Their 50%: Central sound tribal Coho Fisheries

Today I received a number of notifications that several central puget sound tribes will begin netting Coho in spite of the fact that their positions at NOF and PMFC were that there were not enough coho to allow any fisheries for any party this season. Specifically, thus far I have received notice from NWIFC through the WDFW that the Muckleshoot, Point No Point Treaty Council, Suquamish, Swinomish, Lummi, Skokomish, Lower Elwah Klallam will conduct Coho fisheries in Marine, estuary, canals and rivers.

Here are just some of the notices received today:

><((((º> ><((((º>***SUQUAMISH TRIBE FISHING REGULATION*** ><((((º> ><((((º>
FILING ORGANIZATION: SUQUAMISH TRIBE
AFFECTED ORGANIZATIONS: WDFW, MIT, TUL, NWIFC, VTS
REGULATION NUMBER: 16-23F
REGULATION SUPERCEDE/MODIFIED: NONE
DATE ADOPTED: SEPTEMBER 7, 2016
*************************************************************************************************************
EFFECTIVE DATES: SEPT. 7 th – SEPT. 23 rd, 2016
FISHERY TYPE: TEST FISHERY
SPECIES: COHO SALMON
CATCH AREA: 10 (THREE SITES: MEADOW PT.; PT. WELLS; PT. MONROE)
*************************************************************************************************************
LEGAL GEAR: 2-3 GILLNET VESSELS/2-3 NIGHTS/3 WEEKS
MAX. LENGTH OF 330 FATHOMS, 5 INCH MIN. STRETCH MESH
FISHING SCHEDULE BY GEAR:
OPEN: 8:00 PM WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 7 th
CLOSED: 8:00 AM THURSDAY, SEPT. 8 th
REOPEN: 8:00 PM THURSDAY, SEPT. 8th
CLOSED: 8:00 AM FRIDAY, SEPT. 9th
OPEN: 8:00 PM TUESDAY, SEPT. 13th
CLOSED: 8:00 AM WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 14th
REOPEN: 8:00 PM WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 14th
CLOSED: 8:00 AM THURSDAY, SEPT. 15th
OPEN: 8:00 PM TUESDAY, SEPT. 20th
CLOSED: 8:00 AM WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 21st
REOPEN: 8:00 PM WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 21st
CLOSED: 8:00 AM THURSDAY, SEPT. 22nd
OTHER RESTRICTIONS:
TEST VESSELS WILL OPERATE WITHIN A ONE MILE RADIUS OF MEADOW PT, PT MONROE, AND/OR PT WELLS. ALL FISH WILL BE LANDED AT SHILSHOLE BAY MARINA AND SAMPLEDBY FISHERIES STAFF. RESULTS ARE UTILIZED WEEKLY TO PROVIDE IN-SEASON INFORMATION TO ASSIST THE CO-MANAGERS IN UPDATING THE RUNSIZE OF SOUTH PUGET SOUND COHO STOCKS.
SIGNED: JONATHAN OLEYAR, FISHERIES BIOLOGIST, SUQUAMISH TRIBE: 360-394-8445

-----------------------------------------------------

BATCH
21,23,29,
/ZIP
Dr. Howard F. Horton
Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331-3803+
FILING ORGANIZATION : MUCKLESHOOT TRIBE
AFFECTED ORGANIZATIONS : NWIFC/TRIBES/WDFW
REGULATION NUMBER : 161721
DATE ADOPTED : 7 SEPTEMBER, 2016
REG. SUPERCEDED/MODIFIED : NONE
CATCH AREA : 10F - UPPER SHIP CANAL & LAKE UNION
FISHERY TYPE : COMMERCIAL
SPECIES : COHO
LEGAL GEAR : GILLNET ONLY 5" MIN TO 5 ½“MAX STRETCH MESH
LAKE UNION 6OOFT MAX NET LENGHT; SHIP CANAL
300FT MAX NET LENGTH
EFFECTIVE DATE : 11 SEPTEMBER, 2016
FISHING SCHEDULE : OPEN 12 NOON SUNDAY
CLOSED 12 NOON WEDNESDAY
NOTICE
RESTRICTIONS : SEE BELOW
1. CLOSE WEST OF THE BALLARD BRIDGE
2. CLOSED EAST OF A LINE FROM THE BLINKING LIGHT AT WEBSTER’S POINT DUE
SOUTH TO THE 520 BRIDGE.
3. EACH BOAT CAN FISH A MAXIMUM OF 1200 FEET OF NET.
4. FISHERS MUST PICK AT LEAST EVERY SIX HOURS
5. TO RESERVE A FISHING SITE THE BOAT OPERATER MUST BE PHYSICALLY ON THE
BOAT W/ ALL FISHING GEAR AND CAN ONLY RESERVE THE SITE A MAXIMUM OF 3
HOURS PRIOR TO THE FISHERY BEING OPENED.
JUSTIFICATION : HARVESTABLE SURPLUS
SIGNED, MIKE MAHOVLICH, FISHERIES BIOLOGIST
MMMM

---------------------------------------------

><((((º> ><((((º> ***SUQUAMISH TRIBE FISHING REGULATION*** ><((((º> ><((((º>
FILING ORGANIZATION: SUQUAMISH TRIBE
AFFECTED ORGANIZATIONS: WDFW, NWIFC, MIT, VTS, COE
REGULATION NUMBER: 16-20F
REGULATION SUPERCEDE/MODIFIED: NONE
DATE ADOPTED: SEPT 7, 2016
*********************************************************************************************
EFFECTIVE DATE: SEPT. 11, 2016
FISHERY TYPE: COMMERCIAL
SPECIES: COHO SALMON
CATCH AREA(S): 10F (LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL)
And a portion of Area10 (inner- Shilshole Bay: that portion of Area 10 east of a line from Meadow Pt to West Pt. to the entrance of the Ship Canal)
EXPECTED EFFORT: 10 - 20 FISHERS
*********************************************************************************************
LEGAL GEAR: IN AREA 10F:GILLNETS; 2 NETS TOTAL ARE ALLOWED PER FISHER IN THE LOWER SHIP CANAL BELOW THE BN RR BRIDGE; MAX. STRETCH MESH OF 5 INCHES; MAXIMUM LENGTH OF 200 FT. ON ALL GILLNETS ABOVE and BELOW the BN RR BRIDGE INSIDE the SHIP CANAL & 600’ on all OUTSIDE NETS (INNER SHILSHOLE BAY); 600 Ft MAX. LENGTH on BEACH SEINES
FISHING SCHEDULE: GILLNETS; BEACH SEINES:
OPEN: 12:00 Noon, Sunday, SEPT. 11th
Close: 12:00 Noon, Wednesday, SEPT. 14th
RESTRICTIONS:
1. Release all live WILD Chinook
2. An established rotational fishery is established for 2 fixed sites (one above Burlington Northern RR Bridge and one in the lower Ship Canal) and will be kept in a 24-hr running rotation which is updated and kept by an elected fisherman on the dock at Shilshole Marina (both sites would get Elder Priority on the rotation drawing order and is based on who is present at the dock). Rotational Fishery participants MUST be registered boat owners to be eligible to fish the 2 fixed sites. Fishing in the vicinity of any of the fixed sites would have to be at least 200 feet downstream of the net fishing at each site.
3. All fishers who wish to park their vehicles on A-dock must first check in with the Shilshole Marina office to register their vehicle and obtain a current marina parking decal.
4. No nets or garbage may be left behind either on A-dock or the tribal float w/ zero tolerance for drug/alcohol related behavior
5. Setnets shall not be attached to piers, docks, bulkheads or channel markers without prior permission of the owners or tribal Fisheries Department. Nets also must not block 2/3 of the wetted waterway or interfere with vessel traffic.
6. Each net must be attached to functional jacklights and a properly identified buoy ball which measures a minimum of 12” in diameter & be clearly labeled with the fisher’s identification number
SIGNED: JONATHAN OLEYAR, FISHERIES BIOLOGIST, SUQUAMISH TRIBE: 360-394-8445

------------------------------------------------
&#8195;


SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE
EMERGENCY REGULATION NO. ER-16-05
Regulation No. ER-16-05 Date: September 6th, 2016
Regs. No. Superseded/Modified: AR-16-02
Fishery Type: COHO - Commercial Fishery
Catch Area:
13D-1 Dana Passage
13D-2 Pickering Passage, (On & Off Reservation)
13D-3 Peale Passage (On Reservation)
13D-4 Southern Case Inlet
On/Off Reservation:ON/OFF
Effective Dates:
Open: 6 AM Saturday, September 10th, 2016
Open Until Further Notice
Days/Hours by Gear:
Beach Seines: Open 6 AM Saturday, September 10th, 2016.
Daily hours On and Off Reservation are 24 Hours/Day, 7 Days/Week
Maximum Length: 600 feet/ Mesh Size: 3 inch Minimum 4 inch Maximum
Set Nets: Open 4 PM Saturday, September 10th, 2016 Daily hours On and Off Reservation are 4 PM - 9 AM Daily, 7 Days/Week
(Dana 13D-1, Pickering 13D-2(On and Off Reservation), Peale 13D-3(On Reservation)
Maximum Length: 300 feet Minimum Stretch: 5 inches
(Southern Case Inlet 13D-4)
Maximum Length: 600 feet Minimum Stretch: 5 inches
Other Restrictions: Pickering Passage 13D-2- Closed areas for Commercial Coho Beach Seine and Set Net Fishing: the area extending from the Totten Inlet line from Glen Parkers Dock/Pilings to the Hammersley Inlet line at Arcadia Point. Set Nets have priority over Beach Seines to fish On Reservation 4PM to 9AM. Peale Passage 13D-3 - Closed areas for Commercial Set Net Fishing: Hartstene Oyster Company, Hartstene Island: AREAS H1, H2 and H3. No Set Nets may be attached
to any part of the Tribal Net Pens Complexes situated in Peale Passage. Case Inlet 13D-4- All waters of 13D South and East of a line extending from the Johnson Point Light to the Devil's Head Light are Closed.
Beach Seines release unmarked (wild) coho
JUSTIFICATION: Annual Commercial Harvest of Coho
In Accordance with the Squaxin Island Fishing Ordnance, This Regulation is hereby approved by Squaxin Island Tribal Council, Tuesday September 6th, 2016. Original signed regulation is on file with Squaxin Island Tribe Natural Resources Department.

