tribes "closing" skok

[birddogdad]

exercising boundaries to shut down skok looks like downstream from 101 this year. This could get interesting

[JimmyHoffa]

I read one place that the state used to acknowledge it as tribal land.  During that time the tribe sold access passes to anglers.  Then the state and the tribe had some agreement and anglers had access without tribal approval.  Now the tribe wants it back as when they sold passes.  Should be a can of worms if it hits the courts.

[birddogdad]

I read one place that the state used to acknowledge it as tribal land.  During that time the tribe sold access passes to anglers.  Then the state and the tribe had some agreement and anglers had access without tribal approval.  Now the tribe wants it back as when they sold passes.  Should be a can of worms if it hits the courts.

http://www.kitsapsun.com/outdoors/tribe-blocks-salmon-fishing-on-skokomish-river-343d4919-4c41-4369-e053-0100007fb9f0-381592681.html

this is a can of worms, hoh? quil? solduc? hump? where will this end?

[bearmanric]

Cant fish Lake Quinalt any more either.  Rick

[sirmissalot]

What has always baffled me is, aren't the majority of the fish they are claiming as theirs, fish from a washington state hatchery?

[twolabs]

The state should shut down the hatchery if they don't want to share the fish. They will net it until the fish are gone.

[chester]

What has always baffled me is, aren't the majority of the fish they are claiming as theirs, fish from a washington state hatchery?

Tacoma power just built two new ones for them as part of an agreement to keep the dams running.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[sirmissalot]

What has always baffled me is, aren't the majority of the fish they are claiming as theirs, fish from a washington state hatchery?

Tacoma power just built two new ones for them as part of an agreement to keep the dams running.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Right, which my understanding is those will be tribal hatcheries

[chester]

Correct, so if they control the river to the point the state quits stocking it they have a couple more years of returns. They won't run out of fish.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rainier10]

 

[PlateauNDN]

Correct, so if they control the river to the point the state quits stocking it they have a couple more years of returns. They won't run out of fish.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The state doesn't run all the hatcheries so that would only work in certain runs/rivers/tributaries.  Those that operate their own wouldn't be affected.

[chester]

Correct, so if they control the river to the point the state quits stocking it they have a couple more years of returns. They won't run out of fish.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The state doesn't run all the hatcheries so that would only work in certain runs/rivers/tributaries.  Those that operate their own wouldn't be affected.

You are correct, we are talking about the skok specifically.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Badhabit]

Pardon my ignorance on the Tribal boundaries on the Skok. Here's my question, if the Skok has navigable water/river how can the tribe(s) close of travel on the river? I understand that if your anchor or let your fishing weight hit the bottom of the river it would be trespassing but as long as your not making contact with the terra firma they can't stop you. Is this the situation on the Skok?

[chester]

I believe it's bordered by the river . Other side is private parcels and state ground. If I understood it how it was written they are claiming the water too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Badhabit]

I recall the Yakamas had a similar claim to the Yakima River within their reservation boundaries claiming the rights to the high water mark on the other side of the river. The WDFW and the Yakamas worked something out not sure what arguments were used by both sides to resolve it but I believe it was resolved in a way that both sides were happy.