Co-management inequities-- possible solutions

http://centralpt.com/upload/560/Advocacy/19637_201605-20CoManagementPerspective.PDF

+1

It is good to see many organizations ready to work together for solutions on Puget Sound salmon allocation inequites.

Thanks for posting that....puts some actual scale to what we already knew

Yes, Thank you Lucky for finding this and posting it.

Pay attention to the logos at the top of the page! Big guns!

And now, here we are, well into the 2017 season setting process and nothing has changed! In fact, the very same situation is once again lining up.

What's the saying? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me!

What exactly has WDFW done to create a fair and equitable co-management process....absolutely nothing. Oh..excuse me, they have fought very hard to KEEP THE SECRET MEETINGS GOING!!

Awareness comes in many ways, shapes, and forms and the piece inside the link tells a compelling story that should get you more signatures as it makes it way around at various levels.

Sent you a PM Lucky

If you guys reading this post have not already done so, you need to sign the petition to have the Tribal NOF meetings opened to the public.

Now, more than ever, we need to swell the tidal wave that is about to crash over this whole dysfunctional co-management mess.

Heres the link:

Open Tribal NOF Secret Meetings

Don't let putting your email stop you from signing. It's ONLY used to keep you posted on updates and verify people aren't signing a hundred times...Get all your group to sign as well! Strength in numbers!

It looks like Bay Wolf is excited about looking for more signatures.


The explanation and reasoning behind the recent co-manager negotiation quandary with graphs showing the inequities that are located in one paper is handy for future reference.

Hey thanks for posting this. Anyone know where they got the data for their figures (more specific than the WDFW)? More importantly, does this include harvest taken from intercept fisheries which I thought were suppose to come out of our half of the harvest?

Thanks again.

Define "intercept". The Boldt sharing in in WA waters. So, Wesport county against NI share but nothing in BC or AK does (legally). Who knows WTF has been agreed to by the Co-Managers.

Referring to BC and AK fisheries. I was under the impression the State's share also included fish taken under the Pacific Salmon Treaty. I could very well be wrong.

That would put undue burden on OR and CA, whose fish also get intercepted in those fisheries. Pretty sure Boldt is WA waters only.

The Tribes were threatening to file an "All Citizens" suit. It wanted to make the sharing all US Citizens/Treaty Indians. So, that would have included AK in the sharing. AK said if the Tribes pushed the suit, they would not support the first US/Canada treaty. WA and OR really wanted that treaty because BC was taking WA/OR fish since AK was taking theirs.

Since nobody took AK salmon there is no hammer to hit their stocks with. BC can hammer southern stocks and WA can, when diversion is right, hammer Fraser stocks. So there is some reason for BC and WA to play nice.

Tribes may need to roll that suit out again....... That may be the only way to get AK off of WA salmon.

Thanks for the clarification.

That would be interesting to watch! However, given the huge financial gains by many of the treaty tribes they may not want to end up in Federal court and have the Supreme Court's little qualifier (when supporting the Boldt decision) that an improvement in tribal economies could be the basis for a reduction in treaty fishing rights.

The State has apparently forgotten that little tidbit or simply decided not to pursue it. Again, not sure the tribes would want to generate an opportunity for the State to say "Oh by the way Judge, there is this little part of the Boldt decision we would like to enter into evidence."

The non-Indians berated WDF to take the Tribes to court on the Moderat Living standard. State would not do it. Wonder what stakeholders they were protecting.

Another tidbit is that Boldt and the Supremes did not give the Tribes Co-Management. The State was responsible for conservation. Period. The Tribes managed their fisheries but the state set the conservation standard. If the Tribes disagreed, it went to FAB and then to Court.

But, when the new US/Canada treaty came up, WDF wanted it so bad that Co-management was offered in trade for the All Citizens Suit so that AK would not torpedo the treaty. We got the Treaty..

Larry,

Can you show us where the part about improvement in tribal economic conditions is in the B. decision?

Thanks

Liar's Dice. Time to roll 'em again and see what shakes out?

So, no co-management until 1985? Interesting.

Came out of the second review by the Supremes. The tribes share is 50% of the harvestable or a moderate living, whichever is lower.

Yep. Thank Bill Wilkerson

Talking about AK

The commercial Chinook salmon fishery in Alaska could almost be considered a niche fishery at best considering of the billion pounds of salmon harvested in Alaska in 2015 the Chinook fishery represented less than 1% of AK total harvest of salmon.

Of the 1.1 billion pounds of salmon harvested in the US--- Alaska’s harvest represents almost 98%, WA nearly 2% with OR, CA, and Great Lakes filling in with very little.

Maybe it would be a good time to stop harvesting Chinook in AK to let depleted stocks in AK rebuild, while letting our home bred Chinook return home.

