CA Cancels Salmon Fishing Season - WA & OR Next?

[Skillet]

WA is a very complicated fishery, and Inslee doesn't have the power to just shut it all down.  Of CA, OR and WA, WA will be the last to lose salmon fishing entirely.  You can actually thank the tribes for that.  It's true, the Boldt decision did cut all harvest in half - but by doing so it allied Washington fishermen with one of the most powerful lobbies around. 

Fishing politics makes for strange bedfellows, for certain.

So tribal and rec/commercial fishing are connected?  What would prevent shutting down our half and keeping the tribal half going?  I have no idea, honest question.

That's a possibility, but the general idea is we split the allowable harvest 50/50.  Half of nothing is nothing, and if there is nothing to harvest everybody is out.  The basic point is that the tribal "momentum" is very strong, and it would be a very heavy lift for the federal agencies to deny the tribes a harvest of fish if there are fish available based on the models in place.

I'm trying to decide how much I want to say on an open forum, but I think it's fair to say that once the TAC (total allowable catch) is established, it's going to be caught. By whomever is there to do the catching.  If comm's and recs are shut out, that doesn't mean any certain increase of fish to the gravel.  The TAC will be exploited.  There is no political cover for cancelling the cowboy fishery, short of simply handing over 100% of the TAC to the tribes and permanently beaching the cowboy fleets. 

I just can't see that happening, in the forseeable future, anyway.

I'm standing ready and willing to be corrected if any of the WA fish politics gurus on here want to chip in. Hoping @Tbar catches this and might be able to confirm or deny.

[Stein]

After watching the spring bear fiasco, I have little faith that we are basing anything on science.  Between Orcas and wild fish conservancy, it honestly wouldn't surprise me if WA chose to determine there was zero surplus for man and we needed to leave it alone.  I do agree the tribes would likely not play that game, but the rest of us would have little recourse.

[JimmyHoffa]

Yeah, WDFW would probably make everyone switch to rubber hooks.  "Hey, we gave you a season."

[Whitefoot]

 

WA is a very complicated fishery, and Inslee doesn't have the power to just shut it all down.  Of CA, OR and WA, WA will be the last to lose salmon fishing entirely.  You can actually thank the tribes for that.  It's true, the Boldt decision did cut all harvest in half - but by doing so it allied Washington fishermen with one of the most powerful lobbies around. 

Fishing politics makes for strange bedfellows, for certain.

So tribal and rec/commercial fishing are connected?  What would prevent shutting down our half and keeping the tribal half going?  I have no idea, honest question.

That's a possibility, but the general idea is we split the allowable harvest 50/50.  Half of nothing is nothing, and if there is nothing to harvest everybody is out.  The basic point is that the tribal "momentum" is very strong, and it would be a very heavy lift for the federal agencies to deny the tribes a harvest of fish if there are fish available based on the models in place.

I'm trying to decide how much I want to say on an open forum, but I think it's fair to say that once the TAC (total allowable catch) is established, it's going to be caught. By whomever is there to do the catching.  If comm's and recs are shut out, that doesn't mean any certain increase of fish to the gravel.  The TAC will be exploited.  There is no political cover for cancelling the cowboy fishery, short of simply handing over 100% of the TAC to the tribes and permanently beaching the cowboy fleets. 

I just can't see that happening, in the forseeable future, anyway.

I'm standing ready and willing to be corrected if any of the WA fish politics gurus on here want to chip in. Hoping @Tbar catches this and might be able to confirm or deny.

[baker5150]

At what point will the State attempt to buy out the Tribes.

Basically pay them not to fish. 

[Skillet]

After watching the spring bear fiasco, I have little faith that we are basing anything on science.  Between Orcas and wild fish conservancy, it honestly wouldn't surprise me if WA chose to determine there was zero surplus for man and we needed to leave it alone.  I do agree the tribes would likely not play that game, but the rest of us would have little recourse.

WDFW can ignore their own scientists at will, but can't easily say the federal model that justifies the TAC isn't valid. And if they did, it wouldn't matter, since the fish will be caught anyway.

It *kind of* works like this:

Let's say the federal model spits out a TAC of 20 kings and 100 coho.

North of Falcon meetings then happen.  This is the group of sausage-makers that hash out who gets what.  Reps from WDFW, ODFW (Oregon), the tribes, commercial industry, recreational sector, various gov't agencies, etc attend.

To simplify things, let's say that of their half (10 kings, 50 coho), the tribes agree to trade 25 of their coho for 5 of the non-tribal king allotment.  So now the split looks like:

Tribes - 15 kings, 25 coho
Cowboys - 5 kings, 75 coho.

The WDFW has secured more fish to catch (ie., "Opportunity") and the tribes have secured more commercial value.  A gross oversimplification, but you get the idea.

Now, the WDFW gets to set seasons around the fish they have negotiated for.  If at this point, the commission gets cute and wants to make a political statement about how few fish there are and cancel all cowboy salmon seasons, it won't matter.  The TAC set by the feds will be caught by the remaining entities that are on the water due the the NOF meeting outcome.

