this BB.

The Boldt Decision said the Tribes have the right to 50% of the available harvest. Everyone knows that. But the Boldt Decision did NOT say the States have the right to the other half. So it’s not a 50/50 split as most folks seem to suggest. The Tribes have the right to 50% of the available harvest. Period. If the State can secure the other half, great. But if not, there is no violation of the Boldt decision. It’s not an enforceable statute on the part of the State. Only the Tribes can ask for enforcement since the decision (the original Treaties) was between the Federal government and the Tribes. The States were not yet in existence so they’re not a signatory to the Treaties. So the State can’t ask for enforcement of an agreement their not a party to. But the Tribes can, and they will.

Further, the fishing rights assured in the Treaties is a reserved right. That is, the Treaties recognized that the Tribes ALREADY have the right to fish in their usual and accustomed places. The Treaties did not provide them with that right. The Treaties just recognize the right was already there, and would continue in perpetuity. So even if the Treaties were to vanish today (which won’t happen), the Tribal rights to fish in their usual and accustomed places in perpetuity remains.

The Federal government (in this case the National Marine Fisheries Service) has a trust responsibility to the Tribes. They don’t have a trust responsibility to the State. Clearly, NMFS does not want to get between the State and the Tribes on this issue. But if it happens, the Tribes will play the “trust responsibility” card on NMFS. At that point, NMFS has no choice. They need to address the needs of the Tribes before they address the needs of the State. That is, they would need to secure the Tribal allocation (50%) before going any further.

In my view, there is more at stake than just one season’s worth of fishing in Puget Sound. The breakdown of fisheries management between the two entities authorized to manage the fisheries (Washington State and Tribes) puts the Federal government in charge of fish management that historically been the primary role of WDFW and the Tribes of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. That's not a good outcome for anyone, even the Tribes.

I sincerely hope for a equitable resolution to this issue that enables the appropriate level of fishing to occur, and to preserve the traditional role of the States and the Tribes to manage the fishery for their constituents, and the fish.

Although neither side is "entitled" to more than 50% the implementation of Boldt, court orders, etc. allow for one side or the other to take more than 50% to prevent wastage. Both sides agree that one fish above the escapement goal is wasted and the Boldt Court allowed "foregone opportunity" to ensure that harvestable fish were not wasted. Initially, this was used by the State when tribal fisheries were unable, due to lack of fishing power, to take their share. Even into the late 80s/early 90s there were claims of "foregone opportunity" on both sides that were allowed to proceed.

One of the reasons for a foregone opportunity claim was that if one side exceeded their share they "owed" these fish as an "equitable adjustment". This could create the situation where, if one side didn't fish on harvestable fish the other side would "owe" playback since they fished.

If memory serves, though. equitable adjustment and foregone opportunity did not, by court order, apply to steelhead.

What you guys outlined is horrifying. Sounds like the state has everything to lose, and no leverage. Basically, the worst negotiating position. Ever.

HMMM... in perpetuity, eh?

That's like a REALLY REALLY REALLY long time, right?

Some reporting on the issue:

Story: Impasse-between-fishery-and-tribal-leaders-puts-salmon-season-in-jeopardy



Then an update, with some mention of permitting timelines

Story: Without-agreement-puget-sound-salmon-season-in-jeopardy

I would hope that our sport advocacy groups are planning for the possibility that the tribes will be fishing and sport fishermen will not... The silver lining to that scenario would be to put the tribes on trial at the highest court in the land. The court of public opinion. I know most probably think that the public doesn't care, but then again when have we had this scenario? Runs falling well short and the only ones on the water killing them are the "stewards of nature"...
For the tribes to put out the publicity that they have, bemoaning the dire situation the fish are in, how hypocritical would it be for them to fish - when we are not
The gambling angle is yet another potential way to gain leverage.
We can, as we all know, forget about negating the treaty. So, we are left with negotiation (failed) or gaining leverage. Directing public opinion (about fish and fishing) and going after gambling laws in the state are the two ways I see us gaining the leverage needed to get what we want.
They chose to make this a fight.

Based on the last 20-25 years they bet the State would, as it always did, fold. Statistically, that was the way to bet.

I never realized how well the tribes have positioned themselves and it makes me wonder how the co-manager arrangement was ever supposed to work? WDFW is not an equal partner and the tribes have everything to gain by being difficult. It sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

How long do you think it will take for a few of the other 17 treaty tribes to follow the trail blazed by their Puget Sound brothers? Imagine if the QIN insisted all of Grays Harbor was closed, including all freshwater, and the salt out front as well. Impossible?

A CCA Flyer.



If you have been following the twists and turns of this year's state-tribal "North of Falcon" Puget Sound salmon fishery negotiations, you know we are in unchartered territory. For the first time in decades, WDFW and the Puget Sound treaty tribes failed to reach an agreement on fishing seasons. Without federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) approval of a joint state-tribal fishery agreement - or separate approval of a stand-alone state plan - there will be a complete closure of all Puget Sound sport fisheries.

We can't let that happen. Please urge your elected representatives and federal agency officials at NOAA Fisheries to take action!

NOAA Fisheries must take immediate action to prevent the complete closure of a $100-plus million Puget Sound sport fishery. It is also time to fix the broken "North of Falcon" season-setting process by restoring transparency, fairness, and common sense to these negotiations - fundamental hallmarks of cooperative management (aka "co-management").

We commend WDFW Director Jim Unsworth and his staff for negotiating in good faith, with conservation as their first priority. Despite the serious challenges posed by reduced Coho and Chinook abundance, WDFW fashioned a plan that fell within conservation guidelines, met ESA requirements, and provided meaningful recreational fishing opportunity. WDFW has been consistent in seeking a balanced, fair agreement. Unfortunately this has been met by uncompromising negotiating tactics from a small handful of tribes - something that has become common in recent North of Falcon negotiations.

The state and tribes are scheduled to meet again this week. We hope an agreement can be reached on a responsible and equitable fishery agreement. If not, NOAA Fisheries should take action on WDFW's balanced, conservation-based fishery proposal, and authorize their fisheries independently of any tribal agreement.

This latest crisis facing our fisheries comes on top of the failure of NOAA Fisheries to provide needed ESA permits to over a hundred salmon and steelhead hatcheries and provide the necessary reviews for the Mitchell Act program that funds 1/3 of all Columbia River hatchery salmon production- putting our fisheries at extreme risk to closure due to litigation from anti-hatchery organizations!

Please weigh in with your elected officials and NOAA Fisheries on behalf of conservation, fairness, and a Puget Sound sport fishing season!


________________________________________

Is it just me, Or does anyone else think its time the tribes join the rest of us humans in the 21st century.

Could this end up being the first shot over the bow?

Economic Market Study on Gambling
Underway in Washington State!

http://www.wsgc.wa.gov/publications/press-releases/market-study-awarded.pdf

I am sure that it must have already been planned, but the timing is perfect. I am sure so real interesting data could be gleaned from a study like this.

I think it is telling that the Makah's have been pressured into not whaling. If political will gets strong enough, there is plenty on the table to make the tribes come around.

The state is leaving a lot of money on the table by not allowing non tribal gaming establishments to offer the same type of gaming.
The state got out of the booze business, which was a good move in my opinion.
They are now heavily into the weed business.
They already offer Lotto.
Why not full blown gaming as well? One group shouldn't have a monopoly on gaming.

Sorry, but sin helps pay the bills regardless of what some church and other organizations say against it.
Cha-Ching!
SF

I probably have no idea what I'm talking about but tribal casino money used for lobbying wouldn't have quite the same affect if state casinos were established.

Brian- I never thought pot would be legal but here we are. Why not privately owned or state casinos?

Danny

On the topic of casino money, just in case ANY of you go to Tribal casinos or buy booze, smokes, etc. on reservations, please cut that $hit out. It's cheap to fly to Vegas. If you must gamble, see that your hard-earned, but so easily lost gambling money won't be used to deny you citizens' rights.

Losing your @$$ at the casino takes on a whole new level of crappy when the money you lose goes to political efforts to undermine your quality of life. We don't have a lot of control over the fish situation, but we definitely have control over where we spend our money. Spend wisely.

+1,

fb

I don't spend a dime at any casino.

What time was the meeting today???

The Tribes would say their fishing rights extend back to "time immemorial" and into the future "in perpetuity".

The frustration on this BB over this issue is understandable. But the Tribes have similar but different frustrations. They see massive development all over the Puget Sound and Oly Pen area. They see important salmon habitat being lost daily to ever encroaching development. Strip malls, housing developments, single family homes, hotels, roads, bridges, farms, condos, flood dikes, etc, etc.

We all see it. But the Tribes don't see "progress". They see habitat destruction, if only through the loss of water needed to support this infrastructure. And they see the State unwilling or unable to slow down or stop the development. They've petitioned the Feds, but the Feds are almost as unwilling and unable to stop it either.

The loss of habitat mirrors the loss of salmon. As one goes, so goes the other. We are arguing over scraps of whatever fish remain in Puget Sound, in part because of poor ocean conditions, but also because salmon habitat is not producing anywhere near what it once did. The Tribes believe that if the State was better able to regulate habitat loss, and habitat were in better shape, we would have alot more than just scraps to fish on. We would have a decent fishery. But we don't.

So who is to blame? I'm not going to point at the Tribes for the loss of salmon habitat, and I'm not going to point at the State for being unable to stop development. Our government (local, State, Federal) is ill equipped to restrict the freedoms that we've all come to expect. We expect to be able to buy land and build a house or a business. We expect to drive to various places on reasonably safe roads. We expect to be able to drink clean water, buy good and services at our local stores, raise a family, and to be fairly safe from natural disasters such as floods. But all these things adversely effect salmon habitat. And the more people we have, the more we compete with the resources that salmon need.

I understand the Tribes concerns but the solutions may not be realistic. But solutions begin with understanding. So if nothing else, perhaps we can all understand the "other guys" point of view.

Thankfully there isn't any development or strip malls on tribal reservations, especially along I-5 north of Marysville.

Looking forward to hearing how the meeting went today.
SF

And they have kept their human population at treaty era levels so that they do not increases demand.

Just to be clear, I'm trying to promote understanding. I'm not an apologist for the Tribes. They can do that for themselves. But if a long-term solution is to be found (past this year, and this issue), a better understanding of both the State and the Tribal views on the issue is a good place to start.

I recommend the following:

http://treatyrightsatrisk.org/

You don't have to swallow all the rhetoric, but you will get a better sense of the Tribes frustration. We should all be as concerned as they are.

The Tribes need to be part of the solution that includes restrictions on land use, water use, development, and so on. To act as if the rest of the community needs to make changes while they just keep on keeping on is wrong. We should all be in this together.

This just out. Advisors meet with the department tomorrow for a follow up:

WDFW, tribes again call off talks on Puget Sound salmon fisheries





OLYMPIA – After additional discussions Wednesday, state and tribal fishery managers did not reach an agreement for this year's Puget Sound salmon-fishing seasons.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and treaty tribes separately will continue to seek federal permits necessary for holding marine and fresh water fisheries in Puget Sound, where some fish stocks are protected under the federal Endangered Species Act.

"We had one last round of negotiations in hopes of ensuring salmon seasons in Puget Sound this year," said Jim Unsworth, director of WDFW. "Regrettably, we could not agree on fisheries that were acceptable to both parties."

The department proposed salmon fisheries that allowed anglers to harvest chinook while protecting coho, which are expected to return in low numbers this year. The state's proposed fisheries met conservation goals that WDFW and the tribes had previously agreed upon, Unsworth said.

State fishery managers are uncertain whether the department will receive the necessary permit in time to hold salmon fisheries in Puget Sound through much of the season.

WDFW and the tribes typically secure a federal permit together for holding Puget Sound salmon fisheries. State and tribal fishery managers did not reach agreement during the annual season-setting process, which concluded in mid-April. Further talks last week were also unsuccessful.

Unsworth said he is hopeful the state and tribes can work together in the future to develop plans to bolster salmon stocks as well as improve the season-setting process.

"We want to work with the tribes to address long-term resource management concerns, such as restoring habitat and increasing hatchery fish production," Unsworth said. "The breakdown in this year's negotiations demonstrates the need for a change to the process of setting salmon-fishing seasons."

Absent an agreement, all non-tribal commercial and recreational Puget Sound salmon fisheries, including Marine Area 13 and year-round fishing piers around Puget Sound, will close May 1 to salmon fishing until further notice.

Any updates on Puget Sound salmon-fishing seasons will be posted to WDFW's webpage at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/northfalcon/, where summaries of this year's salmon fisheries for the Columbia River, Washington's ocean waters and north coastal rivers can be found.

FYI, the Makah are still pursuing a whaling permit: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/marine_mammals/cetaceans/whale_hunt.html

S-G
As always, appreciate your work and keeping us updated.
SC

Sky-guy - thanks for the update. Kind of bummed nothing could be worked out, but it might be best to navigate the uncharted waters in the hopes of getting to a better place.

This also means that the NI Commercials get no fishery for Fraser sockeye? Just the Tribes might get approval??

All the WA stakeholders would be allowed to fish this year were it not for the majority of all impacts being allocated to ocean fisheries...

...and the habitat is what we're focused on?

This same habitat produced huge returns of coho and solid runs of chinook in 2014. It ain't what it was (and won't ever be again), but if we quit perennially overharvesting whatever is out there each year, even the existing habitat can sustain good runs. It's proven that.

Not saying we shouldn't try to improve it, however....

You know I kinda' like this idea I posted a similar idea about building a Trump like wall to prevent WA state fish fleeing to the Northern Pacific waters to hang out for awhile waiting their return to their home waters but never got a response... Silly me Looked at California regs tonight and not much mayhem or finger pointing going on down there! Saved a link I'll try and share here soon! Season on down there and their numbers are a bit off last year but still 2 a day Chinook in the ocean> Imagine that!

Didn't they waste most of the last whale they shot with a .460 Weatherby? Just like their ancestors did....

why aren't they going for half the states deer, elk, ducks and geese... these are all delicacies that can be sold to the highest bidder...

Most on here don't remember, too young but we had pinball machines, pull tabs, cards rooms every where.....then in 1970 the voters of this State said NO TO LEGALIZE GAMBLING........there went the pull tabs, pinball machines, and most of the card rooms. WE could have had Reno/Vegas type gambling but it was not to be......

Tribes, not so righteous.....got'um all the Casinos and lots of $$$$$$$$$

Makah tribe, had a legal Whale hunt in May 1999. As I remember, they used "long boat", and chased whales but never got close enough to kill with a harpoon.....so they cheated just a bit, used a 50 caliber to kill a whale. There was such a uproar that there has not been one since.

I'd like to see Washington State have legal Casino gambling.....would sure help with a new better tax base, which we need.

I read the comments about "never going to a tribal casino" or smoke shop but I'm here to tell you there are 10's of thousands of your neighbors that are going, and spend LOTS OF $$$$$$$$$$$ and don't pay the taxes because they are tribes......

cohoangler,
Fantastic couple of posts there.
Thank you for that,
fb

DrifterWa, you are almost correct. The judge made the decission that after a whale had been harpooned and it was clear it was not going to escape they would have to dispatch it with a long gun so it did not suffer. I hated the whale hunt but I could not disagree with the last part.

BW:

Old age, I forgot that part......Thanks for filling in that blank area..

There was a second whale that they shot without the permit and had to just sink out in the bay.

Can someone clarify exactly what the state and tribal positions were going into the last meeting?

As I understand it...

WDFW was fighting for a chinook season in the sound (meaning areas 5-13), and then closed for coho. Tribes said no, because of possible coho impacts. Yet, the tribes are planning to net for chinook, sockeye and chum - all of which will yield coho bycatch (and wild ones, too). A NWTT press release even said there would be netting for coho "in a few terminal areas where there are identified harvestable hatchery fish"

Is that correct? If so, on what planet can the tribes be claiming that the WDFW plan was not conservation focused, and theirs is? Is it because of the agreed-upon sportfishing ocean season?

The Puget Sound Sport Fish Advisors are scheduled for a conference call this morning with WDFW staff. Should be some answers by early afternoon.

Yeah, it would be nice to hear what the actual proposals were from both sides. Right now, nobody seems to be sharing the nitty gritty information.

Chasin' Baitman,

I think a big part of what divides WDFW and the treaty tribes is values or policy based and not science based. I have heard that some, maybe many, tribal representatives argue against mark selective recreational fishing because that involves releasing unmarked fish, and that has an incidental mortality rate. Some tribal reps suggest that the incidental mortality be calculated as 100%. Obviously that would be a policy determination and not a science based determination. Mortality rate varies according to species, time and place of catch, gear type, handling, and most importantly, the variable of hooking location. While not stated, it's more than obvious that the tribes are opposed to mark selective fishing because the way that they choose to fish cannot fit with mark selective fishing. Pretty much all fish caught by conventional gillnetting die. I think they have a values based approach against their fishing being tagged with 100% mortality of unmarked fish while non-treaty sport is assigned a significantly lower level of incidental mortality.

With those values it's easier to understand that they would oppose sport fishign in PS that will catch a mix of marked and unmarked (ESA protected) Chinook and possibly some unlisted but vulnerable coho come August. Yet they have no problem saying that they will have some conventional fishing (gillnet) in select terminal areas where hatchery coho are expected to be abundant. What they leave unsaid is that there is virtually no place in PS where hatchery coho will be abundant that doesn't also have a complement of wild coho needing protection, and those wild coho will also be caught in unselective treaty gillnets.

With disparate values like this, the only way for an agreement to happen is for WDFW to capitulate, which fortunately so far, hasn't.

Sg

The meeting yesterday included representation from all PS tribes.
The Mucklehsoot and Puyallup tribes came to the table demanding additional concessions from sport fisheries from what was discussed at NOF. Essentially providing 1 of 2 options for the WDFW to accept. I dont have the exact figures on what those proposals were yet. Last week, Puyallup had proposed total closure of sport fishing in the River, and in marine areas 9, 10 and 11, so the WDFW counter-proposal was aimed at the Puyallup proposal.

Prior to the meeting, the WDFW received a letter from the Puyallup which essentially outlined the same proposals that were discussed the week before.
They again demanded that MA 9-10-11 be closed entirely and no sport fishing in the Puyallup river. The department had fisheries models which dropped from NOF positions to a quota of 1112 fish in MA 10, and 2606 in MA 9.


The end deal on the table for Puyallup Chinook was a 65% treaty 35% non treaty impact on those fish. The department attempted to stay at a 60/40 impact, and that proposal was denied. The Puyallup and Muckleshoot rejected the states proposal and the meeting ended with the tribes never offering a proposal or concessions for their own fisheries, the only focus was on sport fishing season reduction.


The sportfishing communities support for the WDFW and director Unsworth should be unwavering. As much as it hurts and creates uncertainties in the near term, This was the right decision by the department. Is time for this negotiation process to get overhauled from top to bottom.

IMO, and others, The real issue here is that NOAA has allowed these negotiations to fail to this point, and allowed this abusive relationship between the tibes and the state to flourish to the point of failure of co-management. This isnt a crash, it has been a slow crumble and the cookie just broke.

Yes, it seems like these "values" can usually be traced back to something a little less pure.



They can't have it both ways. Perhaps this is an exploitable loophole in their demands.



This is a great point. On all the rivers I fish from the N sound up to the BC border, I've caught wild coho when fishing hatchery areas. So I'd love to know where these strictly terminal areas are they're planning to net for coho.



What surprises me is that it's taken this long for the tribes to be steadfast about a "no sportfishing in the sound" demand. Why have they ever negotiated with the state when doing so only results in fewer fish in their nets?

I have to follow up and say this is an abridged explanation, and many other issues such as stopping in seasons management were not even discussed yesterday. I've only outlined what caused the talks to fail.

Thanks, Ryley

When the Puyallup make a "we fish commercial; you have no sportfishing" proposal, is there any attempt to make it seem like this follows the 50/50 rationale of the Boldt decision?

Talk to you at 11 Dave, where I hope we will learn more details.

Will the tribes have their normal chum netting in area 9 this fall? Could impact late returning wild coho.

That's one of my big questions too. Why isn't WDFWs counter to a 65/35 tribal-nontribal impact proposal 50/50 instead of 60/40? I imagine there's a good reason, I just don't know what it is.

Re-read my comments in this thread from 4/25 for the answer.

OK thanks Sky-Guy.

I am shocked that anything less than 50/50 was *ever* palatable to the state. What did we gain by giving away those impacts in the horse trading?