-----------------------------------------------------------



The list goes on and on, and on. It looks like any other coho season for the tribes so far.

I do recall Lorraine Loomis indicating that many tribes would forego their coho fishing this fall due the projected low numbers of Coho. That is, after all, why the entire Recreational fleet is currently off all water in Puget sound drainage and marine areas. The list above looks like most if not all the tribes are participating, and I'm not going to make this post a mile long with notifications that exist from several other tribes who are also coho fishing right now.

As these fisheries continue to be proposed, what will the department do?

If the Tribal Test fisheries show there are plenty of Coho for the tribes to continue to fish, will the recreational fleet get a crack at hatchery fish, at a minimum???

Are you happy now with the LOAF we ended up with this year??

The State needs to open Puget Sound to sport hatchery coho retention immediately, and probably open the Sky and the Skagit, too.

Fish on...

Todd

The man with the cowboy hat speaks the truth.

What a joke

The test fishery is hard to argue against. Tiny effort, small numbers taken, and it feeds and update. Been done that way for decades, throughout the region.

Flat out opening the commercial fisheries, though, seems to smell a bit ranker.

If these are not already in the LOAF, note the manner in which they occur. A regulation is adopted by the regulator and then shared. Would WDFW ever open a fishery before asking Tribal approval?

More dirty pool from the Tribes. Makes it pretty clear they're holding all the cards. Thank your ignorant neighbors that go to the casino every weekend and go out of their way to save $.20/gallon at the trading post gas pumps... and, of course, your local, corrupt elected officials.

This should not come as a surprise. I expected the tribes to do business as usual. That's how they roll!

Sky guy,
Is there anyway to find those releases on-line? I can not seem to find them anywhere.

The only card that anglers hold in this game is their license fees. As long as the state gets that, and uses it to produce salmon for harvest, the same song will be sung.

This state won't fund education, mental health, highway infrastructure. Take away the willing providers of fish for nets and you might get some movement on equitability.

Krijack, sent you a PM

Business as usual.

Thanks Sky-guy.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the Nisqually and Snohomish fisheries. The state basically gave the Puyallups and Muckleshoots the right to all the coho in their fisheries, but the others do not seem to have any provision to open it up. I wonder if they will ignore the agreement and fish anyways if the numbers show sufficient numbers.

I know you probably meant to post a set of different regulations showing the tribes fishing in a number of areas, but it appears what you posted was only a regulation for a test fishery (no problem for me) and then 4 notices of the same Muckleshoot fishery in the Upper Ship Canal and Lake Union.

Thanks for catching that. I was C&P these from .pdf's and some did not work, so my previous cut repasted. I fixed it above, but several of the notifications are images and I cannot paste them in this format.

Doesn't look good as of last week from WDFW staff for opening this year, "but can be looked at next year."

Right now the Lake Washington fish counts show the numbers way above average. Total run was estimated at 4414 coho and by the 5th of september the number was 3853.

Where did you get that information from? From what a lot of guys found was Coho in numbers and in good condition. Keeping in mind numbers relative to the forecast. It has been Chinook that tanked from the git go so I am trying to figure out the disconnect.

Hey Sky-Guy can I also get the releases online? Much appreciated.

Did anyone actually believe that the Indians GAF about conservation? Why would they not fish? There are no repercussions for them or any of the lawless things they do. There are 2 distinct classes of people in this state and 2 sets of completely different rules.

In the meantime expect to pay a lot more for a lot less while the Indians fu.ck this state into a barren wasteland and WE pay for it.

They do care about conservation; they just prefer to let us bear the burden.

Clearly. And the courts, so far, support them in that view.

Status quo, business as usual:

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/t...ton-ship-canal/

Release all live WILD Chinook..
-good luck Chinook!

I believe I read the same thing right here from smalma

"It is interesting how many salmon management experts are on this site and taking part in this thread.

I wonder how you folks would have fared say last year if you were in charge of the management of our salmon. As many of you no doubt recall the coho fishing this time of year last year was off the charts. The various beach fisheries were about as good as it gets and the creel checks also indicated exceptional fishing. Presumably if we are going to make early in-season adjustments in fish runs the sport catches are were we would likely look; with high catch rates (especially if there is substantial effort) would equate a large run (more fish??).

As you may recall the Snohomish forecast for wild coho (driven by record estimates of wild smolt abundances) was approximately 50,000 fish. By all counts the coho fishing last August and most of September was exceptional and the creel checks at Everett confirm that excellent fishing. Huge number of boats being checked with high catch rates. In fact in the last 30 years those kinds of numbers have been seen only twice. In both of those years the wild coho escapement on the Snohomish were in excess of 1/4 million spawners. Also keep in mind that the wild smolt numbers were 3 million and the parent escapement (the spawners that produced the 2015 adults was 130,000). Would you internet biologist updated the 2015 run size to something larger than 50,000???

Most of you seem more than willing to adjust this year's run size on much more shaky information - incidental angler reports and number of jumping fish. The harsh reality is that the only potential in-season coho model run size adjustments (especially for wild fish) require terminal net catches (tribal) in late September and early October to make any realistic update. Does anyone think with little harvest in front of the terminal areas that early returns might be skewed from past years?

The other issue is that folks seem to have problems with the 2016 forecasts. Again looking at the Snohomish wild coho where the 2015 escapement was 13,000 with a potential total runszie of between 18,000 and 26,000. Given that the ocean conditions in the spring of 2015 (the year that this years adults went to sea as smolts) was much the same as 2014 and the total number of wild smolts were less than 60% of the 2014 numbers (1.6 million verus 3 million) what would you have forecasted.

Anyone willing to offer up their 2015 updates or 2016 forecasts which surely would be substantially better than those produced be the co-managers?

Curt"

This is unacceptable.

Just call and ask Sunset Falls how their counts are looking? Those are real numbers.

Average (AVERAGE) fish size = 8 lbs. numbers are "promising".

Sad state of affairs. I guess I'm a glass half empty kind of guy, but this thread is a great example of why I just don't have much hope for the future of our salmon. First we're outraged the tribes are fishing on depleted stocks, and with the next breath we're demanding recreational openings up and down the sound. Can we really look at ourselves and say it's all about conservation? When Lake Washington opens in a week or so, how many rod hours will inevitably be spent getting OUR share? I'm not pointing fingers, I want to fish as bad as any of you, and chances are good I'd be out there too. Just a general observation that we're all going to be fighting over the last fish.

Wouldn't it be cool if recs could impose our own self restraint and principle and didn't partcipate in whatever the state throws our way?

WDFW NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/

September 8, 2016
Contact: Kyle Adicks, (360) 902-2664

Lake Washington to open for coho fishing Sept. 16

OLYMPIA – Anglers will have the opportunity to fish for coho salmon in Lake Washington starting Sept. 16, state salmon managers announced today.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) initially planned to keep Lake Washington closed to salmon fishing due to the low number of coho forecast to return to the watershed this year.

However, the number of fish passing through the Ballard Locks in early September indicates a much stronger run of coho than anticipated, said Kyle Adicks, salmon fisheries policy lead for WDFW.

Earlier this year, state and tribal co-managers agreed to consider allowing a fishery in Lake Washington if more than 10,000 coho were expected to return. The co-managers had projected a run of 4,414 coho to return to Lake Washington this year.

"We now expect far more coho to return than forecast to Lake Washington, allowing for some salmon fishing opportunity," Adicks said.

Tribal co-managers also plan to hold coho fisheries in Lake Washington.

The recreational fishery will be open Sept. 16 through Oct. 31, as it has been in previous years. Anglers can keep two coho but are required to release chinook and sockeye salmon. More details about the fishery are available on WDFW's fishing rule change website at https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/erules/efishrules/erule.jsp?id=1861

State and tribal co-managers also are evaluating the run of coho returning to the Green River. Similar to Lake Washington, the river has been closed to salmon fishing to protect coho.