In this grossly oversimplified case, the tribes will just catch all 20 kings and 100 coho, as is their right if the cowboys don't fish.  WDFW doesn't have any reason to eliminate the cowboy fisheries, other than to poke a stick in their constituent's eye.

It would be a wholesale forfeiture of opportunity with no actual benefit, and I just don't see that as a politically defensible position for the commission. 
 

[Skillet]

At what point will the State attempt to buy out the Tribes.

Basically pay them not to fish.

I think never.  Fishing is a tribal right in Washington State, per the treaties everybody signed and the Boldt decision clarifying the meaning of the term "in common with all citizens of the Territory."

[Stein]

After watching the spring bear fiasco, I have little faith that we are basing anything on science.  Between Orcas and wild fish conservancy, it honestly wouldn't surprise me if WA chose to determine there was zero surplus for man and we needed to leave it alone.  I do agree the tribes would likely not play that game, but the rest of us would have little recourse.

WDFW can ignore their own scientists at will, but can't easily say the federal model that justifies the TAC isn't valid. And if they did, it wouldn't matter, since the fish will be caught anyway.

It *kind of* works like this:

Let's say the federal model spits out a TAC of 20 kings and 100 coho.

North of Falcon meetings then happen.  This is the group of sausage-makers that hash out who gets what.  Reps from WDFW, ODFW (Oregon), the tribes, commercial industry, recreational sector, various gov't agencies, etc attend.

To simplify things, let's say that of their half (10 kings, 50 coho), the tribes agree to trade 25 of their coho for 5 of the non-tribal king allotment.  So now the split looks like:

Tribes - 15 kings, 25 coho
Cowboys - 5 kings, 75 coho.

The WDFW has secured more fish to catch (ie., "Opportunity") and the tribes have secured more commercial value.  A gross oversimplification, but you get the idea.

Now, the WDFW gets to set seasons around the fish they have negotiated for.  If at this point, the commission gets cute and wants to make a political statement about how few fish there are and cancel all cowboy salmon seasons, it won't matter.  The TAC set by the feds will be caught by the remaining entities that are on the water due the the NOF meeting outcome.

In this grossly oversimplified case, the tribes will just catch all 20 kings and 100 coho, as is their right if the cowboys don't fish.  WDFW doesn't have any reason to eliminate the cowboy fisheries, other than to poke a stick in their constituent's eye.

It would be a wholesale forfeiture of opportunity with no actual benefit, and I just don't see that as a politically defensible position for the commission. 
 

Thanks, that makes sense.  The benefit fishing has over hunting in this state is that there are fishing groups that have political swing.  There are also more people fishing than hunting.

Honestly, the politics in this state are more slacktivist than activist, meaning they like to do stuff that makes them feel good as opposed to making an actual difference.  Thus, I don't think they would really care what the tribes did, they would feel good about shutting down cowboy exploitation of an endangered resource that is starving federally protected, dwindling orcas and reducing genetic purity and diversity needed to recover federally endangered fish species. 

See how easy that is?  The Boldt decision simply says each side gets half.  It doesn't guarantee either side will TAKE their half, just that they have the right to it if they want it.

I'm not sure any of the safeties in our system didn't also exist in CA, probably to an even larger degree - more boats, more people, more gear sales and that didn't help them.

[Taco280AI]

If the tribes know salmon are all on the decline why don't they do their own hatchery programs (and/or increase them) and tell the environmentalists, who sue the state over state hatcheries, to f off? Why don't they slaughter sea lions - for ceremonial and sustenance purposes? Would also help the salmon. And again, tell the antis to f off?

[baker5150]

At what point will the State attempt to buy out the Tribes.

Basically pay them not to fish.

I think never.  Fishing is a tribal right in Washington State, per the treaties everybody signed and the Boldt decision clarifying the meaning of the term "in common with all citizens of the Territory."

I'm talking about a voluntary, temporary buy out.

[Stein]

The state could pay the tribes not to fish.  Say the Tulalips catch 10,000 salmon this year (completely made up number).  They sign an agreement with the state saying instead of 10k fish, we're going to only catch 1k for ceremonial and subsistence in return for the state paying us $X.

I bet an agreement like that is possible, who wouldn't want to be paid to not work provided their subsistence and ceremonial needs are met.

The NOF process doesn't look at all aspects when they come up with their magic number.  The state could simply say, hey, our science says the right number is much lower when you take into account the needs of Orcas, climate change and the hot wind from Olympia.  So, we're going to drop the cowboy harvest and pay the tribe to drop theirs.  Done deal, we get to pay more in tax to not fish.   

[Skillet]

The state could pay the tribes not to fish.  Say the Tulalips catch 10,000 salmon this year (completely made up number).  They sign an agreement with the state saying instead of 10k fish, we're going to only catch 1k for ceremonial and subsistence in return for the state paying us $X.

I bet an agreement like that is possible, who wouldn't want to be paid to not work provided their subsistence and ceremonial needs are met.