I suppose this is where the "a bad deal is better than no deal" phrase came from.

So, if I understand from your earlier comments, the notion is that they are "horse trading" impacts in a way that they get more than 50% of a certain fishery, but somehow non-tribal fishers get more than 50% in some other fishery? Is that right?

If so, where are non-tribal fishers supposedly making up their 50% in a 65/35 split proposal?

Thanks fb. I appreciate the pat-on-the-back.

Lots of good discussion on this thread. Salmo g’s summary is likely very accurate. His views on the different negotiating styles is very insightful. The Tribes often negotiate based on values, not on science. WDFW likely negotiates on science, not values. That dichotomy makes for a difficult negotiation, regardless of the issue.

The Tribes have the same concerns regarding mark-selective fisheries in the Columbia River. They believe pre-spawn mortality on C/R fish is significantly higher than is being used for incidental take purposes. But if NMFS decides the mortality rate estimate is 100% as the Tribes would like, mass-marking and mark-selective fisheries become worthless as a conservation tool. So I don’t expect NMFS to ever conclude that C/R mortality rate is 100%. They might conclude that it’s higher than it is now (if supported by the data), but 100% mortality would mean that all fish caught must be considered ESA listed, and would count against the ESA impacts. The result would be a drastic reduction in harvest by recreational and commercial fishing, and perhaps Tribal fishing too, but that’s not clear.

However, if harvest is curtailed significantly, the resulting high numbers of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds will be an impact that NMFS will want to avoid. NMFS would likely ask for a significant reduction in hatchery releases, including Federal hatcheries. That’s an outcome nobody wants. But if the recreational and commercial fishermen can’t catch those fish anyway, due to ESA restrictions, there is no sense for the State to raise and release them. So they might be okay with big reductions in hatchery releases. But the Tribes will scream loudly.

This underscores what NMFS has been saying. That is, if the State and the Tribes go forward together, the outcome can be reasonable, and perhaps predictable. But if they go separately, the path forward is uncertain, and fraught with peril. But given the breakdown as described by SkyGuy going-it-alone is the likely the path forward.

That puts NMFS in a difficult position given that they want the State and the Tribes to work together in the future. Giving one side or the other exactly what they want, and in a timeframe that allows fishing to continue, will guarantee that future negotiations will fail. That will put NMFS in the primary fishery management position on Puget Sound. That’s an outcome NMFS will go to great lengths to avoid. My sense is that both sides are going to feel some pain before this is over.

The 65/35 ratio not the allocation. It's the ratio of the ESA incidental take necessary to reach the 50% allocation.

For example:

Let's say NMFS decides that incidental take cannot exceed 2% of the wild fish. Since the State has a mark-selective fisheries, they only need 35% of the ESA incidental take (35% of the 2% wild fish) to reach their 50% allocation. But since the Tribes don't fish selectively, they need 65% of the incidental take (i.e., 65% of the 2%) to get their 50% allocation.

Hope this helps.

cohoangler - this is enlightening. Thanks.

This leads to my other big question (and I apologize if this is pedantic)...

Why does NMFS basically rubber-stamp the plan when tribes and state have an agreement at NOF, but when they don't (like now), the path forward with NMFS is totally unclear? I understand there's more work when there are 2 plans instead of 1, but going from rubber-stamping to "totally unclear" is a vast difference.

Thanks, cohoangler.

From a legal perspective, I would think that there is a good case that impacts/mortality should be split 50/50 as well. My thinking is that, regardless of whether you are talking about trees, fish, or iron ore, if you destroy the resource or sell it, that should count toward your 50% interest in the resource, and should count as "taking fish" in the language of the treaty.

Does anyone know if this has been adjudicated?

No it has not...and the concept of ESA impacts, if course, was not discussed in all of the US v Washington cases, as it didn't exist at the time...s fait sharing of impacts is what we would like, but due to the relatively high use of impa ts in the tribal fishery to get their share of the harvestable fish I don't see them going for it willingly... this is likely to be the next big US v Washington issue, and will directly pit treaty rights versus conservation policies.

Fish on...

Todd

MPM/Cohoangler,

To my knowledge it hasn't been adjudicated, but seems likely to be the new battleground. To me it's seeming like we're entering a new phase of management (and resulting legislation/litigation).

The first phase was the time of plenty, and the treaty was struck. Nobody ever considered that the fish might be a limited resource, so it was easy to split it.

The second phase, the 70's fish wars, was the phase where it became clear the fish were limited and we fought over access to those harvestable fish.

This third phase, now seems like it's likely to me that the driving factor will pivot to being ESA impacts. Given the dominant share of impacts the tribes (gillnets) have, it seems at least possible (likely?) that this is a weakness of their position going forwards.

I'd like to just clarify something here. If harvest managers utilize the reduced mortality estimate, to expand the fishery time frame, as is done with most, maybe all MSF fisheries, there is no conservation benefit. You are killing the same amount of ESA fish, your just doing it at a slower rate. How can that be considered to have a conservation benefit? It's a harvest benefit. Please call it for what it is.....

Incorrect.

If the share of takes is a 60/40 split then one group is, in fact, killing more ESA fish.

Legally, the only thing that’s been adjudicated is the 50/50 split on the allocation.
The rest is the mathematical analytics necessary to reach that legally binding outcome. It’s also an attempt to harmonize ESA with the Treaty rights. The Tribes believe their 50% should be allocated BEFORE the ESA is implemented. That is, they get their share first. If there is any allocation left after ESA, that remaining allocation could go to the State. And that might not be 50%.

So here’s where it gets complicated. Let’s say the stock size is 500,000 fish, and the harvestable surplus is 20,000 fish. The Boldt decision says each side gets 10,000. But since the fishery takes both hatchery and wild fish, and some wild fish are ESA listed, NMFS needs to establish an incidental take limitation.

So let’s say NMFS sets the incidental take at 2%. That means for the Tribe to catch their 50%, they need 100% of the incidental take. That’s 2% of 500,000 which is 10,000. That leaves zero incidental take for the State, and the State gets zero allocation. Recall that the Boldt decision says the Tribes get 50% of the harvestable surplus. It did not say the State gets the other 50%. In this instance, the State gets zero.

That’s the outcome the Tribes believe is appropriate. That is, make the allocation (10,000 each), implement the ESA (2% incidental take), and then follow Boldt. That is, the Tribes get their Treaty reserved fish (10,000) before the State gets theirs. So for the State, 50% becomes 0%.

Now that’s not how the State sees it. (NMFS isn’t real keen on that interpretation either.) The State believes that ESA should come first. In that case, the math is a lot easier. For this example, the harvestable surplus is the amount remaining after ESA has been applied. So the harvestable surplus becomes the incidental take (i.e., 10,000), so the split is 5,000 each.

NMFS is attempting to split the difference. They believe that ESA and Boldt are important legal mandates, and they have to implement both. So they split the incidental take differently (e.g., 65/35) so each side can get roughly what they are expecting. It ain’t perfect, but up to this point, it keeps both sides reasonably happy.

But we’re now in unchartered waters. If both sides agree on the allocation, the legal risk to NMFS is very low. But now that the State and the Tribes are in different places, either side could go to court over this. That’s why NMFS has to be very careful in how they make their decisions since their legal risk becomes enormous. That might be why doing the State and Tribal allocation separately takes longer. But that’s just speculation on my part.


JB - You're exactly correct. My bad. Mark-selective fisheries is a harvest benefit, not a conservation benefit.

I posted this on another earlier thread. I found it on iFish:

Quote:

This is a loser for the nonIndian fisheries in Puget Sound.

Haven't you folks ever wondered why say, in the Columbia the tribes get about 10 to 14x the ESA impacts on spring Chinook, or sockeye, or steelhead?

The reason is that's essentially the law. In the mid 90's the US government clarified how federal tribal trust responsibility intersected with ESA: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-w...ial-order.html

It states this: "Accordingly, the Departments will carry out their responsibilities under the Act in a manner that harmonizes the Federal trust responsibility to tribes, tribal sovereignty, and statutory missions of the Departments, and that strives to ensure that Indian tribes do not bear a disproportionate burden for the conservation of listed species, so as to avoid or minimize the potential for conflict and confrontation."

Essentially, the feds have to err on the side of the tribes. You could add that portions of the Boldt decision (the major decision affecting Puget Sound salmon fisheries) also directs that the tribal fisheries are the last to close. Folks can get bent out of shape by this, but its all case law that's been in place for close to 40 yrs now. Plus its how fisheries have been set for decades now. Good luck going it alone, as NOAA already went on the record saying it would be near impossible for nontribal fisheries to get approval w/out agreement with the tribes back in January: http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/u..._MAR2016BB.pdf

A conservation benefit would mean that, whatever % of the total impact you have, is used to conserve the fish. It is not, it is used to it's maximum extent to access the available harvestatble fish...

The tribes argument: "here, count our dead ESA fish". The states argument: "All our dead ESA fish are at the bottom of the Sound"...

Not sure if this is accurate, but it stands to reason that, as long as the State and the Tribes reach an agreement, that approval of the plan is reasonably simple. The agreement implies that there are no treaty disputes, and as long as the impacts pencil out, a rubber stamp treatment is probably not entirely inappropriate.

Absent an agreement, both plans submitted may violate treaty terms, and NMFS will be required to make any necessary determinations to that end. To further complicate matters, NMFS will have to consider the cumulative impacts of both proposals in deciding whether ESA restrictions are sufficient to meet conservation objectives. This all adds up to more time and money, neither of which NOAA has in the budget. The result would likely be a slow, painful process that takes months or even years to complete, as NMFS is warning both sides.

I'm not trying to be an ass here, I'm just trying to point out that fishing is not good for fish, no matter how it is prosecuted. That doesn't mean there aren't imbalances in total, it just means that if you fishing, your killing fish, no need to sugar coat it.

Except when I'm fishing..... I've been out for springers 5-6 times this year. No fish. Not even a strike. When I'm on the water, the fish are completely safe (LOL).

And yet, the boat, tackle, and service industry comes out exactly the same! :-)

Same here. Since late December, assuming I haven't trashed any redds, my impact has been zero. Of course, I'm glad I had the OPPORTUNITY to get skunked fishing for steelhead. Looking like we won't have opportunity to fish for salmon, steelhead, or even pikeminnow pretty soon. More skunkings, please!

cohoangler - I read your post a bunch of times and it's starting to sink in. I'm learning alot here! The problem with education is it tends to deflate my righteous anger

From that perspective, I can see why tribes would think they should get their allocation before ESA is applied. They pre-dated us and think they are not responsible for fish being ESA listed anyway.

Non-tribal anglers (like myself) by default just assume that ESA (or any conservation-related measure) always comes first for any user group.

Add in the "values" and the fundamental divisions are huge.

Still...begs the question...how can tribes claim to be conservation focused (and that we are not) when they don't think ESA limitations apply to them?

Because Indians are the First Conservationists who make their decisions based seven generations in the future.

JustBecause,

I think the idea that we split impacts 50/50 does not place a disproportionate burden on the tribes, it places a proportionate burden on them. I completely agree that the state cannot ask the tribe to survive with less than 50% of the impacts, but I'm not at all clear on why complying with that means what the tribes think it means -- which is that they get their half first, regardless.

I think the Tribes recognize that ESA may, in fact, apply to them as it does everyone else. But they don't want to test that assumption in court, lest they lose. That would have huge implications for future interpretations of all Tribal Treaties. That is, statutory law would be equivalent to Treaty rights. That would be a disaster for the Tribes nationwide.

So, Plan B is to ensure the ESA impacts on them are as minimal as possible. In that sense, they are no different than anyone else. They just have a few more legal "tools" to make that case (e.g., the Treaties, the Boldt decision, and Federal trust responsibilities).

As a practical matter, NMFS believes ESA and the Treaties have to be implemented simultaneously. Not an easy task, and it carries considerable legal risk. More so, in this instance where the State and the Tribes are going in different directions.

After reading through this all of this, it seems ESA and clipped fish are nothing more then a pain in the ass to the tribes. They fish non selective and a wild and hatchery fish are the same to them.
I've read several times that they consider catch and release fishing as "playing with your food". I'm not sure who that quote came from, but it shows to me that selective fishery practices aren't in the cards for most tribal fisherman.

That being said, we know how difficult it is to get things opened up once they are closed. Is there anything within Boldt that says the state must provide hatchery fish for the tribes?
If Puget Sound was closed for an extended period of time to recreational fishing, why should the state continue to produce fish from state hatcheries?
SF

Stone - You're spot-on correct.

The Tribes can't fish selectively primarily because they use gillnets. Everything is either dead, or will be shortly after they take it out of the net. So mortality is 100% for gillnets.

(Don't ask me how WDFW, in Gray's Harbor, can assume something very different for State-managed commercial fishermen. But I digress.....)

I agree that if the State-managed fisheries are closed, there is no reason to raise and release hatchery fish. That's another reason the Tribes are limited in what they can push for. And it's another reason they're constantly looking to manage their own hatcheries. They could become more autonomous, and immune to hatchery closures.

Coho,
Thanks for the reply.

If the tribes did open more of their own hatcheries, would they be required to get NOAA permits just like WDFW hatchery facilities?

If they didn't get the permits and went ahead with the plants, would they also be open to law suits by organizations such as WFC?
I believe they named the Elwha tribe in a suit over planting of Chambers Creek steelhead.
SF

If splitting the impacts equally means that a tribe cannot get at it's full, equal share of the harvestable fish, then how is that not affecting their ability to access their treaty reserved right and thereby putting a disproportionate conservation burden on them?

Then you say "Yes, but if they fished mark-selectively, they could get at their full share and not exceed 50% of the allowable impacts". Sure, but they don't have to.

Next time your fishing in the ocean or at buoy 10 and it's non-mark selective, just go ahead and throw all those unmarked fish back, even though you don't have to, it's easy!

If a tribe needs to take more than 50% of harvestable surplus of one stock (Stock A) in order to get 50% of harvestable surplus of another stock (Stock B), I'd say there is a pretty good argument they better find out a way to get their share of Stock B without taking more than they are entitled to out of Stock A.

Now, it may be that ESA-allowed impacts and harvestable surplus don't line up perfectly, but it seems like they shouldn't be too far apart.

MPM - You're mixing up allocation and incidental take. They are completely separate.

Allocation is the total number of harvestable fish that are available. Incidental take is the maximum number of wild (ESA) fish that can be killed while fishing for the allocation.

Look at my previous example. The allocation is 20,000 fish, and in reality would like be almost exclusively hatchery fish. The incidental take is the maximum number of wild fish that can be killed while fishing for the allocation. In my example, the allocation is 20,000 (hatchery fish) while the incidental take is 10,000 (ESA wild fish).

JB - You are correct. Splitting the incidental take 50/50 would put a disproportionate impact on the Tribes. That's why it's not done. NMFS splits the take so the State and the Tribe can access their allocation.

The reason they are different is that the State fishes selectively (marked fish only) while the Tribe cannot since they use gill nets. And with gill nets, everything is dead (except in Gray's Harbor) If they used a more selective gear type, they might be able to.

A point of clarification. Unless the tribal fishermen are genetically programmed to fish non-selectively with gill nets, that is a choice. They choose to fish non-selectively. A consequence of that choice should be that they get less hatchery fish.

It eventually gets down to which law is superior. ESA or Treaty. One is superior to the other and it must be decided.

But nobody wants to know the answer to that question.

If the Treaties are superior, the State's fishery is in real trouble. And so are the State hatcheries since there is no sense in raising and releasing hatchery fish if the State folks can't fish for them. So the Tribes may not like that option. But its better than the opposite result, which is that the ESA is superior. That puts their Treaty reserved rights, and perhaps all Tribal rights at risk. Again, not a good outcome. And the Feds have always said that both the Treaties and the ESA are important, and need to be implemented as harmoniously as possible.

So a court challenge poses huge risks to everyone. So that's not a path anyone wants to walk down.

I would also add that the 50% allocation from the Boldt decision is not dependent on gear type. The Tribes get that allocation regardless of the gear type they use. It's their decision on gear type.

If we don't answer which law is superior we are back to where we were last year. The Tribes dictate, the State lubricates.

The problem that we have is that the tribes push their wants and needs and that becomes the status quo and then the next year push a little more and then a little more and then a little more. We can see where things are headed so go to court and get a decision even if the court says go to arbitration.

It may be worth re-stating that we are not only looking at no salmon fishing on Puget Sound and its rivers there will also be no fishing for game fish on any freshwater water areas where Chinook may be found. That means come June first none of the local rivers will open for steelhead or other game fish. It also means that starting likely next week there will be no fishing for bass, perch, cutthroat or other game fish on Lake Washington.

The ban of fishing for game fish in those freshwater areas will remain in place until such time as the State gets "federal ESA take coverage" for potential Chinook encounters. We should soon see a extensive listed of emergency regulations closure posted by WDFW that will remain in place until an optimist mid-summer to potentially several years!

While the Puget Sound marine anglers will have Ling cod , Halibut, flounders and maybe cutthroat to fish for the freshwater folks will have nothing for the duration.

Curt

Or, the citizens of the state could step up and push for what's necessary to recovery the fish! Then we wouldn't be in the situation of fighting over scraps, where the tribes will always have the advantage.

as long as fish are sold commercially, there never will be recovery...

pretty sad what its come down too...

It would take an effort not only by the citizens of WA, but of the US and Canada, including the Tribes. It's not just the NI that use electricity and water and lumber and drive the same roads with impassable barriers. As can be seen by catch distributions, complete closure in WA still won't work for the stocks that go north.

Either we are all on the same boat, working to fix the whole problem together, sharing benefits and costs or the fish lose.

The idea that I get all mine first and you fix it so I can is not, to my mind, a recipe for cooperation.

If you think for one second, That the tribes are going to sacrifice anything so we can go fishing, Your crazy. I have spent my entire life growing up with the peninsula tribal people and they know how to play the poor indian card and still drive around in there fancy new trucks and boats yet cry about how we destroyed there way of life. And the crazy part is, Most people believe that crap.

Wow. The backward thinking that goes into this is the sort that can only come from pure, unadulterated greed driving policy.

Thinking about this logically, if we aren't allowed to fish the rivers because of the potential to impact sensitive fish runs, it means there aren't enough fish making it back to the rivers in the first place. The jacked up part is that NMFS has PLANNED to let ocean fisheries take too much of the available impact. In other words, they are effectively planning to fish endangered runs to a point at which their ability to make escapement depends on returns coming in at projected levels or higher. If the runs come in lower, guess what? That's right, over-fished, before they even make it back to the mainland waters.

Logic also dictates that the Tribes, perennially subject to the same low-holing, should be aligned with sport fishers in wanting ocean quotas reduced. Can't we get together on that?

C'mon guys, is the salmon fishing THAT bad in the Puget Sound? And by Puget Sound I mean areas 5-13. I know I'm going to be accused of shifting baseline syndrome here, but it was just 2 years ago we had a bumper crop of coho came thru the sound. The reason that's changed isn't overfishing, it's ocean conditions.

Yes, summer king fishing is lacking. But winter king fishing is off the chain. And that's open (theoretically) 6 months of the year - our longest season by far.

Smalma -- in the past, through what ESA-related process has the state obtained "take" coverage for chinook encounters with respect to the steelhead, cutthroat and bass fisheries you mention? Based on your comments, it would appear that such coverage was obtained via the annual state/tribal agreements on the salmon fisheries and the related sec. 7 consultation on BIA funding of tribal fisheries management. I just want to make sure my understanding is correct.

It seems to me, whether or not the state and tribes reach an agreement for this year, it would be prudent for the state to immediately seek long-term ESA take coverage for listed chinook encounters through a different mechanism (e.g., 4(d) exemption or Sec. 10 permit) least we find ourselves in the same situation year after year. I don't think obtaining such coverage would or should preclude proceeding through the usual state/tribal agreement and BIA sec. 7 consultation process (and I hope the state and tribes stay committed to "co-management"), but it would provide a fall back position that potentially would aid the state's position in future negotiations with the tribes.

Although I may be mistaken, I think Oregon has ESA take coverage for listed coastal coho encounters through a Rule (4) exemption. Tribal treaty rights in Washington would complicate a similar process/analysis for Puget Sound chinook -- and it may force NOAA to make some contentious decisions about allocation of ESA impacts vis a vis treaty fishing rights -- but I still think a Rule 4(d) exemption or Sec. 10 permit could be obtained, especially in light of this year's "focusing event."

