Tribal fishing

[Born2late]

Tbar
My only experience with salmon somewhere else is in kodiak , ak. They have weirs with fish counts so they know how many fish are through to spawn so they know they have enough breeding stalk for the next cycle. Does washington do anything like that ? If not how do they know the amount of fish that are getting through? I'm not familar with how its done hear.
Also They have zero of the wetland stuff like we keep creating in the name of saving the salmon,yet they have rivers that produce incredible returns.Why does it work there and not here.The river closest to town the buskin One quarter the size of the stilly yet can support steelhead, dollies and pinks and silvers in massive numbers.Would it be possible to model a river or two after how they do it and see if it makes a difference? I remember talking to my buddy about how they even test the oxygen (i believe it was )in the lakes so they know how many sockeye it will support each return then adjust catches accordingly.Just seems like they have some much of a better understanding on what needs to be in place to get the returns desired.Have you ever researched or observed how they do it?

[HntnFsh]

I'm curious which tribe's import fish , beyond the ones doing it to supplement menu options at casino's.

The Chinook tribe, the Cowlitz tribe, the Yakima tribe and probably others i am not thinking of get surplus fish from certain hatcheries.

[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.

False carrying capacity?

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

Seals are at carrying capacity. Sea lions are growing at an unsustainable rate and occupying areas where they have not occurred in the past and are becoming residents. Cormorants are in desperate need  of management. We have bird species that are showing up in places where it is not common for them to occur. And yes they area all eating salmon. He'll we have pelicans at the mouth of the river.

[Tbar]

Tbar
My only experience with salmon somewhere else is in kodiak , ak. They have weirs with fish counts so they know how many fish are through to spawn so they know they have enough breeding stalk for the next cycle. Does washington do anything like that ? If not how do they know the amount of fish that are getting through? I'm not familar with how its done hear.
Also They have zero of the wetland stuff like we keep creating in the name of saving the salmon,yet they have rivers that produce incredible returns.Why does it work there and not here.The river closest to town the buskin One quarter the size of the stilly yet can support steelhead, dollies and pinks and silvers in massive numbers.Would it be possible to model a river or two after how they do it and see if it makes a difference? I remember talking to my buddy about how they even test the oxygen (i believe it was )in the lakes so they know how many sockeye it will support each return then adjust catches accordingly.Just seems like they have some much of a better understanding on what needs to be in place to get the returns desired.Have you ever researched or observed how they do it?

I think a short answer is that this region is loved to death. We have very little that is not manipulated, from diking, development, infrastructure to management practices by various industries. I don't have a specific answer however I do know at least a couple scientists have worked extensively in Alaska.

[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.

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.

I don't disagree with any of that, my point is that the models are clearly messed up, either in their known inputs or the margin for error (buffer I refer to) if the numbers continue to decline. There are just no two ways about it.  Why not cut harvest allotments 50% when the model says cut it 25%, and see what happens for a couple years. Maybe it will ferret out that the actual reduction number should have been around 32% and then you know how much more to factor into the model. Being overly conservative is what's needed rather than risking being too aggressive if things are truly as dire as they are made out to be.

It's frustrating when the timber industry gets smeared over fish related issues in today's day and age.  There is no doubt there was a bunch of raping and pillaging going on back in the day, but with Forest and Fish and the neverending scrutiny under a magnifying glass the industry faces I think it's hard to justifiably blame it. Virtually all RMAP's have been completed in the woods, but the benefits of opening all of that fish habitat in the upper extents isn't realized when thousands of small landowner, city, and state fish barriers downstream are still cutting off access to said habitat.  On herbicides, I don't remember if it was a DOE or WSDA presentation I watched, but they monitor stream systems at several points on the streams/rivers.  They showed the measured contaminate levels at different points and as soon as all of these waterways get down to the lowlands where the population centers are, the pollution went through the roof.  I don't recall specific numbers, but I'm sure the info is published in reports somewhere.  There is no doubt in my mind that it's down low that off label uses that could be dangerous to fish are happening, likely by Joe Homeowner who ordered some chemical online for his yard and didn't bother or didn't care to read and abide by it.  I guess long story short is while I don't doubt there is some impact to fish by the timber industry, the actual impact in 2021 is far less than the blame it receives.

My solution would be to:

DRASTICALLY reduce harvest until we figure out the true sustainable number given today's impacts. The model currently being used is clearly broken with numbers continuing to decline.

Mandate that funding be prioritized for fish barrier removals/replacements on state, county, municipalities, and small landowner lands ahead of all the BS pork our governments waste money on, to allow access to the upland habitat that awaits.

