End of salmon fishing eventually???

[jackmaster]

i agree with alot of what is being said, i strongly believe that we should shut down all commercial fishing and native netting, just like mag said and i have said and so have others, we know how to fish and crab and get shellfish there for we eat them, well i say if you cant fend for yourself when it comes to wild game and wild fish then you are S.O.L either learn or go by immatation crab and salmon meat leave the real thing for those willing to work for it, and another thing i am getn a bit tired of going out to sekui  and only catchn wild fish, yeah we catch some hatchery fish but we got to wade through a ton of so called wild fish...... well somethn tells me someone aint doing their damn job and clipn adipose fins 

[WSU]

Commercial fishing just needs to occur in a more intelligent manner.  There are millions of harvestable salmon every year.  It is the way we harvest them that screws things up.  First and foremost, harvest needs to be done selectively (meaning, don't kill thousands of kings while fishing on a healthy sockeye population) and needs to be done in the terminal areas (meaning, don't catch thousands of Washington fish in Alaska and Canada and then wonder why in the hell they didn't return to Washington). 

[teal101]

Pretty sure while I was away from this conversation WSU telepathically communicated with me and posted my exact thoughts   Carry on.

[WSU]

Pretty sure while I was away from this conversation WSU telepathically communicated with me and posted my exact thoughts   Carry on.

You know what they say about brilliant minds.....

[teal101]

Pretty sure while I was away from this conversation WSU telepathically communicated with me and posted my exact thoughts   Carry on.

You know what they say about brilliant minds.....

They're always right

[teal101]

When we are trying to figure this out did you know the fish that spawn in our wa rivers the fry turn right and go through canada and into alaska waters to feed and grow on the herring and krill so abundunt in alaskas warers. When the mature and head back down they go through alaskas troll and gillnet fisherys then on into canada where there fishing fleets are second to none. When they get to washington the pie is way smaller and harder to dshare everyone wants some the trollers the charters the netters the sports and then the indians who should get what of what is left is hard. The indians have rights to half of this so how would you divide the rest. Stop the commercials who were here before the sports ever found the ocean the charters who were the only other boats in the ocean the gillnetters who fished for a hundred years before sports found bouy ten. Maybe stop sport fishing they can fish the ocean the rivers the lakes ponds the others can;t the commercials fish the ocean as well as the charters. It takes bass 20 to 40 years to reach spawing age is this how long we should quit fishing. Not stirring the pot but when we start wanting to take from one group to benefit ourselves it;s selfish just like hunting becoming a rich mans sport it starts eleminating the competition and it;s not right. We fished the ocean the columbia drano the wind now it;s the rights the indians have to get there share they waited for there turn just like we have to do. Think about fixing the dams the rivers streams better logging practices better farming better hatchery managment things we can do to help there be more fish instead of fighting over the last piece of pie.

Just because they did it first does not make it right nor feasible to a sustainable population.  The Euro-Americans came in and pillaged the Salmon runs with those boats and nets, it does not make it right they were the first to do so.  Sport fishing has WAY less of an impact on runs than charter boats and gill netters.  Why remove the user group that does the least damage and allow the user group that does the most damage to continue?  It does not make sense.

[WSU]

And commercials generate far less economic benefit.

[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

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 reaffirm 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.

Ok so what am I not comprehending smart guy? The Boldt decision is what most of us refer to when talking about the particulars of the law governing indian netting. It did confirm and define what the indians are legally allowed to do, and nothing I said in my post was false? Obviously any law that relates to indians comes from a Federal level?

I am growing weary of the back and forth but let me be clear since nearly every time you post you cite how you are a law abiding indian and don't break the treaty laws, I am trying to say that I don't care you don't break the law I was never addressing that. What I want and many others want is for no indians or other races for that matter be allowed to net in the rivers. Allot of people agree it is time for the treaties to be amended.

I would be honestly very interested in why you or other indians believe that the treaties should not be ratified to exclude netting.

Thanks,
H&F

[HuntandFish]

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.