FleaFlicker-

There will be game fish closures in freshwater areas not because the salmon returns are such that impacts would be excessive but rather because with no agreement the State doesn't have the paper work to cover those ESA encounters and will not have that coverage until such time as they get the permits to go alone (assuming they don't allow the game fish coverage to fall through the cracks).

BrainM-
You are correct the game fish coverage was achieved under a section of the co-manager's Puget Sound Chinook management plan which without an agreement doesn't provide that coverage (I think because of the tribal connection it was under a section 6 permit). It was just easier for the Feds and the State to short cut the process to do it under.

Not familiar enough with the entire permitting process to know which way is the best way to go to get that ESA take coverage. However have a real concern about the potential time it may take to achieve that coverage. Need to look no further than the various hatchery genetic management plans and the length of time it took to review and approve those. Which is clearly why folks are advocating for encouraging the decision makers to increase the pressure on the feds to move quickly.

Curt

Here is a link to a letter from Chad Magendanz Representative of 5th Legislative District to NOAA Fisheries regarding his thoughts of “the dysfunctional North of Falcon season setting process while asking for NOAA-F to provide leadership, resources, and staff to respond to this crisis with rapidity and concern.”

http://centralpt.com/upload/560/CCAconnect/19592_201604-27RepMagendanzLtr.pdf

Chasin' Baitman -
You are correct in that the poor coho returns have been largely driven by ocean conditions; namely that infamous "warm blob" of the coast. Thankful that appears to broken down. However the coho situation may persist for awhile; in the past poor coho returns to Puget Sound has been associated with severe droughts or a strong "el Niño. Unfortunately the coho smolt head to the sea this spring experienced a historic drought and will final a strong "el Niño" when they get the ocean.

A potential future concern exists for PS Chinook; the fish returning in 2017 and 2018 enter the ocean the same time that last year and this year coho did. Hopefully they will not be as adversely affect as the coho but any additional drop in ocean survival will be concerning.

Yes this winter "blackmouth" season was excellent but there remains some uncertainty whether all those shakers are indicators of a strong upcoming year class of fish or just that many of those young fish moved into the sound from the ocean to find food.

Curt

More explanation of the current situation:

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/f...-work-together/

LL,
Thanks for posting that.
Hopefully more of our representatives do the same.
SF

cohoangler, I don't think I'm mixing up incidental take and allocated harvest, just pointing out that if incidental take of a species (while fishing for another species) pushes one party over their take allotment for the incidental species (treaty language just uses "take"), due solely to a choice of fishing method, I think it's fair to ding them for going over their allocated share.

This is what I'm getting at, and I think there may be a basis in the Treaty and associated law for this result. Basically, if there are so few wild fish that there is no harvestable surplus, then any incidental take (while fishing for their share of harvestable hatchery fish) is going beyond that they are entitled to under the treaty w/r/t unharvestable wild fish.

Or, alternatively, if the harvestable surplus of wild fish is so low that they would need to take more than 50% of the harvestable surplus of wild fish to get their 50% allocation of non-wild fish (due to their choice of fishing methods), then I think the 50% of harvestable wild fish should act as a limiting factor on take of harvestable non-wild fish. If they can't get to 50% of the hatchery allocation without going over their 50% of the wild allocation, tough cookies.

I'm using "harvestable surplus" because I think you can get to this result without applying the ESA. It gets trickier if you say there is no harvestable surplus of wild fish *BUT* we are going to allow a certain amount of impacts on the wild fish.

After reading Mr. Turner's comment to the editors blog, this whole thing becomes even more ridiculous. According to Turner, everything would be OK if there is agreement to reduce the harvest on the Puyallup Chinook population from 58% to 50%. Are you f'ing kidding me? Anyone that thinks that an appropriate rebuilding (or recovery) exploitation rate is 50% for a population that is adapted to the hatchery environment (90% of the returns are hatchery fish) that return to a river with its lower 26 miles diked and an estuary that has multiple Superfund clean-up sites, has their head in very dark places. How can a population made up primarily of hatchery returns and crap habitat sustain more or less the same exploitation rate as Skagit Chinook, a population with little hatchery influence and some of the best habitat in Puget Sound.

I'm sorry, but Turner's details on this make this whole situation a joke. I would guess that if people were actually trying to recover Puyallup Chinook and were honest about its productivity, the RER for this population would be something that is half, or less, of this proposed exploitation rate. Good god! Either side (along with the feds) arguing for either of these arbitrary numbers is a total sham. If we're going to risk everybody's fisheries, let's at least do it for a defensible reason, i.e. to actually make a difference for the Puget Sound ESU as a whole.

I'm just trolling for Flounder with my downrigger.

That's all.

I'm trying to figure out how to frame my letters/emails to NWFS and reps...

Perusing the comments on WDFW, Salmon University and NW Sportsman facebook pages, a common response by anglers to all this is something like "tribes are taking more than their fair share and are destroying salmon with their nets"

I'm no fan of tribal nets, but from a macro perspective I think this argument going to be counterintuitive. I worry that if the masses of anglers are mobilized to petition decisionmakers, and they use this argument, we're shooting ourselves in the foot.

a) It's a misunderstanding of the facts: the stock that broke the camel's back this year (coho) is having a hard time because of cyclical variations in ocean conditions...not tribal fishing.

b) if all of our salmon stocks are *truly* declining as many anglers are claiming with this "tribal nets" argument, then the answer would be that NOBODY should fish, anglers included.

I guess my point is, despite all the BS with the tribes, in recent years the salmon fishing has largely been pretty good. If we claim that it's bad, we're basically supporting an argument that it should be shut down permanently.

Interesting take ... but correct me if I'm wrong, what you are really saying then is a lower ESA take limit should be in place for fisheries (likely for a lot of the individual populations), which would almost guarantee no nonIndian fisheries at all (maybe annually for a while) ... but that's because you are saying that the habitat is even further trashed than we are willing to admit and what is being allowed for wild rates of harvest seems out of whack or questionably defensible from a scientific standpoint. Very interesting take indeed...

If one were actually serious about having this population contribute to recovery of the ESU, yes. I suspect that applies to a few other populations that will remain nameless as well.

Spot on OncyT. There are, or were, a number of PS Chinook stocks where NOAA set/accepted a recovery rate that was way above calculated needs. Also, NOAA picks and chooses recovery rates. Some are overall, all fisheries. Some exclude BC and AK.

So you are backing a play that also closes down these (this list is hot off the press from here: http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/some-puget-sound-waters-to-close-over-salmon-season-impasse/

... this morning, it appears that a wider range of fisheries where anglers might encounter listed Puget Sound Chinook and steelhead will also be affected.

sea-run cutthroat along Puget Sound beaches, which are open now, the Skykomish and upper Skagit, which are slated to open June 1 for summer steelhead and spring Chinook, respectively;

the North Fork Stillaguamish for summer steelhead and numerous streams scheduled to open the first Saturday in June for trout;

the Skagit on June 16 for sockeye.

and Lakes Washington and Sammamish would be included as well, as would the Baker River and Lake.

... I'm starting to wonder if WDFW was upfront that this ESA coverage issue over the salt salmon folks not agreeing would affect all the steelhead fisheries and some others that folks who fish aren't represented at NOF.

Let them all shut down, maybe then the rest of the anglers will get off their collective asses and maybe participate instead of the same 25 people that have been carrying the load for the last 20 years with regard to fishery issues.

Rojoband, The scope of this closure was and has been widely understood by all those involved at WDFW & on the Advisory group. It's an unfortunate reality that gamefish are wrapped up in the ESA permits for salmon, and that anywhere a potential impact to an ESA listed species is present, the permit must be in place for fisheries on other species to occur. Hopefully as part of an overhaul to the NOF process, this issue can be decoupled and parsed out in some way.

I stood on the banks of the Sky yesterday evening and gazed at the river for a while. I saw a few fish roll while lots of emotions stirred.

So, could this affect the Puget Sound ling season?

I didn't know that steelhead fisheries and sea-run cut fisheries were negotiated at NOF....I always thought it was salmon only...guess I missed the memo on that if our interest was these fisheries we should show up at NOF. Point taken, if true and that's now the case.




That would have been nice to disseminate this information much sooner, as all of WDFW's press releases up to now this is the 1st I've heard of it and it didn't actually come from WDFW...or from the advisory group, but a news article from a reporter who was asking good questions. Thanks for sharing though.

Yeah, the sheer preposterousness of species like largemouth bass being affected because a deal couldn't be made at NOF adds credence to the argument that the system be broke. And will hopefully spur more average anglers to call for some common sense to be applied to policy.

I am quite surprised by this development. I am still behind WDFW, but I understand rojoband's position. It would have been good to know the full stakes earlier in the process. It probably wouldn't have changed my support for WDFW, it would just have been good to know.

On the other hand, things have been unfolding quite quickly and we're encountering new situations seemingly every day, so I guess we gotta roll with it.

I get that poor ocean conditions led to the poor forecast. I also get that ocean conditions affect relative abundance each year more than any other factor. What I don't get is how maximizing impacts in the ocean fisheries (where we don't know what we're catching and everything dies) is sound management of a dangerously low forecast. Reduced impacts in the ocean would leave a much-needed cushion for Puget Sound, the rivers, AND THE GRAVEL. Seems to me the Tribes would be on board with that kind of change, but I'm probably wrong.

I was wrong to suggest that NMFS was directly responsible for the potential closures (thanks for reminding me of the rules that are the real driver, Smalma). That said, I do believe that the open ocean quotas they set, year in and year out, are what undermines every attempt we make at improving habitat, hatcheries, etc. from being successful (in terms of salmonid recovery).

My favorite example these days is habitat. It's the Tribes' favorite argument for exonerating themselves of any responsibility for declining stocks, so it seems apropos for this thread. I'll start by saying the Tribes are absolutely correct in placing emphasis on habitat. Where they lose credibility as concerned stewards is in their refusal to accept that their harvest practices are part of the problem with the habitat (a river with gillnets at the mouth is far less hospitable to migrating salmon than one without). Furthermore, the habitat work that is being done has very nearly zero chance to result in recovery, because no fish are left to seed the recovered habitat by the time the run reaches it. Why? Because escapement goals never increase. If the forecast is good, the quota for every fishery is increased to scoop up the "surplus" fish. Those "surplus" fish represent the opportunity for salmon to take advantage of habitat improvements. Seems dead fish do a poor job of spawning.

Our friend eyeFISH once stood up at a NOF meeting and said to Ron Warren that the only times Chinook have recently met escapement goals in Grays Harbor have been in years where the salmon forecast turned out to be far less than the actual returns. Makes the case that in order for salmon to exceed their planned escapements, they need to overwhelm us with numbers we weren't anticipating. Fortunately, they did just that in 2014. Unfortunately, the ocean conditions went south in 2015. Because the Co-Managers were anticipating a repeat of 2014, they planned fisheries with liberal limits. By the time they figured out the fish weren't coming, the damage was done.

My point is that if salmon are to have a future, yes, we will have to stop destroying their habitat. Yes, we will have to figure out better ways to run hatcheries. Until we stop managing to the last fish, however, no amount of work we do will make any difference.

One last thought. "Cultural" differences are often cited as reasons why the State and the Tribes can't get together on these issues. I would argue that may be true, but I believe the only cultural difference that really matters is that the Tribal interest in fishing is commercial, while ours is recreational. Pretty simple. A guy who makes money off dead fish is gonna want more dead fish. A guy who just wants to catch a fish for fun wants to see more of them alive.

We need to dispense with the lies surrounding these issues and focus our efforts on getting ocean quotas reduced, not so we can fish more, but so there can be more fish. Even a small reduction percentage-wise could make a big difference, especially in times of great uncertainty (like these).

The Tribes will support the ocean fisheries, and encourage them, because it guarantees their inside fisheries.

When Hoh v. Baldridge was announced the decision said that an earlier fishery could not be used to close an Indian fishery. In this case, if the ocean rec fishery took all the harvestable, or most even, of Hoh coho then the Hoh's would be closed for conservation. Court said you can't do that. So, to their credit, WDF managers said "We'll close the ocean". Tribes and NOAA said please don't do that, just let the Tribes balance what is taken in the ocean.

So, today, we model a catch of (say) 1000 River A coho in the ocean. We model an in-river fishery that gives the Tribe 1000 paper fish in X days. They fish X days, catch whatever they can, and everybody is happy.

The ocean fishery gets the Cowboys out of Indian Country for fishing; no need to share the water so they want that ocean fishery to continue.

Why is there even a distinction between NT commercial and Tribal commercial? What's the difference? They catch fish to sell for American dollars. The cultural aspect can be addressed through rod and reel, no closed season no limit for tribe members.

And it begins... https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/erules/efishrules/erule.jsp?id=1796

Puget Sound marine salmon and steelhead fisheries close

Action: Closes fishing for salmon in Marine Area 11, Marine Area 13, Tulalip Terminal Area, and year-round piers. No retention of hatchery steelhead in Marine Areas 5-13.

Effective Date: May 1, 2016 until further notice.

Species affected: Salmon and steelhead.

Location: Marine Area 11 (Tacoma-Vashon Island) and Marine Area 13 (South Puget Sound), Tulalip Terminal Area (Marine Area 8-2), and year-round piers (Marine 8-2, 9, 10, 11, and 13) fishing closures - closed to fishing for salmon and steelhead. Marine Areas 5 through 13 for no steelhead retention.

The following are year-round piers within Puget Sound: Edmonds Public Fishing Pier, Elliott Bay Fishing Pier at Terminal 86, Seacrest Pier, Waterman Pier, Bremerton Boardwalk, Illahee State Park Pier, Dash Point Dock, Les Davis Pier, Des Moines Pier, Redondo Pier, Point Defiance Boathouse Dock, and Fox Island Public Fishing Pier.

Reason for action: The current Endangered Species Act (ESA) permit to authorize take (impacts) on chinook and steelhead expires April 30. Due to a lack of agreement with the co-managers for the 2016-17 salmon fishery seasons, ESA take coverage is not available beginning May 1. This emergency rule modifies fisheries to ensure compliance with the ESA.

Other information: Check the sport fishing rules pamphlet for details on other marine fisheries are open including bottomfish and trout: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/.

Information contact: Ryan Lothrop, (360) 902-2808.

I have caught king salmon on a spreader bar and horse herring fishing halibut, Does that mean there going to close halibut down to.

I suspected there was a reason why the Tribes never complain about northern intercept fisheries. So indeed, the lines are drawn between commercial and sport interests. There's some grey area in there (ocean sport fishery and Tribal ceremonies, for example), but for the most part, it really is us vs. them.

paguy-

I too have caught Chinook while fishing halibut and even one targeting ling cod. However thankfully for those of us that like to target those fish the ESA coverage for incidental ESA Chinook take on those species (and other bottom fish) was covered under the PS rockfish listing and the resulting permit issued to allow fishing. Thus those fisheries are not affected by non-agreement for Puget Sound salmon (and the associated ESA coverage.

Halibut and ling cod season will go forward per the pamphlet.

curt

While we are scraping for salmon and seasons around here, Alaska has a projection increase of Chinook and about 600,000 more Coho to catch commercially this year over last.


http://www.alaskafishradio.com/2016-southeast-ak-chinook-salmon-quota-and-allocations/

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/FedAidPDFs/SP16-07.pdf

http://www.alaskapublic.org/2016/04/18/southeast-king-salmon-quota-released-higher-than-last-year/

See, Its not all doom and gloom. For a few thousand dollars you can go to Alaska and enjoy the bounty of Washington salmon.

Yeah, who said we can't catch Washington State/Puget Sound bound salmon.

Is there a corresponding announcement that all tribal netting is closed? I know they're fast tracking a permit but they don't have a permit for any netting for any reason, right? Ceremonial, commercial, research?

Assuming this is the case, if I was to see a net fishing, can I also assume it's illegal? What authority would I report it to?

The tribes have got where they are doing what they want. I don't expect a little issue like no permit to stop them from fishing. If I can do something about it, I'd like to know what my options are.

And it continues...
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/apr2916a/

...a portion:

“Since we didn’t reach an agreement with treaty tribal co-managers on this year’s Puget Sound salmon fisheries, we have to close fishing in areas where we know salmon will be,” said Ron Warren, head of WDFW’s Fish Program.

For the next few months, those areas include several Puget Sound-region lakes and the lower reaches of streams where salmon smolts will travel on their way to the Sound.

Lakes that will close May 1 to all fishing include Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish (King County), Monte Cristo Lake (Snohomish County), Lake Cushman (Mason County), and Barney Lake (Skagit County).

Examples of rivers where at least sections, if not all, are closed to fishing include the Skagit, Stillaguamish and Snohomish rivers, north of Seattle. Today’s action also applies to Puget Sound-area rivers that typically open to fishing in early June, though fishery managers will be evaluating those rivers to determine whether any can open on schedule.

...click the link for more

I am sure they can fish without a permit, I have seen it happen with my own two eyes, And I wasn't even drinking at the time. If they want to catch a few ceremonial fish guess what. And as to turning them in to authorities, Please!

I thought maybe in the interim, between now and when the tribes permit was issued, we might be able to stop them from netting. The fact there's nothing we can do speaks volumes for where we stand in the pecking order.

I am sorry if I sound racist, Its probably because I am. I have been programmed over the years. People telling me, You cant do this and you cant do that, All the while watching the other half go wright ahead and do it. Im sick and tired of it. were fighting about a treaty that was signed in the 1800's, How about we all get in the 21st century and figure this s__t out so we can all get back to doing what we love.

Question tonight: In the near future will there be anywhere I can fish for salmon in "The Great State of Washington"

I'll take my answer on the air..... FWIW my bags are packed already for AK and BC> I am done with this state sorry to say!

According to last year’s Co-Managers LOAF agreement, the Tulalip tribe would have started by now last year to fish for Chinook---No agreement no fishing?

Another early casualty could be a C&S Chinook fishery in 78C&79D Skagit River area involving several weeks beginning as early as May 3 last year. This involving a possible 3 tribes.

Could be a handful of unhappy tribes right about now.

Before you try to get people fired up over an increase of 600K coho by the Alaskans, you might want to check out coded wire tag information regarding the contribution of Puget Sound coho populations to AK fisheries. Here are some selected examples in % of catch to AK fisheries: Voights Creek (Puyallup) - 0%; Minter Creek - 0%; S. Sound Netpens - 0%; Nisqually - 0%; George Adams (Hood Canal) - 0%; Port Gamble Netpens - 0.1%; Wallace River (Skykomish) - 0.1%; Baker River (Skagit) - 0%; Skagit River - 0.1%; Lower Elwha - 0%.

I could give a [Bleeeeep!] about your Alaskan coho fishing, Enjoy it while you can.

I like looking at that stuff. Do you mind sending all coho and chinook tag information concerning Washington/Oregon origin stocks caught in Alaska. Thanks

Do you know what the impacts BC fisheries have on Washington coho?

WDFW is really taking a beating on social media after the announcement about the closures today. I guess we can't expect people to understand all the complexities of the issue, but they are shooting the messenger.

WDFW's gonna have to figure out a way to redirect some of that pressure to NOAA-F.

Sorry, but I feel WDFW didn't fully disclose the possible effects to game fisheries, let alone to those who are mainly interested in steelheading, from a decision that was really based on salt water salmon fishery sharing. This should have been vetted across a wider audience and they do deserve quite a bit of the blame IMO.

I agree, but what I don't understand is why they would close down trout fishing and summer steelhead. Most guys throwing a wooly bugger or reverse spider aren't catching a lot of chinook or coho for that matter. Maybe a few local coho, but negligible.

Also, just throw a bait ban on for all rivers with Salmon runs. Check peoples gear, If they are running 60lb braid, 20lb leader a big gob of eggs with a 3/0-5/0 hook, they are not targeting summer steelhead. Why punish us guys throwing flies and spoons for trout and steelhead.

Yeah, I understand what you mean. It does suck. But if this information had come to light earlier would you have pressured WDFW to cave to the tribes demands?

The options seem like bad and worse. Bad being the uncharted waters we're in now, worse being annually shat upon by the tribes.

I had a big long thing typed up, but honestly its pointless now. Legalize non tribal gaming, otherwise we have ZERO leverage.

I hope WDFW gets reamed over this whole stinking pile of [Bleeeeep!] if for nothing but for this post...

WDFW would rather see all fishing shut down so that they can just sit in thier office and do nothing and just rub it in our faces... they will probably close lake roosevelt for fear that a coho might jump the grand coulee dam and miss the gillnet is was supposed to die in...