WDFW and tribal co-managers likely will make a decision soon on whether to hold coho fisheries in the Green River, Adicks said. Any announcements on the recreational fishery will be posted on WDFW's fishing rule change webpage at https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/erules/efishrules/

By chance did anyone find out/observe how the "test fishery" went the past couple of days???

I'll find out tonight

Friends, Sport fisherman who ran from everett north, around the bait box on Possesion and shipwreck to Pt.Wells and all the other typical september Coho fishing areas(to see and document for themselves.) are reporting so many fish on the fish finders, unlike anything seen for years. especially north of the tulip bubble area near Spi-be-dah. straight out in the middle, thick,thick runs. all waiting for the rains to push them up river (or be gill netted)
this Bs management by our state is costing the local economy huge coin. Lets do some test fisheries immediately similar to Chinook test fisheries and lets see. open the sound now!!!
If the tribes get 3-weeks & 2-3 days per week, give us some days at least. I think the Sportees should do a one day protest fishery for coho C&R only. at least bring some attention to what the tribes are doing or not doing.

Good idea. When?

This is a no brainer, so it wont happen.

BINGO--we have a winner!!!

i say do it Saturday 9/ 17 en mass area 9, 10 & 11. everyone go out and troll with gear, no hooks. lets not risk our boats, lets just show of force the numbers of sports fisherman that are out there. its like we don't exist to the state fisheries managers. our whole state government from the governor on down mismanages absolutely everything they touch. when will it stop??

Boy, The water off Port Angeles sure looks fishy right now. Pretty sad that I'm one of the second class citizens of this state that cant go fishing.

I'm in, unfortunately though, I don't have a boat. But I will contact all the news agencies letting them know what's going on. I can also fish ( or pretend to) from shore or ride along if anybody participating has an empty seat.

Just a thought if you plan to organize a fish in.
Why not the weekend of the 24-25th rather then the 17th.
The 24-25th would have been the Everett derby. I'm sure some folks that work weekends may have requested vacation days to fish the derby prior to the announced agreements and closures.
If the derby was on, a lot of folks would have planned to be on the water that weekend anyway.
Just a suggestion.
SF

I agree with this. Not only does it give a little more time to organize people, but we will probably also have a better idea of what the test fisheries have shown in terms of abundance (and whether further tribal fisheries are planned to take place).

I think you'll get a lot more participation if it's *clear* that there are enough fish coming back to support a fishery and that the tribes are proceeding on that basis.

I suppose the drawback is that it leaves less time for WDFW to do anything in terms of opening up a Puget Sound fishery while there are still fish out there.

Count me in regardless of the weekend !!

--OR—

We could do our own Coho test fishery at the Tulalip Bubble for those that fish in this area. It is open for hatchery Chinook on those weekends.

my thoughts are we need to stay fairly close together so we are seen as a whole group.. Shipwreck to maybe West Point depending on participation !! How about a registration forum of some sort here on the board ?? my computer skills are sub par to say the least !! would somebody like to take on that task??

So I guess I need to get caught up. Were the tribes supposed to be conducting "test" fisheries?

Then to add insult to injury, sell them back to the folks that share in the funding them in the first place?






Am I late to the program? Sorry been gone so long...

As a side note, I go over this bridge every day and fish are rolling everywhere but I suppose they all need to be saved for tribal "testing".

Others probably know better than I do (SkyGuy?), but my understanding is that several tribes have conducted or intend to conduct test fisheries (including in the Sound) to see how many coho are coming back. Tribes have actually begun commercial netting at the locks and on the Duwamish based on a determination that there is a harvestable surplus of coho.

As far as the locks go, since WDFW opened Lake Washington to coho (starting the 16th), you can argue that the goose and the gander are getting the same treatment on that particular stock.

I don't think there's any such argument to be made for the Duwamish unless/until they open it up to sporties.

The Duwamish fishery is not a test fishery, it is a straight up commercial fishery. The Muckleshoots have determined that there are enough fish for them to net and sell, so they are netting and selling.

Fish on...

Todd

Fixed for ya.

Just spoke with a buddy that said his local Costco is nice and stocked up with Coho too. Guess I can't prove where they came from though.

Over 5x the 10 year average over the Ballard Locks. Already over 2x over the total pre-season forecast. I wonder how the rivers are doing?

Today, the Suquamish announced a commercial fishery which extends from West point to Meadow point. I have emailed Ron Warren and Ryan Lothrop and asked if the Puyallup stocks are the stock which are said to be limiting recreational fishing from an emergency opening on coho, why can they net both Elliott bay and SHilshole bay with Gill nets???

Earlier this week I asked if Rec's could get an opener on Shilshole and Elliot bay for coho since the test fishery numbers have been so high. I was told that we could not because of Puyallup Chinook impacts, yet now the tribes are netting in those same areas.

hmmm.

Well, I just sent this off to WDFW and my state reps and senator, and cc'd some news organizations. We'll see if I get any response. Feel free to use it if you'd like.

Dear Public Officials,

It is September, the time of year when salmon return to Washington waters. Nevertheless, as many of you know (and all of you should know), almost all of Puget Sound and the surrounding watersheds are closed to fishing for coho salmon. In fact, most areas are closed to all salmon fishing.

This is because the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and tribal biologists predicted a low return of coho salmon, and agreed to restrict fishing to protect coho runs. Unfortunately, now that returning coho salmon have passed Neah Bay, Port Angeles, and all of North Puget Sound without any sport or non-tribal fishing pressure, the Muckleshoot tribe has strung nets across the Duwamish river to catch and kill the returning coho. This is not ceremonial and subsistence fishing; it is commercial. Killing fish for money. The Muckleshoot tribe has decided to do this based on its independent determination that there is a "harvestable surplus" of coho. Of course, the Duwamish remains closed to everyone else, in accordance with the conservation-minded approach that WDFW agreed to earlier in the year.

In other words, everybody else in Washington let Duwamish coho pass by without fishing pressure in order to conserve the resource, only for Muckleshoot fishermen to catch them, kill them, and sell them at the end of their migration. I fear that other treaty tribes may soon follow the Muckleshoot's lead with other coho stocks. There is already commercial netting taking place in front of the Ballard Locks, but at least in that case WDFW has agreed that there is a harvestable surplus of coho, and has opened Lake Washington to non-tribal, recreational coho fishing starting September 16 based on that assessment.

It seems to me that there are two potential scenarios and responses that balance conservation goals and treaty fishing rights for any particular coho run. The first is that, as previously predicted, the coho return is not healthy enough this year, there is no harvestable surplus of coho, and nobody should be fishing for coho. The second is that biologists underestimated the coho return, there is a harvestable surplus of coho, and the surplus should be split evenly between tribal and non-tribal fishermen (as called for in the applicable treaties).

The current scenario, in which tribal fishermen are either (a) killing fish when there is no surplus, or (b) taking 100% of the harvestable surplus, represents the interests of the very few overwhelming the interests of the very many.

So, my question is whether you, the public officials of Washington, intend to do anything about this, and what that may be.

A direct response would be greatly appreciated.

While 10's of thousands of us are beached for coho, the Suquamish have extended their seasons "until further notice" on Coho in Shilshole bay. I expect the Mukelshoots to extend their seasons too.
This was up in front of Shilshole toay, kind of a stick in the eye for all of us who traditionally fish for coho from this port.

This is infuriating. Was there no mechanism for a mid-season rec opening in the agreement reached earlier this year?

There was no mechanism for opening most of that at all.

I seem to recall Lorraine Loomis stating something like "the tribes have decided to not fish for coho this year so the sporties shouldn't either, you know, for conservation"...or something like that.

I think it's pretty clear who has the forked tongue here.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. Lorraine Loomis is the Chair of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, and a Swinomish tribal member.

In discussing the poor coho returns in 2015, and the upcoming 2016 seasons...

"That’s why western Washington treaty
Indian tribes are calling for greater caution
in fisheries management planning
this year and sharing the responsibility
of conservation more equitably with the
state."

http://nwifc.org/w/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2016/04/Spring-2016-Magazine-2.pdf

Yeah, close all the sportfishing and non-tribal commercial fishing for the entirety of Puget Sound, then the tribes unilaterally decide to have fisheries all over Puget Sound.

Sure sounds like "sharing" and "equitably with the state" to me.

The tribes flat out lied, and that's why were are not fishing while they do, and Lorraine Loomis lied straight up to all of us.

Fish on...

Todd

Honestly, I don't necessarily fault the tribes all that much for wanting to fish if we are really seeing a lot more fish than projected, but it is flat out unfair (and a violation of OUR treaty rights) to shut out the non-tribal fishermen from the harvest.

I know I feel violated. They should give a jar of vasoline with every fishing license.

I don't fault them for wanting to fish, either...but going right ahead and deciding to do it after not only agreeing to not, but to make a big deal about how they weren't, is bullschit.

Fish on...

Todd

Lorraine can go fu.ck herself and die, and I hope every manager and the director at WDFW die in a fuckin' fire, too.

This is complete bullsh!t that should not be allowed to stand.

I hope people start poaching everywhere. I don't give a sh!t, and it's because of WDFW and their bullsh!t incestuous relationship with the tribes. They've made me so hostile that I'll line up to kill the last salmon myself, and then let it freezer burn and toss it out back. If I don't do it, the tribes will.

