PSA needs your help on July 30. Skokomish River

We need your participation at the Skokomish River at George Adams Hatchery on July 30, at 1 PM. We cannot allow river closures by certain tribes to shut us off the rivers to our hatcheries. The news media will be there. Please join us. The Skokomish tribe has had the Skokomish river deemed theirs by the Solicitor General and are not allowing any fishing from the river. This can be disputed long term but short term they are kicking us off the river. This is becoming a precedent from some tribes to start claiming rivers and remove access to our fish.

In a June 9 op-ed article, published in the Shelton-Mason County Journal, Lorraine Loomis, Chair of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, stressed the importance of cooperation between the co-managers of the salmon resource (Puget Sound tribes and the State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife), and the need to work together on fish habitat protection and restoration, as well as seeking greater production of salmon through our hatchery programs. We agree with Ms. Loomis.

We would like to see the Skokomish tribe reverse their decision.
Please click on this link to the PSA state board for more information and address. Also please read our letter to Skokomish Tribal Chairman, Guy Miller, that has the link on the site too:

www.pugetsoundanglers.org

I hear parking has changed?

park at Hunter Farms 1921 WA-106. At our last board meeting we were told there will be shuttles to the hatchery

From the PSA updated page. :Attendees are requested to have drivers drop off their passengers at George Adams Hatchery, 40 West Skokomish Valley Road, and then proceed west on West Skokomish Valley Road to a pasture about a quarter of a mile away. Drivers will be shuttled back to the hatchery.

Glad to see so many very concerned folks show up today! Shuttle service worked efficiently - it has been a long time since I parked in an active pasture - if you know what I mean! Thanks to Hunter Farms for use of their property.

Too bad there were no politicians in attendance or WDFW management to hear the frustration of attendees. Participating organizations participating will be sending out information to their members for further action involving elected officials and WDFW management.

There was quite a groan when it was announced that not only is the popular and productive Chinook Skok fishery being closed to sport anglers by tribal decree, but sockeye that were being transported to Baker Lake for sport fishing were now being diverted to the Skok brood stock program as well.

Well, isn’t that special!!

Isn't there something about out of basin stocks from the hatchery reform group?

Any members of the media present at this rally? Haven't seen any reporting on this event.

Since there probably aren't "native" lacustrine sockeye in the system it would be permissible to bring in a donor stock if it can pass all the disease protocols. An interesting aspect is that this transfer will need to be approved by all the Tribes, especially the Skagit Tribes whose fish are being taken. I think WDFW would also have to approve. I wonder if they will approve a transfer if non-Indians don't have access to them.

Also, there are native riverine sockeye in the Skok and these might try to invade the lake and convert to lacustrine.

I thought the sockeye that returned to the hatchery were just following the early chinook? Survivors of the Tacoma City Light flows?

No. There are riverine (river rearing) native sockeye throughout Puget Sound. They are likely the ancestor of all lacustrine stocks.

Re: Baker sockeye transfer to Skokomish basin and Lake Cushman.

Yes, it's happening. Any endemic native sockeye stock from Cushman was either extirpated by the hydro project or overwhelmed from kokanee introductions. So the Skokomish Tribe looked at all potential donor stocks. Baker was selected because it's from Puget Sound and presently the most productive of the west side populations.

Yes, there are hoops to jump through, particularly fish disease protocols. The state and federal agencies and the Skagit Tribes had to approve. It's no easy task, but not impossible. The first brood was supposed to be last year, but some of the paperwork fell through the cracks, so the 2016 brood is the first adult brood year from which some fish are being set aside and held for TP/Skok. Eyed certified disease free eggs will be transferred to the new hatchery at Potlatch this winter. At specified times and sizes, juvenile sockeye will be transferred to Lake Cushman in 2017, and the first smolts should out migrate in the spring of 2018. And the first adult sockeye should return in the summer of 2020 if the program is successful.

A program like this is inherently an experiment, and success is not assured. WDFW's approval was based on biological considerations and the Skokomish Tribe's plan. Harvest sharing remains to be figured out. Of course it's more complicated if non-treaty recreational doesn't get a shot in the lower river. Hmmm, maybe a non-treaty gillnet fishery in lower Hood Canal is the Tribe's preferred method of assuring equal sharing of the harvest. Gotta' consider all ideas when brainstorming.

Meanwhile, back on topic, it would be interesting to hear what PSA and others had to say. If the state doesn't plan to contest the Skok's boundary claim, then my open-minded consideration would be to close down all state funded salmon hatchery operations in the Skok basin. The TP funded portion of G. Adams should continue since it's in TP's FERC license.

