A Glimer Of Hope

Browsing through articles relating to todays world I came across this:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/...cid=hplocalnews

Perhaps this current situation will give us a look as to what life would like with Alaska catching less of our fish.

And yet we have commercial advisors in GH, WB, and CR all asking WDFW to have a contingency plan in place in case COVID-19 completely pre-empts the recreational fishery for 2020. They want the rec shares to be transferred to "essential" commercial folks fishing to maintain the national food supply.

It...never...ends

If the virus situation remains serious enough that the recreational fishermen are not fishing by say August I think it means that much of the economy will still shut down including such the restaurants. Where are the commercial fleet going to sell there catch.

My understanding is that the Dungeness crab season off the California coast shut down early primarily there was not demand for the crab and the price dropped to a point it was no longer profitable to fish.

Curt

Something else that's being revealed is that most of the world has plenty to eat without an abundance of seafood. I've heard people complain about a lot lately, but the lack of seafood in the stores is not among them. Seafood has become a luxury item, reserved for occasions and times of economic prosperity, neither of which currently exist. The argument that seafood is a staple became ridiculous when the cost per pound for seafoods started to exceed (double or more) the price of beef/pork/chicken/etc. A key characteristic of any "staple" is that it's widely available and affordable.

One thing's for sure: If there's no money to be made, they won't be fishing. Of course, if the NT commercials aren't fishing....

The Tribes will be.......

Quite the chain reaction, from "stay at home" to restaurant closures with staff layoffs, down the chain to fishing boats tied up in port, and deckhands with no jobs either.

The glimmer, I guess, is what I've always known: fishing never looked like a good idea from the point of view of the fish.

Don't worry boys, all the crabs and fish you're not able to go after will not be left to waste: THERE WILL BE FISHING GOING ON!

NOTICE THAT IT'S TAKING PLACE DURING THE REC CLOSURE!


FILING
ORGANIZATION: PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
REGULATION #: SCr20-21-4.6
This is a 4.6 regulation notice to harvest without co-manager
agreement.
DATE ADOPTED: 3-26-2020
REGULATIONS (S) None
SUPERCEDED:
CATCH AREA (s): Shellfish Catch reporting area 26D
SPECIAL
MANAGEMENT
AREA: For commercial geoduck diver safety, Geoduck Tracts with active
harvest (to -70’ mllw) may be closed to crabbing Saturdays -
Tuesdays. Crabbing is permitted at -100’ uncorrected and deeper
along the shoreline boundaries of a tract all week long.
FISHERY TYPE: COMMERCIAL
SPECIES: Dungeness Crab (Cancer magister)
UPPER LIMIT: 46,000 pounds
ON/OFF
RESERVATION: OFF
EFFECTIVE DATES April 20, 2020 8:00 AM through official Sunset May 19, 2020 (or
until upper limit is taken)
LEGAL GEAR: 1) Pots, ring nets, and hand operated instruments that do not
Penetrate the shell are the only lawful gear for crab harvest.
DAYS/HOURS: Seven days a week, gear must be worked between official sunrise
and official sunset only.
RECORD KEEPING:1) Landings shall be sold to tribally registered fish buyers and be
recorded on fish receiving tickets.
2) In order for the Puyallup Tribal Shellfish office to maintain
catch and effort information, crab buyers will be contacted for
buying activity.
OTHER 1) Minimum size is 61/4 inches measured across the back at the
widest spot of the shell immediately in front of, but not including
the outside of the tips
2)Harvest of females is prohibited
3)All crab pots must have two escape rings not less than 4 ¼
inches inside diameter. Escape rings must be located on the top
half of the pot. A 3 inch by 5 inch biodegradable cord panel
(natural fiber, maximum thread size 120) or biodegradable loop
attached to the lid hook is also required.
4)Each pot or string of pots must be attached to a surface buoy
that is capable of floating a five pound weight. Buoys attached to
gear used for commercial fishing can be any color or color
combination except red and white. If red and white buoy colors are
used, a minimum of 30% of the surface of the buoy(s) will be
prominently marked with an additional color other than red and
white.
5) Buoys shall be conspicuously marked with the harvester’s
fishing identification number preceded by the letters PUY.
6) Harvesters are limited to fishing 50 pots maximum at any one
time.
7) It will be unlawful for a crab fisher to remove or pull a crab pot
from the water that is not registered by that fisher, without prior
permission from their enforcement program.
8) Fish buyers must withhold a 5% tax from the sale of crab and
remit to the Shellfish Department.
9) Only harvesters who have received the educational outreach
endorsement permit shall be able participate in this harvest.
JUSTIFICATION: HARVEST AVAILABLE RESOURCE. This is a 4.6 regulation
notice to harvest without co-manager agreement.
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
3009 East Portland Ave.
TACOMA, WA 98404

Normally, I would inquire to know just exactly what a "4.6 regulation" is...but the Tribes have been harvesting w/o co-manager agreement for some time now. Nothing new here...other than depletion of the resource, while publicly claiming to value conservation. Wait--that's not new, either!