Can someone explain to me where WDFW is in the process of applying for ESA take coverage for listed Chinook?

The reason I ask this is because this issue -- potentially shutting down fisheries if no agreement with the tribes is reached -- is not new. If I recall correctly, the issue came up last year as well when the WDFW capitulated to tribal demands and closed area 10. I seem to recall reports at the time saying WDFW was "blindsided" and capitulated because its leadership concluded that if no agreement was reached it would likely result in closed fisheries throughout Puget sound, and maybe even on the coast. So it appears WDFW has known about this problem for at least a year, and it knew the situation could resurface this year.

It doesn't take a genius in game theory to understand that WDFW is at a significant negotiating disadvantage when it must rely on reaching agreement with each of the tribes in order to proceed with its proposed fisheries. I would expect 2015's North of Falcon process to have driven that point home to WDFW's leadership.

So, given that, did WDFW take any proactive steps to secure the necessary ESA take coverage? I'm not trying to bash WDFW here -- I really just want to understand what kind of contingency planning the agency did given that the lack of agreement with one or more tribes was very foreseeable. And, if WDFW did not take any proactive steps, perhaps there are good reasons why it didn't -- and if there are I'd like to hear them.

It's quite probable that even if WDFW had started the ESA take coverage process (e.g., rule 4(d) exemption, Sec. 10 permit) immediately after North of Falcon 2015, the process would still not be complete. Nonetheless, if it had started the process (i.e., prepared and submitted an application), it may have been in a much better position than it is today.

If they had prepared an application and submitted it then it would have been easy to accuse them of bad-faith negotiations, at least by the Tribes and NOAA. Even if they had applied, NOAA would still have had to act and they were playing catch-up with the steelhead HGMPs.

Kinda obvious that this whole process shows no long-range planning or real commitment to accomplishing anything what with NOAA holding the permit cards and being underfunded and understaffed.

Sorry, but I'm just shaking my head over the ridiculous amount of information you just asked me to send you, so I'm just going to assume you don't understand how much you are asking for. If you want all the information you requested I would somehow have to figure out how to send you everything in the Regional Mark Information System (RMIS) from the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. I absolutely do not intend to do that. If you wish all this information please go to their website, register for an RMIS account and you can work on getting all the information your heart desires.

For RoeVsWade, and Lucky Louie, if you want information from other fisheries similar to what I provided for AK coho impacts and you don't want to go to the trouble of establishing accounts and querying data bases, a good source of fishery information is in Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans published on WDFW and NOAA websites. Contribution to fisheries is usually described in Section 3.3.1 of these plans.

You want to explain to everyone here how this predicament is in any way NOAA's fault? I get the hatchery steelhead and other hatchery permit argument.....this, I don't see NOAA at fault by a long shot. In fact, they gave fair warning about this situation months ago. Now everyone wants to act all surprised...

Everyone listen up! JustBecause has implored me to explain to you why this predicament is NOAA's fault.

NOAA is the office of the federal government that administers fisheries policy. They are requiring that waters where people fish for trout, bass and perch be closed down because on very rare occasions a chinook swims through there.

Oh and then there's the fact they've allowed the tribes to drive fishing policy in WA state for the last 30 years.

Solid work Piper,way to show support for the WDFW and the advisory group who put in uncounted hours of their own time in a thankless job who for once make a stand and say "no more". What have YOU done to done besides the obvious? BTW Lake Roosevelt would be covered under CR impacts,not P.S.

Chaisin', Thanks for demonstrating exactly what I hoped you would, a complete misunderstaning of the feds role and authority here...

NOAA is the fed agency that administers the ESA for marine species, that is their only role In Puget Sound. The state and tribes, together, are responsible for all aspects of fishery management, or mis-management. Remember, an agreement here solves everything!

OHHHHHHHHHH SNAP! YOU GOT ME JB! ZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are the flame KANG brother! All slingin your knowledge of the pervue of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. DAMN!

Here I was just a lowly non-tribal angler, with some misguided notion that NOAA was responsible for "the stewardship of the nation's ocean resources and their habitat". Not sure where I got that crazy idea.

I'm just going to crawl back into my bass lake now.

NT fishers have gotten the shaft *because* we've come to an agreement with tribes. Coming to yet another inequitable agreement definitely DOES NOT solve the issue.

If you believe that the agreement has always been fair and equitable, [something not nice].

Flame Kang!

Thanks, I think I'll keep that one...

No personal insult intended, just trying to impress apon folks the situation and who is and isn't responsible. You say it at the end of your post...the offer the tribes put on the table was not acceptable to the non-treaty fishers...next steps.

Yes, there is a ridiculous amount of salmon with origin of the lower 48 being caught in Alaska.

Of course I knew what I was asking; you are not the only one with databases. Just looking for additional info --- if available.

I wonder if we will start seeing fishing activity by the tribes. If the bubble opens to them, then shouldn't it open to sport anglers also.

Not that the bubble is my favorite place to fish, but it could be.

I just took a quick look. It only takes $5.00 filing fee to start and initiative. While I am sure the cost would go up drastically if you proceeded with one, it might be worth it to file one to allow gambling in certain locations in Washington state. If a person could actually get it on to the ballot, I would think the tribes would have to respond. Hitting them in the pocket book may be the best way to get their attention. I think at least 17 million was spent in the fight to defeat the GMO initiative.

One could argue - with the exact same logic - that NMFS should have seen this coming too. It's not like NOF has really been going swimmingly.

Though on the other hand it looks likely that they did/do have a contingency plan for permitting, but for the tribes only. Thus the intimations that the tribes will be permitted in an express fashion.

Wars have been started for much less than this BS.
Can anyone in their right mind believe that this is what OUR forefathers thought would happen when we entered into the treaties.
We should should set things right.

This is a stinking pile of poo--- but it had to happen. The tribes offer was basically no saltwater fishing when there was an offer by WDFW where there would have been a short season on chinook . Tribes turned that offer down. This was death by a thousand cuts. Easier to stop the bloodletting from one big wound than a thousand little wounds. In a real co management arrangement the parties would sit in the same room and work out a plan. Instead we Have WDFW working on a plan and the tribes working on a plan and instead of a compromise we have one side not only refusing to move but then add additional conditions at the last minute.

Think what you want about Billy Frank, but I don't believe that he would have let this happen.

Done

WDFW brought this situation on a long time ago. I have called BS for a long time when I first started going to the NOF meetings. I asked WHY the "negotiations" with the Tribes was done in closed meetings. I asked WHY aren't the Tribes subject to the same enforcement conditions the rest of us are. I asked WHY ESA listed fish are allowed to be harvested in a gill net, but I get fined or worse if I keep one.
I've been asking these and many other "un-comfortable" questions for so long and now it's like a surprise that it's come to this.

This State has never been in the role of co-manager. It has ALWAYS been an enabler and into appeasement.

OncyT,

Sorry to carry this thread drift, but I think it is germane to the issue. You may as well have said, "The Emperor is not wearing any clothes!" Some of us might even say that the Puget Sound Chinook Recovery Plan is a sham. The Plan gives much lip service to recovery but preserves Chinook fishing at nearly all costs. It's not just the Puyallup, but if you notice that all four of the south sound rivers with major hatchery Chinook programs, all using Green River origin hatchery Chinook (the Green, Puyallup, NIsqually, and Skokomish) include harvest rates that conform more to preserving the harvest of hatchery Chinook than to the recovery of wild Chinook populations in those watersheds. I've been disappointed with the PS Chinook recovery plan since its approval because it's more about "harvesting our way to recovery" than it is with actually recovering Chinook in PS. Of course the flip side might be addressing the reality that wild Chinook recovery in south sound watershed like the Puyallup isn't feasible with the extant level of human development.

It really does illustrate how ludicrous it is when the PS salmon management agreement hinges on an 8% discrepancy of 300+ wild Chinook of Green River hatchery origin descent as though it really matters in terms of the ecosystem.

Sg

if the tribes werent so pissed off about the WFC BS, they likely would have came to an agreement like usually happens...

they lost out and are losing out on a bunch of fish because of that crap, and now, we are going to pay for it.....

Salmo

Yeah, the "recovery" plan for deep S Sound was to fish our way to recovery. Triage is necessary.

If the tribes fish without the permit will there be any enforcement? Without a fishing season of any consequence will WDFW lay off or have a mandatory reduction in hours or will they just shift enforcement focus to northern Pikeminnow fisheries? I'm sure the $100 million shortfall for the state and local economies is no big deal for Caesar and his centurions but most businesses would look to cut costs when facing a projected loss of tens of millions of dollars. I suppose crabbers can expect harassment of epic proportions. I hope it gets ugly....

In my second post on this topic I said that some other nameless populations also probably needed much lower RER's. Those population are now no longer nameless.

and oversimplification, but...If the entire system is being held hostage by a handful of "on paper" fish, it really doesn't seem worth it. Especially given the exploding population (of people). Seems like the money and resources could be used for stocks that actually have a shot?

Also, can somebody explain to me why the puyallups and muckleshoots held all the cards? By my count there are 19 other treaty tribes. Are those two the most well-funded?

I believe that, in Indian Country, it is one for all and all for one. Unlike the NI side that will each other...................

Hahaha. That's a good one.

Enforcement? When higher ups in the government are caught blatantly poaching they don't even receive "enforcement".

I'm pretty sure they can and will do what in the actual fvck ever they want, unabated.

I think the word you were looking for is "protection".

Will they receive "protection"? Certainly.

There are many court cases involving strife between Puget Sound tribes at the throats of other Puget Sound tribes. A recent court case was July 27, 2015 between the Tulalip v Suquamish tribes.

Throw online Poker in there while you are at it. It's a felony here!

Oh they'll fight each other but will unite against the Cowboys.

Since the negotiations between the Tribes and WDFW in the NOF process are in a clandestine setting, where the public is not invited and information can be disseminated as they wish, most of us can only assume.

Regardless, it was nice of the Tulalips to take one for their team (if they did so voluntarily) considering they are first up in the tribal fishing season to be sitting at shore right now waiting for a permit instead of fishing for Chinook as they did at the same time last year.

The open meeting requirements require NOF to be public but if the meetings take place on tribal holdings not so. If you think the state wants the meetings open anymore than the tribes you would be wrong.

To: Congressmen D. Heck
Message Subject: Time to review fisheries co-management practices
Message Text:
Congressmen Heck, it is time (actually over due) to take a hard look at the co-management practice of our fisheries resource. The current disaster we are experience is a culmination of back room deals, appeasement and poor leadership in our WDFW. It is time for a congressional investigation into the practices of co-management which has lead to a complete deterioration of our natural resource. Have you received any contributions or other considerations from any tribal affiliations???

Might want to check out the WA Public Disclosure Commission's website. They were requested to formally deal with the fact that the Tribal Governments contribute to WA elections and WA State Law prohibits governments from doing so.

has anyone checked, or is it possible to check, if the WFC has recieved any donations from the tribe, or if the WFC as a group has tribal interests/influences?

I suspect that both NWIFC and CRTFC are not friendly with the WFC at all, since the majority of the fish they desire to harvest are of hatchery origin, and the WFC has yet to meet a hatchery fish it won't sue over.

That's not to say that they haven't partnered on habitat issues, I would be surprised if they had not.

Fish on...

Todd

Location of the PDC issue Carcassman described.

https://www.pdc.wa.gov/sites/default/fil...March2016_1.pdf

There was a time when observors from the PS Sport Fish Advisors were allowed to sit in on the state/tribal meetings. They couldn't say anything and couldn't talk about what was said. That didn't last too long. As I understand it, the tribes wanted the discussions to be between governments (state/tribal) and the observers were not state employees.....

the PDC issue is quite interesting. What I see failed to be mentioned, is that no one is telling the tribes how they can spend their money; rather, they are, or should be, restricting what money the politicans can accept. A big difference. They likely can influence through their own ads and advertising, but any direct payment should be able to be stopped. There is no freedom of speech issues or federal issues that I see with this, as in no way is the tribe being regulated, only the non-tribal entity.

It's easier to win a lawsuit if damages are incurred.

They are netting today, start netting the Skagit tomorrow...

Under the proposed justification of a "Harvestable surplus" of Chinook Salmon, Lorraine Loomis of the NWIFC has just submitted Fisheries proposals for both the Swinomish and the Sauk Suiattle tribes to gill net Skagit Bay and the Skagit river for Chinook....Starting tomorrow!

However, NOONE has a active, valid permit to fish for Salmon right now in all of Puget Sound.

Several PS Salmon Advisors have asked the WDFW if they will allow the fishery to occur, and what enforcement actions will take place since the Tribal permits lapsed on May 1.

Stay tuned!

Will it be business as usual for the tribes to keep fishing without a permit?

How did you guys find out? I am definitely not doubting it, but if there's a link somewhere, let us know so we can get the word out.

Anyone can email the WDFW @ TreatyFishRegs@dfw.wa.gov and request to be added to their distribution list for all species.

Gotcha, thanks sky-guy

Why don't sportfishers assume the role of enforcement and harassment. The WDFW and Feds would be all over us, like whiskey breath on an Indian, if we fished during a closed season and without permits and licenses. Perhaps a few hundred or thousands of sporties blocking entrances and exits along with media attention could turn the tide.

It'd be a chance for OUR voices to be heard. Unfortunately apathy and a false trust in a broken and abused "process" has us hoping someone will come to our rescue.

We could shut the flat nosed fish eaters down in a matter of days if we coalesced as a group.

alot if not most people dont realize that this can have global impacts.... what do you think will happen to the Asian fish markets across the seas if the Natives cant net?

they probably know what will happen to, which is why they arent stopping....

sporstfisherman spend billions on fishing here per year yes, but getting paid billions far outweighs it....

Yep, RvW, this will play real well with the media. I for one don't want you speaking for me or my sport....

me neither

If you're a non-Indian fisherman who gives a crap about splitting impacts evenly, preventing unpermitted Tribal fishing, or otherwise thinks that Tribal fishermen have been getting a better deal than non-Tribal fisherman, the *worst* thing you can do for your cause right now is start slinging around racial insults or stereotypes.

+1,

fb

The worst thing? You mean like no fishing? GMAFB

Frankly I don't GAF about any your PC needs. I'm not, nor have I ever been PC. I'm sick of getting laughed at and taking it up the ass because of 1% that hides behind their heritage when it suits them.

I'm not looking to be the spokesman for a bunch of PC pseudo-politicians anyway, but thanks for the consideration, I'm just advocating taking matters into our own hands.

I'll leave the sweet talk to you guys.

You're definitely entitled to your own views. I just think that line of thinking is counterintuitive. It'll cause the whole lot of us to get written off.

Look, I'm not out to be the PC police, but sportfishermen in Washington are in the middle of a political battle. You don't have to like it, but the truth is that resolution of this matter will come down, in some measure, to politics.

Anyone suggesting we take matters into our own hands bears some responsibility for how "our side" is perceived. We don't need sportfisherman making it *easier* for Tribal fisherman to win the political battle by painting this as a racial/cultural battle, then claiming "aw shucks I'm just not PC" as some sort of excuse.

If you don't care about this issue, then by all means keep the racial insults coming, and the politicians and media commentators will be discouraged from standing up on the side of the "racist, anti-Indian" sportfisherman. But if you do care, please, please, please exercise the tiniest bit of restraint.

/rant over

"Not PC" and "ignorant fuckin racist" are not the same thing.

It's ignorant fools like RvW that caused this mess in the first place, acting just like that and eventually bringing on the Boldt Decision.

Fish on...

Todd

by fishing without permits, and illegally, arent they violating that very treaty Todd?

Todd or some others probably know better than I do, but I don't think the permits are a treaty issue. I think that's an ESA issue. They may very well take the position that that, once the feds agreed to give them 50% of the fish by treaty, the feds can't then limit their right to take those fish by enacting the ESA, so a permit isn't necessary. Lots of fights could be fought if there's no agreement.

thats all fine and dandy, but they better start realizing how important the ESA listing is....

theres 1 thing they have bitched about for YEARS, and directly attribute said action to us... BUFFALO...

so why do it to the fish if your lives depend on it?

Because all of the problems with the salmon are due to the WhiteMan. That's the mindset.

and also, if we cant harvest fish, because of low numbers, meaning there isnt a harvestable amount of fish, how can they harvest fish? the treaty says 50/50 on "harvestable fish".... if there isnt any, how do you harvest?

about 6 or so years ago, the Hoh closed early for low Steelhead and Salmon numbers for sports anglers.... the Quinaults took 90+ percent of "harvestable fish"....

how do you sustain an already low population by raking in the last of whats coming?

you dont....

sure, the WDFW fvcked up, the WFC compounded the problem, but the Natives should sit back and take a gander at what they are doing themselves....

if they want to close areas in the salt to us fishing, then remove the gillnets from the river.... easy trade, fish for everyone....

thats my point, they saw what happened, and are going to do it themselves... why? cuz someone else did it? thats the mindset that has gotten us as a world into the sh!thole we have today....

There are plenty of harvestable fish...all of the hatchery Chinook.

The problem is the wild Chinook, followed by the "no harvestable numbers of coho" that will be arriving soon.

Fish on...

Todd

I think Todd is correct.

Sky-guy posted the following (I can't verify if it's correct):

"Under the proposed justification of a "Harvestable surplus" of Chinook Salmon, Lorraine Loomis of the NWIFC has just submitted Fisheries proposals for both the Swinomish and the Sauk Suiattle tribes to gill net Skagit Bay and the Skagit river for Chinook....Starting tomorrow!"

For the sake of discussion, let's say this is correct. The Tribes were careful to indicate there is a harvestable surplus of Chinook. That puts this issue squarely under the Boldt decision, not the ESA. Recall that the Boldt decision did not say who gets to decide whether (or where) there is a "harvestable surplus" of fish. In the past WDFW and the Tribes made that decision together. But, as we now know, WDFW and the Tribes aren't working together. So there is the first casualty of that lack of cooperation. That is, the Tribes may be deciding (unilaterally) whether, when and where there is a harvestable surplus of salmon.

Since there is now a surplus of salmon (according to the Tribes), they are entitled to 50% of those fish (I used the word 'entitled' exactly as it is defined). So, the only thing that would inhibit or prevent their harvest is whether the ensuing netting will take ESA listed fish (incidentally). But if they decide they will not take any ESA listed fish (No Effect,or Not Likely to Adversely Effect), they can proceed with their harvest. It would be NMFS that would 'concur' or 'not concur' with that decision. At that point, the burden of proof falls on NMFS, not the Tribe. NMFS would likely not concur, but it might take them awhile to make that determination. And when they get around to it, the fishery might be completed, and so would any evidence of the take of ESA listed fish. But even if there was, the Tribes would ask NMFS to do a consultation after-the-fact. What's the chance the resulting incidental take of ESA listed fish would exceed the ESA limits? Your guess is as good as mine.......

My point in outlining this completely hypothetical example is to illustrate the problems that are likely to occur if WDFW and the Tribes go their separate ways on fishery management in Puget Sound.

Unfortunately it may already be happening.

Hoping this one comes out in paperback soon...

This is a big giant mucklefvck.....

Isn't it illegal to "take" an ESA listed fish without a permit, regardless of whether the amount you actually end up taking might have been approved if you had sought permission? Can you really just kill some ESA fish and get off the hook if NMFS later determines it had a negligible impact on the stock as a whole?

MPM - Yes, of course it's illegal to take ESA listed fish without an exemption (permit). And it's not all that unusual for ESA take to be exempted after an action has already occurred, particularly if the situation does not allow early consultation, such as an emergency. I'm not sure NMFS would consider this an emergency, but the Tribes could claim "lost opportunity" to exercise their Treaty rights to harvest excess Chinook salmon (i.e., harvestable surplus) as the reason for after-the- fact consultation. Indeed, those excess Chinook won't be there for long.

Also, under the hypothetical circumstances I described, how would anyone know whether ESA listed fish were taken? What evidence would anyone have to make that claim? The Tribes or the State could claim they killed zero ESA listed fish. All fish harvested are excess hatchery Chinook. No ESA listed fish were killed. No harm, no foul. Innocent until proven guilty.

This puts the burden of proof on NMFS. Unless NMFS is out there taking pics or gathering evidence, they may have difficulty making that claim. And so would anyone on this BB........

Clearly, this is no way to manage a complex fishery involving the State, several Tribes, and at least one ill-equipped, understaffed, and bewildered Federal agency. There has to be a better way.

There has got to be a better way? I'm all eyes and ears on that one... FUBAR sorry.........

Is an exemption after the fact an option for WDFW?