Greatly reduce the seals/sealions and other natural predators that have little to no management.  It's hard to believe there is any danger to seal populations when you're out trolling and can count 7-8 within 100 yards of you and you have to worry about your fish being stolen before it gets to the boat.

Ramp up hatchery production, with the costs covered primarily by the commercial fishing industry. For every estimated fish harvested commercially, work through the numbers and require they provide funding for 1.25 returning fish.

Have an increasing price per salmon on sport catch cards. Don't necessarily have a limit on total salmon caught, but say the first costs $5, the 10th might cost $20, the 20th fish $50. And have those escalating costs feed right back into hatchery production.

Everyone would feel the brunt (cost) of salmon recovery, and at least in the short term miss out on some opportunity.  When numbers come back, things start getting loosened in a responsible manner, and eventually back to what we all think of as normal.  Right now we are down to the 'scraps' and we either continue to grind it down to nothing or make some meaningful changes that will turn things around. 

[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.

I don't disagree with any of that, my point is that the models are clearly messed up, either in their known inputs or the margin for error (buffer I refer to) if the numbers continue to decline. There are just no two ways about it.  Why not cut harvest allotments 50% when the model says cut it 25%, and see what happens for a couple years. Maybe it will ferret out that the actual reduction number should have been around 32% and then you know how much more to factor into the model. Being overly conservative is what's needed rather than risking being too aggressive if things are truly as dire as they are made out to be.

It's frustrating when the timber industry gets smeared over fish related issues in today's day and age.  There is no doubt there was a bunch of raping and pillaging going on back in the day, but with Forest and Fish and the neverending scrutiny under a magnifying glass the industry faces I think it's hard to justifiably blame it. Virtually all RMAP's have been completed in the woods, but the benefits of opening all of that fish habitat in the upper extents isn't realized when thousands of small landowner, city, and state fish barriers downstream are still cutting off access to said habitat.  On herbicides, I don't remember if it was a DOE or WSDA presentation I watched, but they monitor stream systems at several points on the streams/rivers.  They showed the measured contaminate levels at different points and as soon as all of these waterways get down to the lowlands where the population centers are, the pollution went through the roof.  I don't recall specific numbers, but I'm sure the info is published in reports somewhere.  There is no doubt in my mind that it's down low that off label uses that could be dangerous to fish are happening, likely by Joe Homeowner who ordered some chemical online for his yard and didn't bother or didn't care to read and abide by it.  I guess long story short is while I don't doubt there is some impact to fish by the timber industry, the actual impact in 2021 is far less than the blame it receives.

My solution would be to:

DRASTICALLY reduce harvest until we figure out the true sustainable number given today's impacts. The model currently being used is clearly broken with numbers continuing to decline.

Mandate that funding be prioritized for fish barrier removals/replacements on state, county, municipalities, and small landowner lands ahead of all the BS pork our governments waste money on, to allow access to the upland habitat that awaits.

Greatly reduce the seals/sealions and other natural predators that have little to no management.  It's hard to believe there is any danger to seal populations when you're out trolling and can count 7-8 within 100 yards of you and you have to worry about your fish being stolen before it gets to the boat.

Ramp up hatchery production, with the costs covered primarily by the commercial fishing industry. For every estimated fish harvested commercially, work through the numbers and require they provide funding for 1.25 returning fish.

Have an increasing price per salmon on sport catch cards. Don't necessarily have a limit on total salmon caught, but say the first costs $5, the 10th might cost $20, the 20th fish $50. And have those escalating costs feed right back into hatchery production.

Everyone would feel the brunt (cost) of salmon recovery, and at least in the short term miss out on some opportunity.  When numbers come back, things start getting loosened in a responsible manner, and eventually back to what we all think of as normal.  Right now we are down to the 'scraps' and we either continue to grind it down to nothing or make some meaningful changes that will turn things around.

You realize  there is zero harvest on several stock and we are not seeing improvements.

[Alan K]

That should make it easier to solve then with human predation removed from the equation right? Would seem like a pretty easy decision to start removing natural predators next then.

[Alan K]

And I don't mean easier in a political sense, but rather a practical/scientific one.  There are probably cormorant or merganser groups out there that would fight meaningful management tooth and nail.

[Tbar]

That should make it easier to solve then with human predation removed from the equation right? Would seem like a pretty easy decision to start removing natural predators next then.