Sg

I was wondering if the state should take the step of approving an non-treaty commercial netting just outside the skokomish river mouth, insisting on an equal share of the impacts since the tribe has opted to not allow more selective ways of harvesting the stock. This in turn, may reduce the number of fish the tribe could take, thus providing an incentive to allow sports fishing back in the river.

Hi -------

Attached are the photos yesterday of the non I commercial net rolling out (caught 200 as we just about to get lines wet) and a card of phone numbers to ring. They are expecting calls and have a list of folks to answer complaints I guess.


I received this yesterday and if anyone wants the photos PM me.


We know the story, 2 non Indian commercial permits given by HS hatchery to trade for rec loss on Skok R. The Indians got a good trade! The losers are the recs who pay for management of the mess. SO now commercial fishing directly in hatchery zone M-W-TH-F!!!!

Lets get organized and send out to press. It makes little sense and time to shake things up in poor times.

For me, I will be requesting a refund for license. Or at least credit for 55% off. May need to do FOIA request to see how this all came down, and sprang into action is short time after most purchased licenses. Jon

Please do forward and find a group that can embarrass this management.

Thanks ---------

On the other hand, they have clearly shown where the allegiances lie. And, as Smalma often says, the result of not having the sporties catch the fish (closing the ocean) is more netting.

Just when you thought WDFW couldn't be more useless and pathetic.

Could be some interesting public input at this week's Commission meeting in Olympia: http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2016/08/agenda_aug0516.html.

I believe one of the major problems the Tribes have with rec fisheries is that the recs can do selective release of protected fish. Being able to do that, and show that it is possible, conflicts with the First Conservationist Paradigm. Commercial fisheries, on the other hand, have the same by catch issues so everybody is on the same page.

I'm pretty jaded about this stuff anymore, but even I didn't think WDFW would do something this blatantly unfair and anti-rate payer. WE pay for these fish (more than any other user group anyway) so people in Cleveland can eat Chinook salmon? Bull $hit!

More back room bargaining at our expense.

I'm ashamed at myself for buying a license this year. I knew the fishing (that I have access to anyway) was going to suck, and it was the perfect year to send the message that needs to be sent. Alas, this golden goose came through for them yet again, in spite of my best interests. As Bugs Bunny would say, "What a maroon!"

"You still have bass and bluegill, stop complaining!"-WDFW

(ok probably not a quote, but thats how it feels)

Here is something I came across that makes no sense to me. Am I missing something?


PUGET SOUND COMMERCIAL SALMON FISHERIES HOTLINE (360) 902-2500 2016-03 Week 33 Thursday August 4th at 3:00 p.m. [read by: Kwasi Addae]
Area 7 and 7A sockeye fisheries are controlled by the Fraser River Panel and are not posted on this hotline. Fishers should call the National Marine Fisheries Service Hotline at 1-800-662-9825 to get opening information on Fraser Panel fisheries. Fishers are reminded that a department issued Fish Friendly certification card is required to participate in any Area 7 or 7A commercial salmon fisheries.
For the week beginning Sunday August 7th all areas are closed except as follows:

Areas 7B (Bellingham Bay) and 7C (Samish Bay) will be open to:
Gillnets using 7-inch minimum mesh size: 7 PM Sunday, August 7th to 8 AM Monday, August 8th. 7 PM Monday, August 8th to 8 AM Tuesday, August 9th. 7 PM Tuesday, August 9th to 8 AM Wednesday August 10th.
Purse seines with a 5 inch strip: Wednesday August 10th from 6 AM to 8 PM. Brailing is required and purse seines must release all coho.
The portion of Area 12C within 2,000 feet of the western shore between the dock at Glen Ayr Recreational Vehicle Park and the Hoodsport Marina dock, also referred to as the Hoodsport Hatchery Zone will be open to:
Beach seines with nets not to exceed 990 feet in length and 200 meshes in depth using minimum 3-inch and maximum 4-inch mesh:
7 AM to 7 PM daily, Monday August 8th and Wednesday August 10th
Beach seines must release all chum.
Participation is limited to those with a department issued beach seine permit and all rules and regulations associated with that permit remain in effect.

