Post by: Blacktail Sniper on May 12, 2016, 04:58:53 PM
Office of the Director
Statement from WDFW Director Jim Unsworth on Puget Sound fisheries
May 12, 2016
OLYMPIA – Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Director Jim Unsworth today issued the following statement regarding Puget Sound-area fisheries:
“As you know, state fishery managers and treaty Indian tribes have been unable to agree on this year’s salmon and steelhead fisheries in Puget Sound.
“Without an agreement, the state and tribes are in the unprecedented position of separately obtaining the federal authorization needed to open fisheries under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). The previous federal approval, which authorized both tribal and non-tribal fisheries, expired April 30.
“As a result, effective May 1, WDFW closed state recreational and non-tribal fisheries in the Puget Sound region while fishery managers work toward securing federal authorization. Salmon and steelhead fishing is closed in Puget Sound marine areas, and all fishing is closed in several lakes and sections of many rivers that flow into Puget Sound.
“Closed waters include several lakes where salmon and steelhead migrate, including Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish, Lake Union, Monte Cristo Lake, Barney Lake, and Lake Cushman. A complete list of affected waters is available on our website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/pugetsound_salmon_update/.
“Closing fisheries in the Puget Sound region was not a step we took lightly. WDFW understands the hardship this places on communities that rely on recreational and commercial fisheries. We also understand the frustration of sport anglers, some of whom gathered to protest tribal fisheries that began last week in parts of Puget Sound.
“Some people have suggested that anglers should break the law and go fishing in closed areas, or interfere with tribal fisheries. We strongly disagree. Such actions would do far more harm than good. And, in fact, the state agrees that tribal fisheries in Puget Sound this spring will not threaten ESA-listed fish stocks.
“For those reasons, I urge everyone to follow current rules and to avoid interfering with tribal fisheries. Breaking state fishing laws or interfering with treaty fishing would only complicate the process of opening state fisheries and most certainly would impair our ability to work with the tribes in the future.
“The breakdown in this year’s negotiations demonstrates that we need to improve the process of setting salmon seasons. We support co-management of the state’s shared resources and believe the state and tribes are far more effective when we work together to conserve fish and wildlife and their habitat. WDFW is committed to working with the tribes to improve the process and help ensure our state’s resources are sustainable for future generations.”
Post by: Whitpirate on May 12, 2016, 05:07:34 PM
Post by: thatdamguy on May 12, 2016, 05:14:30 PM
But if they are fishing and we are not there is no co-management of the resource only a marketed take by a single side. It will be interesting to see the outcome of this at least the WDFW has grown a backbone but I've seen nothing to show the tribes will change anything.
Dont get your hopes up, a friend of mine is a biologist for one of the coastal tribes and told me Unsworth barely said more than a sentence at the first few meetings....... :bash:
Post by: Karl Blanchard on May 12, 2016, 05:24:08 PM
Post by: huntnphool on May 12, 2016, 05:54:47 PM
But if they are fishing and we are not there is no co-management of the resource only a marketed take by a single side.
+1
Post by: Special T on May 12, 2016, 07:44:03 PM
Post by: Antlershed on May 12, 2016, 10:04:34 PM
:yeah:But if they are fishing and we are not there is no co-management of the resource only a marketed take by a single side.
+1
Post by: huntnphool on May 12, 2016, 10:24:34 PM
It's time all the tribes across the country assimilate and start living within the same rules/ guidelines as the rest of the Americans.
Post by: KNOPHISH on May 13, 2016, 04:14:29 AM
Post by: Duckslayer89 on May 13, 2016, 04:18:28 AM
I think it's time to pull the trump card and end all this tribal hunting/fishing rights BS.
It's time all the tribes across the country assimilate and start living within the same rules/ guidelines as the rest of the Americans.
Ya so much for unity.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on May 13, 2016, 05:45:55 AM
I think it's time to pull the trump card and end all this tribal hunting/fishing rights BS.I think it's past time for that, if something was done earlier we wouldn't be in this predicament.
It's time all the tribes across the country assimilate and start living within the same rules/ guidelines as the rest of the Americans.
