it states in the bill that the fish are subject to
(4)(a) Agreements entered into with partners under this section
must be consistent with existing federally recognized tribal rights,
state laws, agency rules, collective bargaining agreements, hatchery
management policy involving species listed under the federal endangered
species act, or, in the case of a tribal partner, any applicable tribal
hatchery management policy or recreational and commercial harvest policy.
so that would mean the fish are entered into the north of falcon process. at least as i read it.
sounds to me as if it is salmon ranching of the 70's revisited, what the timber companies tried then but the returns crashed as in most any hatchery. I did a report in 5th grade on the failure of salmon ranches.
my guess is some tribe wants to keep something open and they want to use the chum eggs to finance it. but it doesn't say anywhere in there that they can only raise chum. only that chum may be used to defer the costs of running the hatchery. as long as they sell them at the going rate.
my question is where is the harvest going to take place? if we are talking turning Hoodsport hatchery over to the tribes (I suspect that's the plan) and then allowing them to "hire gillnetters" to harvest the fish for them at the mouth of the canal (the designated area) I have an issue. if we are talking beach seining off the mouth of the creek other people will have a problem.
as with most laws the way it is implemented is the issue, not necessarily, the law. if you are for hatcheries this is good if you oppose them it's bad.
Previous Topic
Index