Disgusting. These pieces of sh!t make Wells Fargo Bank look ethical.

Now there's a NOVEL concept. Everyone should read it.... then read it again.

The state is not NON-treaty. Our share is NOT the NON-treaty share.

There is NO such thing as NON-treaty. Both sides signed the treaty.... each side has guarantees under the treaty.

Time to assert the state's TREATY share!

I believe that the tribes have a right to their share (50%). The non-Indians have the privilege to the their 50%. There is a legal difference in the entitlement to the fish but it would take an (honest) lawyer to explain it.

Interesting that the ruling itself (Boldt) uses the term...

"sharing equally the opportunity to take fish ... therefore, nontreaty fishermen shall have the opportunity to take up to 50% of the harvestable number of fish ... and treaty right fishermen shall have the opportunity to take up to the same percentage".

You left out the feds. Wouldn't be surprised if all three are in bed together on this one in Puget sound.

It does work and educates those around you at the same time. I contacted my state legislators Monday with my concerns and in turn one forwarded my e-mail to the local tribe in question and got some of my questions answered by that tribe on the same day with a return e mail of other concerns and CC'd to the legislator to keep him in the loop. A little early to see what is going to be done about it-- but it is a start.

Letters to the editor also educates and alerts to a possible news tip if not sent in as a news tip directly.

Too much I5 traffic made me take 1st Ave which lead me over the 1st Ave bridge. For obvious reasons I couldn't take a picture but I can tell you I've never seen so many nets looking up river (Duwamish). They were staggered one after another as far as I could see. I am absolutely distraught about this inequality and obvious discrimination! Why is there nothing that can be done!!!???? This rude and carelessly blatant behavior is only carrying on because the tribes know they can get away with it. There has to be powerful people lining their greedy pockets with casino money one way or another. Why is this not being taken care of and why right under everyone's noses like it's no big deal???!!!!!

I can't hold myself out as a fisheries lawyer, but I do have some experience with analyzing rights when parties hold a proportional interest to a shared resource. I believe it's reasonable to think that each treaty tribe, on the one hand, and the U.S. of A., on the other, is entitled to 50% exploitation of harvestable surplus.

However, that doesn't mean the average joe has any "right" to fish. Rather, the U.S. of A. as an entity has the right under the treaty, and can decide to do what it wants with that treaty right, including deciding not to press the matter when a treaty counterpart takes more than its share.

Now, I'd need to do a little more digging to understand how management of the nation's interest is delegated to the state.

As I understand this the state owns the game/fish but the Feds gave 50% to the tribes, 50% to Ak and 50% to Canada leaving the rest for the state of Wa.

Looks like a good assessment to me. 150% of the available harvest (sadly, that's not even a joke some years) is taken before the fish see their home rivers... but habitat is the reason we don't have more salmon in the rivers.

Just drove over the 4th Ave bridge. This is looking downstream on the Duwamish. How is this "depressed" stock going to survive this gauntlet? When will their "testing" for run size be over with?



Sorry for the grainy photo. I was shaking with furry!

Rough-looking habitat right there, Cobble Cruiser.

No kidding, especially since this portion of the river is tidally effected so when the fish come in with the tides, they mill around and sometimes head back out as well.

BFD
Thanks for posting the pic.
Looks like business as usual for the Muks on the Duwamish.
Besides the coho, I wonder how many late arriving ESA listed kings end of being netted?
SF

I was complaining about this last week, if you read the agreement the state made with the tribes, this is exactly what they agreed to. They gave the tribes the right to open test fish the river and then unilaterally open it if they want without consulting. There appears to be no provision for non-tribal fishing. I was wrong earlier including lake washington in to this assessment, as there actually was a provision for opening it up for non-tribal, but the state did not push for this provision for the Green/Duwamish.
We could see a run 10X normal and see no fishing in some rivers, while the tribe takes them all. We , through the state, appear to have agreed to this.

It is interesting that there is no provision for the NIsqually tribe to open at all, nor is there and provision for the Puyallup's to fish the sound. These appear to have outright closures. I am waiting to see if these stay true.

Another interesting note is that on-reservation fishing for coho was allowed regardless of run size.

If I were going to protest, I would be very careful about what it is I am protesting. From reading the list of agreed to fisheries, it appears that it was agreed by WDFW that the Muckleshoots would conduct a test fishery to provide an in-season update starting the week of September 4th. Then if the ISU showed harvestable coho, they would begin fishing the week of September 11th. That appears to be what they are doing, although I have to assume that the ISU showed harvestable fish.

Are you protesting them doing what they said they would do? Are you protesting WDFW agreeing to let them do what they said they would do? Both? Or something entirely different?

(Edited: Looks like Krijak, above, noticed the same thing I did)

I suspect that the difference is that there is no accepted method of providing an in-season update for the coho run in the Nisqually. Similarly, even if there is a method to update the run ENTERING the Puyallup River, that update would not inform the size of the run out in Puget Sound, therefore no rationale for any marine fishery. Similar to the problem of wanting to open a marine sport fishery with no way to update the size of the complete Puget Sound run.

So evidently 50/50 of the harvestable fish doesn't apply in this case then AND there is no way to refer to what the treaty allows because it is now void?

It looks to me that if you have a beef, it is with the people that should be representing your interest in these discussions - WDFW. It is not up to the Muckleshoot Tribe to make sure you get your share. That is why I am saying to be very sure and very clear about what/who you are protesting.

I'm only "protesting" in conversation on this forum. I 'm trying to glean some insight as to why they can and we can't.

One of the biggest limiters now for opening recreational fisheries, esp. in mixed stock areas, are the agreed to Chinook impacts allowed. Because the state made a proposal and agreed to 0 harvest on coho (esp. in marine areas) they indicated a 0 impact on Chinook in mixed stock areas. Now that the agreed to Chinook stock impacts have been set at 0 there is no mechanism remaining for the state to open fisheries as they have no allowable impacts to Chinook.

Where would one find the results of the test fishery?
SF

Edit: Whereas - the tribes, from the beginning, had set agreed to fisheries. Test fisheries, ceremonial harvest, and direct commercial harvest in select (lets be honest, MOST) areas. They have set Chinook impacts written in to their end of the agreement.

Pretty sneaky trick play by the tribes, but hey, that's what they do best.

The fish are there, and we're fvcked.

Cobble Cruiser, I was speaking to others on this thread that want to protest something. However, again, I would ask your WDFW representatives why you can't fish. Harvestable fish = harvestable fish. The only other reason I could think of would be some allocation imbalance that folks were trying to correct, but with all the pre-terminal closures, I can't imagine that would be the issue.

I've been asking for the Department to supply that information since last week.

With regards to impacts on Puyallup Chinook, my arguement(which has not yet been responded to by the department) is this.

The advisors were told we could not have a marine coho fishery opened due to impacts on a weak Puyallup Chinook stock. But Coho were originally closed due to low forecast. Then the tribes opened up marine area (Shilshole bay and Elliott Bay) gill net fisheries on Coho, which will certainly include some Puyallup Chinook impacts.

Does this make sense to any of you?

If recreational fishing were allowed to occur in these areas, we could release chinook and retain only coho. Cant say that for the gill net fleet. Further, we closed MA 9 and 10 with Quota remaining on our ledger. That also means we have some small percentages of available impact left.

So far, after pointing this out to the department, all I have is crickets!

Having used up all the non-treaty Chinook impacts, as GodLovesUgly suggested could be a reason to not open. By the same token, I suspect the tribes modeled low Chinook impacts based on limited coho fishing as well. Maybe not. If they left Chinook impacts on the table that could be used for the terminal coho fishery (in case of a larger coho run), then there would be no reason for them to not fish.

OncyT is right to remind us we should make sure we know whom to protest. For those of you who haven't been paying attention, protesting WDFW is a waste of your time and whatever medium you use to do it. The Governor and the Legislature are the ones making the calls, and while you're not likely to get any useful responses from them without opening up your wallet, they're the only ones who can change this pattern.

Counting on corrupt politicians on the other guy's payroll to right social wrongs is an unenviable position in which to find oneself. And here we are....

SG,
Please post the test fishery info if you get it or pm it to me.
Seems it shouldn't be that hard to obtain in this supposed transparent co-manager system.
SF

I would be protesting (a) their demand that they be allowed to engage in such harvest regardless of allocation guaranteed by treaty, (b) WDFW's agreement to such a demand, and (c) the deck-stacked system that allows them to make such demands with impunity, and gives WDFW little or no recourse, since tribes can just get an emergency permit from the feds on short notice, while WDFW has to wait for months.

Ding, ding, ding; We have a winner!

I don't agree completely. You could say that it's not the job of Wal-Mart or Exxon or any corporation to look after anybody but itself, but if they engage in bad behavior, it's perfectly reasonable to protest such behavior. If the MIT takes the position that they don't care if the citizens of Washington get their treaty-guaranteed share of fish, then they deserve derision and all the negative feedback that comes along with taking that position.

Plus, it's hard to argue with WDFW when they basically have no recourse against tribal overreach in negotiations (as far as I can see).

