Post by: birddogdad on June 02, 2016, 08:02:05 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 02, 2016, 08:41:55 AM
Post by: birddogdad on June 02, 2016, 08:49:56 AM
I read one place that the state used to acknowledge it as tribal land. During that time the tribe sold access passes to anglers. Then the state and the tribe had some agreement and anglers had access without tribal approval. Now the tribe wants it back as when they sold passes. Should be a can of worms if it hits the courts.
http://www.kitsapsun.com/outdoors/tribe-blocks-salmon-fishing-on-skokomish-river-343d4919-4c41-4369-e053-0100007fb9f0-381592681.html
this is a can of worms, hoh? quil? solduc? hump? where will this end?
Post by: bearmanric on June 02, 2016, 09:22:26 AM
Post by: sirmissalot on June 02, 2016, 09:34:36 AM
Post by: twolabs on June 03, 2016, 07:14:25 AM
Post by: chester on June 03, 2016, 07:31:01 AM
What has always baffled me is, aren't the majority of the fish they are claiming as theirs, fish from a washington state hatchery?Tacoma power just built two new ones for them as part of an agreement to keep the dams running.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Post by: sirmissalot on June 03, 2016, 08:02:27 AM
What has always baffled me is, aren't the majority of the fish they are claiming as theirs, fish from a washington state hatchery?Tacoma power just built two new ones for them as part of an agreement to keep the dams running.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Right, which my understanding is those will be tribal hatcheries
Post by: chester on June 03, 2016, 08:10:59 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Rainier10 on June 03, 2016, 08:32:25 AM
Post by: PlateauNDN on June 03, 2016, 08:55:40 AM
Correct, so if they control the river to the point the state quits stocking it they have a couple more years of returns. They won't run out of fish.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The state doesn't run all the hatcheries so that would only work in certain runs/rivers/tributaries. Those that operate their own wouldn't be affected.
Post by: chester on June 03, 2016, 08:56:39 AM
You are correct, we are talking about the skok specifically.Correct, so if they control the river to the point the state quits stocking it they have a couple more years of returns. They won't run out of fish.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The state doesn't run all the hatcheries so that would only work in certain runs/rivers/tributaries. Those that operate their own wouldn't be affected.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Badhabit on June 03, 2016, 09:17:55 AM
Post by: chester on June 03, 2016, 09:21:11 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Badhabit on June 03, 2016, 09:26:52 AM
Post by: MADMAX on June 03, 2016, 09:30:20 AM
sarcasm font applied
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 03, 2016, 09:38:00 AM
its too bad to lose such a quality opportunityBut it was contained in a certain area. Now everyone is going to have to go elsewhere and crowd in on the places that are still open. No skok or Puyallup, this year--guess everyone will go to the Quilcene for the coho (unless there's something shinier closer by).
sarcasm font applied
Post by: MADMAX on June 03, 2016, 09:56:09 AM
Maybe even chum at hoodsport later in the fall, or the Puyallup ?
too bad
the whole thing needs to be re-looked at (please Mr Trump ), Tribes with casinos dont need subsistence fisheries IMO.
If its shutdown let them all go through spawn ( no nets) and start a new cycle in quality fisheries, does anyone recall the puget sound blackmouth enhancement $$ , another stellar example of these various fisheries council needs to get some help to do it right
rant over
Post by: DIYARCHERYJUNKIE on June 03, 2016, 10:22:49 AM
Post by: lokidog on June 03, 2016, 02:10:39 PM
Tribes with casinos dont need subsistence fisheries IMO.
sub·sist·ence
səbˈsistəns/Submit
noun
1.
the action or fact of maintaining or supporting oneself at a minimum level.
"the minimum income needed for subsistence"
synonyms: maintenance, keep, upkeep, livelihood, room and board, board, nourishment, food
"the money needed for his subsistence"
This is what gets me, how is selling tons of fish (or just the eggs) subsistence?
Post by: Dhoey07 on June 03, 2016, 03:12:13 PM
Pardon my ignorance on the Tribal boundaries on the Skok. Here's my question, if the Skok has navigable water/river how can the tribe(s) close of travel on the river? I understand that if your anchor or let your fishing weight hit the bottom of the river it would be trespassing but as long as your not making contact with the terra firma they can't stop you. Is this the situation on the Skok?