It is a section of the Shellfish Implementation Plan that allows EITHER a Tribe or the State to open shellfish fisheries without first having reached agreement between the State and all affected Tribes.

I think this is the latest implementation order (if not it explains):

Shellfish Implementation Plan

So will WDFW sell out politically to the commercials, or look to the quick cash from deferred license sales by opening rec fishing?

Impeccable timing!

Great minds must think alike.

Quote:
"It is a section of the Shellfish Implementation Plan that allows EITHER a Tribe or the State to open shellfish fisheries without first having reached agreement between the State and all affected Tribes.

I think this is the latest implementation order (if not it explains):

[/quote]
_________
That may well be, but I wonder if the WDFW have implemented it towards sportfishers in any meaningful way.

After all, from year 2000-2017, in Shellfish Areas 2w and 4 (Pt Townsend to Vashon), the Tribal catch was 8.96 tons more than the State share PER YEAR , not cumulative.

Cumulatively? OK, that's 8.96x16=143.38 tons of Tribal harvest more than the State share over that time period.

Is that 50/50?

But I don't recall any "meaningful" special State opening (either with or w/o Tribal agreement) to equalize that difference.

(My numbers are straight from WDFW and their tribal catch reports)

Actually, this is a serious questions, especially for those who have ben involved in shellfish advisory groups. Has WDFW actually formally indicated that the achievement of a 50:50 split on crab is a high priority? I know what the Court says, but the State and Tribes can agree to whatever they want.

Is this a "usual or accustomed area" for the Puyallup tribe?

Not sure, but this seems pretty far north? Or am I way off?

CATCH AREA (s): Shellfish Catch reporting area 26D

Baywolf, I don't know, but I was referring to tribes that reported catches into 2w and 4, not necessarily the Puyallup.

It's not, because if we take more crab, they take more elk, or if we take more salmon, they won't submit is on their permit (but will go to BIA solo)....Meaning there is no simple apples to apples negotiation on one topic, everything is all smashed together in an endless spiderweb of confusion.

For example, if just balancing the scales on such a simple fishery as this could be achieved, why haven't they?

Because, as is said, "Payback is a bitch."

Sorry...I wasn't clear. I copied "CATCH AREA (s): Shellfish Catch reporting area 26D" off of the Puyallup announcement to crab.

It's the area they put in as the catch reporting area.

I was just curious if it's unusual for the Puyallup Tribe to crab in that area.

I don't know.

To try and answer your question one would need to know exactly where that reporting area is located. If 26D is a subset of MA 11 then it is within the Puyallup's U&A.

A much bigger question would be if it is within MA11 the specific notation that "This is a 4.6 regulation notice to harvest without co-manager agreement" is indicative that the tribe has decided there is enough crab to harvest while WDFW is not in agreement.

Hopefully further clarification is forthcoming from WDFW.

Area 26D is bounded by the Tacoma Narrows bridge on the south and a line drawn through the north end of Vashon Island on the north. Looks like Puyallup territory to me. U & A? Can't say. Have shellfish U & A's ever been adopted by the court? (additional information welcome).

Regarding filing regulations under 4.6 of the Shellfish Implementation Plan - I'm not sure filing regulations under this provision is as nefarious as some might think. The implementation plan foresees that the co-managers will develop interim and long-term management plans for all the shellfish resources that will guide all fisheries. In the absence of those plans, the only way to open fisheries by either party is under section 4.6. That section also describes a time frame necessary to open fisheries and what information and documentation that warrants a fishery opening needs to be provided to applicable co-manager(s) to proceed with a fishery. There is also a section 4.7 of the plan that provides a procedure for contesting and resolving disagreements, so there is no reason that a disagreement cannot be resolved outside the boundaries of some area/species/fishery plan in a manner consistent with conservation or sharing of the resource.

I have never been involved in shellfish management under this implementation order (hopefully someone who has can correct any faulty thinking I have), but I was involved with management of finfish resources under U.S. v. WA. so I have some experience with court orders and how we make or don't make them work. My experience there tells me that development of these expected long-term management plans (that would negate the need to file a fishery opening under Section 4.6) can take a long time, in fact I'm not sure that all Puget Sound regions have to date developed the long-term finfish management plans foreseen in the original salmon and steelhead orders (maybe carcassman or Curt can correct me). How many years after the original decision? (again, I could be off base here - just sharing thoughts). Whether I am exactly right about that or not, I do know that a whole lot of years of finfish fisheries went on without those plans. Additionally, there are a lot of things that could prevent having agreed to plans at any given time. For instance, right now I could certainly see how the co-managers learning how to deal with communication and planning under the limitations of COVID-19 could prevent having an agreed to annual management plan for this particular Puyallup fishery. (again, sort of thinking out loud based on other experiences).