This is a good point.

i havent been down low yet to see, but the Carbon river when from alot of action, to NOTHING... im thinking the nets may be or may have been in the water....

the Puyallups also havent updated their netting hotline since the 1st of September... usually its updated very frequently...

also heard that someone asked a Nisqually tribal netter what the net schedule was, and they said if you arent a tribal member, they wont tell you....

pretty shady situation here...

When you talk about "shares" it must be remembered that the non-Indians have been fishing, and impacting, Chinook and coho in ocean, Straits, and marine areas when they were open. The Tribes are allowed to "catch up". Sharing is by stock, not by area. Since the Tribes normally fish terminally, and the non-Indians (sport and commercial troll) fish out in mixed stock areas it often occurs that there is nothing left inside except Tribal share.

Add to that the fact that WDFW can give away fish (as have the Tribes in some cases) if it meets "bigger needs".

I would also disagree on the ability to do In-season updates. Back in the 80s, the Nooksack-Samish, Skagit, Stilly-Snohomish, South Sound, and Hood Canal Chinook, coho, and chum were updated on a weekly basis. These updates, with damn few exceptions, were more accurate than the forecasts. Apparently there has been a choice made not to do in-season management.

I also believe, on no evidence other that what I read in the newspapers, that Muckleshoot got that language in trade for agreeing to this year's fisheries. Remember that they have been a stumbling block the past two years.

Then WDFW also deserves derision as they are not responsible for ensuring that the tribes get their share of fish either. And I'm still looking for this "bad behavior" that you mention. The Muckleshoot Tribe, as near as I can tell, has done everything they said they intended to do in regard to managing their coho fishery.

Those points are valid, however, what Washington Marine waters , other than area 1, were open for Coho retention this year Carcassman?

Which included not agreeing to any LOAF which included any potential openings for Coho for the Rec Side.

The "bad behavior" in my view is taking a share of fish greater than their share allocated by treaty, and using the deck-stacked legal/political system to force WDFW to agree to that.

Has WDFW taken any position that would deny a treaty tribe their share of harvestable fish allocated by treaty? If not, then why would they deserve equal derision?

The mortality of released fish counts as "catch". So even when it is officially closed to retention, a catch occurs that must be balanced.

I am also reminded of something Phil Anderson said when he was asked why WDFW did not push for a longer steelhead season on the Hoh, when there were harvestable fish available to the sporties. He said "We got the fishery we wanted". Never would define who the we was but there are a lot of reasons why WDFW does what it does; they just won't tell us.

Trust us. We're the WDFW. We're here to help you.

Your question about whether or not WDFW has ever taken a position that would deny a treaty tribe their share of harvestable fish is really funny. The fact that they did this was the whole point of US v. WA. As far as your point about them taking more than their share allocated, I seriously doubt if you or anybody can show that they have done that. Finally, regarding your contention that the tribes have some responsibility to ensure you get your share of the fish, I only have one comment. I guarantee that you do no want the tribes to help manage your fisheries.

“The way they’re managing
the Hoh is unacceptable,”
Burge explains.
A recent agreement allows
the Hoh tribe to receive
55 percent of harvestable
steelhead for the 2008-2009
seasons, although the tribe
was allocated 68 percent ofthe fish from 2003-2006, and
actually harvested 82 percent,
Burge says.

Those allocations run
counter to the 1974 Boldt
decision, Burge points out.
That decision, and court
orders that followed, mandate
Washington tribes receive up
to 50 percent of the annual
harvest, and sport anglers get
the other 50 percent.

With some tribes demanding
more than an equal share
under the law, Burge urged
commissioners to guarantee
that any fish that anglers do
not harvest, estimated to be
about half of the 50 percent
allotment each year, be allowed
to contribute to the spawning
population.

Today, those fish are
allocated to the Hoh tribe by
the Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife, and make up
a portion of the greater-than 50
percent share of fish the tribe
receives.
“
They’re just giving all our
fish away,” Burge laments.

Vote the bums out.

I didn't say "ever." I thought it was implied that I was talking about this year (or at least recent history). I think the state *does* deserve criticism for its previous failure to honor treaty rights.

As for tribal management, they arlread have a large hand in managing my fisheries. They are one of the co-managers. They have no more obligation to look out for the 99% than any other 1% does, but that doesn't mean they can or should be free from criticism for it.

You know, I worked in this field for 30 years, and it has never been the job of the state to take care of the tribes nor the other way around, except of course all those years that the state took such great care of the tribes before the Boldt decision. I did sometimes hear some state staff talking about how one option or another might actually prove to be a benefit to a tribe. All those comments ever did was alert you to the fact that this person was about to try to screw you somehow. The state manages its fisheries. The tribes manage their fisheries. That is co-management. If you want help from the tribes in managing your fisheries properly, they will look just like the tribes' fisheries.

The only "help" I want is for treaty parties not to take more than their share (even if they can get away with it!).

And again, show me where the Muckleshoots are taking more than their share.

Vote the bums out.

Well, this chart is from last year, but LW chinook impacts sure don't look like they were evenly divided here:

https://infogr.am/muckleshoots_cancel_recreational_season_still_overfishing

I'm not talking about sharing impacts on listed populations. That is an entirely different critter. I am talking about managing non-listed coho, and the thought here appears to be that the shares are determined by the amount of fish the non-treaty fishery has taken. That is not how it is done. Shares are determined by knowing the run size and the escapement needs. Half of the remainder is the share. In reality though, there is no real share of Green/Duwamish coho. Rather, those fish are part of a larger bunch of fish from the South Sound Region of Origin, which includes all natural and hatchery populations south of the Snohomish system. Catch shares are actually based on all those populations, not just the Green/Duwamish.

All that has happened here is that the Tribe is now fishing on a larger run size than what was predicted pre-season. No one has provided any information to show that they are taking more than their share. They are just taking more than you.

Obviously I don't have up to the minute numbers. However, when no non-tribal fishermen have been fishing for or harvesting coho from La Push to Seattle, I think it's a pretty safe bet that taking 100% of the harvestable surplus in the Duwamish will not work out to a 50/50 allocation of that surplus, even when accounting for released coho mortality from incidental non-tribal hooking. If anyone thinks that's not the case, I'd love to hear the explanation as to why.

This is a good point, but I don't think it's true that that is "all" that has happened. What also happened (I believe; please correct me if I'm wrong) is that they demanded an agreement whereby non-tribal fishermen would not be able to exercise their right to the non-tribal share is and when such share comes into existence.

Now, if I'm wrong, and it was really just WDFW that didn't ask for the ability to open up fishing mid-season based on actual fish return, then you're right that WDFW deserves the criticism.

Oncy is right that SS coho are aggregated. But, the capability used to exist to take the Muck's update (obviously shared with WDFW), the forecasts for rest of SS and recalculate the 50:50. Interesting thing is that if the rest of SS is managed on the forecasts then the other Tribes might would need to be shut down if the Muckleshoots take too many fish, even keeping it under the umbrella 50:50.

It is a very complex management scenario and it would behoove WDFW to clearly explain it. There are reasons why things are the way the are. Much has been argued and defined by the courts and had 40-odd years of work. But there is a lot of either mis-information or refusal to believe how things work going on out there..

Look, the tribes can ask for anything they want in a negotiation with WDFW. So can WDFW. None of it means [Bleeeeep!] until the other party agrees. What it appears is that there was an agreement that if there are more fish, certain tribes can fish, but the non-treaty fishery will not. Please ask your representatives in those negotiations why they agreed to that.

If you can tell me who "our representatives" are, I'll give 'em a ring and ask that question. Of course, you can't tell me that, because we HAVE no representation, particularly where the real decisions get made (which is before any sport interests get any say). OUR representatives and senators are supposed to be taking care of US (by that, I mean American citizens, not other sovereign nations seeking to deny us our right to fish).

I can't begin to understand all the BS policies WDFW and the Tribal Overlords have come up with to "co-manage" Puget Sound salmon to the state they're in today, but one thing is abundantly clear: non-tribal interests are NOT getting access to fish to which the law entitles them. Whether that's due to bargaining from a neutered position or political strong-arming (I suspect the later), it's not fair.

By the way, after 30 years in the business, it appears you have adopted a twisted definition of the term "co-manage." Co-management implies two or more parties working COOPERATIVELY to manage something. What you described as co-management (both sides trying to manage the resource for themselves, unilaterally) is closer to the reality, but it's NOT co-management.

Defending poor policy is poor behavior, in my opinion.

OK, I'll try this one more time. The premise here is that the tribes did something wrong. The OP said their position was that there were not enough fish for anybody to fish, but now they are going fishing. That cannot possibly be true across the board as the List of Agreed Fisheries clearly shows that there was agreement that if more coho were available, certain tribes would fish. As near as I can tell, there were in-season updates that showed more coho available, and as per the agreement, some tribes went fishing.

Sorry, but I can't find anything to get bent out of shape about here. On the other hand, if the LOAF showed that there were not enough fish for anybody to fish (as in the Nisqually River where the LOAF says coho is closed for conservation) and then the tribes went fishing, I could be upset.

For those that want to have protest fisheries about this, good luck getting traction when you say you are protesting the tribes doing what they said they were going to do with the agreement of WDFW.