Post by: Special T on May 13, 2016, 07:02:53 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 13, 2016, 07:07:30 AM
But if they are fishing and we are not there is no co-management of the resource only a marketed take by a single side. It will be interesting to see the outcome of this at least the WDFW has grown a backbone but I've seen nothing to show the tribes will change anything.
I'm more inclined to believe the WDFW is doing this to manipulate recreational and commercial fisherman to support their side of this situation, the only side we're hearing. They're creating unnecessary friction between the tribes and the rest. This is not being handled well at all, IMHO.
Post by: trophyhunt on May 13, 2016, 07:19:24 AM
What a bunch of garbage!agreed, complete garbage. It's time to end special treatment, it won't happen but it's long over due.
Post by: Dhoey07 on May 13, 2016, 08:15:11 AM
"And, in fact, the state agrees that tribal fisheries in Puget Sound this spring will not threaten ESA-listed fish stocks." :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: WSU on May 13, 2016, 08:18:45 AM
But if they are fishing and we are not there is no co-management of the resource only a marketed take by a single side. It will be interesting to see the outcome of this at least the WDFW has grown a backbone but I've seen nothing to show the tribes will change anything.
I'm more inclined to believe the WDFW is doing this to manipulate recreational and commercial fisherman to support their side of this situation, the only side we're hearing. They're creating unnecessary friction between the tribes and the rest. This is not being handled well at all, IMHO.
What leads you to this conclusion?
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 13, 2016, 08:26:53 AM
Post by: MADMAX on May 13, 2016, 08:27:56 AM
comments ?
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 13, 2016, 08:28:48 AM
I think it's time to pull the trump card and end all this tribal hunting/fishing rights BS.Really? Who do you suppose is responsible for the hatchery and mitigation programs that kept salmon in the rivers after hydropower? It wasn't the philanthropy of big business or the state. It was the tribes.
It's time all the tribes across the country assimilate and start living within the same rules/ guidelines as the rest of the Americans.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 13, 2016, 08:41:48 AM
Imagine if they shut it down to everyone including tribes for just 2 years
comments ?
They don't have the authority and never will.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 13, 2016, 08:52:31 AM
ehhh...I would argue that was done almost entirely by ratepayer and taxpayer funded federal agencies...to the tune of several billion dollars. Tribes do not fund those efforts - not that I'm arguing they should be footing the bill for activities they opposed which harmed their treaty trust resources.I think it's time to pull the trump card and end all this tribal hunting/fishing rights BS.Really? Who do you suppose is responsible for the hatchery and mitigation programs that kept salmon in the rivers after hydropower? It wasn't the philanthropy of big business or the state. It was the tribes.
It's time all the tribes across the country assimilate and start living within the same rules/ guidelines as the rest of the Americans.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 13, 2016, 08:56:02 AM
Post by: bugs n bones on May 13, 2016, 09:03:33 AM
I think it's time to pull the trump card and end all this tribal hunting/fishing rights BS.:yeah:
It's time all the tribes across the country assimilate and start living within the same rules/ guidelines as the rest of the Americans.
Post by: trophyhunt on May 13, 2016, 09:08:47 AM
They absolutely fund several hatcheries around the state. Not sure where you're getting your info, but it's incorrect.they should fund them, 1% of the population gets 50% of the product.
Post by: EyeTooth on May 13, 2016, 09:18:36 AM
Post by: bigtex on May 13, 2016, 09:22:59 AM
They absolutely fund several hatcheries around the state. Not sure where you're getting your info, but it's incorrect.:yeah:
Post by: Duckslayer89 on May 13, 2016, 09:23:21 AM
It's ludicrous to STILL be trying to work all of this out in the year 2016.
Is there any end dates to those treaties? I doubt the people who wrote them up thought they would be flying around in jet boats with mono nets or blasting bulls in the rut with high powered rifles.