Numbers from NOAA.

Thanks for providing the specifics. I missed his post.

I believe That "moderate living" term was in reference to the economics that the fishery supplies, not some external source of income. In other words, if it takes 1/2 of the fish to provide a moderate living, from fishing, then it takes 1/2 of the fish.

That's just how I read it. Of course, I'm not a lawyer or judge, so...

For this discussion solutions will be directed at the Chinook imbalance. Of the top of my head I can think of 3 possible solutions to the catch inequities between the non-treaty and treaty catches . I believe all three would stay well within the confines of ESA limitations and Boldt.

The first two should greatly increase the non-treaty harvest numbers and are relatively straight forward. The third is more complex and would still likely the non-treaty share on the short side though potentially improve their share.

1) The most simple would be for the recreational fishery to significantly lower the minimum size limit for Chinook (say to 12 or 16 inches -sound familiar to the old timers) and regard mandatory retention of all "legal" size adipose clipped fish. Depending on the year and MA that would likely increase the numbers of landed Chinook during the summer season by 10 to 50%. During the winters seasons the number of kept fish would at least double. While much of the recreational catch would be sub-adult fish the numbers of fish landed by the recreational fishers could actually exceed that by the tribes (even though they may have more adult fish available to their fisheries).

2) While more complex than the first this option would also have a high probability of matching the non--treaty and treaty Chinook catches. It would require WDFW commission action to change two keep NOF policies for Puget Sound.. It cost the recreational fisheries significant numbers of landed fish by the high utilization of mixed stock fisheries and rod and reels over nets for the bulk of Chinook lands. Under this approach the bulk of fishing would be collapsed to terminal areas and the rivers. MA 5, MA 6 (at least until Elwha and Dungeness populations rebound), MA 9 would be closed to Chinook fishing. MA 7, MA 8-1, MA8-2 Chinook fisheries would be collapsed to terminal bays (for example MA 7 fishing would be collapsed to Bellingham and Samish bays) to target hatchery Chinook or abundant wild stocks.

MAs 10, 11, 12 and 13 and most of their associated freshwater would remain open for Chinook for the recreational anglers with the addition of Chinook directed commercial fisheries in terminal areas (Elliot Bay, Commence Bay, lower Hood Canal and Nisqually reach While this option reduced recreational fishing areas and total rod-days it would balance the catch inequities between the treaty and non-treaty fishers with adult fish.

3) This option is much more complex and even at its best will still result in a lower sharing of the either the total ESA impacts or adult equivalent it has the potential to raise the non-treaty share while still maintaining WDFW commission polices of prioritizing the recreational fishery and provide a diversity of angler opportunities across the region. The goal would balance the desire catches and over man-days of effort. For more than a decade PS seasons have been built piece meal and with a new FRAM model and a decade of new information it may be possible to rebuild the recreational fisheries to more optimize the fisheries and the use of the most ESA limiting stocks impacts. Within the confines of the Boldt decision, ESA impacts, and commission policies a reasonable approach would be an Ad Hoc committee representing a diverse cross section of the recreational community and supporting industries to establish high priority fisheries and other priorities upon which to re-set our fishing seasons. The high priority fisheries would establish the baseline fisheries with additional fisheries added within the ESA constrains and other priorities. With hard work and some care it may be possible to increase the total number of Chinook landed while maintaining the economic value of lots of recreational man-days on the water.

I don't expect anyone would agree totally with any of the three options above but they do illustrate the kinds of choices that have to be made and the balancing needed between the desire to maximize the catch and being able to fish were and how we want. Relying on rod and reel fisheries and fishing in mixed stock areas to produce a significant portion of the non-treaty Chinook catch guarantees that the non-treaty will always fall below the tribal terminal area gill net fisheries.

Flame away!

Curt

Curt, that smashes the head of the nail. In order to get the whole NI share there will need to be changes like you outline. If the sporties decide that "we don't want to catch little fish" or "no NI nets" or etc. then understand that means that we give up "share".

I remember Phil A, when answering why WDFW would not go after the NI steelhead share on the Hoh with a longer C&R season was that "We got the season we wanted". So, not only will we, the fishermen, need to be clear, open, and transparent out what is acceptable but WDFW will need to do the same so that well informed decisions can be made.

Curt, thanks.

Your experienced, logical, and realistic assessments are like a cry in the wilderness on this forum.

Since the "Taking a Dump in the Woods" thread currently has more posts than this thread, I wouldn't expect a lot of sincere consideration of the options you laid out...

Just know that many of us do appreciate it.

Reality check questions:

Option 1: Lowering the minimum retention size to increase harvest implies to me that this would primarily play out in the winter blackmouth fisheries. That might be a good thing but will those fishers want to use up a CRC on 12 inch fish?

