Wild COHO

[Fish-or-man?]

Funny thing here is the "save the salmon campaign" that has been going on forever in WA is a direct result of the State of Washington’s greed for money. They don't tell you in the save the salmon commercials or on the news when they are talking about low salmon numbers that the reason for these low salmon numbers in WA is because of the stinkin netters thanks to the States greed. How easy it would be to "save the salmon" if WA State would just put an end to the netting in the Sound and in our rivers. What a joke!

Disclaimer: I work for the state (but not in fish management), so obviously I have a bias. The following personal opinions are mine, and mine alone.

It's not right to blame the state for current tribal fishing practices. It was the US Federal government that sued Washington State, because the state had been limiting (the feds and Boldt decided violating) the very general fishing rights outlined in the treaties signed between the feds and the tribes. When these treaties were signed Washington was still a long way out from statehood. In fact, when it comes to tribal government-to-government relations regarding fishing/hunting, everything to do with legal regulation comes from the feds. Or will come from the feds if the tribes feel they don't like the way the state is handling things. So although, yes, the state does work with the tribes, you can see by what happened in 1974 that if the state pushes fish/game regulation very hard on them federal lawsuits aren't far behind. I've never worked for the WDFW, but it looks like their boards have to play it pretty nice/smart to keep the nets out of the rivers the 60% of the time that they currently do.

That being said, I loath netting for all the reasons mentioned on here. One of my most stomach turning memories is seeing dead sturgeon all over the shore the day after some nets were removed from Willipa Bay's Smith Creek/North River area. 20-30 year old fish, killed and wasted as bi-catch. The only time I ever want to see a fish netted is when it is at the end of an angler's line (be it recreational or commercial). Legally, doing something about it raises a bunch of questions though. I wonder if the state banned netting if it would have any affect on tribes, or if it would just affect non-tribal commercial fishing? That would come down to a federal decision I imagine. I suppose the state could cut commercial fishing quotas way down. Either way, you'd have to take on all commercial fishing, not just tribal. Which as stated in the thread, money might as well equal justice. Us sporties would have to get our stuff together in a big way to make any kind of an impact on the federal or state level. As stated before, I'm biased. But I think the responsibility lies with us to organize, to at the very least, preserve our current fishing rights as tax-paying citizens.

[curado]

look at this slab

[Bodofish]

Funny thing here is the "save the salmon campaign" that has been going on forever in WA is a direct result of the State of Washington’s greed for money. They don't tell you in the save the salmon commercials or on the news when they are talking about low salmon numbers that the reason for these low salmon numbers in WA is because of the stinkin netters thanks to the States greed. How easy it would be to "save the salmon" if WA State would just put an end to the netting in the Sound and in our rivers. What a joke!

Disclaimer: I work for the state (but not in fish management), so obviously I have a bias. The following personal opinions are mine, and mine alone.

It's not right to blame the state for current tribal fishing practices. It was the US Federal government that sued Washington State, because the state had been limiting (the feds and Boldt decided violating) the very general fishing rights outlined in the treaties signed between the feds and the tribes. When these treaties were signed Washington was still a long way out from statehood. In fact, when it comes to tribal government-to-government relations regarding fishing/hunting, everything to do with legal regulation comes from the feds. Or will come from the feds if the tribes feel they don't like the way the state is handling things. So although, yes, the state does work with the tribes, you can see by what happened in 1974 that if the state pushes fish/game regulation very hard on them federal lawsuits aren't far behind. I've never worked for the WDFW, but it looks like their boards have to play it pretty nice/smart to keep the nets out of the rivers the 60% of the time that they currently do.

That being said, I loath netting for all the reasons mentioned on here. One of my most stomach turning memories is seeing dead sturgeon all over the shore the day after some nets were removed from Willipa Bay's Smith Creek/North River area. 20-30 year old fish, killed and wasted as bi-catch. The only time I ever want to see a fish netted is when it is at the end of an angler's line (be it recreational or commercial). Legally, doing something about it raises a bunch of questions though. I wonder if the state banned netting if it would have any affect on tribes, or if it would just affect non-tribal commercial fishing? That would come down to a federal decision I imagine. I suppose the state could cut commercial fishing quotas way down. Either way, you'd have to take on all commercial fishing, not just tribal. Which as stated in the thread, money might as well equal justice. Us sporties would have to get our stuff together in a big way to make any kind of an impact on the federal or state level. As stated before, I'm biased. But I think the responsibility lies with us to organize, to at the very least, preserve our current fishing rights as tax-paying citizens.

All good and true FishorMan, I can see you've done your homework. But I don't think you went far enough, please don't try and defend the States actions or lack thereof. The State was the entity that rolled over and said ok when the Boldt decision was handed down. They could have appealed and sued again and again on behalf of the people and the salmon of the State but they didn't, they just accepted the ruling and rolled with it. This case never went to the Supreme Court. It was decided in US District Court in Washington State. That is far from the final word on anything. At this point I'd like to point out that Boldt was married to an Indian woman at the time. At this point I'd like to point out that Boldt was married to an Indian woman at the time. Can you say conflict of interest? So as a person that has had my livelihood affected by the Boldt decision and the poor management of the States resources by the State, I'm quite disgusted as a citizen. As a result, the State government that didn't and doesn't have the guts to stand up to all the states people and dictate how to and when to fish for everyone is now trying to save the runs with possibly the lamest recovery attempt I could possibly imagine. Please look at the Alaska's runs and how they've managed to survive with lots of Indians and salmon fishing ones to boot.
So don't even begin to try and defend the State, it's the State's lack of backbone by way of politicians sucking up special interest money that has got us into this mess and they've done precious little to protect and get the anadromous species out of the predicament they are in.

