Tribal fishing

[cem3434]

Very simple answer is to stop the commercial purchase of tribal caught salmon/steelhead. Unless they are licensed by and follow rules set by the rest of the commercial fleet. Stop the money and that stops the majority of the incentive.

This is an ignorant statement to say the least. We literally fight over the scraps. Between the multiple intercept fisheries and open ocean fisheries the tribal take is minimal at best. On a side note, fisheries have been so limited many tribes have been buying their own fish for several years.

The scraps that you simply return to the river? I know several commercial fishermen and they dont return totes full of fish to the water to be wasted or "feed the river" as you put it. I'm sure your ancestors just took the eggs generations ago and threw the rest of the fish back in the river, right? Give me a break and learn the definition of ignorant before you cast stones. 

Your credibility is laughable at this point!

[Alan K]

Managing for maximum sustainable take doesn't work when the models don't function as predicted.  They need to have some significant buffer in there. If they already do, it's clearly not enough since numbers continue to decline.

I don't have an issue with tribal folks fishing with whatever method they want if it's for their own subsistence. Having commercial fishing while numbers continue on a downward spiral is a crazy, both tribal AND non-tribal.

It seems like it's always the sport guy with a single line and barbless hook that gets their seasons cut first. How the heck does that make sense? Having a handful (relative to sport fishermen) of folks/companies taking such a large chunk of the take of such a coveted and declining resource for profit just doesn't seem right.

I saw some pretty disgusting things out by the Skok valley growing up, and have seen plenty of tribal folks in parking lots selling fish out of the back of a minivan in less than sanitary conditions. The leftovers at the end of the day would end up dumped. This was a good 15-20 years ago though so for all I know they've since cleaned up their act.

I'm not much of a fisherman, only getting out a time or two a year if a buddy has an open spot on their boat, but based on what I've seen and heard about the issue the reality is probably somewhere in the middle. Tribal fishermen are far from the choir boys the article tries to portray them as, but at the same time it's impossible to believe that the gill netting in rivers isn't having a significant impact. 

And closed door negotiations at North of Falcon certainly doesn't inspire confidence that things are based on science or common sense. If it were, there wouldn't be any problem with transparency.

[ASHQUACK]

I certainly didn't say stop the tribes from fishing nor did I suggest that they stop. I suggest that commercial sales should be done on a commercial permit or licensed through the state. WHY is that ignorant?

[cem3434]

Well said Alan K! 

[Tbar]

Managing for maximum sustainable take doesn't work when the models don't function as predicted.  They need to have some significant buffer in there. If they already do, it's clearly not enough since numbers continue to decline.

I don't have an issue with tribal folks fishing with whatever method they want if it's for their own subsistence. Having commercial fishing while numbers continue on a downward spiral is a crazy, both tribal AND non-tribal.

It seems like it's always the sport guy with a single line and barbless hook that gets their seasons cut first. How the heck does that make sense? Having a handful (relative to sport fishermen) of folks/companies taking such a large chunk of the take of such a coveted and declining resource for profit just doesn't seem right.

I saw some pretty disgusting things out by the Skok valley growing up, and have seen plenty of tribal folks in parking lots selling fish out of the back of a minivan in less than sanitary conditions. The leftovers at the end of the day would end up dumped. This was a good 15-20 years ago though so for all I know they've since cleaned up their act.

I'm not much of a fisherman, only getting out a time or two a year if a buddy has an open spot on their boat, but based on what I've seen and heard about the issue the reality is probably somewhere in the middle. Tribal fishermen are far from the choir boys the article tries to portray them as, but at the same time it's impossible to believe that the gill netting in rivers isn't having a significant impact. 

And closed door negotiations at North of Falcon certainly doesn't inspire confidence that things are based on science or common sense. If it were, there wouldn't be any problem with transparency.

There are nearly zero fisheries managed for msy. They are almost all cut short by impacts.  I honestly cannot think of a msy fishery in this state.

[Alan K]

Managing for maximum sustainable take doesn't work when the models don't function as predicted.  They need to have some significant buffer in there. If they already do, it's clearly not enough since numbers continue to decline.

I don't have an issue with tribal folks fishing with whatever method they want if it's for their own subsistence. Having commercial fishing while numbers continue on a downward spiral is a crazy, both tribal AND non-tribal.

It seems like it's always the sport guy with a single line and barbless hook that gets their seasons cut first. How the heck does that make sense? Having a handful (relative to sport fishermen) of folks/companies taking such a large chunk of the take of such a coveted and declining resource for profit just doesn't seem right.

I saw some pretty disgusting things out by the Skok valley growing up, and have seen plenty of tribal folks in parking lots selling fish out of the back of a minivan in less than sanitary conditions. The leftovers at the end of the day would end up dumped. This was a good 15-20 years ago though so for all I know they've since cleaned up their act.

I'm not much of a fisherman, only getting out a time or two a year if a buddy has an open spot on their boat, but based on what I've seen and heard about the issue the reality is probably somewhere in the middle. Tribal fishermen are far from the choir boys the article tries to portray them as, but at the same time it's impossible to believe that the gill netting in rivers isn't having a significant impact. 

And closed door negotiations at North of Falcon certainly doesn't inspire confidence that things are based on science or common sense. If it were, there wouldn't be any problem with transparency.