Nothing further.

Your point is taken, OncyT. For sure, the protest needs to be about us NOT fishing, when according to the Tribes, there are fish available for harvest.

I personally think we should have kept everyone off the water during this uncertain time for the fish, just like we all said in the beginning, but I realize that to let a single, harvestable fish live is gross mismanagement under the MSY paradigm, so that was never an option.

I guess we know who's eating the LOAF around here.

At the end of the day, I think we are all upset over the fact that the agreement was "agreed upon" because the WDFW had no other options and the tribes were bullying them to the point that in order to open a few fisheries to the sporties, they had to give the farm. We all remember the stale mate and the tribes strong arming the state. Now that we have this unexpected (or so we thought) larger run of coho, we as citizens feel like we've been hosed and not aloud our 50% even though we can all see that there is a ton of harvestable fish. Basically, people feel they have been treated unfairly and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it but stand back and watch.

Nailed it Danny. I doubt the tribes would have agreed to a LOAF which included fisheries for sport fishermen in the event the Coho forecasts were off, and a lot of fish returned.

That's it in a nutshell folks!

Of course they can. And we can justifiably criticize them for it. The members of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe live and work among the rest of us. If they want to view/treat non-MIT sportfisherman as the enemy to be screwed if they can get away with it, then they can suffer the enmity of everyone who thinks that's not a particularly nice way to act.

You are 100% right that we should get an answer from WDFW as to why they would agree to a "no potential rec opening" provision, but I don't think that absolves the MIT from any criticism if they are the ones that pushed for it.

There was a lot of talk last year about the broken NOF process and WDFW submitting for their own permit. Talk of that died down once an agreement was reached.
From what I recall, NOAA said it would take 12-18 months to issue a permit. Seemed like a long time when they pretty much rubber stamp the NOF agreement.
Of course the season would have been over by the time had a permit was issued.
NOAA also kept stating that it was in the best interest of the state to come to an agreement with the tribes.

Is the option for the state to get their own permit still an option? If so, if hope they have been working on it for the 2017 season since last spring.
Just looking for input from those that know more about this process then I do.
Feel free to correct anything I may have stated above as well, as that is what I recall from earlier this year.
Thanks
SF

One thing that we can do right now is to respond to Fishinnut's post and send letters and emails regarding the Skokomish situation. United we stand divided we fall.

Here is Ron Warren's interview on NW Wild Country on Sept. 9. At about 14:30 he seems to indicate that the Duwamish could potentially open for rec fishing, but that they are concerned about Chinook impacts.

http://sportsradiokjr.iheart.com/media/play/27302067/

there was some tribal guy on a post on Facebook saying his dad was a tribal fisher and that the WDFW is "waiting till the last minute", and the Green will open this weekend...

not sure if its true, a troll, or what, but id like to know how tribal fishers know more about our seasons than we do....

Hindsight is 20:20, but if you asked me, I would have preferred no PS king MSF in MA 9/10 in exchange for a crack at in in season adjusted coho fishery... the state [Bleeeeep!] up.

I've been reading these posts on the coho closures and it's depressing.

Looking ahead to 2017-2019, will the 2016 coho closure become the "new normal" due to this year's precedent setting win by the tribes? Would our government dictate no coho in 2017 and tell the sporties fish pinks instead?

When the coho return (hopefully) from the poor run last year I don't see how the returns will be forecast to be good. So what does this all say for coho fishing in the North Sound for the next few years?

http://nwsportsmanmag.com/editors-blog/section-lower-duwamish-green-open-coho/

Duwi should open tomorrow

So WDFW is going to open a fishery in the Green River even though it wasn't shown in the List of Agreed Fisheries. Dirty, stinking, lying so and so's. I am outraged and might possibly have a protest fishery someplace.

So it looks like WDFW is using an in-season update that shows more fish than thought to be returning to provide fisheries for their constituents. Sorta like some of the tribes have. But when it was the tribes the comments were "business as usual," "two sets of rules," "tribes don't GAF about conservation," "sad state of affairs," "protest fishery," 2nd class citizens," "fish-in," letters to state reps and senators," jar of Vaseline" & "incestuous relationship with the tribes" to pick a few.

This board is populated with a bunch of whiners.

Pretty much fawked in a nut shell.

OncyT, I think your comments in this thread have been very valuable, but I think you're mischaracterizing a lot (though maybe not all) of the comments.

WDFW and the Muckleshoots have now agreed on what most of the people in this thread though should be the case: either no fishing or both sides fishing. Now that they have gotten around to that, it doesn't make protesting against the prior situation somehow wrong.

What a bureaucratic mess. What about the fish? Are they going to be ok? Does anyone actually have any test fishery numbers?

Imagine people whining about paying to fish and then not being able to because the organization that is supposed to represent them has failed in every way shape and form.

It's almost like they expect WDFW to be something other than completely incompetent and an utter failure.

Go figure.

According to the NW Wild Country interview with Ron Garner, the Muckleshoots weren't going to fish unless the test fishery indicated at least 20,000 coho coming back to the Duwamish/Green. It looks like the results of the test fishery indicate more than that. I don't know about hatchery/wild split.

where did you get test fishery numbers? please post.

Snohomish may be opening next week...

still no word on the Puyallup, and they havent updated their hotline since the first, still....

the WDFW also didnt release the escapement reports, why?

So, it seems like WDFW opens a pittance of fishing and we are wetting ourselves to get scrapes from the table of our masters!

Mean while, we lose, and lose and lose...

The tribes are masters of taking a mountain one pebble at a time. WDFW is just giving them front loaders now.

But be happy, you get to fish the Tulalip bubble for four days!!

What a stupid fu.cking thing to say. I'm not surprised that someone that's involved up to their eyeballs in this clusterfu.ck is advocating for half the user group to shut up and quit whining. I'm sure you had the balls to tell the flat nosed fish eaters the same thing....quit whining. You cashed your state check for the last 30 years while taking us to where we are today. Only a government worker could continue to get paid while fu.cking up the resource they're charged with protecting. Your previous posts indicate you're likely moonlighting for the Indians, did they encourage you to silence us?

Now GFY.

I knew I liked you, RowVsWade. Keep up the good work.

+1 to that!

this kinda reminds me of the Beverly hillbillies episode when granny went duck hunting in the concrete pond in the back yard...

No, this is more like sitting on the curb while your house is getting burglarized and you can't do a fuc$ing thing about it!!!!

CAN PEOPLE NOT SEE THAT THERE IS SOMETHING VERY, VERY WRONG WITH THE SYSTEM!!!

http://nwifc.org/about-us/fisheries-management/questions-and-answers-on-tribal-salmon-fisheries/

Half truths and lies with a smattering of truths.

Now where is our propaganda? It should be easy do better than that.

It's really sad how the user groups at the bottom of the salmon fishing totem pole (the sporties and the Tribes) relegate ourselves to trying to claim each other is somehow more responsible for salmon decline. The real culprits (ocean fisheries) take a majority of the salmon both the Tribes and WA sporties should be fishing for in terminal areas. Instead of poking each other in the eye (and all ending up looking like whiny, greedy fools), we should be joining forces to affect change in open ocean quotas.

The best sign that the way things are being done now is wrong (aside from the continuing decline in salmon stocks, of course) is that the Tribes, who probably get low-holed the worst, all things considered, allow the madness to continue, because higher ocean quotas justify tribal fisheries (Hoh v. Baldridge) that otherwise would not be allowed under conservation guidelines. Using irresponsible management practices to justify others creates maximum economic benefit from the resource, leaving less than minimal consideration to conservation. That's how we got here, and as long as people getting paid continues to drive management policy, we'll only see it get steadily worse. Fortunately, we can just blame the habitat, which makes everyone feel better when looking in the mirror.

I agree, this nails it. OncyT is probably going to win any debate on the details, but olympic-level bureaucracy gymnastics hasn't really been great at solving real problems that actually do exist. And are growing.

I don't think you can read this:

http://nwtreatytribes.org/treaty-tribes-...-low-coho-year/

Then look at all the tribal nets in the water and the video of the guys at ballard locks who are basically hunting in a petting zoo, and *reasonably* say:

Have no fear! Looks like we will totally be getting our non-tribal share!



What a clusterfukk.

Fish on...

Todd

Scary

+1 on th GFY OncyT

I was encouraged by another thread to inquire with Ron Warren as to how there can be a non-tribal commercial fishery at Hoodsport while the Skokomish is closed to recreational fishing. That was about 3 weeks ago (maybe more), and I finally got a response (from Ron's assistant; not Ron, himself) yesterday.

The response was as expected. I was assured that there was no connection between the Skokomish closure and the new non-tribal fishery, and that the new commercial fishery had been planned prior to the Skokomish thing, as a way to ensure the State gets its share of the hatchery salmon in Lower Hood Canal.

The response also reminded me that I do still have a shot at Skokomish hatchery fish in the Area 12 sport fishery, which now allows anglers up to 4 adult salmon. I know Ron's office has heard it before (and they don't listen or don't care), so I didn't bother to remind them that fishing Hood Canal for salmon more or less requires a boat that most of the anglers who fish the Skokomish can't afford.