The NOF process doesn't look at all aspects when they come up with their magic number.  The state could simply say, hey, our science says the right number is much lower when you take into account the needs of Orcas, climate change and the hot wind from Olympia.  So, we're going to drop the cowboy harvest and pay the tribe to drop theirs.  Done deal, we get to pay more in tax to not fish.   

That is a possible scenario, I suppose.  But based on my experience in this industry and knowing the players involved, I find it extraordinarily unlikely.

You're starting to worry me with your fervor to find a way to shut down the cowboy fisheries Stein! 

[salmosalar]

After watching the spring bear fiasco, I have little faith that we are basing anything on science.  Between Orcas and wild fish conservancy, it honestly wouldn't surprise me if WA chose to determine there was zero surplus for man and we needed to leave it alone.  I do agree the tribes would likely not play that game, but the rest of us would have little recourse.

WDFW can ignore their own scientists at will, but can't easily say the federal model that justifies the TAC isn't valid. And if they did, it wouldn't matter, since the fish will be caught anyway.

It *kind of* works like this:

Let's say the federal model spits out a TAC of 20 kings and 100 coho.

North of Falcon meetings then happen.  This is the group of sausage-makers that hash out who gets what.  Reps from WDFW, ODFW (Oregon), the tribes, commercial industry, recreational sector, various gov't agencies, etc attend.

To simplify things, let's say that of their half (10 kings, 50 coho), the tribes agree to trade 25 of their coho for 5 of the non-tribal king allotment.  So now the split looks like:

Tribes - 15 kings, 25 coho
Cowboys - 5 kings, 75 coho.

The WDFW has secured more fish to catch (ie., "Opportunity") and the tribes have secured more commercial value.  A gross oversimplification, but you get the idea.

Now, the WDFW gets to set seasons around the fish they have negotiated for.  If at this point, the commission gets cute and wants to make a political statement about how few fish there are and cancel all cowboy salmon seasons, it won't matter.  The TAC set by the feds will be caught by the remaining entities that are on the water due the the NOF meeting outcome.

In this grossly oversimplified case, the tribes will just catch all 20 kings and 100 coho, as is their right if the cowboys don't fish.  WDFW doesn't have any reason to eliminate the cowboy fisheries, other than to poke a stick in their constituent's eye.

It would be a wholesale forfeiture of opportunity with no actual benefit, and I just don't see that as a politically defensible position for the commission. 
 

Thanks, that makes sense.  The benefit fishing has over hunting in this state is that there are fishing groups that have political swing.  There are also more people fishing than hunting.

Honestly, the politics in this state are more slacktivist than activist, meaning they like to do stuff that makes them feel good as opposed to making an actual difference.  Thus, I don't think they would really care what the tribes did, they would feel good about shutting down cowboy exploitation of an endangered resource that is starving federally protected, dwindling orcas and reducing genetic purity and diversity needed to recover federally endangered fish species. 

See how easy that is?  The Boldt decision simply says each side gets half.  It doesn't guarantee either side will TAKE their half, just that they have the right to it if they want it.

I'm not sure any of the safeties in our system didn't also exist in CA, probably to an even larger degree - more boats, more people, more gear sales and that didn't help them.

"Foregone opportunity" has not been adjudicated. The state used to argue that if the native share was not taken then the cowboys could take them. They called it "foregone opportunity". It has never been before a court as to whether foregone opportunity is actually a legally justified. The risk in this scenario is that a judge will say that it is.

The court hearing such a case would be a federal court, not a state one.

My understanding is the the state could stop all fishing based on conservation needs. I don't think that will happen due to politics but that is the only way that the state can keep natives from fishing as I understand it.

[Stein]

The state could pay the tribes not to fish.  Say the Tulalips catch 10,000 salmon this year (completely made up number).  They sign an agreement with the state saying instead of 10k fish, we're going to only catch 1k for ceremonial and subsistence in return for the state paying us $X.

I bet an agreement like that is possible, who wouldn't want to be paid to not work provided their subsistence and ceremonial needs are met.

The NOF process doesn't look at all aspects when they come up with their magic number.  The state could simply say, hey, our science says the right number is much lower when you take into account the needs of Orcas, climate change and the hot wind from Olympia.  So, we're going to drop the cowboy harvest and pay the tribe to drop theirs.  Done deal, we get to pay more in tax to not fish.   

That is a possible scenario, I suppose.  But based on my experience in this industry and knowing the players involved, I find it extraordinarily unlikely.

You're starting to worry me with your fervor to find a way to shut down the cowboy fisheries Stein! 

I hope I'm wrong.  I do think WA is becoming a test bed to try out some wacky stuff that won't be friendly to sportsmen.  All bets are off when the politicians start messing with fish and game management.

[Skillet]

Oh ya, I hear you there.  We have a major issue we have to deal with up here in AK based on a lawsuit the Wild Fish Conservancy filed 2+ years ago.  Worst case scenario, it actually shuts down the entire ocean troll fishery in AK for a period of time.  I actually leased a Washington Troll permit this year to hedge my bets.