End of salmon fishing eventually???

[HuntandFish]

my honest opinion and i know i am gonna catch crap for this but oh well, my stance is, shut down all commercial fishing, including out in the ocean i mean shut it all down for everything, and shut down all native nets, no one family needs that much salmon in a year especially when i see native nets come out of the water and then those same natives are at the local ampm selling their catch right out of their totes, if anyone wants fish or shellfish or whatever else commercial and natives catch, then go catch it youself or do without, it wouldnt break my heart because i know how to fish and gather shellfish, crab or what have ya, i really dont care if you cant fend for yourself and dont know how to fish, not my problem, go learn just like i did, but to me that is the ONLY way to fix are fisheries, not by putn more regs and jackn up prices....

Jackmaster I agree as well, I think netting is one of the most harmfull practices there are. Let people fish for themselves or pay the high price of buying from a non US fishing industry (because we will never stop them)

[HuntandFish]

JimmyHoffa-

Yes the Bolt decision allowed indians to stretch their nets across half of the river, this was determined by some people who obviously have never spent a minute on a river. The bolt decision originally said indians could only net half of the salmon/fish that entered the river, and the regulatory means for this was to implement a netting restriction allowing the nets to only cover half the river at a time.

I always see nets across the whole river, or if not they are stagger set to ensure they catch 99% of what is in the river because the indians know fish do not swim in a zig zag pattern.

H&F

[HuntandFish]

I'm sure HF will attest to this, but here on the west side thereis a runoff storm drain fee/tax each year. It is for "Manageing runoff issues"  I know every new housing developemnt has water retention ponds with cattails to hold and treat runoff.  Many of these so called runn off studies are must not take this into account. I also am some what suspect of what some counties are using this fund for... For the ammount of $$$ they come up with they should be addding retention ponds like crazy negating existing roads and problems. 

I don't even want to start adding up the money I spend on water quality each year. And the issue of the tax's and fee's that are collected and go into a fund is a good point. I would really like to see where that money goes, we probably can't figure that out though because no one knows? And yes if I am going to spend the money lets fix some of the roads and developments that were put in before the new practices. I believe this was the intent of several of these fees we pay?

Oh well...

H&F

[PlateauNDN]

JimmyHoffa-

Yes the Bolt decision allowed indians to stretch their nets across half of the river, this was determined by some people who obviously have never spent a minute on a river. The bolt decision originally said indians could only net half of the salmon/fish that entered the river, and the regulatory means for this was to implement a netting restriction allowing the nets to only cover half the river at a time.

I always see nets across the whole river, or if not they are stagger set to ensure they catch 99% of what is in the river because the indians know fish do not swim in a zig zag pattern.

H&F

You really need to comprehend and research some of your own posts.  The Boldt decision didn't allow or grant anything.  All it did was re-affirm what had already been secured through the Treaties by the Tribes with the Federal Government, not its States.  Our Leaders at the time of the negotiations and signings only agreed to sign as long as we retained our rights to fish, hunt and gather on all lands that we ceded and usual and accustomed areas.  We already had the rights and were and are exercising them right now.  The Boldt decision upheld the Treaty Rights that the States were trying to take away and limit without having the authority or jurisdiction to do so. 

If you actually read the minutes, documents and all the material pertaining to The United States v. Washington (AKA Boldt Decision) it was not the Tribes versus WA. State it was the United States, the Federal Government because the Rights secured by our Leaders were negotiated and agreed upon with the US not WA. and they hold the jurisdiction and authority over Tribes.

US v WA gave definition to what the language stated in the Treaties and in the Treaty Minutes and by breaking down the meaning of each phrase is what came up with the 50/50 ratio.

All non-tribal fishermen (commercial and sport) shall have an opportunity at 50% and Tribal fishermen shall have an opportunity at 50%.

Again, I'm not denying the fact that there is abuse among Tribal Members but not all of us abuse our rights and those that do deserve to be punished by the law, I report it when I see regardless of who it is.

[WSU]

Agreed.  Many of HuntandFish's other points are similarly innaccurate.  Roads cause a lot of damage that is not mitigated.  Streams are greatly affected by things beyond the buffer.  Logging still creates a ton of issues.  Irrigation still creates a ton of issues.  Commercial harvest in ocean kills far more fish (at least some kinds) than tribal netting. 

[Special T]

I get really frustrated talking about this stuff!    One of the reasons  NOTHING happens is becuase  we do not focus on things that 90% of us agree on...  Lets just start with 1 example... Mergansers/sawbills...  Is there ANYONE that thinks its a good idea to have them as part of the normal bag limit?    The Gov Beurocracy LIKES it when large coalitions of people band together to make change happen.... I cannot think of very many people that would not support a change to this kind of legislation... I would immagine tribes, commercial fishermen, Hunters, Sport fishermen, Farmers, and anyone else affected by the salmon issue would thow thier support behind having a seperate limit like the other flyways... 

Now i know many of you may say that "____ has more effect on salmon runs than Mergansers!" Well SO WHAT! It would be a step in the right direction. It may not be as BIG a change as many of you would like, but hey it would be in the right direction! 

If we bann together on many of these "predator issues" we can build a large body of support..   

[WSU]

I get really frustrated talking about this stuff!    One of the reasons  NOTHING happens is becuase  we do not focus on things that 90% of us agree on...  Lets just start with 1 example... Mergansers/sawbills...  Is there ANYONE that thinks its a good idea to have them as part of the normal bag limit?    The Gov Beurocracy LIKES it when large coalitions of people band together to make change happen.... I cannot think of very many people that would not support a change to this kind of legislation... I would immagine tribes, commercial fishermen, Hunters, Sport fishermen, Farmers, and anyone else affected by the salmon issue would thow thier support behind having a seperate limit like the other flyways... 