Anyway, my point (sorry it took so long to get there) is that the numerous net fisheries Todd posted for Puget Sound bear one striking resemblance to the new commercial fishery in Hood Canal:

The Tribes shut the sporties out, and the State rewarded non-tribal commercials with whatever fish were left on the table (as well as any new opportunities that might arise if the runs come in above expectation). You guys can do your own math, but it seems pretty clear to me that WDFW puts a LOT more emphasis on for-profit fisheries than they do on sport fisheries in their negotiations. Wonder who directs them to work so hard for those commercial fisheries?

I think Curt and others have touched on this a lot but the closer one gets to the stream the less likely a salmon is to strike a lure or bait (staggers and flossers exempted).

The mindset, and legal basis, for salmon management is to take the full harvest right down to the escapement number. If one side does not take the fish, the other does. You are not allowed (and I tried) to pass "harvestable" fish into escapement.

Factor in that the State prefers the marine mixed stock fisheries for sports because the fish bite and lots of money is spent chasing them. That maximizes economic return to the state.

FleaFlicker2 hits a really good point, which bugs me a lot, is that WDFW emphasizes boat-based fisheries over land-based. Walleye, kokanee, bass, OD trout, Tiger Musky, salmon, even steelhead are now primarily the province of boat-based fisheries. Access is a problem, but it does seem-to me- to limit recruitment of new anglers.

This is an interesting point. But I don't know the last time you went to NOF Carcassman? When agencies perform public processes they tend to bend to the will of those that show up, and for those meetings that I've been to, the heavy representation has always been the salt/pre-terminal/boat crowd. If they are the sector of the public that shows up when its time to give input, well sometimes that's the way the cookie crumbles. While it's probably more common for a larger % of license holders to simply be bank angling salmon fishers, If there is a currently a way to do things differently it would be interesting to hear how you think you would dice up the pie here.

Oh and then the other thing on this thread is that the assumption of these non-tribal commercial fisheries are 'new'. Looking at this link: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/hotlines.html

Seems to be that the month of September for the last 8 years (as the online hotline posts only go back that far) all have these exact same fisheries ongoing for coho. SO are these fisheries simply part of the year-to-year always there nontribal commercial package? Seems to be the case, but the question is whether they were planned in this year's agreed-to-fishery package or not...as the sport coho fisheries obviously weren't. Here is a link to the original agreement for 2016-17: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/tribal/2016-17agreement.pdf Looks like these fisheries are in it...but its fairly hard to decipher, so I might be wrong, but there are commercial coho nontreaty fisheries in it preseason that seem to match up with the areas Todd posted. So....

Rojo,

Don't you dare come on here with your sourced information and your general "why don't you folks look at the facts?" attitude!


GFY!!!!

Fortunately I avoided NOF.

But, in the 80s there were non-Indian coho net fisheries in Dungeness Bay (6D), Bellingham Bay (7B) that eventually went to 7 days per week, Port Susan/Gardner (8A)and South Sound (10 and 11). I think Dungeness also went 7 day. The rest were 1-3 days. There may have been occasional openings in Skagit Bay (8) and Hood Canal (12) but theses were normally the limiting stocks in mixed stock (ocean) fisheries.

7B,8,8A,10,11,12, 12B were generally open for chum with 9 on a few occasions.

The non-Indian net fisheries have been significantly reduced over what went on then.

Back then, much as folks will find it hard to believe, Chinook and coho primary harvest was reserved for sport. Net fisheries by the Cowboys occurred only in terminal areas after the hook and line fisheries on feeding fish had occurred. The terminal and river fisheries were viewed as minor in the overall scheme of things as few of those fish (relative to both the total run and the needed harvest) were biters.

Remember that the greatest sin for a manager to to allow one fish more than the escapement goal to spawn.

Just in case I wasn't clear, I wasn't suggesting the fisheries Todd posted were "new;" rather, they're a fine example of the same, old $hit, which was unfair last year and is still unfair this year.

I thought all men were created equal. [Bleeeeep!] the treaties, lets renegotiate and see that that is the way it is. They should have the same rights as anyone else, and nothing greater. Let them participate in the commercial or sport fisheries in kind with every other citizen in the State of Washington.

Boldt was wrong. The treaties don't reflect reality. Lets fix it by any means necessary.

In common with.

And give them back title to the land in Case Area? I bet they'd make that trade.

I'm with you, GutZ. Boldt was decided at a very different time, both in terms of tribal enterprise and salmon populations, and it is no longer relevant.

My statement that the Tribes get low-holed worse than anyone was in reference to the fact that after open ocean fisheries take their toll, the Tribes aren't getting anywhere close to 50% of the available fish (in most fisheries, with a few Puget Sound fisheries excepted). Personally, since they are now neck-deep in our politics and getting all sorts of tax breaks on their growing, expanding enterprises, I'm not sure they're any different than any other American special interest at this point, and I wonder why we still treat them differently.

You're joking, right?

If not, you live in a f'n dream world my friend. These aren't agreements or trade deals or some other bs you can wish or vote away...they are in PERPETUITY!

Get a different f'n hobby.

Until they're not.

That's the rub. When people talk about scrapping the treaties or renegotiating the treaties, they seem to think we should get everything we already have plus more. Now, if we want to revert to "might makes right," that is precisely what would happen. But let's not pretend we're talking about justice in that case.

I think there's a term for someone who agrees to a deal and then decides to go back on it when they want something better...hmm.... let me think...

Since there are a lot of opinions floating around let me add mine.

The treaties were established by agreements between two entities - the tribes represented by their leaders representing their tribal members and the U.S. Government by its leaders representing its citizens. Each negotiated for their citizens keeping in mind that the tribes were Governments then and continue to demand Government to Government relationships today. Sovereign Nations??

But what has happened is that the tribal members became U.S. citizens in the early 1920s but the tribal organizations and memberships were retained - call it dual citizenship. Frankly, that was the point at which the issue of the continuation of treaties and treaty rights should have been addressed; a quid pro quo.

What we have now is the U.S. Government (remember, it was the non-Indian Government at the time) now enforcing the treaties on the State but also failing to protect the rights of the citizenship it represented at the time of Treaty signature.

So, if the Feds feel obliged to sue the State to enforce the Treaty rights for the tribes then the Feds need to also take the appropriate actions necessary to protect the rights of the other citizens covered under those treaties.

From the BIA website:

Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution vests Congress, and by extension the Executive and Judicial branches of our government, with the authority to engage in relations with the tribes, thereby firmly placing tribes within the constitutional fabric of our nation. When the governmental authority of tribes was first challenged in the 1830's, U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall articulated the fundamental principle that has guided the evolution of federal Indian law to the present: That tribes possess a nationhood status and retain inherent powers of self-government.

and...

While tribal sovereignty is limited today by the United States under treaties, acts of Congress, Executive Orders, federal administrative agreements and court decisions, what remains is nevertheless protected and maintained by the federally recognized tribes against further encroachment by other sovereigns, such as the states. Tribal sovereignty ensures that any decisions about the tribes with regard to their property and citizens are made with their participation and consent.

Maybe I will take up hunting.

And I repeat that the Federal Government has, in my opinion, reniged on its obligations to the citizenry it represented when the treaties were signed.

Totally agree with this but good luck trying to get anything straightened out with what passes for representation for citizens here these days in this fractured society :-/

Reneged on obligations? Set up reservations and then allowed them to be settled by non-Indians. Guaranteed food, etc, and didn't provide it. Guaranteed fish and let them be destroyed.


The Feds have done a piss-poor job of just about everything associated with the treaties.

Was it the Feds' responsibility to not allow the sovereign nations to sell portions of their Reservations? Oh, I know, those non-Indians certainly must have taken advantage of the tribal land owners but that has been an age old problem; not unique to what went on here.

And we could discuss ad naseum how and why fish runs have been decimated by activities of both Indians and non-Indians. Fact is that everyone lost on the fish and everyone benefited from that same development that adversely impacted fish runs.

But I do agree fully that the Feds have screwed the pooch on treaties to include not ensuring that the tribes currently operate within the terms of the treaties and subsequent court decisions.

Wait, are we still talking about Indians here or has this changed to a discussion about Boeing... and the likes???

Sure sounds like Boeing to me.

lol

That cracked me up.

Don't hate the playa - hate the game.

Indeed. Well played.

Time to chime in!
Rojo, where do you, or any of you, get off criticizing lack of participation in NOF? Although many would like, not many of us have the LUXURY to get to those meetings. As far as all you boat owning primadonna's that get preference based on your NOF participation, FU! I am a boat owner and fish all the fisheries and never have I ever thought I am any better to deserve more opportunity than the bankies. I was one of them once, and most of you probably were to! You all need to understand fishing starts somewhere. IMO fishing is a progression. I think most here started on some lake or small stream from the bank and got hooked, except some rich kid with a Grady White dad. We all need to stick together and support all fishing opportunities, and that includes terminal areas. As far far as you guys that jumped in with your big $$ boats and attitude, it won't be long when I get the chance to participate, refuting the current salt preference that is going on now. my 2cents. Flame on!