WSU- I assume you are fresh out of school or are in the construction/development/logging industry for you to know how much damage is being done? I do not deny that there are many roads and washouts, irrigation for farming that still cause silt to enter the river. I have been talking in context of what this thread was originally started for and that is salmon survival/recovery. Do you really think the few roads that deposit silt in heavy rain fall events damage salmon? Have you ever floated down a river just as it starts to pour and float past a large landslide or clay bank, do you think this kills the salmon? Or some how stops them from swimming up stream. Or do you think nature puts silt into the river naturally?

I would love to get down to the details on erosion control and BMP's and how they effect there local drainage, and yes lets talk about roads specifically if you would like. Because on this one you are simply wrong when we are talking within the context of salmon survival or reproduction. The tree huggers out there love to cite roads as a salmon and habitat killer because they know if they can get the roads shut down they can get the woods all to them selves.

But hey I am sure there are studies out there that back up your side of the story?

Do you really disagree?

H&F

[HuntandFish]

 

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..   

   Totally agree!

H&F

[teal101]

Kinda like the indian thing we might have came last but will just take it anyway so for each his own.  Like the willipa used to be the best ketp secret in wa. not anymore ten years ago not one sport boat maybe up at raymond but now they are regulations for a place they never new about. Because sportsman generate more money means they should have it wsu. The commercials are the ones at fault because it was them that started hauling sportsfisherman out in the ocean as charters funny how things get turned around. Maybe if we can take it away from the indians and the commercials. Did you know ther are 20 trollers out of westport and they can catch 35 salmon a week thats there quota hardley rapeing the resource when one charter boat can catch that and they can;t keep bass or lingc od but one charter can catch over 200 a day get your head out of the sand.

I'm having a hard time understanding your argument.

[teal101]

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.

WSU- I assume you are fresh out of school or are in the construction/development/logging industry for you to know how much damage is being done? I do not deny that there are many roads and washouts, irrigation for farming that still cause silt to enter the river. I have been talking in context of what this thread was originally started for and that is salmon survival/recovery. Do you really think the few roads that deposit silt in heavy rain fall events damage salmon? Have you ever floated down a river just as it starts to pour and float past a large landslide or clay bank, do you think this kills the salmon? Or some how stops them from swimming up stream. Or do you think nature puts silt into the river naturally?

I would love to get down to the details on erosion control and BMP's and how they effect there local drainage, and yes lets talk about roads specifically if you would like. Because on this one you are simply wrong when we are talking within the context of salmon survival or reproduction. The tree huggers out there love to cite roads as a salmon and habitat killer because they know if they can get the roads shut down they can get the woods all to them selves.

But hey I am sure there are studies out there that back up your side of the story?

Do you really disagree?

H&F

Did you ever stop to think that EVERY road built near Salmon habitat damages it?  EVERY ROAD.  Lets make that clear.  Not just logging roads.  Not just paved roads.  Not just private driveways.  Not just Joe Shmoes crappy dirt road through the creek, EVERY ROAD.  Now before you pull the school vs. industry card I am in the industry of construction/development so I see and know what is going on with all of this.  You dont have to be in the industry to know.  You think that because you are in the industry and have to jump through all the hoops to meet certain criteria set forth by the state you know you are doing little damage.  You arent.  Again, most of these regulations are bandaids on top of the real issue.  The issue is not natural sediment deposits, it is excess sediment deposits created by human actions.  You dont realize how and why the sediment affects the Salmon.  It is not sediment killing adult fish, it is sediment covering reds, choking fry and parr.  It goes beyond natural average sediment flow.  What we are doing is creating a flood condition every year.  Nature has it's safety nets built into the Salmon species to recover from one year of hard natural floods.  It does not however have the ability to recover from year after year of artificial floods.  Natural sediment kills fish when it flows in excess.  Compare how often that happens to how often artificial sedimentation happens as well as how often "natural" floods occur on un touched streams vs. streams altered or effected by human activity.