Post by: NoBark on May 13, 2016, 09:36:16 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on May 13, 2016, 09:50:37 AM
They absolutely fund several hatcheries around the state. Not sure where you're getting your info, but it's incorrect.Hydropower mitigation hatcheries - funded almost entirely by BPA. Tribes are involved and paid to operate many hatcheries - but its not their money.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on May 13, 2016, 10:26:39 AM
Right- I should have been more clear. My point is that tribes are the reason there are any hatcheries. They are the reason there was mitigation for the hydropower that wiped out the salmon populations; it wasn't the rate payers or feds being generous, the tribes made that happen.ehhh...I would argue that was done almost entirely by ratepayer and taxpayer funded federal agencies...to the tune of several billion dollars. Tribes do not fund those efforts - not that I'm arguing they should be footing the bill for activities they opposed which harmed their treaty trust resources.I think it's time to pull the trump card and end all this tribal hunting/fishing rights BS.Really? Who do you suppose is responsible for the hatchery and mitigation programs that kept salmon in the rivers after hydropower? It wasn't the philanthropy of big business or the state. It was the tribes.
It's time all the tribes across the country assimilate and start living within the same rules/ guidelines as the rest of the Americans.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 13, 2016, 10:31:36 AM
Again, not true. The Quinault Indians fund a coho hatchery on the QU River. That's just one.They absolutely fund several hatcheries around the state. Not sure where you're getting your info, but it's incorrect.Hydropower mitigation hatcheries - funded almost entirely by BPA. Tribes are involved and paid to operate many hatcheries - but its not their money.
Post by: HntnFsh on May 13, 2016, 10:37:54 AM
Right- I should have been more clear. My point is that tribes are the reason there are any hatcheries. They are the reason there was mitigation for the hydropower that wiped out the salmon populations; it wasn't the rate payers or feds being generous, the tribes made that happen.ehhh...I would argue that was done almost entirely by ratepayer and taxpayer funded federal agencies...to the tune of several billion dollars. Tribes do not fund those efforts - not that I'm arguing they should be footing the bill for activities they opposed which harmed their treaty trust resources.I think it's time to pull the trump card and end all this tribal hunting/fishing rights BS.Really? Who do you suppose is responsible for the hatchery and mitigation programs that kept salmon in the rivers after hydropower? It wasn't the philanthropy of big business or the state. It was the tribes.
It's time all the tribes across the country assimilate and start living within the same rules/ guidelines as the rest of the Americans.
In some instances.
Post by: magnanimous_j on May 13, 2016, 10:49:22 AM
Imagine if they shut it down to everyone including tribes for just 2 years
comments ?
I predict that within our lifetimes, there will be "rest years" where all fishing is suspended to reduce pressure on the runs.
As for this, I think sportsmen and the tribes have been tricked into bickering over the scraps. The oceans are getting depleted at a truly alarming rate. It may be time to stop commercial fishing altogether.
You want seafood? Go get it yourself or buy farmed. There is a reason that you can't buy wild venison at Safeway.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 13, 2016, 10:57:51 AM
Follow the money - the funding for the vast majority of all hatcheries in the pacific northwest comes from ratepayers and taxpayers. Very, very, very little money comes from revenue generated by tribes. Your example above - notice their website "The hatcheries program pursues grants and outside funding to support its work" "Funds have also been received to improve tribal hatcheries including constructing a salmon return channel... Additional grants funded a formalin delivery egg treatment system..."Again, not true. The Quinault Indians fund a coho hatchery on the QU River. That's just one.They absolutely fund several hatcheries around the state. Not sure where you're getting your info, but it's incorrect.Hydropower mitigation hatcheries - funded almost entirely by BPA. Tribes are involved and paid to operate many hatcheries - but its not their money.
They then list both the Pacific Salmon Commission and Salmon Recovery Funding Board as Partners...that's because that's where the money comes from...largely federal programs and dollars.
This is true for nearly every hatchery in the Northwest - may have tribal involvement - but the money to fund those are not coming from any tribal revenue.
Post by: huntnphool on May 13, 2016, 11:01:44 AM
Follow the money - the funding for the vast majority of all hatcheries in the pacific northwest comes from ratepayers and taxpayers. Very, very, very little money comes from revenue generated by tribes. Your example above - notice their website "The hatcheries program pursues grants and outside funding to support its work" "Funds have also been received to improve tribal hatcheries including constructing a salmon return channel... Additional grants funded a formalin delivery egg treatment system..."Again, not true. The Quinault Indians fund a coho hatchery on the QU River. That's just one.They absolutely fund several hatcheries around the state. Not sure where you're getting your info, but it's incorrect.Hydropower mitigation hatcheries - funded almost entirely by BPA. Tribes are involved and paid to operate many hatcheries - but its not their money.