The last thought is regarding whether or not WDFW ever uses Section 4.6 (or perhaps more telling, Section 4.7 to contest a fishery) is beyond my ability to find out. (Although if you think about it for a second, it is obvious that they HAVE used that provision because non-treaty fisheries certainly occurred soon after this court order, certainly before any/all of the management plans could be fully developed.) WDFW regs that they share with us would not need a reference to the implementation plan. Only the regulations that they share with the tribes would need to reference that section (outside an agreed to plan). I don't have access to their legal communication with the tribes about fishery openings, so that is a project for someone else if interested. Maybe carcassman knows - hey, do they still communicate by TWX? (He will get that).

Thanks OncyT, you beat me to the confirmation that 26D is another designation for MA11 and is certainly Puyallup tribal U&A.

From a conservation standpoint I wish the Puyallups would hold off another year as it puts WDFW in a difficult position between those who want a Dungy season (hey, look, the tribes are commercial fishing on crab) and those who have ongoing conservation concerns.

One only needs to look at what happened in MA13......

U&A was defined by the Boldt Court and there are maps available. Some of the boundaries have changed due to Tribes going to court so the old maps I have may not be current. There aren't "salmon U&A" or "Crab U&A"; just the U&A and they fish inside that. They can also be invited to fish in other Tribe's U&A (has happened) when such an invitation makes management work better.

There was a PS Salmon management plan that was approved by the Court in the 70s. This was redone in the early 80s. I know there was an attempt to update steelhead plan in the early 90s but that fell apart, I think.

Don't what they use now because ESA blew it all up. For example, Nooksack-Samish was managed for hatchery Fall Chinook; the wild stock was blown away. When you return over 100K Chinook to the Bay, that kinda wipes out the by catch. Each and every stock in PS was designated as hatchery or wild and managed with the appropriate emphasis. ESA changed that so there likely is no operative "plan".

I know what the existing U & A's are. My point about U & A is that some tribes fished for shellfish in different areas and with different regularity than they fished for finfish, and in reading the arguments for existing boundaries, salmon was the driver in the discussion. Access to different areas today would likely still be controlled by primary rights of other tribes, but I would not be surprised if it were opened up for discussion that there would be some significant differences in U & A's that would cut across the boundaries of the existing ones. For instance the proximity of southern Hood Canal and southern Puget Sound (Areas 12 and 13 for finfish respectively) would be an interesting discussion, going both ways.

The regional plans that I am referring to were called for in the broader Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan. They were called Comprehensive Regional Resource Management Plans (or something of that nature), e.g. the Hood Canal Salmon Management Plan. To my knowledge not every region has yet to develop one despite being required.

For a long time, WDF Shellfish folks ignored what was happening in Salmon. Then, when the Tribes got into shellfishing they got "surprised". One of their (Shellfish's) ideas was to create essentially"Hatchery Beaches" where the shellfish would be significantly enhanced just for Tribal fishing. Tribes, at least some, wanted nothing to do with it because it meant sharing U&A. I had heard that at least some of the arguments for expanding salmon U&A were they fished while canoeing to harvest other resources.

One of the intersting aspects is that, at least back in early Boldt Years, that the Yakama U&A included a bit of PS as they came down the Nisqaully to fish here. Seemed odd that that would be enshrined in the Decision while other Tribe's strong connnections (I think Nisqually and Quinault) were not.

And, from back in 2014, you have inter-tribal arguments in overlapping U&A areas.

https://www.goskagit.com/all_access/uppe...c18c20679a.html

Does anyone know what ever happened with this?

Anyway, that year, I saw some Suquamish crabbers at the ramp with a major haul off crab. I asked them where, because my pots were not productive. They said, " We fished all this out (Area 9), there are none left here. We go up past Everett."
(Recall tribes start crabbing in April or May).

Suquamish have U&A north into 8-1/8-2 and the Swinomish south to cover (at least) the same area. Right in the middle? Tulalip (and several smaller tribes). One can only speculate on validity of tribal catch reporting as they compete within those overlapping areas against a total set share (assuming that there is an agreement with WDFW).

The US District Court for the Western District of Washington granted a summary judgement in favor of the Upper Skagit Tribe. In 2017, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision.

At least that is what this appears to say to a non-attorney:

9th Circuit Upper Skagit v. Suquamish