I'll be at that meeting in Olympia at the 4:15 time slot, I plan on calling out anyone from wdfw that has ANYTHING to say about this and hasn't told the A.G. the facts of life. Tribes will litigate until hell freezes over (or until the state caves in) even on a losing case if they have casino funds to pay off greedy lawyers. A purely Donald Trump kind of strategy, wear them down with bull**it until they cave. Until the state steps up and challenges this in court the taxpayers and fishing license purchasers end up paying for a tribal and commercial fishery . This kind of B.S. has got to stop. If the state takes them to court and loses the situation would be the same, at least they should fight this all the way before common practice is established that favors tribal interests in fishing co-management that corrupt our political system and screws over the rest of us. Go to the meeting instead of complaining here about how no one from the state was at the hatchery last week meeting with protesters. Call them out for selling out the residents of our state. Maybe we should show up in force at next years canoe journey, a lot of fishermen in boats could certainly throw some sand in their wheels( or paddles!) The news crews would certainly be there. We could balme the disruption on WDFW's failure to protect our interests and rights. Bob R

Maybe I'm missing something here but what the hell does the hoodsport hatchery have to do with the Skokomish closure (the reason for this thread)?

Isn't the Marine Area 12 recreational fishery open? These hatchery Chinook are not returning to the Skokomish.

Maybe you're just bent out of shape because some non-treaty commercial guys are netting fish that would otherwise end up as surplus at Hoodsport?

More lost opportunity for the bank-bound, whether it's Hoodsport or the Skok, all at the expense of the ones losing the opportunity.

Send me those pictures please.

You are joking right? I want to make sure before I respond.

Not completely, no. Again, what does it have to do with the theme of the thread?

I don't understand where you are getting your information. How do you know the fish caught aren't Skok fish? Of course they are. They are also Hoodsport fish.

They raised the limit to make up for closing the in river fishery. Now, they are underhandedly allowing a NT net season, instead of just opening the Fuc*ing river like they should (and legally can). I would venture to say most of the people who fish the Skokomish aren't out in the canal fishing this weekend.

So, they are not going to open the river, even based on your assurance of the legality.

I guess I see this opener as a poke in the eye to the Skoks.....

If they catch Skok fish too, even better.

A big poke would be opening the river. Until a judge decides the legality of their ownership claims, we should still be fishing. The WDFW should be present to keep the tribal police from harassing us. Not to keep us off the river.

Have seen those beach seines for years in that area.

There have been tribal beach seines fishing that Hoodsport hatchery area for many years. I am not sure there were ever non-treaty beach seines there as per these regulations.

Correct. The non-tribal component is new, and it appears to be made possible by agreeing to give up the rec fishery in the river. Of course, appearances can be misleading.... Do we know, for fact, that it went down that way, or are we only connecting dots and drawing conclusions? I'm waiting on a clear answer to this before I start writing letters.

Well here is the man to ask the question to.
ron.warren@dfw.wa.gov

Non-tribal ones?

Message sent. Wonder if Ron ever gets tired of being the fall guy for outrageous management decisions....

Since the department is pushing for increased license fees, I started with an e mail to the director about the various loss of opportunity and if with a new net fishery that there would be a good place to scavenge for new department funding.

Director Unsworth ---1 360 902 2200 director@dfw.wa.gov

Ron Warren 1 360 902 2799

I am not a PS person and live here in the Chehalis Valley so I seldom jump in your issues but I will say this. If you are a REC fisher be it the East side of the mountains, PS, or the coast you have be damn near ready for the sleeveless overcoat and a ride to the gray bar hotel to support any license increase ........... period. They will take your money prance around and proclaim they are the Recs friend then do what they have done for the entire 68 years I have been alive ..... screw the hell out you.

Just to make this more interesting for the GH folks I understand the Skoks are trying to claim Black Lake/Black River as part of their U&A. A new player for the GH management circus.

Hadn't heard about the Black. Not sure why they'd want it, save for the occasional year where it sees fishable numbers of coho. Maybe they are only seeking to steal more sport impacts in the Chehalis Basin like they did on their home river.

The one that really raised my hackles was trying to get the Satsop added to their U&A. If that happens, they'll mop up whatever the Quinault miss in the tidal Chehalis, and it'll be all over but the crying for the GH in-river sportsman. Looks like we're headed that way, sooner rather than later.

That's fantastic.

Really excellent.

I think we should give them and the non-tribal commercials every single fish.

And then I hope a meteor destroys the whole fuckin' planet just to even the playing field. It will solve our political and fisheries issues in one bright flash.

A quick start would be to open the entire Hood Canal rather than just South of Ayok Rock. The Northern part of the canal has been closed for 20 years for a variety of reasons that don't make sense. Those fish could be targeted by more than just a few. Also, it's time to include sockeye as well before they become an issue.

I haven't heard anything about Black River, but I know they are starting to seek claim to the Satsop. All hell would break loose if they were to make this happen.