  It is not only the sediment, but the chemicals, both natural and man made.  Have you seen Moses Lake?  You do realize that it drains into O'sullivan which then drains into the seep lakes which then drains into Crab Creek which is a Chinook recovery area which then drains into the Columbia with MULTIPLE ESA listed Salmon runs.  You do realize this single watershed is created by artificial irrigation from Banks Lake, Billy Clap Lake, Winchester Wasteway, and Frenchman Wasteway, and the natural Crab Creek.  To think for one minute there is not chemicals from crops entering this water system via these artificial sources is ignorant.  Not only that but sediment entering the system.  Hell lets throw NON-NATIVE predators such as Walleye, Bass, Crappie, Bluegill, and Catfish into the situation.

The saying ignorance is bliss is all too true when it comes to the Salmon.  People who work for the Salmon dont understand the people who hinder the Salmon and vice versa.  It is those people who understand BOTH sides of the argument and have done research regarding both sides that know.  I am not saying that I know all the facts by any means.  I do however recognize that there are some things that can not be avoided due to human expansion and that there are some things that effect the Salmon many people do not see.  Oh and by the way, I would like to see you argue how erosion control standards are based on Salmon recovery versus destruction of infrastructure due to natural events.  Keeping the road, house, mall from sliding away in a flood is going to be the main concern in those standards, not the fish.  I would also like to know what you base your assumption on that WSU is wrong regarding the context of Salmon survival and reproduction.

There are volumes of studies and books written to back up our side.  I'd be curious to see the amount of literature to the contrary, and I am talking specific studies and literature, not a mention in a 500 page report.

[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.

WSU- I assume you are fresh out of school or are in the construction/development/logging industry for you to know how much damage is being done? I do not deny that there are many roads and washouts, irrigation for farming that still cause silt to enter the river. I have been talking in context of what this thread was originally started for and that is salmon survival/recovery. Do you really think the few roads that deposit silt in heavy rain fall events damage salmon? Have you ever floated down a river just as it starts to pour and float past a large landslide or clay bank, do you think this kills the salmon? Or some how stops them from swimming up stream. Or do you think nature puts silt into the river naturally?

I would love to get down to the details on erosion control and BMP's and how they effect there local drainage, and yes lets talk about roads specifically if you would like. Because on this one you are simply wrong when we are talking within the context of salmon survival or reproduction. The tree huggers out there love to cite roads as a salmon and habitat killer because they know if they can get the roads shut down they can get the woods all to them selves.

But hey I am sure there are studies out there that back up your side of the story?

Do you really disagree?

H&F

Here is a study/summary that describes the affects of logging and road building associated with logging.  According the study (and those cited therein), lands can occur 23-27 times more often in logged areas.  River scouring occurs, runoff is drastically different, the transport of sediment (both fine and large) is increased.  Read this one, and I will find others describing many of other non-problems you mentioned. 

http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10289/2020/Hicks%20gravel%20galore.pdf?sequence=1

[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.

WSU- I assume you are fresh out of school or are in the construction/development/logging industry for you to know how much damage is being done? I do not deny that there are many roads and washouts, irrigation for farming that still cause silt to enter the river. I have been talking in context of what this thread was originally started for and that is salmon survival/recovery. Do you really think the few roads that deposit silt in heavy rain fall events damage salmon? Have you ever floated down a river just as it starts to pour and float past a large landslide or clay bank, do you think this kills the salmon? Or some how stops them from swimming up stream. Or do you think nature puts silt into the river naturally?

I would love to get down to the details on erosion control and BMP's and how they effect there local drainage, and yes lets talk about roads specifically if you would like. Because on this one you are simply wrong when we are talking within the context of salmon survival or reproduction. The tree huggers out there love to cite roads as a salmon and habitat killer because they know if they can get the roads shut down they can get the woods all to them selves.

But hey I am sure there are studies out there that back up your side of the story?

Do you really disagree?

H&F

Here are a few dozen studies detailing the problems caused by development (including development where mitigation is used, such as infiltration ponds, etc.).  Should give a week's worth of reading a demonstrate the effect urbanization and development has.  In particular, scroll down to the studies under the heading "Habitat Characteristics."  The others are informative as well, so don't skip them.


http://www.dnr.state.md.us/irc/bibs/effectsdevelopment.html

[RG]

I'll take your word for it...