What is 50-50 on netting ??????

My question is if sportsman and Natives are supposed to split the steelhead 50-50 how come they are netting 5 days a week and only out 2 days a week. To me if it were 50-50 they would be in 3 days one week and 4 days the next week. This seems to make a lot more sense to me as 50-50.
Maybe Rich Potter can help us out here and let us know the thinking or lack of it behind this scheduling, because I just got off the phone with the people at the WDFW office in Monte and they are of no help what so ever. Actually a third grader would be more helpful then they were. How do these people get these jobs???????

Peace
Superfly

Its a bunch of crap Superfly, who said they ever were gonna just take there 25%, they dont give a [Bleeeeep!] what the law says because who is gonna stop them. WDFW has no nutts!!!!

Superfly,

It isn't about 50% of the fishing time. The treaty - nontreaty allocation is about 50% of the harvestable number of steelhead estimated in pre-season forecasts and updated by in-season runsize adjustments.

In some cases, notably the Quillayute as far as I know, the tribe negotiated with WDFW for a fishing schedule rather than a % allocation, based on recreational steelheaders not catching their 50% share of the harvestable number (and hence the scare tactic of foregone opportunity we hear about).

If a tribe is netting 5 days a week, or 7 days a week, that should be OK as long as the tribe's catch remains within the bounds of its 50% share. Because of low ex-vessel fish prices, fewer people are fishing in many tribes now, especially those with alternative economic opportunities. If only 2 or 3 people are fishing from a particular tribe, then they might fish more days per week to try to harvest their tribe's 50% share.

The upshot, is that within legal limits, the number of treaty fishing days per week shouldn't have any significant affect on the number of harvestable steelhead available for you and me.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Let's read that again...

SAY WHAT???

If it doesn't matter how many days they fish then I guess it doesn't matter how many fish they catch either. Why not just have nets in the water every day of the year. There will still be just as many fish available, Right?

The truth is that the tribal harvest on the Quillayute system has exceeded the sport harvest consistently for a decade or more. Despite that they always want more because the sport harvest is seldom enough to catch what is left of the share even after the tribes whittle it down to less than half.

If you remember right, the tribes threatened to take even more several years ago if the state didn't raise the sport limit to more than one fish per day and something like three per year on that river. That's when the wild fish release radicals went nuts with their protests and stymied the states interest in increasing the harvest.

The result is that the tribes get the foregone harvest and if all retention of wild fish is made illegal then they will get even more. The wild fish release radicals continue to seek total allocation of the sport share for catch and release at the expense of normal fishing but simply end up giving that allocation to the tribes.

Oh Well! At least steelhead make good halibut bait!

Plunker....You just made alot of sense....WDFW is no help because they just refer you to tribal authorities for info on catch records and netting schedules, normally. Now if you believe that the tribes are honest about catch numbers then OK. They regulate themselves and only make agreements with WDFW that they can choose to abide by or not at their whim...When push comes to shove the tribes usually pick shove, as in SHOVE IT! WDFW!.....

The forgone opportunity hammer the tribes hold over our heads is a real problem even though the WSR advocates choose to not put that in their equation. We release more fish and the tribes just lay claim to them with more time on the rivers and more wild fish caught..perhaps even more wild fish taken that without WSR???

The question of tribal netting was a pivotal issue in the loss of the net ban initiative a few years ago. As I gathered signatures so many people scoffed at the petition saying that if it didn't apply to the indians then they weren't going to sign it. It did not apply to the tribes and was essentially unfairly targetting the small non-indian commercial fleet.

So the real question I would like answered by the gurus on this site is this: What can WDFW do and/or what can NMFS do to make fishing rights more equal in this state taking the Boldt and Rafeedie decisions into account?

Is it legally possible to close certain fisheries for conservation reasons? If so which rivers would qualify for such a complete closure? This would only include rivers that are currently being netted? If a closure was implemented would the law stop the tribes or could they wave the independent nation flag?

WHOOO Salmo,
You have to be the first person in the history of this site to admit or perhaps even realize they were not qualified to explain something.

HAPPY FUNNY NEW YEAR TO ALL

Salmo,

Do you thing WDFW would have any choice but to change to MSR from MSH if we decided we wanted our portion of the steelhead for CnR opportunity instead of harvest?

Like you said if that was the case and it was changed to MSR would the tribal portion still be managed under MSH? If this was the case and they could no longer tap into Sport Anglers half of the harvestable take they would really have to be much more precise with their harvesting?

I dont see how Forgone Opportunity could exsist if we managed our portion on recreation instead opf harvest. I have always thought the Forgone Opportunity bull was just a scare tactic.

I truely believe CnR will be the beginning of change. It isnt the saving grace but the key that opens the door.

CnR will give our fish managers no choice but to change current management and go 180 degrees away from harvest minded management.

Salmo you said about me:

"Foregone opportunity is not a hammer; it has been a convenient crutch for WDFW and people like you who are unwilling to move forward to the next logical stage of wild steelhead management that provides the greatest benefit to the greatest number of citizens."


What part of my last 20 postings where I said I am FOR WSR did not register with you?

I am certainly not unwilling to move forward at all. I am simply searching the waters for a more comprehensive long term solution. Do not make incorrect assumptions about my willingness to do anything...it is not up to your usual standards.