Buddy just texted this to me. So Jay is telling everyone there is a low return of coho in 2016. 2015 I get it. What does this mean in the grand scheme?

http://www.king5.com/mb/tech/science/env...ation/324165614

Love all these late Friday afternoon WDFW Rule Changes and is the Governor finally listening as it gets closer to election day? I wonder... JMHO tonight!

I have no idea. Inslee must be a good governor, cuz I never understand what he's telling us.

It's a great question, though. What does "commercial fishing failure" mean? If the way WDFW crafts our seasons is any indication, that sounds like only the Tribes will be fishing from now on to me. If there aren't enough fish for non-tribal commercial harvest, how can there be enough for sporties to "play with?"

When is he going to declare a sports fishing failure?

That there might be the $64,000 question> NEXT

"What does "commercial fishing failure" mean?"


I'm pretty sure that it means. "Hey Mr. Presindent I've been doing everything that I can to keep the pawns in line and to support your administration, and not without spending some of my own political capital. So you see now that I have an election coming up I could use a little help, maybe you can send us back some of those dollars that my States taxpayers have been sending your way, then hopefully my stupid voters will be deceived into thinking that I got some free federal dollars, and if enough of them think that and reward me with their votes we can keep this scam going. Jay Inslee"

Yep

I just want to touch on the NOF participation issue for a moment:

I too have spent a lot of time attending fisheries meetings, both as a boat fisher and as a bankie. I find it no coincidence that a very large portion of the sport fishers in attendance are boaters. Here's my thoughts.

The meetings are held during the week and at times that most younger guys and gals are having to work. They are also held for time periods the take up the whole day.

Older guys (retirees like myself) and others have less pressure and financially are in better positions in life to both, own a boat and have time to participate. Of course, there are always exceptions.

Is this by design? Perhaps. But I can say, I really think this may explain why the majority of participants are boat owners.

The bigger concern is WHY are the negotiations that are done with the tribes closed to the public? I'm sure we would all take off from work to sit in on those!!

I would go to the Mill Creek NOF meeting and it was held in the evening-- the commercials would meet earlier that day.

I'm curious to know what affect if any, the lack of fishing in puget sound had on the local economy, specifically revenues generated in Puget sound area tackle stores, marinas and boat launches...

I'm also curious if the lack of opportunity actually generated more spending in terms of longer trips to areas open to salmon and other types of fish.

For me personally, I spent $400 on a new tuna rod, reel and bait on an out of town trip that I would have spent locally on salmon gear and supplies (bait gas, hooks, line) had it been open.

Regional NOF meetings seem to be weekday evening. Mill Creek, the last few years has been held on a Saturday.

Good question Piper. On thing for sure, Jay Inslee doesn't' know or give two shits about sport anglers.

It was very odd out searun cutthroat fishing this past weekend and seeing hardly any boats out on a beautiful fall weekend. Had things not be closed, lots of folks would have been out and about participating in the Everett Derby.

I really feel sorry for the tackle retailers, especially smaller shops like John's and Ted's. They should be able to apply for aid if the commercials can.

I know I've spent a heck of a lot less money this summer. I usually feel like I'm funding the state's ferry fleet. I cancel my vacation this year which is usually my nine day September coho bender.
SF

I planned my retirement so I could beach fish coho in August and Sept. Instead I spent that money at Lowes.

Yeah that ^^^ My yard looks great and the freezer is empty. Driving me nuts to drive across the Snohomish and see all those nice fat silvers plugged in there with no opportunity to go get them. Nov 1 will be awesome but I'm sure gonna miss my October silver fishing not to mention September in the sound. Oh well - closed a few more deals at work so I guess that and the lawn are the silver lining.

My new goal is to catch and release some beach coho come Nov 1st when things open back up.
It won't be easy that late in the season, but based on the size of some of the coho I've seen jumping this year the effort will be worth it.
SF

Sounds good Brian.

The Skagit is open for coho!!!!

Skagit and Cascade rivers open to coho and gamefish; Sauk River opens for gamefish

Action: Open the Skagit and Cascade rivers to fishing for coho salmon and gamefish. Open the Sauk River to fishing for gamefish.

Species affected: Coho salmon and gamefish.

Effective dates: Sept. 28 through Nov. 30, 2016.

Locations for salmon:

SKAGIT RIVER: From the mouth to the Cascade River Road (Marblemount) Bridge. Coho daily limit 4, of which no more than 2 may be wild. Bait prohibited. Anti-snagging rule, and night closure in effect.
CASCADE RIVER: From the mouth to Rockport Cascade Road Bridge. Coho daily limit 4. Anti-snagging rule, and night closure in effect.

4 coho daily limit? What might the limit have been if this had been a strong return?

Nice to see the Skagit finally open! Never really wanted to fish Puget Sound salt and I love that upper Skagit river as it truly is a magical place. Some years up there it was a two fish limit and when run assessment was done it bumped up to 3 a few years back and in good years past it has been 2 hatchery and 2 wild! Epic days up there :-)

After salt water harvests?????

While the issue is complicated the answer is really easy and has been done before in other fisheries.

Striped bass on the Atlantic Coast and Chesapeake Bay
Redfish in the Gulf of Mexico

Make salmon a game fish and stop all commercial harvesting.

"If you want to eat wild seafood you should have to catch it and kill it" Yourself, personally.

We no longer have market hunting for wild game, even the tribes can't do it.

The treaty tribes can still have their 50% of the harvestable fish, they just can't sell them on the open market. They can sell/trade them amongest the tribes but not outside.

I realize the economic impact of this but the fact is if your business model is overharvesting a finite resource then your business is doomed to fail at some point. Buffalo hunting comes to mind. Not to mention the economic gain that would be seen from the increase in sports fishing $$ spent and tourism.

The issue is far more complicated than this I know but as far as I am concerned that should be the ultimate goal and we should work with the tribes to accomplish it.

Impossible you say? It worked for market hunting and it also worked for striped bass and redfish. Now those are two awesome sport fisheries that bring in millions of $$.

This year is unique in that there were no substantial marine impacts on Coho before the tribal nets went in. The WDFW told advisors last week that the Muckleshoot had netted over 14K coho in the green so far this year.

My question is: Since w have no "upstream" impacts in marine areas this year, what is the department doing to ensure that recreational interests get their fair share of the surplus? Who is advocating on recreational fishing interests behalf within the department, and to what degree?

Knowing that sport fishing has not come close to the catching the amount of fish the tribes have thus far, shouldnt the nets be immeadiately pulled from the water to ensure that recreation fishermen and women can catch their fair share? We are supposed to get 50%, right, and this year we are trending to get about 10%.

Where is the emergency tribal closure to ensure equity in allocation? Where is the Co management?

exactly

Spot On!

They did open the lower green and will be opening higher stretches of the river in October and increased the limit to 3 adults though. Perhaps that's how we are supposed to get our 50%?

I am planning on getting a chunk of our 50% this weekend.

Fish on...

Todd

Me too Todd, just a little closer than previously guessed.

Interesting year.....from supposed crisis to harvest.
SF

MA 13 has been split. Waters to the West of the Nisqually Estuary are to open for clipped coho.

https://t.co/YP1R0x5PBc

Good points.

The reason sport fishing advocacy groups were effective in ending commercial fishing on stripers, reds, etc. was that the states in which those events occurred are not beholden to tribal fishing rights. The treaties are the lone, immovable obstacle sranding in the way of meaningful fisheries changes in WA.

If the only economy our Legislature had to worry about was the Stare's, they would likely have changed the fisheries management paradigm long ago.

What are the odds they open up some of the other marine areas soon?

went to the confluence (puy/white) a couple days ago, this net was in the White tucked tight to shore, we saw another object in the Puyallup stem,about 60 yards from this net, that looked like it was being weighed down and pulling downriver... i guess that was another net, that was full of fish, what i saw was the bouy...

whats also BS, is that the Puyallups havent updated their netting hotline since the 1st, still....

whats also BS is that at this time last year, Voights had 2400 Kings and around 1000 Coho....

right now, they have over 3500 Kings and over 1000 Coho, the river was plugged with Coho during the opening, saw a few large schools pass by on the 22nd and 23rd....

i emailed the WDFW asking if we would get an opening since we are well above average, and everyone else is getting an opening...

i was told "i wish i had good news for you, but i dont"....

thanks WDFW

Tribal harvest, or treaty rights, are not the biggest obstacle standing in the way. It is harvest TECHNIQUE. I say let them fish, but let them fish selectively.


BAN GILLNETS!

Yes, we all hate gillnets. But we'll be begging them to start using gillnets again when we realize how much more effort they have to put in to get their 50% selectively (meaning even less time on the water for us).

The Tribes also do not recognize wild fish as any different from hatchery fish (why should they, when both get the same price per pound?), so selective fishing is not something they will ever agree to (willingly).

FF02, please explain why we would get less time? Im just curious.

If they fish selectively, it will require more time on the water to catch their share. The Tribes like to fish alone, so that means less time on the water for the rest of us. It would also mean a lot more of the hatchery fish culled before the upriver folk get a crack.

NOW... if what a person's concerned about is wild conservation, selective fishing is the way. Sacrifices will need to be made (more still) if we want that.

I think those nets are Mucks. I saw more upriver on the White. I don't think the Puyallups are participating yet.