Also, given the rate of predation (seals and other critters) on resident blackmouth is there a model equating sub-adult (varying sizes as mentioned) harvested Chinook to a returning adult in order to ensure an apples to apples comparison?

Option 2:

Given the current model of co-management (choking as I type) would the tribes agree to NI fisheries being pushed/concentrated into "their" terminal fishing areas?

Would they claim such a move would adversely impact their ability to exercise their Treaty fishing rights? But would be willing to agree for a substantial cash payment for prospective damages? All one needs to do is look at the new boat launch at Point No Point - you know, the one without a ramp - to see how this might play out.

1. The FRAM does convert all mortality from landed catch and release mortality of all sizes to an "adult equivalent" so a dead 12 incher is reduced to the equivalent "adult" fish. At that, even these dead little guys add up; example sub legals in the winter black mouth fishery

2. Since the state is negotiating "govt to govt" with the individual tribes, each tribe is very likely to have discomfort with moving any allowable harvest from the site unseen pre terminal fisheries to their back door in the terminal area that the tribal members can easily see, and are especially problematic when the NIs are fishing and the tribe isn't.

It looks like this went full circle from an idea to what will the tribes think. As long as there is an uneven playing field, there will continue to be a problem as the link on the first post first page addresses. No agreement between state and tribes---tribe’s fish and sport anglers sit the whole season.

There are abundant recommendations/proposed solutions to the problems in our fishery management. Many people, much smarter than me use the latest technology, modeling and forecasting to produce sound management shares and still meet conservation goals.

Unfortunately, once the principles gather and lock the door to start the negotiations they allow ego, emotion, bias and greed to rule the day.

It seems like our Tribal Co-managers have the "right" and the "law" on their side to dictate to us, not only how our fisheries will be managed, who and when non-tribal citizens will be able fish, if they will be able to fish.

By simply declaring any conversation as "Gov't to Gov't" they have very effectively removed any public challenge from their course of action and prevented any objection to any "deals" until after it's all done.

Lucky has a very valid point: We, the non-tribal sportsmen can have no impact on our fisheries any longer. We have been totally cut off at the knees because our fisheries are now no longer a citizen owned resource, but rather a resource managed "Gov't to Gov't" and without any real public input.

We can provide all the suggestions, recommendations and input in the world to WDFW, but unless it benefits the Tribes, they won't agree and they don't have to agree. They risk nothing by walking out...

But we can refuse to participate. We can take out money elsewhere. Perhaps we can "encourage" AK and BC to allow the non-residents to take more salmon in mixed stock fisheries. Get "ours" up there. The argument could be used in the various management forums that WA is not allowing us to access our fish. They (BC and AK) are just letting us catch the fish we paid for.

And, up there, you don't have to share the fish.......WA anglers could take all the WA harvestable.

Negotiations up north need to be improved to protect PS salmon.

I haven’t looked for current BC numbers lately but years ago in a thread on here, the 2010 PS Chinook management plan showed AK/BC interception of PS Chinook at a ridiculous amount, which looked like BC was the worst offender.

The river system that got the worst of AK/BC interception was the Hoko at a rate of 95+ % interception. The river that shocked me the most at that time was the Nooksack River with close to 90% AK/BC interception, with BC contributing most of the impacts if I remember right.

About that same time there was a "rumor" that B.C. Fisheries was performing genetic testing so as to be able to target lower 48 Chinook. But that was just a rumor......

The only hammer BC has, to get the US off of its stocks, is tp hammer WA/OR stocks. AK is in the catbird seat with nobody getting their fish. So, we get hit in hopes that out silver-tongued folks can convince AK to get off of BC fish.

The USA gave millions of fish annually to BC for damning the Columbia.

And then gave 50% to tribes for being meanies.

And since PS went from 2 million to 7.5 million people.

Surprise surprise and here we are.

We are just the first domino to fall .

http://www.ifish.net/board/showpost.php?p=3148687&postcount=13

Perhaps we need to convene the God Squad on the stocks Doc showed. Either ESA and CITIES mean something or they don't. We have to protect habitat, forego catch, and receive nothing in return.

Either recovery of Chinook is important enough to get everyone on board for protection or its not.

https://tidalexchange.com/2017/03/20/numbers-dont-add-tribal-catch-questioned/

Yeah, I remember the link I PM’d you with that information in it.

Can you believe how fast those years went by?

If you mean fish harvested in Canada no, those fsh do not count in either the tribal or non-tribal share.

I don’t know how these meetings between tribes and state can be even called negotiations as one sided as they can and appear to be.

Who knows, as unconscionable as these so called “negotiations” are, it would appear a slam dunk lawsuit win if congress would authorize that lawsuit.