Yes. But you are describing the same situation that WFC sued WDFW and won. Cohoangler forgot to add that others can sue you for doing something that need an ESA permit for that is proven after the fact that you needed it for.

Essentially the state can open fisheries anytime it wants, NOAA can't force them to close. Heck they could open wild only fisheries right now if they wanted to...but the REAL risk the state is thinking about is that anyone then has the opportunity to sue WDFW for not having a federal permit. Very simple (& exactly the same suit WFC brought in the hatchery realm), as this is how it'd go:

Judge: "ok, wdfw do you need a permit to run these fisheries? This litigant says you do..."
wdfw: "I don't think so"
Judge: "nmfs, do they need a permit"
nmfs: "yep".
Judge: "ok, wdfw stop what you're doing till you get a permit to do it, oh and pay the litigants attorney fees since you f'd up".
Litigant: ($ cha-ching $)!!!!

That's the real issue. Without ESA authorization that what any party is subject to, even the tribes...

Please see my new post stickied to the top of the main page!

One answer to several questions in this thread is obvious. Up until now there has been no real adjudication of the relationship of the US v. WA case and the Endangered Species Act. If the Skagit tribes actually go fishing without any federal permit, perhaps that relationship will soon be defined. I think that would be a good thing for everybody.

Esa is federal, shouldn't be an issue with state laws.....

RoJo is correct. The biggest risk is from third party lawsuits, not ESA enforcement by the Feds.

The State has a huge legal risk if it does not get ESA clearance. WFC would like nothing more than to file yet another ESA lawsuit on WDFW. Given the outcome of previous lawsuits, it's likely the Attorney General's office is not going to allow WDFW to take any additional ESA risks, even if that means no salmon fishing on Puget Sound.

I wonder if there might be any interested parties willing to file a suit against any tribal fishermen that decide to fish for salmon without a federal ESA permit.

my point is any party should be held liable for impacts on ESA stocks.... the state (WDFW) has lower status than the agency that makes ESA listings... it should override all laws in state as they are US government.....

the WFC created this, the tribes will punish us, and the WDFW will punish them as well (including us)....

yes some factors of the weather come into play, but so do alot of other things... main thing is the tribes are pissed....

theres always Shad right?

What is the WFC's position on this activity?

We really do need to know which of the two is superior. Unfortunately, there are some large risks to both sides to find out. I was appalled that the WA AG's argued, in the culvert appeal, that the State had the right to extirpate stocks as needed for "progress".

Carcass - The courts would likely rule that both the Treaties and the ESA are equally as important. The question you're asking is: Which should be implemented first?

That is, if we apply ESA first, the harvestable surplus would be exactly the incidental take limit (I think this was MPM's point a few pages back, which I missed, but now I get it). Conversely, if the Treaties are implemented before ESA, the incidental take limit might need to be applied to the Tribal harvest to ensure they get their Treaty reserved 50%. In that case, the State might not get any harvest since the ESA incidental take has all gone to the Tribes.

I thought the Puyallup supreme court rulings which came after Boldt were clear that the state could regulate tribal fisheries, if necessary for conservation, and if that regulation doesn't discriminate against the tribes.

Doesn't that clarify that ESA can diminish the treaty tribes rights if required by conservation?

But does this answer the question of allocating impacts? Say a treaty fishery requires 90 percent of the available impacts to access the 50 percent of the harvestable surplus they're entitled to. Wouldn't this satisfy both ESA and Boldt requirements? Maybe the ruling above only applies if a treaty fishery required more than 100 percent of available impacts to access their half.

I'm no lawyer and am still learning a lot of the details of Boldt and ESA, but it sure seems like (based on the way things have gone in the past) if this does go to court the tribes will win. We'll have an arrangement where the treaty side get to fish until they catch their half, then if there's any impacts remaining the non-treaty side gets to fish. Maybe I'm being too pessimistic...

You are not being too pessimistic. The situation you describe is where we are headed. No one wants to hear this, but the answer is lawyers. Sport anglers are absolutely horrible at hiring/using lawyers. Frankly, I think sport anglers don't know much about lawyers (even though there are a few on PP), don't have any idea what they cost, and are generally suspicious of them. That needs to change, quickly.

The recreational angling community got lucky when the commercial crab industry hired less than outstanding counsel to represent them in their appeals of the crab change regulations favoring recs a couple years ago. The AG's office was able to prevail against them.

That is unlikely to happen again this time. The larger tribes are much better financed, more sophisticated and, apparently, have been thinking about this for a long time. I guess it's fine that folks will protest NOAA, but realistically that is not what is needed. The folks at LLTK, CCA, PSA should be raising a pooled litigation fund from wealthy supporters and seeking to hire a couple passionate attorneys or firms to aggressively represent sport-fishing interests with the ESA/Treaty issue and other NOF fallout. Absent that, the recreational community is really just watching, and this isn't going to end well.

A major point that needs both litigation and gonads is AK and BC.

When the US/Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty was first being debated, the WA Tribes had a lawsuit threatening, the "All Citizens" which was to establish that the Indian share was 50% of all US harvestable. AK was refusing to agree (remember that the treaty needs US Senate approval). Bill Wilkerson developed the current Co-Management framework to get the Tribes to at least not file the suit. That is still out there. Maybe it needs refiling.

There are international laws about trafficking in Endangered Species (CITIES). This could be applied to salmon but it would be difficult to pass the red-faced test of hammering Canada for harvesting WA's ESA listed fish while AK goes on its merry way.

Perhaps recovery of our fish is just too damn inconvenient. We'll nibble around the edges, taking fish from the politically weak (NI commercial and sports fishermen), loggers, farmers, and others who don't get organized.

Did the tribes throw their nets out like planned?

In regards to protest at NOAA Fisheries Thursday 11:30 AM

It is important to make a good showing at this event not by some but by many, in making an impression on NOAA while getting a strong word out to politicians, and the general public.

If you are reading this or are receiving e-mails from various organizations about this event, let’s not depend on the other person being there this time around, but realize that the only person that you can count on being in Lacey Thursday is you.

See you there.

Remember that recreational anglers are State regulated, and we have the privilege to fish because the State allows it. So we have to be represented by the State in negotiations with the Tribes or the Feds. We can't represent ourselves since we don't regulate ourselves. We can represent ourselves if we have a dispute with the State over State-imposed regulations (as happened with crabs). But we can't go to court against the Tribes if the State doesn't also. Conversely, if the State settles with the Tribes, and if we don't like it, we can take the State to court. But we can't sue the Tribes if the State has already settled on a position.

Carcass is correct is his assessment of the international implications of Tribal fisheries. The Columbia River Tribes have always made the same argument for decades. That is, the ocean fisheries must count on the non-treaty side of the 50% allocation. And both Canada and Alaska don't really care. They will take what they think they can take. And the Tribes will demand their share. It surprises me if there is anything left for recreational angling, but there usually is.

But I also wonder whether there is any adults for spawning, beyond just what returns to the hatcheries. Sadly, the number of wild adults spawning in the wild is hardly enough to replenish themselves. But that seems to be a secondary concern for everyone. Their first concern is getting what they believe is their share. And on that point, everyone is in the same boat (Tribes, recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, etc). Me first! Everything else is secondary, including the fish.

From the mouth of a bio with the tribes, they have already done a test fishery and nets go in today. Lot's of springers.

I'm planning on being there. Look out for the super tall guy with short gray hair holding the "SLAYER ROCKS" sign

(haven't quite decided yet what to put on my placard)

The treaty tribes do need a permit to fish. The previous co-management permit expired for both WDFW and the tribes on April 30. The tribes may have filed for a 2017 permit separate from WDFW, but NMFS certainly hasn't issued it yet.

The Swinomish, and Sauk-Suiattle by Swinomish invitation, are fishing for hatchery spring Chinook salmon. The NMFS permit is an approval of the salmon fishery management plan. There are wild ESA-listed spring Chinook intermingled with the hatchery Chinook, so an approved plan is necessary to cover the incidental take of listed Chinook and listed steelhead that are caught incidental to Chinook fishing.

The enforcement responsibility is NMFS'. Unfortunately NMFS LE is more likely to make sure that whale watchers don't get too close to ESA-listed killer whales than they are to interfere with treaty fishing, legal or illegal. I'm sure the tribes will insist that treaties, as the Supreme law of the land, trumps incidental take of ESA-listed salmon, approved fishing permit or not.

This seattle times story says it "appears" the tribes got approval, and it looks like NOAA even gave a comment "NOAA Fisheries indicates this fishery will have limited impacts on wild chinook stocks of concern."

Though that could have been a previous comment by NOAA about that specific fishery.

http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/sport...-gets-underway/

Can anyone say for sure one way or another whether a permit was issued?

...which is exactly why the NOF process needs a complete overhaul. Why negotiate in good faith if you dont really require approval from the other party? That's been a significant thematic undercurrent all along .

I would assume the fishing activity I saw yesterday in the saltwater by some of the Tulalips is without permit also.

Bureau of Indian Affairs approved the fishery. They assumed limited impact and proceeded under Section 7d of ESA....

The tribes need a permit. Except when NMFS doesn't want to make them get one.

For Skagit. Tulalip, or both fisheries

Funny. I don't recall the BIA having a very extensive staff of fishery biologists to knock something out like this in such short notice.

But they do have political appointees, and that is all that is necessary now. Maybe a good lawyer or two on the side.

The Section 7D sure is convoluted. The one phrase that does come up quite often is........"......license applicant shall not make any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources....."

Seems kind of ironic considering they are using gill nets and killing everything.

Reading through it, it would seem to me the tribes are probably given an exemption under Section 7H, which is linked back to 7D thru Section 7(A)(2). Maybe that's the link for avoiding everything? It surely doesn't seem possible that in 2 working days the tribes went through all of the normal procedures for acquiring permits AND got them approved???? I imagine they also certainly didn't go thru consultation with the State of Washington as called out.

If so, GREAT. That means we shouldn't even be worried about getting ours approved.

If not, my question, why can't WDFW use this same path?

So who and what permits are needed for the tribes to actually fish?
None it appears...business as usual and they can do as they please.

It seems you have NMFS, NOAA and now BIA giving the OK to fish or working on the permitting process.
What is the pecking order as far as which supersedes the other and can one stop another from issuing a ok or permit to fish?
With all the agencies looking like they can give the green light to fish, The NOF process is looking like more of a sham every day that passes.
SF

Because WDFW is not the Tribes. The Federal Gubmint believes it has a special (Trust) responsibility to the tribes superior to its responsibilities to any other citizen.

There are quite possibly some legal questions to be debated but it will not only take time but it will take money. The Feds can just keep printing it, the State doesn't want to spend it in a suit so that leaves "third parties" who might or might not have the standing to sue. But it will take googobs of money.

I have not substantiated this, but I'm sure someone can. Word is that the Tribes started independent negotiations with NMFS prior to NOF. They knew this was going to happen, so they got to work on their own permit right away. Only hearsay, but it would do a lot to explain why the tribal members kept coming to meetings with WDFW and repeating the same demands. They knew they didn't need to negotiate, and the only way they were going to compromise was if the State offered them something sweeter than what they asked for.

IF this is true, NOAA did us a major disservice, and they should hear about it on Thursday.

Carcassman came back to the subject of AK and BC... I still say this all could have been avoided if the Tribes and the State were negotiating over a larger percentage of ESA impacts. We all know the process is broken (and has been from the beginning), but it took a forecast low enough to make closures a strong possibility to wake the sleeping giant. If we weren't relegated to fighting over the scraps open ocean fisheries leave behind, we'd all be fishing this season, if with major restrictions on coho. I'll continue to support this effort, but I think we're waging this war on the wrong battlefield.

I might determine that perch fishing in Lake Washington with my kids has 'limited impacts' and just go for it. A ticket would be unfortunate, but I guess I'd then have more 'standing' to participate in the legal system.

I'd be interested to know if WDFW is actually patrolling the lakes and enforcing the closure.

I'd watch out for assuming only a "fishing in closed waters" fine is levied. ESA violations might be tacked on, here is what I found for costs: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/laws/esa_section11.pdf

looks like anywhere from $500 - $25k...

Expensive perch. But it's not really clear to me that fishing for perch (or bass, or blue-gill, or most anything else that is not caught with a downrigger) in Lake Washington is actually a violation of ESA. Seems more like a hyper technical over-reaction by the State. Heck, the WDFW 'how to catch perch' video says catching them is a high priority for resource management. Having more of the buggers in the Lake as a result of a fishing ban may just increase predation on Chinook smolts.

this pretty much says it all....

basically, fvck off sporties....



http://nwtreatytribes.org/tribal-statement-may-fisheries/

100> 0 is not sharing Ms. Loomis
if the fishery is considered sustainable..why is it not shared? ?

Interesting that there claim includes that it is " essential to the tribes’ subsistence, economy". While that may be true for some tribes, it isn't true for others. For the Casino rich tribes, only a hand full of members may actually fish, and the overall revenue from fishing likely does not equal 1% of net revenue. When we get into culture, I then would ask about the need to drift net with jet sleds and other methods that greatly increase the ability to exploit the resource. To blame habitat loss strictly on non-tribal interests makes me wonder where they get the power to light up all those bill boards.

Stretched across the whole river.

King 5 Footage

Since the Tribe's fishery is the same as what has been conducted and approved by NMFS in the past, and they have received preliminary approval for this current spring Chinook fishery, then WDFW can schedule all the normal fisheries that have been conducted and approved by NMFS in the past, and NMFS can offer its preliminary approval for these usual fisheries. Right? If not, why not? Unless a double standard exists . . .

Don't let the toilet seat hit you in the neck----why are the sports always last at the table?? The fish making it to their natal streams to spawn are the ones who genes should be preserved---I was about to pull the trigger on a new Boulton 18ft, something told me to wait until spring. And May 1 was a dark dark day for me, and for all sport fishers in WA, and for the businesses that serve us.

This.

Fish on...

Todd

Is there any question that there is a double standard? Seems to me the notion of two sovereign nations sharing the same resources is, in and of itself, a double standard. With one nation, we would have one set of standards. This is precisely why co-management broke (or proved to have been broken all along) the instant there weren't enough impacts to keep both nations on the water.

It's ignorant pusssies that think sweet talk and roses are effective winning negotiating strategies. They aren't and once again prove that ineffective bullshlt "negotiations" are nothing more than window dressing. I'm beyond pissed off and I don't GAF if some Caitlyn like Toff doesn't like my mean words. I've never been a nice guy when I'm being discriminated against because of my race nor do I GAF what some liberal fagg wants me to say. An entire group (millions strong) is being discriminated against by the Feds and the tribes and we're supposed to be nice so we don't hurt their feelings. GMAFB

Exactly what I was thinking. It seems that the tribes just set a precedent for WDFW to do the same thing with our fisheries?? I severely hope someone in the department is pushing this issue.

First, a double standard would mean than a situation exists where both parties have equal claim to something, yet a decision is made that is biased to one party or the other...double standard.

I don't think this is the case here. The tribes definitly have a different standing and claim to fishery resources (and others) than the state or it's citizens do. So, you really can't claim that a double standard exists.

Second, the state's fisheries have been piggy-backed on the tribal federal action (BIA funding of fisheries management) since the first ESA authorization in Puget Sound was given. When the state and tribes could not reach and agreement, that severed the tie between the actions and also severed the connection to any federal action for the state's fisheries. Again, there is a different pathway for the state now, than before. The tribe's path is the same as before. So, not a double standard but a different legal requirement. NOAA is following the law. Do you expect them to violate the law for the state's fisheries, thereby opening themselves and the state up to third-party litigation?

How is NOAA following the law? What they are doing seems directly contrary to existing case law concerning section 7d.

Salmo g. an excellent point!

There is a couple other interesting twists to these tribal fisheries. I read in news release that the BIA had approved the Skagit spring Chinook season. Wonder why an agency in the Department of Interior is doing NOAA's (Department of Commerce) job by approving fisheries with potential impacts of ESA listed stocks.

In the case of the Skagit fishery there are both hatchery and wild spring Chinook present in the Skagit thus the rationale for the fish (to harvest abundant hatchery springs). On the Skagit the Cascade hatchery fish tend to return earlier than wild stocks (Cascade, Suiattle, and upper Skagit) so by fishing this early in the spring they can harvest more hatchery fish/wild impact than later in the spring. In sense this is an example of a selective fishery where the fishers take advantage of the timing difference to harvest more hatchery fish with lower wild fish impacts. On the Nooksack for several years the Lummi's have been using tangle nets to target abundant hatchery fish; again another example of a selective fishery where un-clipped wild fish can be released. The Tulalip Bay Chinook fish (which started at least 3 weeks earlier than past seasons) by fishing in a location (in or near Tulalip) can target hatchery fish with minimal impacts on nearby wild stocks; again another example of a selective fishery.

Yet some how the tribes have significant problems when the recreational fish selective (mark selection fishery) to access abundant hatchery stocks and limit/reduce impacts on wild stocks. Interesting that using selective approaches to access hatchery stocks seems OK for tribal spring Chinook stocks but not in recreational fisheries.

Curt

I'm not sure I agree that the Tribes going in early can honestly be compared to anything resembling selective fishing. When you string gillnets across rivers, your intent to target one stock over another doesn't make you selective; it makes you irresponsible, especially when whatever incidental catches you do get will be from endangered stocks (and dead, which means you have failed in being selective).

Not implying C&R doesn't come with casualties, but at least the intent is genuinely selective, and for the most part, the practice is very effective.

The idea that the tribes get 50% of the fish is a joke. They are notorious for cheating and keeping a lot more than 50%. I'm really getting sick and tired of hearing the following, "Tribal treaty fisheries are essential to the tribes’ subsistence, economy, and culture and way of life. The spring chinook fishery in particular is important to the treaty tribes because it is the first run of salmon to return for the season." What a crock of sh!t! This is about greed and hatred. Aren't the millions tax payers give them enough? Isn't gambling and in the future pot growing and selling enough? Illegal cigarette sales, liquor etc. Constant examples of poaching, littering, polluting, netting fish and taking only the eggs. It goes on and on. This has nothing to do with race. It has to do with people that have grown accustom to bilking the system. (They aren't the only ones.) Has anyone looked at their high school graduation rates? Is that our fault?

They say we took their lands but when you listen to how some talk about how their brave ancestors fought for their land (against other tribes) you have to wonder what the difference is. They try hard to hide the fact that not only did they fight other tribes but they also kept slaves from those beaten tribes. I'm certainly not saying we are perfect I'm only saying that this is a world where the fittest survive. They lived that way so they need to accept that it's over. The indian wars are over and they lost. Now they need to become part of society and stop with the culture and way of life sh!t. The culture and way of life joke only comes into play when they want something. They follow the old ways and culture about the same as Donald Trump practices political correctness.

It's time that we start getting ours. If we can't get ours in fishing agreements then we need to start taxing their casinos and any sales of anything on their so called lands. They need to pay taxes for our roads, schools and anything else they use that is funded by the American tax payer. I've worked 50 of my 64 years and paid taxes all those years. Why don't I or the rest of you that have done or do the same get the same breaks and advantages that they do? Especially considering they contribute nothing to better this country.

Over the years that I've fished in this state I like everyone else have seen the incredible decline in the fisheries. While that is happening they are still "getting theirs". Also during that time I've seen horrific atrocities relating to fish and game management by them. I didn't just wake up and decide that they are bad. It's taken years of watching the sh!t go down. Let it be known that I don't hate indians but as a whole it's very difficult to respect them. I know plenty of Native Americans and get along with them and consider them friends BUT they are not complaining and/or sticking it to the man. I am 20% Native American. I have NEVER tried to get any compensation or benefits because of it. It's time they tow their share of the load.

And more water closes:
May 4th:
https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/erules/efishrules/erule.jsp?id=1797

May 5th:
https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/erules/efishrules/erule.jsp?id=1800

to all species....do they really have enough enforcement folks to cover all of this?

I was sharing these same exact thoughts. In my opinion the BIA does not have the technical expertise or authority to authorize ESA impacts. This directly contradicts the purpose of the ESA and NOAA's regulations thereof.

...and BIA is under the Dept of the Interior which has another agency, USFWS, tasked with ESA listings on steelhead and bull trout/dolly varden. Did BIA go to their sister agency for permission......???

No. USFWS has nothing to do with this. They have ESA listings on bull trout but not steelhead. Steelhead are a NMFS listed species. And USFWS is not taking any action that would necessitate consultation. Plus there are not alot of bull trout taken in the fishery.