Now i know many of you may say that "____ has more effect on salmon runs than Mergansers!" Well SO WHAT! It would be a step in the right direction. It may not be as BIG a change as many of you would like, but hey it would be in the right direction! 

If we bann together on many of these "predator issues" we can build a large body of support..   

Believe me, I do my part on the sawbills!  One of the best part about an mid-October salmon float is that the sawbills aren't aware they are fair game!

[Special T]

I do my share too, but i know i would kill more, and others likely would too if there was a seperate limit.. For me i'd do it just so the dog got more practice. 

[buckhorn2]

One of thereasons there is commercial fishing either by indians or non-indians is that people like to eat fish and crab and white fish that don;t fish themselves they go to the store and buy it. Most people have heard about farm fish and the difference between them and ocean fish is the reason they buy our commercial fish. There is overfishing and over netting but people want fish to eat and we as sports cannot suppy that need and everyone does;nt have a boat or a place to keep one if they had one  and knew how to suppy themselves with fish. The dams may have done it maybe the commercials and maybe the indians but it was done. And when you talk about bottom fish have you ever watched on facebook thecharters fishing reports 200 black rock fish 38 ling cog and halibut limits everyday if you added up all the lingcod and black rock they catch everyday for several months you might begine to relize why you don;t catch any now. Maybe we as sports should tie up our boats and store our gear to do our part to get the runs back to what ever we think they should be.

[PlateauNDN]

well stated buckhorn2.

[jackmaster]

like i said before and others have aggreed to, if you cant catch it yourself you dont get to eat it, its plain and simple if you SHUT DOWN, commercial fishing and native netting our salmon and bottom fish would come back to runs and bottom fishing like it was when my dad was a kid, i dont care if people eat fish, if they want fish GO CATCH IT..... it is wrong buying it at the store, which i do not do.... and it is wrong for a native to be able to sell it out of the back of their pick-ups.... shutting it down is the ONLY WAY, to rebound it, hell i would be willing to hang up my crab pots and fishn rods for 3 to 5 years if would help things recover quicker, i hope every one would, and if the natives truly cared about the fish then they would QUIT NETTING, what do natives do with nall that fish anyways  ........ they sell it to dumb white eyes that cant catch their own

[magnanimous_j]

Banning commercial fishing in the US won't solve any problems. According to the Monterrey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch (http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/seafoodwatch.aspx), most of the US wild fisheries are run in a sustainable manner, Alaska Salmon got a "best choice" for example.

Other countries harvest irresponsibly. The Japanese have basically admitted that they are going to fish the Blue Fin Tuna to extinction. But what can we do about that?

We are, however destroying ocean stocks in other ways. Farm runoff is creating huge "dead zones" in the gulf of Mexico. Tiny plastic particles are poisoning filter feeders who mistake them for plankton. Mercury and other toxins are bio-accumulating in large Ocean mammals. Perhaps most stupidly, we are depleting bedrock baitfish stocks like Herring, to make hog feed and farm fertilizer.

And habitat depletion is the number 1 cause of NW salmon run declines.

[WSU]

Banning commercial fishing in the US won't solve any problems. According to the Monterrey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch (http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/seafoodwatch.aspx), most of the US wild fisheries are run in a sustainable manner, Alaska Salmon got a "best choice" for example.

Other countries harvest irresponsibly. The Japanese have basically admitted that they are going to fish the Blue Fin Tuna to extinction. But what can we do about that?

We are, however destroying ocean stocks in other ways. Farm runoff is creating huge "dead zones" in the gulf of Mexico. Tiny plastic particles are poisoning filter feeders who mistake them for plankton. Mercury and other toxins are bio-accumulating in large Ocean mammals. Perhaps most stupidly, we are depleting bedrock baitfish stocks like Herring, to make hog feed and farm fertilizer.

And habitat depletion is the number 1 cause of NW salmon run declines.

That Seafood Watch rating is suspect at best.  The problem is that it does not make a distinction between the various runs and the origins of the fish caught.  Some places have very healthy, and heavily harvested, runs of certain fish while having very unhealthy runs of other fish.  A prime example is the Kenai and Cook Inlet kings.  They harvest the living $hit out of the abundant sockeye.  In the process, they have harvested the $hit out of the not so healthy kings.  Now, there are giant areas being closed to king fishing and some of the worst runs on record are occuring now.  These fish harvested by Alaskan commercials.  It ain't the Indians and Japanese.  Similar harvest occurs on our Washington fish by Alaskan commercials.

[magnanimous_j]

That Seafood Watch rating is suspect at best.  The problem is that it does not make a distinction between the various runs and the origins of the fish caught.  Some places have very healthy, and heavily harvested, runs of certain fish while having very unhealthy runs of other fish.  A prime example is the Kenai and Cook Inlet kings.  They harvest the living $hit out of the abundant sockeye.  In the process, they have harvested the $hit out of the not so healthy kings.  Now, there are giant areas being closed to king fishing and some of the worst runs on record are occuring now.  These fish harvested by Alaskan commercials.  It ain't the Indians and Japanese.  Similar harvest occurs on our Washington fish by Alaskan commercials.

I don't doubt you, but that surprises me. I would have thought that if anything,The Monterrey Bay Aquarium would be overly critical of commercial fishing.

I wouldn't object to shutting the fisheries down for a few years to let populations climb, but I feel weird about the idea of ending all commercial fishing forever. I fish and crab (and squid and clam), so I'd get mine, but for a lot of people, wild caught seafood is the only animal protein they eat that isn't pumped full of anti-biotics and growth hormones.

[Special T]

Didn't California close some of thier salmon fishing to regenerate the runs? Since salmon have a cycle of... ? 7 years? wouldn't even a few years worth show a major difference?