Could you imagine nets on the Satsop? Neither can I, but at this rate anything is possible. Judges are big on precedent, and this closure has set a precedent for sure. They make a claim, they get what they want. The Dept. of the Interior and the BIA will never side with us. A judge will lean on their opinions nearly 100%.

Its not as simple as that right? It has to be harder then that for them to bend us over and go in dry right?

I think it really is that easy, hold the KY.

"long time listener-(near) first time caller" sort of deal...
so apologies for jumping in.

Trying to get this all configured.
The Skoks are trying to claim the Satsop? or is it Quinault wanting to net the Satsop-eventhough they get first chance on the lower Chehalis?

The Chehalis tribe have a very small hatchery on lower Black River and they net near their reservation on the Chehalis but the lower Chehalis is all Quinault-yes? Do I have that right-or correct me please.

This will be a year that will start a big, big shift away from recreational opportunities for the normal citizens of the US locally, and as seasons get slimmed down (does anyone think there will be ANY salmon season on the Chehalis?), the days of old are going to be sealed it sadly seems.

What a turbulent time, fighting over hatchery fish and endangered fish with different definitions and different players with different powers and agendas..what a mess.

Not saying right or wrong, just becoming obvious that the tribes have all the power and the fish and game department can't or won't do anything or even try. Yes, two "countries" and treaties hold big power. I get that for sure. Seems to be the door was cracked and now, it is time to see how far they can swing it. I see no hope in slowing down the inevitable that as fish stocks shrink to nothing, there will be only one player left. Only by their choice will the killing stop until the last runs ceases-and I hope someone gets the bigger picture and not the payback for payback picture. Alot of mistakes are coming back to haunt all involved-mostly the fish.

The northern portion of Hood Canal will probably never be open again, well, at least while those mid-Canal independent tribs (Dosie, Duck and Hamma Hamma) need to be recovered. Their productivity is so low that I'm pretty sure they are overharvested before they even reach Washington waters.

Guys off thread this is a PS thing thread and I probably should have kept my trap shut. Anyhow I have to do some chores to do and I think if you go back through the FTC thread the tribal legal action was hit but I will do it again when I get back. Lets not hijack a PS thread.

Melanie and I went to the meeting this morning for public input, gave them hell for not advocating against AG's ruling on no rec fishing per tribe's assertion of river ownership. Long story short they have been told by legal to not give an opinion so as to threaten future possible legal actions by A. G.'s office. In other words, give in to them now as the feds will protect their interests. Still didn't make us happy by a long shot. Melanie is the more reasonable of the two of us , that's for sure. I don't make any friends there, I guess. Bob R

THX Bob. You know your right though because as in all things with us as a people if you allow the government to sell someone else down the road ( in this case a it is as simple as a few hundred citizens right to fish ) one should always remember this. Next time they will come for you and yours just as surely as the sun will rise in the East.

Little edit as this was forwarded:

Attached is a word file of the doc that is somewhat blurry. Had to convert the pdf due to the file size. Here's the link to the PDF and its posted on the DFW website. Go to "North of Falcon" on side is a table of "2016 Fisheries Plans and Model runs" and you'll see "2016-17 Co-Managers List of Agreed Seasons". That takes you to the doc at the link below. Hiding in plain sight.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/tribal/2016-17agreement.pdf
On page 37 it starts with Skokomish tribal and rec is below that. Down a little and it shows the rec closure on the Skok. Couldn't find a permanent rule for Nt nets.
I relooked and found two notices on the commercial hotline for NT beach seines. One we hadn't seen before is for August 1-3rd. http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/hotline/2016/2-jul29_2016.pdf
Then, I found the how it went down. The regular rules coming out of the agreed to seasons doesn't have a NT fisheries over by Hoodsport. Then, maybe a slap at the Skoks? Here's an emergency rule that sets up a bunch of days in July and August "due to surplus of Chinook available" for NT beach seines

http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regulations/emergency_rules/2016/wsr_16-16-020.pdf

I'm pretty sure that by closing the river, they already gave an opinion.........and it wasn't the right one.

Thanks for taking the time, bob r.

R Guy. The Hoodsport NT net fishery is on page 34 of the Agreement.

There was an interesting dispute about the Lummi Res boundary in the 80s. The AG wanted to pursue it, WDF leadership did not. Ads went ahead and won.

The issue of challenging the tribes is highly politicized in WA and I doubt that any elected Dem will challenge them. Too much money at stake.

That is very true, it is a sad situation that we find ourselves in.

One of the things mentioned by one of the members of the comm. was that they had heard from a lot of displeased fishermen but that they had to wait for the A.G. to respond legally. bob r