There are nearly zero fisheries managed for msy. They are almost all cut short by impacts.  I honestly cannot think of a msy fishery in this state.

Yikes, if that's the case what does it say about the quality of their modeling? 

[Tbar]

It's a separate input. If you want to cut a stand of fir in the presence of Murrelet in prime habitat can you reach msy of Douglas fir? But thanks for the jab.

[Alan K]

Not a jab, but if the allowed salmon harvest number was designed from a model for zero increase in population, and zero decrease in population, and the population declined afterwards then models were clearly off in the wrong direction.  If you're saying there is already a buffer built into the equation to account for the risk of the model being off in the wrong direction and the numbers STILL decline, then the models are even further off yet than if managed at MSY.

In the timber industry, models for maximum sustainable yields are NET of all factors - rainfall, site class, stock type, growth rates, regulatory buffers (your murrelet example fits in here), and more. I just assumed fish models were net of all impacting factors too. 

Models are only as good as the data input, and if they aren't working then something is clearly off in the equation. Getting a model generated that works with all kinds of external factors is undoubtedly difficult and I don't blame them for having a junk model so much as I do for obviously not having enough buffer built in to account for the risk.

[MADMAX]

I’m not the sharpest razor in the pack but I can’t believe every single hatchery in this state is not pumping smolts out at the maximum if for nothing else to make sure the orcas get fed
The great lakes have better coho and chinook fishing than the pacific NW
The tribes put in but sure take a bunch
Not enough sustinence in the casino biz ?

[Tbar]

Not a jab, but if the allowed salmon harvest number was designed from a model for zero increase in population, and zero decrease in population, and the population declined afterwards then models were clearly off in the wrong direction.  If you're saying there is already a buffer built into the equation to account for the risk of the model being off in the wrong direction and the numbers STILL decline, then the models are even further off yet than if managed at MSY.

In the timber industry, models for maximum sustainable yields are NET of all factors - rainfall, site class, stock type, growth rates, regulatory buffers (your murrelet example fits in here), and more. I just assumed fish models were net of all impacting factors too. 

Models are only as good as the data input, and if they aren't working then something is clearly off in the equation. Getting a model generated that works with all kinds of external factors is undoubtedly difficult and I don't blame them for having a junk model so much as I do for obviously not having enough buffer built in to account for the risk.

Timber has played a role in the decline as well. One major change environmentally over the last 30 years is broadcast spraying of herbicides. Is this the death of salmon? No. Do we have a metric that asses impacts to water tables within a watershed associated with nuking it?  No.  In fact we do not even have a database that monitors the amount of herbicides applied in this state. That said do I have a better mouse trap to both maintain broadleaf suppression (your growth rate to maintain a model) or invasive management? No. Salmon are influenced by thousands of factors, many overlap Industries (RMAP,TFW,culverts,sediment mobilization and others).

Even with the death by a thousand cuts reality, the single most influential factor is probably predator management. We are all trying to model these impacts. There was a noted flaw in the last model produced that had to due with fish age at point of consumption. Most of this type of information is public and not hidden in the north of falcon process. There have been several public presentations on the pinniped impacts to chinook study. It's easy for many make ill  iinformed comments and the next guy takes it as gospel.

[Tbar]

I’m not the sharpest razor in the pack but I can’t believe every single hatchery in this state is not pumping smolts out at the maximum if for nothing else to make sure the orcas get fed
The great lakes have better coho and chinook fishing than the pacific NW
The tribes put in but sure take a bunch
Not enough sustinence in the casino biz ?

This will likely create a false carrying capacity for unregulated predators (mmpa, mbta). In addition to that there is a severe deficiency in juvenile rearing habitat. The habitat equation becomes even more difficult when it has agriculture and salmon competing for the same real estate. So it is quite a bit more complicated than just factory production.

[Boss .300 winmag]

The Gorge dam is detrimental to salmon, now that’s funny since salmon can’t get that high in the river.🤣

[Tbar]

The Gorge dam is detrimental to salmon, now that’s funny since salmon can’t get that high in the river.🤣

Based off of a 1930s bi-op? Or do you have another source to cite. I believe  if we are all bound by bas then a more informed biop will contradict the pervious one.  There is only one party to the negotiation that wants to cite the old biop.

[MADMAX]

I’m not the sharpest razor in the pack but I can’t believe every single hatchery in this state is not pumping smolts out at the maximum if for nothing else to make sure the orcas get fed
The great lakes have better coho and chinook fishing than the pacific NW
The tribes put in but sure take a bunch
Not enough sustinence in the casino biz ?

This will likely create a false carrying capacity for unregulated predators (mmpa, mbta). In addition to that there is a severe deficiency in juvenile rearing habitat. The habitat equation becomes even more difficult when it has agriculture and salmon competing for the same real estate. So it is quite a bit more complicated than just factory production.

False carrying capacity?

It puts fish in the ocean
I don’t get it I guess

[Boss .300 winmag]

The Gorge dam is detrimental to salmon, now that’s funny since salmon can’t get that high in the river.🤣

Based off of a 1930s bi-op? Or do you have another source to cite. I believe  if we are all bound by bas then a more informed biop will contradict the pervious one.  There is only one party to the negotiation that wants to cite the old biop.

Go look at the gorge, the dam is way above where salmon could navigate up do to step incline/ falls.