My sense is that BIA is the Federal "action agency" for this. As such, they are taking on the legal risk associated with this action. That way, if the Tribes get taken to court (e.g., by WFC), BIA is on the hook, not the Tribes. And if BIA is on the hook, so is Dept of the Interior, and the U.S. Dept of Justice. So not only do the Tribes get ESA clearance quickly so they can go fishing, they will have the legal resources from DoJ at their disposal if this get litigated.

Nice work if you can get it.......

... unless the DoJ picks the other side.

I was told by a man that gave us a ride back to the car that the DC talks with the DOJ weren't going very well, grim is what he stated....


This needs to change, and now...

Can anyone confirm that WDFW has submitted its application to NOAA? And assuming so, what route is WDFW taking to get ESA coverage? For example, is it proceeding via a section 7 consultation because there is a nexus to some federal action, or maybe via a Rule 4(d) exemption by submitting a fishery management and evaluation plan. Either way, compliance with NEPA could be a stumbling block to getting the requisite ESA coverage in place in time for this summer's fisheries.

48 more closures.....

https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/erules/efishrules/erule.jsp?id=1800

DOJ could decide not to back BIA. When there are disputes between federal agencies, DOJ can only support one. As best I can tell, BIA has zero authority to approve a fishery management plan pertaining to ESA-listed species. Cool beans.

BrianM,

WDFW cannot use Section 7 due to lack of any federal nexus. Section 10 appears to be the route in that I couldn't find any 4(d) exemption that qualifies. But I'd like to be wrong on that. NEPA does apply to Section 10 actions. I don't know why it doesn't with Section 7, although I've seen NEPA analyses for some Sec. 7 actions but not others. And NEPA is all about the s l o w.

Sg

I found this part interesting...

Information contact: Region 6 360-249-4628 ext. 0

Some of the creek closures are really interesting.
I've fished some of them and you are just as likely to catch a Striped Marlin in them as you are a chinook.
I guess it is just easier for them to do a widespread blanket closure on anything dumping into the salt....
SF

Are all of these closures necessary due to some ESA mandate or is it a way of getting as many different fisher groups saying "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore?"

Plus +++ 1 on this as all of "this" all went from the sublime to the absolutely freeking reeediculous!

Not quite sure how I feel about this coverage:

http://komonews.com/news/local/total-shutdown-of-puget-sound-salmon-season-sparks-anger

http://www.kiro7.com/news/local/sport-fisherman-angry-over-salmon-season-shut-down/263671907

http://www.king5.com/tech/science/environment/protest-continues-over-salmon-fishing/175301227

I'm sure the tribe is wary of getting bad press and it's possible all the advertising dollars they spend also provides them an opportunity to filter stories.

Vanilla toast coverage at best.

Businesses use PR consultants to place stories with papers and to influence coverage every day. It's legal and accepted, although not much talked about. I suggested to a local conservation group about 3 years ago that they hire such a group. Not a lot of traction. Whether Legal or PR, sport fisherman have been slow to embrace the tools that businesses use to get what they want. The exception is the hiring of a state government lobbyist, which sport fishing groups have done, and which overall has been successful (notwithstanding this current NOF fiasco).

Walking through the crowd was a reporter from national coverage also.

The good thing about these events over the past couple days is that we are being heard and that through the coverage the general public is wakening up to what is going on to some degree.

Several points in general brought up was that the rockfish debacle came close to shutting down Puget Sound and that Alaska this past year went over their allocation by 100,000 Chinook.

And Alaska wants more fish now too...

I thought the King5 coverage was the most neutral. The Kiro coverage was somewhat misleading (suggesting all fishing was shut down, without making it clear that tribes are fishing).

I wish they wouldn't juxtapose the calm, rational public speaker Willie Frank against an angry sportfisherman. Not a good look. The speakers at the protest were all positive about trying to get a solution that helps everyone, but I guess it's better TV to show anger.

yeah. the soft tones of the earnest doe-eyed son of a famous civil rights leader are going to play way better than anything we've got. Especially when he's saying stuff like "let's come together to save salmon". The (urban) general public lap that kind of stuff up. It's damn smart and savvy.

The link provided earlier states Alaska’s rationale for this year’s Chinook allocations comes in part from Alaska’s share of the Columbia River projections.

We all know how ocean fisheries can prosper if projections pan out or not with the terminal areas left with the tribes and state fishers fighting for the scraps instead of working together to get more fish back.

The dollar impact being used is $100 million and as I understand it is pretty much a recreational fishing number tied to the number of fisher trips multiplied by the dollar value/fisher trip established by the 2008 economic study commissioned by WDFW (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=00464).

The actual numbers in the original report are in 2006 dollars so I hope they have adjusted for inflation.

Not fish but about tribal influence ( $$$$$$$ ) and our elected yahoos.

cc: Interested Parties & media contacts
Governor Jay Inslee
Attorney General Robert Ferguson
Members of the WA Legislature

AUTO files complaint alleging Attorney General Furgeson's receipt of campaign contributions from tribal governments violates the prohibition against candidates accepting contributions of public funds
On February 1, 2016, AUTO filed a petition requesting adoption of a rule by the Public Disclosure Commission that oversees elections and campaign contributions in state and local elections in Washington State (see details below). The PDC rejected our request and as a result, AUTO's attorney former state supreme court justice Phil Talmadge of the Seattle firm of Talmadge, Fitzpatrick & Tribe has filed a complaint on behalf of the organization with the Attorney General and the Prosecutor in King County. The complaint cites Ferguson's own receipt of contributions from tribal governments when seeking election as the top enforcer of state law as violations of state law and requests a legal complaint be initiated against Ferguson's political action committee "Friends of Bob Furgeson by one prosecutor's office or the other. If neither file a legal action within 45 days, AUTO intends to exercise its rights under the state law to assume the role of the two prosecutors and file a "citizens complaint" on behalf of the state. The complaint is attached.

The issue is the historical use by tribal governments of "public funds" in making political contributions to influence non-tribal elections in Washington state and subsequently, the decisions coming out of the legislative process or the executive branch. State law prohibits candidates from taking contributions from governments with "Public funds, whether derived through taxes, fees, penalties, or any other sources, shall not be used to finance political campaigns for state or school district office."

Earlier, AUTO pointed out to the PDC our belief that these contributions were resulting in hundreds of millions of state taxpayer's dollars flowing out of the state treasury into tribal government accounts. Shared gambling proceeds found in other states with tribal government gambling monopolies were surrendered behind closed doors rather than providing revenue for public schools as intended when Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The elected officials making these decisions were on the receiving end of millions of dollars in contributions from the same tribal governments granted these extraordinary privileges.

Additionally, AUTO believes an atmosphere of special treatment for tribes at the expense of the other citizens of the state has evolved. Non-tribal citizens are regularly heard complaining about the loss of fishing or hunting opportunities, land use or water rights, and encroachment on to their private property as a result of decisions by state departments including the Department of Ecology, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Transportation, and Department of Fish & Wildlife wherein staff seem compelled to provide prejudicial treatment for tribal interests.

The first reaction of the PDC staff was to prove our point that the contributions by the tribal governments have created an unlevel playing field in state offices for the state's non-tribal citizens. Nearly immediately upon receipt of our petition, the Executive Director and Assistant Attorney General for the PDC consulted with Bill Craig, head of the Governor's Office of Indian Affairs http://www.goia.wa.gov/ . Craig moved quickly to help arrange a meeting between PDC staff and tribal legal representatives. By the time AUTO was invited to a short meeting with PDC staff, it was easy to predict what was going to happen. The end result was the staff convincing the PDC Commissioners to avoid taking any action by refusing our request. The PDC, citing staffing and budgetary constraints, suggested we go to the legislature with the issue.

AUTO was disappointed, but not surprised by the decision of the PDC which resembled a "cut and run" maneuver. As for appealing to the Governor or turning to the legislature, one could hardly envision those arenas would prove a fair hearing on the issue. The Governor's own political action committee and other Democratic PACS have recently received $403,410 from tribal governments (view here). The majority of the members of the legislature from both sides of the aisle have likewise received contributions of public funds from tribal governments and the election fund raising cycle is just beginning.
The option left AUTO is filing a complaint with the Attorney General for violation of the campaign finance laws of the state of WA (RCW 42.17A). Since the Attorney General has likewise received large direct and indirect contributions from the tribal governments (view here), choosing to file against Mr. Ferguson himself allows the opportunity for the public to understand the depth of the conflict of interest that is so readily recognized by non-tribal citizens trying to compete with a tribal government for the attention of elected officials and departmental staff in Olympia.
Washington's "Campaign Disclosure and Contribution" statute was passed by initiative vote of the people in 1972. The drafter's seemingly recognized that elected officials could be less than enthusiastic about enforcement if protecting the citizens meant loss of personal financial support and inserted a provision to prevent the powers at be from denying the citizens rights. In the event both Attorney General Ferguson and King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg fail to file an action within 45 days against Ferguson's political action committee "Friends of Bob Ferguson", the law states: "(4) A person who has notified the attorney general and the prosecuting attorney in the county in which the violation occurred in writing that there is reason to believe that some provision of this chapter is being or has been violated may himself or herself bring in the name of the state any of the actions (hereinafter referred to as a citizen's action) authorized under this chapter." AUTO's complaint includes the required notice of AUTO's intent to exercise this right and move forward if one or the other doesn't file on behalf of the state's citizens .

Additional details on the law and presentation documents used with the PDC process are available at AUTO's website including documentation showing the funds held by tribal governments are taxes and incomes that fall under the definition of public funds. Statements from representatives of tribes asserting gambling proceeds (like the state's lotto), motel/hotel, sales taxes, etc. paid by non-tribal citizens at tribal casinos, gas stations, and other enterprises are taxes paid by the public to a government are also provided.

Respectfully,
Tim Hamilton

The state has been doing this for awhile and auto's suits haven't gained much traction that I can find. The suit against the AG campaign funds seem to be because he was obviously was bought in an earlier case.

Look at Auto vs Gregoire in 2010 ( gas taxes). The AG wanted the suit dismissed because they said "any contract with the tribes signed by the governor- no matter how illegal it is or harmful to the Wa taxpayer- is immune from all judicial review because...... the tribe is a necessary part of the suit and also immune from the suit"



So, let me see if I understand this. The tribe is sovereign, therefore can't be held to any WA laws. If our gov ( or anyone else) makes a deal with them and it's found to be illegal, all they need to do is piggyback the tribal immunity and not even the courts can look at it!

Go read it, see if I misunderstood what it said. If this is true, I wish AUTO all the luck with these suits but it seems a fortress has been built and any shots at it just result in a few more bricks. The more I read, the more I think we're fuked

While the Tribes may be sovereign, the citizens of WA are subject to the laws. It seems that the Tribes can give them money, and as sovereigns maybe we can't stop them from giving it but we can stop a citizen of WA from accepting it in WA. Guess the politicos could set up campaign offices in Idaho and Oregon and spend the monies there.

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/headlines/murr...a-docs-surface/

+1 to both posts

I have been stewing on this for a while. Sport fisherman and fisherwomen need to unite across the board with groups that share our passion, and perhaps even some of our enemies to unite against the economic power of the tribes. It would appear to me that a number of tribes want their cake and eat it too, ala, we have Casino's that fill out pocket with money, we want to fish beyond our sustenance (Commercial), we want to use the latest white man technology to catch our fish, and we will use our Casino profits to get what ever the hell we want.

Would it be possible to target the worst offenders in this category, BOYCOTT their casinos, find other tribes that have casinos but are willing to work with us for fishing rights, direct customers from the offending tribes casinos to those willing to work with us, and see what happens? A 10 -15 percent decline in Casino business will be jobs lost and folks pointing fingers within the tribes. I am already seeing tribes fighting over development rights over at Snoqualmie.

Frankly I am sick and tired of sitting on the sidelines. It is time to fight these basturds where it hurts. In the wallet. If we could get traction on this perhaps some broader marketing campaigns would help including internet and TV advertising along the lines of "they say they are endangered, but gill net the salmon. Is your casino visit funding this"

+2

To add to this, the tribes have repeatedly stated they are actually going to be TARGETING COHO this year "in a few terminal areas with harvestable returns of fish." (http://nwtreatytribes.org/habitat-hatcheries-equal-fishing/). They are either for or against selective fisheries, as it suits them.

Somewhat unrelated but equally as irritating is the tribes justification of their quasi-permitted netting of spring chinook in the skagit. They are basically saying that recreational fisherman have been fishing for chinook all winter and spring, and now it's their turn (http://nwtreatytribes.org/tribal-statement-may-fisheries/)

This is purely preposterous, as the blackmouth season was agreed to (by them) at LAST YEAR'S north of falcon and was duly permitted by NOAA. The skagit netting wasn't agreed upon by anybody and not permitted by NOAA.

I'm going to venture a guess here, let me know if this holds water. The tribes were going to go forward with the netting, permit or not. NOAA wasn't going to issue an "express" permit because they haven't had enough time to come up with something that would protect them from litigation. So BIA pulled a rabbit out of a hat and all the sudden... voila, tribal fishing permitted!

As JustBecause can attest, I am not a expert on the pervue of each and every federal agency...but I'm gonna guess the BIA has as much of a right to authorize a fishery as the IRS does. Whatever legal gymnastics were behind this seriously need to be challenged.

I didn't see this in my inbox until today, but here's my reply from Will Stelle on May, 2nd:

Thank you for your e-mail concerning the salmon catch­sharing dispute between the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the Treaty Indian fishing tribes in Puget Sound. We at NOAA Fisheries are also deeply concerned with the current impasse between the co-managers and its implications for salmon fishing in Puget Sound this summer. The dispute has negative implications across the board for families, businesses and communities, Indian and non-Indian, and we are energetically encouraging the parties to work out their differences.

This is the first time in thirty years that WDFW and the Tribes have not reached an agreement about catch-sharing in Puget Sound under U.S. v. Washington, the federal court decision affirming Treaty Indian fishing rights. The specific issue is the sharing of harvest of Chinook salmon. Chinook in Puget Sound are listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In this instance, non-Indian and Tribal co­managers are in agreement with NOAA Fisheries on the overall total harvest allowable for Chinook under the ESA, but they differ on how to share it between them. When examining both proposed Tribal and non-Indian fisheries, they add up to Chinook impacts that exceed the agreed-to limit. If WDFW and the Tribes resolve their dispute on means to share the total allowable harvest, without exceeding the total limits, then NOAA Fisheries is committed to reviewing both fisheries under the ESA as rapidly as possible.

This is an extremely tough year. Expected returns to the salmon fishery in 2016 are much lower than we have seen in recent years, making these allocation decisions really hard. But NOAA Fisheries can’t force WDFW and the Tribes to come to terms, and our ESA authorities will not resolve this dispute either. We strongly hope that the co-managers are able to come work it out, and we stand ready to help in any way we can, nonstop. If they do, the pathway for authorizing both Tribal and non-Indian fishing under the ESA is clear.

Sincerely,

Will Stelle
--
William W. Stelle, Jr.
Regional Administrator
NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region
U.S. Department of Commerce
Office: 206-526-6150
Mobile: 206-295-3104
Will.Stelle@noaa.gov

Looks like the Upper Skagits will start netting the skagit thursday. Nooksack tribe will be gillnetting the nooksack starting tomorrow.

"THIS FISHERY IS BY PERMIT ONLY."

heh

Looks like we may get through this soon hopefully...


http://www.king5.com/mb/tech/science/env...rtage/183014893

I sincerely hope that after all is said and done DFW doesn't end up accepting a bad deal anyway just to "save the day". That's really what this feels like...

Well, hope springs eternal. I would rather the season be lost and the process be fixed than WDFW just cave. That said, compromise is not a dirty word, and it's possible that the impasse this year could provide some political capital toward changing the system even if we end up getting a deal done for this year.

I am loaded with equal parts of these sentiments right now.

Fish on...

Todd

Amen. Unless it's a better deal, NO DEAL.

I think the fallacy of the notion of "Co-management" of a resource by competing interests has finally been brought to light. It was inevitable that this would happen the first time there weren't enough available impacts to support both interests. This season has reaffirmed (in my mind) two things I have long thought:

1. Co-management only "works" as long as everybody gets to play, and when it does "work," the outcomes usually don't look like products of genuine concern for conservation (let alone recovery), on either side.
2. Yet again, too many impacts have been allocated to mixed stock ocean fisheries, mostly north of our border. Things won't improve until that changes.

If there was an ounce of transparency to this process, I might have an update for you.

100%

So do you know if they were really meeting or not at least?

They are definitely meeting

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/an-optimistic-turn-in-puget-sound-salmon-impasse/

I too think our long term prospects (as well as the fish) might benefit from an impasse this year.

Too big of a compromise on our part this year breeds a large compromise next year. Even with a large return of fish there will be a stock of concern to derail fishing.

I think we compromised by giving up area 10 last year. This year would make two In a row. JG is a 100% right about what we can count on in the future.

All this talk of compromise has our permit application sitting idle while they see what happens.

New poster here, thanks for all you have educated me on the past several years. I sent my support to the director. Although I'd love to fish this year, I'd rather see us become independent of the tribes ESA permits.

Hope it helps to hear from common folk

"Director Unsworth, I heard a news report yesterday that the department and tribes were close on a settlement regarding PS salmon fishing. I fully support your previous position and standing fast for the non-tribal interests. I urge you to not give away the farm during these negotiations, even if it means putting a hold on fishing for the season. No one person or group in our society should hold all the cards, unfortunately a good majority of the deck seems to be given away in the treaty's of the 1850's. Unfortunately Governor Stevens didn't seem to fully understand what he was giving away or fore sight to see the rapid depletion of fish from over harvest and waste (started by non-tribal in the late 1800's and continues to this day by both sides.) All anyone at the time could see was fish forever, unfortunately we did not learn from the decimation of the buffalo herds or many others that was taking place during the time. I'm sure that what we have today as co-managers is not what was intended by the authors of the treaties. I fully support your stance in this matter and hope that you continue to stand your ground and let the tribes know that they need to give as much as they take.
Regardless of the outcome of this current stalemate (I use that term loosely as the tribes do not seem to be affected much at all, and seem to have been well prepared for this situation), I hope that you continue to pursue our own permits/authorization from NOAA so that we are independent of the tribes and are not reliant on piggybacking on their permits as co-managers. Surely everyone agrees that NOF process is broken and we should never allow ourselves to be in this situation again.
When NOAA is evaluating NT fishing they should be made well aware that sport fishers are required to go to great lengths to avoid lethal impacts on ESA fish through run timing, barb-less hooks , non removal from water and selective gear rules and commercial fishers impacts are limited through gear rules, run timing, and recovery boxes. NT fishers are closely monitored by on board monitors on the commercial side and enforcement officers (as well as fellow sport fishers) on the rec side.
In contrast tribal fishers use gill nets that kill everything, wild and hatchery, for most of their commercial fishing and their "sports fishers" regularly use weighted treble hooks. The enforcement is self reporting with very little monitoring. Both sides should have the ability to closely monitor each other if we are ever going to be able to co-manage the resource.

Thanks for considering my thoughts,"

What makes you think that?

Amen..........

I could be totally wrong about the permit application sitting idle while we negotiate but if we compromise, there's no need for our own permit. It would seem logical that effort would be on the back burner while they see what happens.
WDFW said they would "try" to get the application in last week. Did that ever happen? Anybody know what the status is?

I can't claim to have experience in this type of administrative process, but I would expect that the permit process would proceed full speed ahead unless/until there is an agreed joint application between the state and the tribes. It's crazy to do it otherwise in such a time-sensitive case (then again, I think WDFW should have been ready to file an independent permit application the moment talks broke down). Certainly in a litigation context (not quite the same thing, I know) it is normal to proceed with the adversarial proceeding while still trying to reach a settlement.

I believe WDFW submitted its permit application May 6 (I think that's what I read).

this has been bugging me since you posted it, at first it was because i didnt really understand what you were saying.... now i kinda understand, and its BS...

this is from an article recently posted by the PI...

"At the meeting state fishery managers offered an alternative proposal for sport fisheries with a 50 percent harvest cut on an expected poor Puyallup River return of 353 wild chinook and 3,708 hatchery fish.

The state cuts included a Carbon River sport fishery closure of two months during peak chinook arrival time; closing salmon fishing in south-central Puget Sound – known as Marine Catch Area 11 in the Tacoma area – from November through January; and a Commencement Bay closure.