Yes, with congressional approval.  And back to modeling.  We always set harvest levels on the conservative side. When we update the input with hard data the opportunity has usually passed. When indicators show lower than expected numbers we do not fish.

[Alan K]

That should make it easier to solve then with human predation removed from the equation right? Would seem like a pretty easy decision to start removing natural predators next then.

Yes, with congressional approval.  And back to modeling.  We always set harvest levels on the conservative side. When we update the input with hard data the opportunity has usually passed. When indicators show lower than expected numbers we do not fish.

And back to my original point too haha.... The buffer in the model isn't conservative enough if numbers continue to decline. 

I really do appreciate the discussion, it's a high profile issue that everyone cares deeply about, but we have so much red tape required that keeps us from making adjustments that keep pace with the ever changing dynamics.

[Tbar]

That should make it easier to solve then with human predation removed from the equation right? Would seem like a pretty easy decision to start removing natural predators next then.

Yes, with congressional approval.  And back to modeling.  We always set harvest levels on the conservative side. When we update the input with hard data the opportunity has usually passed. When indicators show lower than expected numbers we do not fish.

And back to my original point too haha.... The buffer in the model isn't conservative enough if numbers continue to decline. 

I really do appreciate the discussion, it's a high profile issue that everyone cares deeply about, but we have so much red tape required that keeps us from making adjustments that keep pace with the ever changing dynamics.

I would really like to put up some specific FRAM models, followed by proposed management, actual effort, escapement and the following estimated out migration. If you would like to sit down some day I'd love to brainstorm a better mouse trap.

[Tbar]

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?

Commercial sales comply with state law. Correct me if I am wrong but commercially caught fish have to be able to be tracked back to its origin. It must be accompanied by a fish ticket (identical wdfw and tribal) that states #, date and pounds as well as method of catch and catch reporting area.

[Bareback]

We are overpopulating this state! As population grows fish numbers go down. There’s a direct correlation.

Non tribal take is not just hook and line. Its also loss of habitat due to development. It’s degradation of water quality. It’s reducing rivers carrying capacity do to logging, roads, dikes, culverts, farming, hdro...... and the list goes on. The 4 Hs.

Tbar makes some very valid points. Tribes have the right to fish. Non tribal is a privilege.

Sure, I’ve seen some tribal practices I didn’t necessarily approve of but I’ve also seen many non tribal, commercial and rec behavior I didn’t approve. At this point in the game finger pointing will do no good. People need to work together.

[Special T]

See it on The Puyallup every year.!!
Totes full of fish get waisted. Happens and no one cares. That’s why it’s always funny listening to the news about other reasons. We had a family cabin up the Chiwawa river as a kid. Saw all kinds of salmon way up the river. Not so much anymore.

You do realize some totes of fish are processed at the hatchery then returned to the water to decompose and feed the river?

If i could get the tribes to do one thing different it would be the PR game. 

I personally think a bunch of the animosity stems from facts/issues most folks dont know about.  It appears to me that Tribes do what they do and try and keep it on the DL and not talk outside of the tribe. Considering that the state and sportsman have very little control over Tribes im not surprised that they deal with those outside of the tribes via lawsuits. Unfortunately this inward approach only allows the building of distrust and resentment.

Im sure a balance exists between sportsmen and the general publics public's views that the tribes take into account.  [/img]. Tribes are consumptive users and have the ability to manage predators where the WDFW seems locked in a stalemate with the govenor and this Animal Rights Activists supporters.

While not directly comparable im impressed with Thomas Sewind from the Pacific Balanced Marine Management in BC. He is trying to push for  Piniped management in BC and I belive has a Good PR campain.  While each tribe is different it is unfortunate they do not advertize the  culling of cormorants, the increased harvest of cats, or the management of wolves.

Perhaps Sportsmen and Tribes are in a Mexican standoff as to whom should signal that we should work together on certain issues. Perhaps its the combination of the lack of Tribal cohesive thoughts on public displays of management, and the farct that sportsmen, in large part, are a bunch of hard headed folks with a strong independent streak.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

You realize who funded the last pinniped study? The one that has generated a lot of momentum towards management.

Yes the tribes. My example has more to do with PR than a specific issue. I also understand that the rules  For Canadian and Alaskan Natives are different thsn down here.

I have heard of great long term predator studies done by Tribes in this state that have not been shared with the public, not salmon related. I feel this is a shame and a lost opportunity.

Thank you for participating in this discussion it is very interesting.

[trophyhunt]

"Tribes have the right to fish. Non tribal is a privilege."


That comment is about the most racist comment I've seen on this thread.