They then list both the Pacific Salmon Commission and Salmon Recovery Funding Board as Partners...that's because that's where the money comes from...largely federal programs and dollars.
This is true for nearly every hatchery in the Northwest - may have tribal involvement - but the money to fund those are not coming from any tribal revenue.
+1
Post by: bearpaw on May 13, 2016, 11:07:15 AM
Imagine if they shut it down to everyone including tribes for just 2 years
comments ?
I predict that within our lifetimes, there will be "rest years" where all fishing is suspended to reduce pressure on the runs.
As for this, I think sportsmen and the tribes have been tricked into bickering over the scraps. The oceans are getting depleted at a truly alarming rate. It may be time to stop commercial fishing altogether.
You want seafood? Go get it yourself or buy farmed. There is a reason that you can't buy wild venison at Safeway.
It's much more complicated than that. Part of the problem are enviros closing hatcheries while at the same time wanting to save runs. They are essentially reducing opportunity for all fishers. Fish farming sounds like an answer for the commercial market but it has it's own problems too. I think the answer is to let all fishers have equal opportunity every year so that nobody gets totally cheated out of opportunity. We were having record runs in recent years, now the enviros are trying to close hatcheries.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 13, 2016, 11:10:01 AM
You said none. You were wrong. Just once acknowledge an error you've made. Just once.Follow the money - the funding for the vast majority of all hatcheries in the pacific northwest comes from ratepayers and taxpayers. Very, very, very little money comes from revenue generated by tribes. Your example above - notice their website "The hatcheries program pursues grants and outside funding to support its work" "Funds have also been received to improve tribal hatcheries including constructing a salmon return channel... Additional grants funded a formalin delivery egg treatment system..."Again, not true. The Quinault Indians fund a coho hatchery on the QU River. That's just one.They absolutely fund several hatcheries around the state. Not sure where you're getting your info, but it's incorrect.Hydropower mitigation hatcheries - funded almost entirely by BPA. Tribes are involved and paid to operate many hatcheries - but its not their money.
They then list both the Pacific Salmon Commission and Salmon Recovery Funding Board as Partners...that's because that's where the money comes from...largely federal programs and dollars.
This is true for nearly every hatchery in the Northwest - may have tribal involvement - but the money to fund those are not coming from any tribal revenue.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 13, 2016, 11:17:13 AM
:chuckle: I'd love to agree with you...but there's no sense in both of us being wrong! :brew:You said none. You were wrong. Just once acknowledge an error you've made. Just once.Follow the money - the funding for the vast majority of all hatcheries in the pacific northwest comes from ratepayers and taxpayers. Very, very, very little money comes from revenue generated by tribes. Your example above - notice their website "The hatcheries program pursues grants and outside funding to support its work" "Funds have also been received to improve tribal hatcheries including constructing a salmon return channel... Additional grants funded a formalin delivery egg treatment system..."Again, not true. The Quinault Indians fund a coho hatchery on the QU River. That's just one.They absolutely fund several hatcheries around the state. Not sure where you're getting your info, but it's incorrect.Hydropower mitigation hatcheries - funded almost entirely by BPA. Tribes are involved and paid to operate many hatcheries - but its not their money.
They then list both the Pacific Salmon Commission and Salmon Recovery Funding Board as Partners...that's because that's where the money comes from...largely federal programs and dollars.
This is true for nearly every hatchery in the Northwest - may have tribal involvement - but the money to fund those are not coming from any tribal revenue.
Post by: huntnphool on May 13, 2016, 11:38:15 AM
Post by: singleshot12 on May 13, 2016, 01:23:59 PM
Tribes are only human too and want the salmon for themselves. What they do is out of spite mainly. Too bad becuase if we worked together we could create enough salmon for everyone plus some. Another reason they don't want to work with WDFW is becuase like us they don't trust them :twocents:
Post by: Gringo31 on May 13, 2016, 01:31:30 PM
I've been wondering if there more of a battle between WDFW and the tribes than we think. I look at the Colockum and can't figure out why they are allowing such harvest rates. Over 500 elk harvested last year and looking to repeat this year. Then I had this idea...