These reductions come on top of those already made for an expected poor Puget Sound wild coho return.

A few days before the meeting, the tribes issued two additional packages the state needed to agree on in order to come to terms. Each included a much larger cut to the sport fishing package.

One tribal proposal called for a total sport fishing closure in the Puyallup and Carbon rivers; close the entire salmon season in south-central Puget Sound; close the hatchery-marked selective fishery in central Puget Sound from mid-July to mid-August; and a hatchery chinook catch quota reduction in northern Puget Sound from 3,260 to 2,500. The tribes offered to reduce their netting time on the Puyallup to just six hours of fishing, which is similar to recent years."


now heres what im talking about... "low return" is BS, the wild fish are right around what they usually are i think, maybe a few more fish, but the hatchery returns are fairly HIGHER than previous years (yes i know its an estimate that could swing lower, or even higher)...

all numbers are taken from Dec 31st as to make sure all Kings returned to Voights:


2015 : 2884 Adults, 1009 Jacks

2014: 2659 Adults, 65 Jacks

2013: 1571 Adults, 26 Jacks

2012: 966 Adults, 147 Jacks

2011: 2320 Adults, 51 Jacks

2010: 2359 Adults, N/A Jacks

2009: 3042 Adults, 18 Jacks

2008: 3096 Adults, 44 Jacks

2007: 4464 Adults, 135 Jacks

2006: 4629 Adults, 605 Jacks

as you can see, with the exception of 06 and 07, this years run of Kings is expected to be greater than any of the last 10 years... so how is that "low numbers"... they did the same sh!t last year when they said there was "no Coho", yet Voights got back 6100+ fish, year before, 6500...

basically what im sucking up from this, and thinking what you meant SG, is that they want the fish, and thats that.... they will make up bullsh!t statements that can be proven wrong historically as they are marked on the WDFW site, all while practicing what they always have for the last god knows how many years....


GREED.....


http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/posit...rticle_left_1.1

If you are just now realizing this. I feel sorry for you.


This debate and "imapsse" has never been about the fish. It wasn't in 2015 when the Muk's demanded A10 closed, and only 2k fish harvested in 9..... and it wasn't back in the day they demanded the closure of Elliott Bay, and (surprise surprise) it still IS NOT about conservation, or even the existing fish models. It's about wanting it ALL for THEMSELVES. You're correct, it's greed.

I fail to see how an argument could be made to close A11 Blackmouth fishing.... the tribes have HATED our blackmouth fishery, immemorial. Because THEY can't kill those fish in their nets. Maybe if the learned how to actually fvcking fish they wouldn't be so butthurt.

i kinda wanted to give the benefit of doubt, but now i see i was just blinding myself with an illusion that i already knew the answer to....

if they wanted to protect the Wild Chinook, they wouldnt have their nets in the river during the meat of the run.....

but they will, because they dont care about the numbers, the only number they care about is the abundance (considering the last 10 years), of HATCHERY fish that i and you all paid for by buying your licenses....

if they close the Carbon and Puy to sport fishing during the time that the Kings come in, they wont stop netting, and even at 6 hours per day (like they are doing some god sent favor), they will rake every available fish out of that river system just like they always do.....

The last minute add ons by the tribes is what pisses me off about this whole process.
They want the state to bargain in good faith yet applied for their permit early and now add more restrictions on recreation anglers.
I'd rather have the state tell them to pound sand then accept a [Bleeeeep!] agreement.
SF

+1

+2 here too!

Been looking for a large clothespin for my nose at Lowes and Home Depot recently as all this smells to high heaven!

I just don't get his they can blatantly lie about it and no-one bats an eye....

+3........No Deal!

And this, following a year of increased meetings between the tribes and last years NOF. One of the requests from the advisor panel was to meet sooner to prevent this from occurring again. All the meetings in the world help no one when one party attempts to sabotage the process for their own benefit.

Maybe someone can clarify something for me. I've heard that the biggest sticking point right now is getting Puyallup harvest of Chinook from 58% to 50%. Is that including modeled incidental impacts? Is that referring to hatchery or wild Chinook? It seems to me that we should be going for much more than 50% harvest of hatchery Chinook.

I just don't understand what that number is really referring to.

I believe that's tribal harvest, they are taking 58 percent and the WDFW wants to drop that to 50 percent and the tribes are saying no way, they don't want us fishing for them at all....

Boldt decision working flawlessly....

The 50% exploitation rate that was mentioned is for naturally produced Chinook. That would include catch in directed Chinook fisheries as well as incidental catch in other fisheries. I guess I also should edit this for Evo. These are total exploitation rates from all fisheries.

OncyT ia correct.

The 50% exploitation is for the wild ESA listed Chinook and comes from the Co-managers Puget Sound Chinook management plan (latest edition is from 2010) and federally approved. The 50% exploitation includes all fishing mortality - directed and incidental. Those allowable impacts were determined after detailed modeling such that fishing at or below those levels would not significantly increase the likelihood of extinct over the next century. A couple assumptions were used; one that habitat would not become worst and two that recent low marine survivals would continue.

The rub is what fisheries will be constrained to reduce the over all impacts down to 50%. The tribes want a sharing of those reduction even though account for the majority of the total impacts.

Yes you are correct Curt, but it very likely that this population is simply being sustained by spawning of strays from the hatchery program, so it is also likely that a 58% (or higher) harvest rate would not significantly increase the likelihood of extinction over the next century as the population is being maintained by the hatchery program. Should it happen to become extinct during that time, the managers could simply go back to the hatchery population and let them spawn wherever they want, and pretty much end up with the same population. That is what is so infuriating about the fact that limitations of harvest on this particular population is what is driving the near term existence of Puget Sound fisheries.

Without a doubt most of the south Sound Chinook are being supported by natural spawning hatchery fish (integrated program). The Puyallup Chinook normally do not constrain mixed stock fisheries and only do so this year is the tribal position of not sharing the impacts equitably.

Curt

Then you understand that it is not very likely for a composite population made up of 90% hatchery fish being fished at a rate that can't be sustained by the natural population to actually show any increase in productivity. Abundance, of course, can be increased by the contribution of the hatchery component of the population. What is being accomplished by managing overall PS fisheries based on exploitation rate limitations on this particular population? I suggest again, that this entire approach is a sham.

Reading what Curt wrote about the plan is disturbing. The "goal" of the supposed recovery plan is simply the prevention of extinction. Not recovery. So, if they are successful we keep those stocks listed in perpetuity.

At the same time, everybody else (habitat, hydro, hatcheries) have to actually make things better.

http://www.king5.com/tech/science/enviro...emate/184772520

A lot of people still being affected and don't know....

It's amazing that with salmon nowhere near those lakes, a guy can't even toss out a bobber and worm. Meanwhile, the tribes never missed a day.

At least enforcement appears to be understanding by just handing out warnings.

Lake Washington and Sammamish have Salmon in them year round....

Sprouts maybe, it would be interesting to see what the impact calculations are for the perch fisherman. The fact that's some huge concern is unbelievable. Removing a perch( or a trout or bass for that matter) from the lake prevents them eating the smolts! Its likely a positive impact but those common sense thoughts have no place in the states management. They only seem to be interested in figures that are negative.

I would be absolutely gobsmacked if there have been any actual tickets written

http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/director/pugetsound_salmon_statement.html

Yawn> Business as usual IMHO Waiting for "answers" from these closed meetings is similar to waiting for a new Pope to be elected

Salmon in Lake Cushman? Heck of a leap over that dam.... stuff like that makes it clear the Tribes are just trying to piss us off. Seems to be working.

maybe the state should apply for the required permits ahead of the negations next year...

Yes folks we have a WINNER tonight!

You might want to check out the juvenile fish collection facility and adult collection facility and tram system at Dam #2 on the N.F. Skokomish before you get too bent out of shape about this one. I'm not sure exactly where they are in implementing all their passage, collection and hatchery plans, but it won't have to be a leap over the dam to get salmon into Lake Cushman.

theres resident Kings that get big, my buddie has a cabin there, we were gonna go in June or July and drag some gear but this screwed everything up.... i think they truck fish up too like they do elsewhere...

nice fish in that lake, of a few species... but remember who controls it....

Evo -

The Cushman Chinook spend their whole lives in the lake and historically were wild fish. They make their "living" feeding on the abundant kokanee in the lake.

By the way Cushman has been closed to fishing for or retaining those Chinook for decades.

Curt

Correct Curt, we were going to target the Kokes and Trout....

I believe, and Salmo can jump in, that the Skok upstream of the dams is slated for anadromous restoration. Chinook and sockeye are high on that list.

Frank Haw, in his office, had ink prints of a NF Skok Chinook and Native Char. Both were, i believe, north of 20 pounds. Had to have been taken in the 70s.

Read about it. Nice idea, but it reminds me a lot of what they try to do on the Wynoochee (with VERY limited, if any, success). The N. Fork's habitat is better upstream of Cushman than what's above Wynoochee Dam, but there's not a lot of it before fish run into what look to be impassable falls. Are they planning to blast those falls to make them passable, as they did with the falls below the dams?

Either way, the article I read was from last year, and it said they might be ready to start the program this year. That means smolts may have been planted this year, but it does not mean adult salmon will be returning to the collection facilities for at least two years. These are also hatchery programs, so how is there any ESA concern here? All the native runs in the N. Fork are extinct (according to the article I read... not me).

Doesn't seem to fit the mold of the other lake closures. That's my point. I don't fish Cushman often at all, but lost opportunity is lost opportunity, and I don't think it should happen without legitimate, immediate justification.

As I said, I am not familiar with how far they are in implementing their plans, but adult fish will not have to leap over Dam #2 as you suggested. With or without the planned hatchery programs, there are and always have been naturally produced fish that spawn in the N.F. Skokomish below the dam. I am also not familiary with what the designation of any upstream population will be (listed or perhaps an "experimental" population). In any event, habitat above the dam will be used for re-introduction of both Puget Sound Chinook and steelhead.

What is somewhat interesting is that the NF Skok, above Cushman, has a mile or two available for anadromous fish as Staircase is likely a block. So, the river itself will produce Diddle-E-Squat for either Chinook or steelhead. Downstream, in the previously dewatered NF, you have the habitat. What above Cushion can do is produce anadromous sockeye, but that doesn't have the ESA gravitas of Chinook and Steelhead.

I haven't been around the Skokomish since the old de-watered days of the North Fork, but I wouldn't be so sure that steelhead could not pass the Staircase Falls. I'm pretty sure that even the FERC licensing documents put together by Tacoma Public Utilities did not call it a complete blockage to all species. If steelhead could pass, I think there is somewhere around 7 miles of spawning and rearing a habitat above it that they could use. (Based on ~ 30 year-old memory, so take that for what it is worth.)

you would be surprised what they can get up, atleast i am.... the Duckabush is a very unforgiving river, and they make that trek just fine....

well did, before they were netted to death....

That is true. At merger, WDF spawner surveyors found out that impassable falls (to salmon) were not a barrier to steelhead.

My memory of the Falls at Staircase Falls is even older than OncyT (from the early 1970s) however as I recall the falls were a complete barrier to Chinook and for late running bull. It is possible that the falls could be passable by either steelhead or bull trout at higher flows during the late spring/early summer. Have not seen it at that time of year; on several north Puget Sound basins there are a number of barriers that are impassable to Chinook that are passable to steelhead or bull trout due to more favorable flow conditions before Chinook arrive on the scene.

As I recall there is a reasonable large stream on the west side of Cushman (Big Creek?) that would support some spawning; especially for sockeye (was used by kokanee). I would think the largest potential for anadromous salmonids production at Cushman would be with sockeye. The Baker example has shown that it could be done. However to make it work a large fish collection device and the attending North Fork (thought flooding of the redds before hatching might be an issue), in Big Creek, and potential the lake itself (if there are areas of upwelling in-flows). That said like in Baker producing consistent harvestable returns of sockeye would likely require the release of hatchery fry.

Curt

Since the thread has gone slightly off track, I'll chime in regarding Lake Cushman. There are now and have always been Chinook in Lake Cushman. Genetically they don't look like any Chinook anywhere, so some of us think they are the product of long inbreeding of native stock, plus George Adams (Green River hatchery origin) stock that Frank Haw had stocked there for a number of years. Most of them are land-locked because of the lack of downstream fish passage for nearly 80 years and the poor survival rate for those that make the trip down the turbine penstocks.

Anadromous re-introduction is in the works at Lake Cushman. A floating surface collector (FSC) similar to the ones in the Baker River system has been installed and is currently in a testing phase. Few salmon have been stocked in Cushman as of yet, but a small number of marked coho smolts have been stocked for tests. The Cushman hatcheries are ready to come on line and will provide a mix of native steelhead and coho for re-introduction above the dams. Spring Chinook and sockeye are being imported from the Skagit and Baker systems respectively due to the extirpation of native runs of those species.

Oh, and bull trout do migrate upstream of Staircase Rapids. Time will tell if any salmon or steelhead will do so.

Sg

Sorry about the thread drift. On the plus side, the sidebar was an interesting conversation.

To bring it back to the original reason why I brought up Lake Cushman (which was very much relevant to the overall topic at hand), I learned some interesting facts about the Skokomish restoration project, but nowhere in what has been discussed do I see justification for including Lake Cushman in this year's closures, which are about existing, ESA-listed, anadromous, native salmon, not experimental hatchery programs (whose first adults won't return for at least two years from now). In short, I still don't see why Cushman should be closed this year. I don't fish it much (and I don't know how many do), but in a year like this, where people will be seeking out any opportunity to fish, it seems to me like keeping as many alternatives available as possible is the right thing to do. Blanket closures may be easier to implement, but that doesn't make them good management of what resources are available to the license-buying sportsman.

I hope wdfw is prepared to offer a refund for saltwater licenses, otherwise I see a class action lawsuit in thier future...

FF2,

I agree that closing Lake Cushman (and other lakes) to fishing is an over-reaction. However, the extant land-locked Chinook population in the lake was included in the ESA-listed Puget Sound ESU. That was before specific genetic information was known about this group of fish. Now that we know that they represent some kind of genetic purgatory, it would be appropriate to remove them from the listed ESU. But since that is yet to occur, they are ESA-listed fish. From that standpoint I can see why WDFW doesn't take the risk of leaving the lake open when they are closing others where ESA fish are present.

Sg

FF2/Salmo

At the time of the ESA listing decision for Puget Sound Chinook in the late 1990s all natural populations downstream of natural impassable barriers were included in the list. Thus the Cushman fish were included.

An interesting side note was it was also decide to include the naturalize Chinook above the Granite Falls (an impassable barrier before laddering in the 1950s) on the South Fork Stillaguamish and above Sunset Falls (another impassable barrier before the trap and haul operation was started again in the 1950s). The rationale was that those naturalized population were in effect mitigation for lost habitat elsewhere in the basin. Assuming the feds/co-managers will continue to use that thinking I would not hold my breath until a delisting of Cushman fish.

Under current conditions and ESA take regulations the State had no choice other than closing Cushman and the other waters were ESA juvenile or adult Puget Sound Chinook are present and where ESA take protection was provided under the co-managers Puget Sound Chinook management plan. Halibut and ling cod fisheries were allowed because that ESA take protection was provided under the Puget Sound ESA listed rockfish plan.

Curt

Maybe we can ask for a discount like the ski areas offer for season pass holders in a low snow year.

Even though I bought my license to fish locally, there is fishing on the coast. As long as there is any opportunity to wet a line in salt water, they've met their obligation. I'll be very cautious before I renew next year especially if we're still co-managing with the tribes.

I also bought a salt water license, and if I can not fish localy I will put new tires on my trailer and go to the coast, Westport, but the bright side is that with my shellfish license I can harvest seaweed 365 days a year.

We're all racists now....


Funny how none of the things they said are included....


http://www.irehr.org/2016/05/13/bigotry-calls-violence-follow-protest-tribal-treaty-fishing/

Fishers come with the same mindset of preserving habitat.

I'm okay with the idea of more terminal harvest.
The PFMC and US-Canada Treaty need to be addressed. It is not just NOF that is broken.

I saw the same thing at first glance. Cushman? Really???

I thought those were planted chinook?

this is really starting to piss me off....

a day before the rally, on FWS on Facebook, people brought up the rally being held and it turned into a sh!t show...

what it mainly was, was Natives telling the rest of the "white man", to learn to fish for something else instead of Salmon... they kept using the term "paleface", and "white man" in derogatory senses, i mean paleface isnt racist at all, and i had to tell them to knock it off, SEVERAL times... i left the thread up, but i kept telling myself i should screen cap the sh!t because someone was going to delete the whole thing at some point, and i just had a weird feeling that it may be useful...

well i didnt, and it got deleted by another admin....

it was attacks on peoples mothers, laughing at the "white man" because he couldnt fish and they were, its their right... i had brought up that one of my great great grandfathers had married a Cherokee in the 1800s, but appearently, im still white because my skin is white, i have no Indian blood in me at all because my skin is white (im not really that white smh)... one of my responses was that i didnt care about that side/lineage of my family, im more intrigued with the Italian side as im a hell of alot more of that than i am Indian....

100% likely there isnt a 100% Native blooded Indian in this country... so basically at some point everyone is "white", or has "white blood" in them... i have a lot of friends that are Native, and they are as white as i am, mainly because at some point they started marrying white lineage people...

the "white man" as they refer to us, didnt steal anything from them, matter of fact, that bullsh!t article even states that they traded their land for hunting and fishing rights, so if you TRADED, how was it TAKEN?

the "white man" didnt take anything from anyone, the US Government did, and they take from the "white man" every single day as well, because well they are the Government and thats what those assholes do, is take from everyone thats under them....

Ron had brought up a good point about people threatening to not renew licenses saying it would hamper the upcoming years due to no funding for hatcheries because of lost revenue... well if we shut down all the hatcheries, what would they be fishing for? the wild runs obviously cant sustain what they are going through, so maybe that should be a possibility?

so if the white man is so bad, why do they use white man power to power their casinos? why do they pay millions of dollars to white owned TV stations (KIng, Kiro, Komo) to advertise their casinos to white people that spend their white money in there? i mean the white man is the devil right? why dance with the devil?


also, if you all didnt know, Hillary when she visited here a couple weeks ago, she went to the North West Indian Fisheries building down on River Road to meet with tribal members... you can tell who they will be voting for, with the massive use of Trumps name in that article....

watch who you vote for this year, it may make or break you.....

oh im vowing to fight to be part of the solution, may cause problems but thats what racism does, just like you constantly cause problems...

im going to start by doing this, starting with you.... deleting doesnt work when you piss me off....

you have no clue as to what i am, what im capable of, what i have done, what i can do, or what i will do....

just stfu and mind your own business, or, get involved so that we can get this sh!t straightened out....

you can always come over if you want too....

Oh now I get it. Because your ignorance gets called out, it's ok to cause problems. Gotcha. Not.

how many times have you been told to keep the BS off this side of the board?

Back to your regularly scheduled programming.......

A couple of questions for those more versed in NOF negotiations.
I keep hearing that both sides are still talking.

1. Is there an official drop dead date on when an agreement must be reached by or can they continue to negotiate right up to the proposed July openings?
2. If they were to reach an agreement, how long would it take NOAA to rubber stamp it?

Thanks for your input.
SF

from what one of Ron's friends at the rally said, things arent looking good at all, period for us....

ive also heard that NOAA isnt interested in issuing a seperate permit for sportsfishing in the state... like it should have been done all at once, or not at all...

both hearsay, but could very well be true....

It would be good to hear the tribes at the US- Canada Treaty negotiations. No one talks about Northern take.

Ron did at the rally, Alaska took 100k fish more than they were supposed to last year...

Late night check-in> Anyone seen an update on the WDFW/Tribes meetings lately? More "secrecy" surrounding these meeting than the Vatican meetings between the Cardinals electing a new Pope? They burn paper after every vote yea or nay and I was wondering tonight with all today's hi-tech where I might find a camera view of the chimney of votes taken recently...... :-/ Foot dragging gonna' get you NO season in PS unfortunately! Oh well........

They plan on targeting 263K in the troll fishery out of a total allocation of over 355K for 2016...

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/applications/dcfnewsrelease/651320891.pdf

I hear king fishing is off the hook in SE-AK right now.

are the trollers the boats with the long boom arms on them? i dont pay attention to much of the commercial stuff, and your numbers are pretty much the reason for that....

Most of the commercial fishing for kings is being done on inside waters. They're targeting fish produced in AK waters. The most productive areas for lower 48 kings won't open until 7/1.

