saw this legal action pending recently: intent to sue WA concering fisheries

[birddogdad]

if the link works, this is happening currently toward violations of the ESA by actions taken by WDFW, NMFS, BIA and the tribes.  Very interesting read.  This should have major impacts and might shut down tribal and non tribal fisheries this year.

https://hvb.958.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/60-day-Notice-final-with-exhibits.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0ar36CAc3LhUwhfQqibq_S5pm_KrlX0PeeL9RynFZex1k860nTOxCj4IU

[HntnFsh]

Very interesting.

[Jake Dogfish]

No one has the authority to shut down tribal fisheries except the tribes.

[WSU]

No one has the authority to shut down tribal fisheries except the tribes.

The tribes have to get ESA authorization just like the state.

[Special T]

Should be interesting.. Especially since Tribes are 14-0 when it comes to lawsuits.

[Stein]

Pretty interesting reading.  I was aware of some of that nonsense, but lots of additional details in there.

[pianoman9701]

Should be interesting.. Especially since Tribes are 14-0 when it comes to lawsuits.

It is interesting. I don't see how a lawsuit is ever going to force the tribes to stop fishing regardless of the danger to the salmon and steelhead. All of the past suits have been based on similar justification and every time, the treaties, adopted by Congress and signed by the President, maintain the tribes' rights to the fisheries. Non-tribal and sport fishing will lose their rights first. I don't see any of the tribes officially forfeiting their fishing rights. Some tribes have been proactive with the WDFW and USFWS in developing breeding programs and voluntary limits. But were I them, I'd never give up my fishing rights. 

[Stein]

Don't the treaties allow them half the harvestable amount?  Seems like they are arguing they are going far over that with help from the state and feds.

[Jake Dogfish]

No one has the authority to shut down tribal fisheries except the tribes.

The tribes have to get ESA authorization just like the state.

They get ESA authorization.  They don’t have to do anything.

[Special T]

Tribes normally sue, or threaten to, based off a specific action. The only way I could see tribes loosing is to force them to do something they are supposed to do, but currently are not.

Changes to tribal harvest reporting is about all you could hope for to make a difference  IMO....

I will be following along.

[huntnphool]

 Very interesting indeed.

[pianoman9701]

Don't the treaties allow them half the harvestable amount?  Seems like they are arguing they are going far over that with help from the state and feds.

I don't believe so. My understanding is that those aren't part of the treaties and are non-binding goals set between the participating tribes, the DFW, and the USFWS for projected returns and harvest. Anyone care to comment or correct me? Bueler, Bueler?

[Jake Dogfish]

We are not getting half on paper.  That’s what this lawsuit is about.
However, our reported catch has a expansion factor from anywhere 5 to 10 times what we catch.  Tribes just report there “reported catch”.  We are losing in a much bigger way on equity in this area imo.

[WSU]

Don't the treaties allow them half the harvestable amount?  Seems like they are arguing they are going far over that with help from the state and feds.

I don't believe so. My understanding is that those aren't part of the treaties and are non-binding goals set between the participating tribes, the DFW, and the USFWS for projected returns and harvest. Anyone care to comment or correct me? Bueler, Bueler?

The Boldt decision found that "in common with" means half. 

[huntnphool]

Don't the treaties allow them half the harvestable amount?  Seems like they are arguing they are going far over that with help from the state and feds.

I don't believe so. My understanding is that those aren't part of the treaties and are non-binding goals set between the participating tribes, the DFW, and the USFWS for projected returns and harvest. Anyone care to comment or correct me? Bueler, Bueler?

The Boldt decision found that "in common with" means half.

 +1

[Stein]

At some point, the blunt hammer that is the ESA will find a way to swing into a new victim.  That's my guess anyway.  I can fake my way through some legal contract stuff, but treaty rights and ESA aren't on that list.

From my perspective, we (non-tribal, non-commercial) are paying a huge price towards a bill that will never get paid.  I think many of us would be OK if there was some sort of coherent plan and either an end in sight or at least more shared sacrifice.

[pianoman9701]

Don't the treaties allow them half the harvestable amount?  Seems like they are arguing they are going far over that with help from the state and feds.

I don't believe so. My understanding is that those aren't part of the treaties and are non-binding goals set between the participating tribes, the DFW, and the USFWS for projected returns and harvest. Anyone care to comment or correct me? Bueler, Bueler?

The Boldt decision found that "in common with" means half.

That's good to know. Who confirms harvest numbers?

[Special T]

Don't the treaties allow them half the harvestable amount?  Seems like they are arguing they are going far over that with help from the state and feds.

I don't believe so. My understanding is that those aren't part of the treaties and are non-binding goals set between the participating tribes, the DFW, and the USFWS for projected returns and harvest. Anyone care to comment or correct me? Bueler, Bueler?

The Boldt decision found that "in common with" means half.

That's good to know. Who confirms harvest numbers?

My understanding is it is reported but not by individual tribe it is reported to NW Indian Fisheries Commission. I heard that this was so that this was to reduce hate or retribution to individuals and thier tribe.


https://nwifc.org/