What if this battle was getting ugly so WDFW is allowing a major reduction in the elk herd, to make things more difficult on the tribes? Kind of a "work with us or we'll make it harder on you" stance. Makes me wonder if it is related to the fishing side as well or if I'm just talking crazy talk.....
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 13, 2016, 01:36:18 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on May 13, 2016, 01:41:22 PM
Just can't help but wonder what bargaining chips one holds. We work together or what?
Post by: huntnphool on May 13, 2016, 04:39:24 PM
:tup:
Just can't help but wonder what bargaining chips one holds. We work together or what?
We have the ability to force them to negotiate, just not the balls to do it!
Post by: trophyhunt on May 13, 2016, 04:44:29 PM
Bingo!!!!!! If I had Bill Gates money, I'd hire a butt load of lawyers and the fight would be on.:tup:
Just can't help but wonder what bargaining chips one holds. We work together or what?
We have the ability to force them to negotiate, just not the balls to do it!
Post by: trophyhunt on May 13, 2016, 05:35:56 PM
Post by: huntnphool on May 14, 2016, 12:37:31 AM
Bingo!!!!!! If I had Bill Gates money, I'd hire a butt load of lawyers and the fight would be on.:tup:
Just can't help but wonder what bargaining chips one holds. We work together or what?
We have the ability to force them to negotiate, just not the balls to do it!
Actually TH, it wouldn't take a butt load of money, but rather just the intestinal fortitude and desire to end the bickering and put everyone on the same playing field.
The answer is simple, but in today's PC world would have liberals pissing in their pants, which suggests the improbability of anything ever being done. :twocents:
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on May 14, 2016, 06:34:24 AM
I just sent Unsworth an email asking for a refund on my combo fishing license, interested to see if he responds and what he says.
This should be interesting? If he does respond.
Post by: trophyhunt on May 14, 2016, 08:07:36 AM
yeah, I'm probably not going to draw any permits now! :chuckle:I just sent Unsworth an email asking for a refund on my combo fishing license, interested to see if he responds and what he says.
This should be interesting? If he does respond.
Post by: Wacenturion on May 14, 2016, 08:20:38 AM
This whole thing could have/should have been dealt with a few years ago when the tribes were fighting casino taxes.
Got that right....... :tup:
Post by: bigtex on May 14, 2016, 12:06:23 PM
But now since it's a WDFW vs tribe battle some are asking for a refund. What's the difference? Heck the way I look at it WDFW isn't caving to tribal interests for once. If WDFW wanted to they could cave to the tribal requests and we could get some fishing. But WDFW doesn't want to agree to what the tribes want.
The issue with the whole BIA allowing the tribe to fish is BS. But there's nothing really WDFW could do in that case.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: huntnphool on May 14, 2016, 01:30:19 PM
The public knew several months ago the runs would be very bad on most systems this year and most people knew that some areas would be closed or have limited seasons and most understood that, I don't remember anyone asking for refunds at that time.
But now since it's a WDFW vs tribe battle some are asking for a refund. What's the difference? Heck the way I look at it WDFW isn't caving to tribal interests for once. If WDFW wanted to they could cave to the tribal requests and we could get some fishing. But WDFW doesn't want to agree to what the tribes want.
The issue with the whole BIA allowing the tribe to fish is BS. But there's nothing really WDFW could do in that case.
With all due respect BT, WDFW has no idea what the runs will be like year to year, their forcasts are speculation at best. I'll use the previous few years of them being completely baffled at the record runs of salmon and the smelt numbers returning to the Columbia as examples.
I'm more inclined to believe the quake and resulting tsunami in Japan that wiped out the Japanese fishing fleet is what led to the increase in returns the previous few years. And now that their fleets have had time to rebuild, we are again seeing the result of over harvesting by commercials. :twocents:
Post by: kodiak 907 on May 14, 2016, 01:49:54 PM
Excellent point