I've heard they're doing pretty good too but the fish are showing up to the SSRAA hatcheries earlier than usual. The numbers of fish per landing isn't stellar by any means but there's quite a few boats out fishing.

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/applications/dcfnewsrelease/657700621.pdf

Notice the size of the fish showing up.
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=commercialbyfisherysalmon.bluesheetsummary

http://bellingham.craigslist.org/for/5589707611.html

Taking orders for fresh King Salmon, days catch every delivery. $5 per pound, each Fish average 20 lbs. I will reply ASAP on when I can get your Salmon.

Regards,


Buddy

On the ferry ride into town today I noticed there was a netter out in Elliot bay with a couple hundred feet of net out...

Pickup truck on Marine Drive yesterday with stereotypical "Fresh Salmon" sign and big white cooler.

That must be a fake ad, fish ticket records show that none of those fish are ever sold. The Nooksack spring chinook fishery is strictly a ceremonial and subsistence harvest.

I'm sure the coolers full of fish and garbage cans full of crab have been meticulously recorded.

subsistence = $


take away the $ and make it about food again and we may have a chance to save them before they are gone...

http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/edit...et-a-deal-done/

I, for one, am sick and tired of sucking hind [Bleeeeep!] to a privileged minority. Take the fish and shove it up your #$$. If the state caves in, just to salvage a miserable crumb off the tribes table, I will NEVER support WDFW again!
We've been slapped in the face. It's time to fight or grovel like a punk. But to beg the tribes to please let us fish is just plain BS!

Aside from everybodys rants, have we heard anything new on where we are with the process?

Are we still in talks with NWIFC or have we put that to bed and waiting on our individual permit from NOAA?

I think it's super important to separate long and short term for NOF.

Long term, NOF is obviously super broken, and we needed a good crisis to cause it to be re-examined. I think (but am not sure) we've had it. It's not obvious to me that sporties staying on the bank all season will help, but I concede it MIGHT.

However, MIGHT is hard to weigh against all the boat/tackle/retail outlets who will absolutely take it in the shorts if there's no fishing all summer. WDFW has to try to balance this. We need it on fire enough that serious changes will be enacted, including having our own permits for future years, which is in process I believe.

I think my point is that the inevitable "WDFW caved" narrative isn't so simple -- I think under NO circumstance will we get an equitable season this year. The only hope is we get them in future years.

I'm hearing a deal will be announced today.

no one is going to comment on that price per pound in the Alaska troll fishery???? $9.34 a pound.... or you kidding me thats a lot more per pound than I have ever seen going to the fishermen. like $4.00 more per pound... time to sell the house and buy a boat!

I just seen where the Indians are netting the White river for Spring Chinook right now. Guessing they needed some Ceremonial catch. Some more BS, white man saved the run from extinction and they are the only user group that get to harvest.

from S.U.:

That price per pound is for the winter fishery. The number of fish caught will soon go up and the price will drop. I seem to remember the buyers offered about $2.75 lb for large kings last summer. By the time it get's to the consumer at Pike Place it's $20 lb.
Don't sell your house and buy a boat, there's more money to be made after the fish gets to the dock!

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/b...agreement-near/

Started hearing rumblings of this deal this morning, looks like it's actually going to happen...we'll know this afternoon.

Fish on...

Todd

Irishrogue- everything I'm hearing indicates that NOAA wants absolutely no part in issuing seperate permits. That could make this whole thing very interesting.

Any word?

Hope something goes right for you guys this season.

Saying delayed until Monday.... hopefully.

Hopefully no news is good news.

Does anyone know what WDFW proposed for MA7 and if it got any pushback from the tribes?

no fishing from a floating device, hooks are prohibited.


tribes had no problems with the regulations as written

still no word......

Likely working out how to deal with the last minute demands that got thrown on the negotiating table.......

Oh well, so much for sooth saying.

Last minute???

The last minute came and went long ago.

I heard exactly "zero" about any negotiations today.

Fish on...

Todd

Yes, last minute like last years King closure.
Something like that likely happened again this year, to no ones surprise.
It is all last minute till ink hits paper.....
SF

Well I'll be dipped. Imagine that.

Damdest thing. Who'd have thunk?

Just talked to a rep of WADFW, he said negotiations are ongoing, "the mood in the office is optimistic, but nothing concrete yet. We have applied for a separate permit, but it may take as long as 8 months"...
So I ain't gassing up the boat just yet, unless it's for a trip to LaPush or Neah Bay (Hobuck), or the CR.

Eight months? It's now late May. Eight months means salmon fishing in Puget Sound will be closed until January 2017. But the mood is optimistic....!

talks still ongoing, DFW hopes to have good news by next week. Joint Permit process will be much quicker than separate permits, as the gears were set in motion at NOF.

no sh!t, one would think that with a multi million dollar sport fishing industry on the line, the permit process could be sped up a bit...

Make no mistake. The permit process is faster with agreement because NOAA wants it that way. There is no other real reason that I'm aware of that it can't be done at the same speed with or without agreement.

We've lost a month of salmon fishing here in the South Sound, MA 13. Ten dollars of our sport license goes toward the selective blackmouth program?

Well are we going to hear today, or more "last minute demands"?

Blue balls at this point,

fb

Where did you get the KY, Was that extra.

King 5 just dropped this VIA there app:

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife officials say tribal fishery managers and the state have reached a deal. Salmon fishing could open as early as next week, but the agreement must first be approved by NOAA.

More info to come.

I done seed it on King5. Yey.

I'm seeing contradictory reports. Anybody with their ear to the ground have the real story?

Yeah I'm now seeing VIA social media King 5 jumped the gun.

Still nada.

We all know its not going to be "Hey everybody, liberal limits all around!", nor should it be. So why do I have this sinking feeling that we are going to get extra, double secret probation screwed? Like more than normal?

Zero expectations = zero disappointments.

We'll probably get Reiter and only Reiter. Awesome.

http://www.king5.com/tech/science/enviro...shing/215019034

Says this: Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife officials say tribal fishery managers and the state are in the final stages of reaching an agreement in the stalemate over salmon fishing. A deal could be finalized at any moment.

Salmon fishing could open as early as next week, but the agreement must first be approved by NOAA.

heres one of the drafts that has been leaked...

I just called wdfw and he said areas 4 and 5 are open july 1 for kings, no coho anywhere accept area 1, and probably a short window for Puget sound kings. He also confirmed King 5 jumped the gun.

Here's some information rec'd from Laurie Peterson, WDFW, about 40 minutes ago. Still a work in progress.



Hello advisors –

This afternoon we are hearing of an erroneous report from King 5 News saying that we have state-tribal agreement on Puget Sound salmon fisheries. Just to clarify, we still do not have agreement. Ron Warren and others are working to clear up this erroneous news report. Please clarify any erroneous rumors among the public constituents who you work with..... as we still are negotiating and have not reached final agreement. More updates soon as we know of them…

I received the following from the office of Maria Cantwell:

Thank you for contacting me regarding Puget Sound salmon fishing agreements. I appreciate hearing from you on this important matter.

Each spring, state, Tribal, and federal fishery managers hold a series of meetings in coordination with the Pacific Fishery Management Council, to determine a Puget Sound salmon fishing agreement. Ultimately, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Puget Sound treaty tribes formulate a proposed Puget Sound salmon fishing plan based on those meetings. This is called the North of Falcon process. The plan developed by North of Falcon is then submitted to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for final approval, which is required by law because a number of salmon stocks in Puget Sound are listed under the Endangered Species Act. In the 2016-2017 season, for the first time in 30 years, the state and Tribes did not reach an agreement at North of Falcon before the start of the season. I was active in urging both sides to come to the table to continue productive discussions, and am thankful to hear that the state and Tribes are getting closer to an agreement. I was active in urging both sides to come to the table to continue productive discussions, and am thankful to hear that the state and Tribes are getting closer to an agreement.

The importance of salmon fishing to the Pacific Northwest is enormous, and the potential closure of this fishery has increasingly far reaching consequences for tribal, commercial and recreational communities across Washington state and the Pacific Northwest. Tribes have been fishing in Puget Sound for thousands of years. The maritime industry in Washington state alone directly employs 57,700 people and contributes $30 billion in economic activity annually.

Since being elected to the Senate, I have committed to preserving our robust and vibrant commercial, tribal and recreational fishing communities and the marine ecosystems they depend on. That is why I have consistently supported expanding salmon conservation, research, and restoration activities like the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF). As of 2015, PCSRF funds have restored more than 1,031,000 acres of essential fish habitat and opened up more than 8,700 miles of streams for fish passage, but we can’t stop there. As declines in certain salmon stocks continue, protecting of salmon and the habitat they depend on, only grows in importance.

Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,
Maria Cantwell
United States Senator

About noon today, headed south on I-5 through Mount Vernon, across the river on the bar saw a fly guy flailing the water. Could have been practice but had waders on and out knee deep. Maybe he knew something we didn't.

I saw that same guy walking the beach on Sunday morning. Then he was over on a certain local lake that afternoon. Pretty sure that guy gets around and is not up to speed on current events. That guy should be more careful.

FYI-
Salmon co-managers agree on Puget Sound fisheries, will work to improve season-setting process - http://nwtreatytribes.org/salmon-co-mana...etting-process/

Salmon seasons set for Puget Sound;
area waters expected to re-open to fishing soon
OLYMPIA – State and tribal leaders today reached an agreement on Puget Sound fisheries that is expected to pave the way toward opening summer salmon seasons and waters recently closed to recreational fishing.
The co-managers agreed on this year's Puget Sound salmon seasons after several weeks of extended negotiations. Anticipated low numbers of salmon – especially coho – returning to Puget Sound made this year's negotiations challenging.
Agreement on fishing seasons is a key step in obtaining a joint federal permit required to conduct fisheries in Puget Sound waters, where some fish stocks are protected under the federal Endangered Species Act.
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) closed many Puget Sound-area waters to fishing on May 1, after the previous federal authorization to conduct fisheries expired.
"We plan to re-open those waters as soon as we have federal approval," said John Long, salmon fisheries policy lead for WDFW. "We anticipate getting the new permit within a few weeks."
More information on the fisheries that closed May 1 is available on the department's website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/pugetsound_salmon_update/.
In the meantime, anglers can begin making plans to fish for salmon this summer in Puget Sound-area waters, where most of those fisheries will target hatchery chinook. Salmon fisheries throughout the Puget Sound area will be constrained to protect coho salmon and other weak salmon stocks, Long said.
"Conservation is key in developing these fisheries, especially in a year with such low returns expected back to the Sound," Long said. "We worked hard to meet those conservation needs and provide fisheries that are meaningful for both state and tribal fishers."
Changes in Puget Sound salmon fisheries since last summer can be found on WDFW's website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/northfalcon/, where information on Washington's salmon fisheries in ocean waters and the Columbia River also is available. Some of those changes include:
• Marine Area 10 (Seattle/Bremerton) will be open from July 16 to Aug. 15, or when the quota of 1,395 fish is met. The area was closed last summer to chinook retention. Marine Area 9 (Admiralty Inlet) will be open on the same dates as Marine Area 10, but also could close sooner if the quota of 3,056 fish is met.
• There will be no coho fisheries in marine areas of Puget Sound, with the exception of Hood Canal, where sufficient coho are forecast to return.
• WDFW is closing some rivers and marine areas to all salmon fishing during September and October, the peak months for coho salmon to return to Puget Sound. Rivers slated for closures include the Skagit, Stillaguamish and Nisqually. Lakes Washington and Sammamish also will be closed to fishing during those months.
• The lower mainstem of the Skokomish River will be closed to non-tribal fishing this year due to a claim by the tribe that the river is part of the Skokomish Reservation and public access is prohibited. WDFW is working to evaluate this claim. The closed area includes the section of river from the Tacoma Public Utilities power lines (near the mouth of the river) upstream to the Bonneville Power Administration power lines (upstream and west of Highway 101). The department advises anglers to observe this closure of the state's fishery that will be monitored by WDFW police.
More details on salmon seasons in Puget Sound and other areas of Washington will be available on WDFW's website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/ later this month.
For information on tribal fisheries, contact the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (http://nwifc.org/).

Thanks Chetwoot for the update.

Puget Sound

State and tribal fishery managers agreed May 26 on 2016's salmon fisheries for Puget Sound. Changes from 2015 include:
•Fishing will be closed on the following rivers during September and October to protect coho: Skagit, Cascade, Snohomish, the mainstem Stillaguamish, Green and Nisqually. Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish will also be closed to fishing in September and October.
•The Puyallup River will be closed to recreational salmon-fishing this year. The Carbon River will open for 15 days to recreational salmon-fishing in which anglers may keep up to two hatchery chinook.
•The Snohomish River, however, will be open to fishing for hatchery chinook salmon June 1 through July 30.
•Anglers can retain two hatchery chinook, plus two sockeye, when fishing in marine areas 5 (Sekiu) and 6 (East Juan de Fuca Strait) from July 1 to Aug. 15.
•Anglers fishing in Marine Area 7 (San Juan Islands) in July can retain two salmon including two hatchery chinook (but must release coho and wild chinook) and can retain one hatchery or wild chinook in August and September as part of their two salmon daily limit.
•The forecast for sockeye returning to Baker Lake is strong enough to allow for both a lake fishery, open mid-July through early September, and a fishery on the Skagit River, which will be open June 16 through July 15 with a guideline of 4,600 fish.
•Marine Areas 8-1 (Deception Pass, Hope Island and Skagit Bay) and 8-2 (Ports Susan and Gardner) will remain closed to salmon fishing until November, when anglers will be allowed to retain hatchery chinook but must release coho.
•Marine areas 9 (Admiralty Inlet) and 10 (Seattle/Bremerton) will be open July 16 to Aug. 15 to fishing for hatchery chinook. The areas could close early if the chinook quota in each area – 3,056 fish in 9 and 1,395 fish in 10 – is met.
•Hood Canal (Marine Area 12) will be open to coho fishing both north and south of Ayock Point starting Aug. 16 and July 1 respectively.
•Anglers fishing south of Ayock can retain up to four hatchery chinook, 20 inches or bigger, July through Sept. 30. Anglers with a two-pole fishing endorsement can fish with two poles from July through October. Those fishing north of Ayock can fish for hatchery chinook beginning Oct. 1.
•Marine Area 11 (Tacoma-Vashon Island) will be closed to salmon-fishing in September and October to protect coho. The area also will be closed to fishing for blackmouth (winter hatchery chinook) November through January. The area typically is closed to salmon fishing in January.
•Piers that are typically open year-round will be closed to salmon fishing during September and October to protect coho, except for the piers within Sinclair Inlet, which will be open year-round. When piers are open, anglers may retain one chinook but must release all coho, except at Sinclair Inlet piers, where anglers may retain hatchery coho.
•The lower mainstem of the Skokomish River will be closed to non-tribal fishing this year due to a claim by the tribe that the river is part of the Skokomish Reservation and public access is prohibited. WDFW is working to evaluate this claim. The closed area includes the section of river from the Tacoma Public Utilities power lines (near the mouth of the river) upstream to the Bonneville Power Administration power lines (upstream and west of Highway 101). The department advises anglers to observe this closure of the state's fishery that will be monitored by WDFW police.
•A complete description of Puget Sound salmon fisheries can be found in the 2016-17 Washington Sport Fishing Rules pamphlet, which will be available in the coming weeks. Check WDFW's fishing regulations webpage at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/ for more details.

Columbia River and ocean
Salmon-fishing seasons have been set for the Columbia River and Washington's ocean waters.
•Columbia River
•Ocean (Marines Areas 1-4)

A complete description of salmon fisheries can be found in the 2016-17 Washington Sport Fishing Rules pamphlet, which will be available by the end of June.

what a joke...

The biggest loss there is NO fishing in the Puyallup. They should have never agreed to that when there are harvestable hatchery Chinook for the taking.

I dunno WTF you're talking about Evo, but the summer Chinook fishery we've been offered is the best we have seen in 3 years. 3k in 9 and 1.3k in 10 will provide a good (albeit short) summer fishing opportunity.

Losing UM retention in 7 is kind of a big hit, but there was a tradeoff by increasing the bag to 2 hatchery.

I don't think ANYONE thought we were looking at a Coho season from the get-go. A lot of what the state was proposing was CNR only in the salt.....

Link to WDFW Announcement

Very surprised to see an Area 10 King fishery.

No Sky closure on Coho in Sept / Oct??? Huh?

i live 10 minutes from the Puyallup thats WTF im talking about... i already posted the counts from the last 10 years on this very post, this will be the 3rd largest run of Kings the Puyallup has seen in 10 years, and the Coho counts are always right around 6k fish or more, INCLUDING last year when they said there was NO COHO, they still got back 6400 Coho....

sure, if you have a nice big ass boat and can drive it up to Seattle, you have a good fishery...

i fish rivers... and 2 of them i fish heavily are closed when the fish will be there, and its fvcking bullsh!t....

Can someone please clarify when the Sky will open for summer run? If I understand correctly it could be a few weeks.

"We plan to re-open those waters as soon as we have federal approval," said John Long, salmon fisheries policy lead for WDFW. "We anticipate getting the new permit within a few weeks."

If that's the case I feel bad for anyone planning to fish the coastal rivers. They're gonna be a joke. All the puget sound river pressure will go somewhere.

I don't see why the state is giving in to the tribe.
I am not an attorney, so I probably am not qualified to interpet it all so take this for what its worth, but here is my opinion. In the court case "Skokomish Indian Tribe, Appellant, v. E. L. France, Trustee, et al.", it appears that the court is stating that the reservation only included uplands. They were dealing with tidelands, but give several reasons why they believed the tide lands were not included. Most, if not all of these would appear to apply to the river too. The treaty itself only lists the reservation bounardary as to the mouth of the river and up the river. While this may be vague, it is clear that the reseveration was split up and divided among tribal members. I do not believe any of these allotments includes the river or land under the river. (I could be wrong but the previous court ruling indicated that the allotments were all up lands). In addition the ruling case also states that it is clear that the reservation was meant as an area to reside and not as a boundary for economic means (fishing, claming, hunting , etc), it also mentions the common practice of high water mark being the boundaries. There are other reasons but you can find them yourselves if you read the ruling.

Another interesting case mentions that among the tribes at that time, they commonly recognized the half way mark of a water way as a boundary among themselves. Meaning, at worst, that if they thought they owned the river, they would have most likely interpreted the boundary it as half.

Just talked with Sky-Guy. Obviously, there is no fishing until NOAA approves (the Sky included). It'll be a couple 2 - 4 weeks for approval so we are just going to have to wait. There are gonna be a lot of tickets unless the state makes this abundantly clear in their future announcements. Maybe that's part of their new rev-gen strategy.

What I don't get is why the upper section of the Puyallup and Carbon are even closed at all, they don't net past the White, why close the upper river? Why not make it release wild fish, like they do with Chum on the Carbon?

They are going to net the sh!t out of the lower river and take all the Voights creek fish now.... Fish I fvckin paid for...

Yep. They had better spell it out loud and clear. I'm sure there are a ton of folks that are still going off of their regs that say are good until June 30th 2016. How many pissed off steelhead fisherman will be getting told to leave Reiter on June 1st...?

You mean like in this link where it says June 1st? http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/northfalcon/

"We plan to re-open those waters as soon as we have federal approval," said John Long, salmon fisheries policy lead for WDFW. "We anticipate getting the new permit within a few weeks."

Kinda confusing is what I'm getting at. Anyway, back into my hole from whence I came...

LOL

What's funny....

I'm thinking, some WDFW employees are being thankful for a chance to "keep their jobs". Time will tell, how 2016-17 license sales will go. I'm betting sales will be less, and that affects the budget.

2nd comment.....boat launches and parking areas, aren't large enough, in
Grays Harbor to handle all the I'5 ers, that would have headed this way, IF THERE HAD BEEN NO SALMON FISHING in the Seattle, Tacoma area.

Evo,I deleted your profane post. keep it on the darkside or you wont have a chance to choose where to post anymore.

The NOF page on the WDFW site indicates some fisheries will open June 1st. This is not the case and I have asked them to correct their info.

No fisheries open until NOAA approves and issues a permit.
I spoke with Susan Bishop at NOAA yesterday and confimed this to be the case in the event a deal was reached. I asked her how the process might be expedited, nd she indicated her whole stall will be all hands on deck working towards issuing approval, and she did say it would likely be 1-2 weeks at best for that to happen.

it is what it is. if we have to wait a few days past traditional opener dates I'll take it.