The folly of the recovery plan:
1. The State has been pumping fish into the runs for decades via the hatcheries. The adipose fin was clipped on an estimated 10% of the fish released, starting in the early seventies, no fish clipped before that. What happened to the 90% that weren't clipped when it came time to spawn? Do you think we caught them all? Did they just not spawn with wild stocks?
2. How many generations of indiscriminant spawning does it take to pollute a wild stock?
3. Where did the first generation of fish from the hatcheries come from? I'll bet the native run that the hatchery is on. Think money, they were free for the taking!!!!!
4. I'm going to go way out on a limb here and suggest that none of our salmon runs are truly native anymore. I'd love some argument as I've been involved in volunteering at salmon and steelhead hatcheries during the catch and milking phase.
5. How can reducing the sheer numbers of fish put into a run increase the percentage of fish returning? The logic escapes me right now but I'm open to suggestion.
6. How can the State even begin to think they can have any sort of a recovery plan without controlling all the nets?
7. I could rave on but I think I've presented enough food for thought.
8. Provide some more fuel or debate as you see fit....... It's all good.

Never vote for an incumbent. They are far too comfortable and susceptible to graft.
It’s human nature to look out for one’s own bacon first

[Bodofish]

PS: Non-tribal commercial fishemen do not set nets in the rivers. It is gill netting in the rivers that has devistated our Salmon runs. I have never seen a historic picture or a story about any Tribe gill netting salmon or any fish for subsistance, let alone a tribe that was involved in any commercial fishery to the point that it could argue that commercial fishing and gill nets were a tradition they've been involved in since the begining of time. Remember it's their "cultural heritage" that allows them to gill net the rivers..........Ask the Crow, he'll tell you. Maybe mister Bear will back him up.

[Blackmouth]

4. I'm going to go way out on a limb here and suggest that none of our salmon runs are truly native anymore. I'd love some argument as I've been involved in volunteering at salmon and steelhead hatcheries during the catch and milking phase.
5. How can reducing the sheer numbers of fish put into a run increase the percentage of fish returning? The logic escapes me right now but I'm open to suggestion.
6. How can the State even begin to think they can have any sort of a recovery plan without controlling all the nets?

While I agree with you Mr. Bodofish, I really like points #5 and 6.

While I'm no expert on these salmon runs since I haven't spent all my days in Washington, I would have to imagine that some of our OP and smaller systems have avoided the influx of hatchery genes?

I do agree though, hatchery genes have to be very present in many of our Puget Sound stocks. We don't see too many 20+ lb coho, 50lb + kings, etc...

[Blackmouth]

look at this slab

Long arm...

[Fish-or-man?]

I actually haven't done too much homework, Bodofish. As a sports fisherman most of my knowledge on the Boldt decision is secondhand, much of it from old state workers. Hence the bias I stated earlier. I was born and raised in rural Lewis County, so I do understand the anti-government take on it too. This is something we won't agree on, but to go even further as you suggested the decision was upheld in US Supreme Court about five years later when a non-tribal commercial appealled it. The state wanted it reversed too, because it violated equality principles, but the supreme court ruled the treaties gave natives special rights... they also slapped the state supreme court on the wrists for not upholding the federal decision. Billy Frank Jr. was furious with the state for at least the first five post-Boldt years because it wasn't regulating non-tribal commercials in Puget Sound as the feds ruled. So I still have a hard time seeing the state-tribe lovefest that you and many others describe.

I honestly don't think there's a thing the state could have done to get the decision reversed. Bodlt was a conservative law and order judge. Once he laid down his 1800s dictionary checking logic to determine the ultra-vague treaties should mean 50% of the fish go to the natives, I don't see a different logic model that the feds would have accepted. Heck, Slade Gorton was the Attorney General for the state during this whole mess. I know how he feels about the tribes (tribal money is what knocked him out of the US senate IMO). If he saw a legal recourse I do not know why he would not have taken it. As AG that would have been his duty if he felt the citizens of the state were getting legally screwed. I personally always thought Gorton was pretty gutsy and upright, so I don't know that I'll buy a corruption arguement with him.

So that's what we're both too dug in to to agree on. However, I do agree with probably everything else you said. Our federal government pumps so much money into the tribes every year they can basically smash any serious elected political opposition to them. Our salmon recovery system in this state is a joke due to the netting. However, again, I see it very easy to throw stones here, but given the Boldt decision I can't think of a plan that would actually succeed. Hatchery fish have contaminated many stocks of salmoniod gene pools to the point that statistically they'll all be cookie-cutter kings and cohos if trends continue. Not to mention the very serious threat of disease in a population if you're genes are all almost identical. And politicians on the whole will do what their funders tell them in order to stay in office. At this stage in the game some will actually openly tell you that. A terrible court decision that I will agree was 100% the state's fault is when the state court decided the citizen referendum that passed to limit political terms in WA was unconstitutional. That was just mind-boggling from any perspective you want to take. Now you've got me all depressed. I better go fishing tomorrow.

[Bodofish]

Me too........

[Fish-or-man?]

Thanks for the info on this thread Bodofish; I learned a thing or two. Secondhand knowledge can never replace being there first hand. I did go fishing, didn't catch anything. Oh well, nice to get out.

[MikeFishes]

4. I'm going to go way out on a limb here and suggest that none of our salmon runs are truly native anymore. I'd love some argument as I've been involved in volunteering at salmon and steelhead hatcheries during the catch and milking phase.

Aren't the Pinks and Chums native?

BTW, there was a great video posted somewhere here about a year ago about the importance of the Pink run (how the vast number of pink smolt provide food for other salmon species).

So, do we sport fishermen (and fisherladies) have a PAC we can help along? I'd love to see some action on this front. At the very least get the general public educated and aware of what the tribes are doing.

[curado]

my guide buddy is still slaying them. sorry they are cell phone pics