If it's on Indian property then you are in a different nation all together, on water or land. Unless the piece of river they are claiming is off of indian land :dunno:
Post by: chester on June 03, 2016, 04:15:03 PM
Pardon my ignorance on the Tribal boundaries on the Skok. Here's my question, if the Skok has navigable water/river how can the tribe(s) close of travel on the river? I understand that if your anchor or let your fishing weight hit the bottom of the river it would be trespassing but as long as your not making contact with the terra firma they can't stop you. Is this the situation on the Skok?
If it's on Indian property then you are in a different nation all together, on water or land. Unless the piece of river they are claiming is off of indian land :dunno:
That would be the issue . They are claiming water rights and anything in it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Badhabit on June 03, 2016, 05:04:15 PM
https://solicitor.doi.gov/opinions/M-37034.pdf
Post by: chester on June 03, 2016, 06:51:46 PM
This is a must read article from the Dept of Interior dated Jan 15 2016.
https://solicitor.doi.gov/opinions/M-37034.pdf
Sounds like sport fishing is done on the skok.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Roundhead on June 03, 2016, 10:13:42 PM
I read one place that the state used to acknowledge it as tribal land. During that time the tribe sold access passes to anglers. Then the state and the tribe had some agreement and anglers had access without tribal approval. Now the tribe wants it back as when they sold passes. Should be a can of worms if it hits the courts.Indian Giving?
Post by: chester on June 03, 2016, 10:14:09 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: haus on June 03, 2016, 10:46:42 PM
Post by: Duckslayer89 on June 04, 2016, 01:01:12 AM
Well now the Skok river wont eat up a full page in fishing regs, saves on paper, very green move by the tribe. Just doing their part to stop global warming.
:chuckle:
Post by: PolarBear on June 04, 2016, 02:47:34 AM
Post by: chester on June 04, 2016, 02:54:05 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: haus on June 04, 2016, 07:44:36 AM
They can have it right after the state closes the Purdy Creek Hatchery! Within a few years there will not be a salmon in that whole system.There will be, don't associate their desire to acquire our half of the quota with a take em all till they're all gone harvest strategy. While our non-tribal "tribe" of fisheries managers is all in on the anti-hatchery because hatchery fish are evil crusade. The Indian tribes certainly aren't of the same view. Considering they've already increased their hatchery capacity in the system any reduction on our end does nothing, but directly increase their market share.
This is business pure and simple. The whole anti-hatchery movement from our non-tribal tribe is an open door to the Indian tribes and they're certainly grabbing the bull by the horns, tactically and skillfully increasing their share and influence over the salmon industry with every move they make.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 04, 2016, 08:37:00 AM
:yeah: When the resource is co-managed the various tribes (imo) don't do a good job or have a good image--mostly due to being fed up with WDFW. Seems like they just go along with the state to not step on toes. But once they get full control, it seems like they go to a different mindset. The ones that come to mind are the Makah and the Quinault. They have rivers on their reservations that are revenue generators for them and the fishing is quite a bit different than the shared rivers.They can have it right after the state closes the Purdy Creek Hatchery! Within a few years there will not be a salmon in that whole system.There will be, don't associate their desire to acquire our half of the quota with a take em all till they're all gone harvest strategy. While our non-tribal "tribe" of fisheries managers is all in on the anti-hatchery because hatchery fish are evil crusade. The Indian tribes certainly aren't of the same view. Considering they've already increased their hatchery capacity in the system any reduction on our end does nothing, but directly increase their market share.
This is business pure and simple. The whole anti-hatchery movement from our non-tribal tribe is an open door to the Indian tribes and they're certainly grabbing the bull by the horns, tactically and skillfully increasing their share and influence over the salmon industry with every move they make.
Post by: HntnFsh on June 04, 2016, 08:47:24 AM
They have their own hatchery that was just completed at the Kokanee dam. I don't think they are too worried.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How does that affect the Skok?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 04, 2016, 09:00:57 AM
Post by: HntnFsh on June 05, 2016, 07:19:19 AM
Post by: TheHunt on June 05, 2016, 08:40:42 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 05, 2016, 08:58:25 AM
In another 30 years this state's fishing will be terrible. Better start thinking about retiring in Oregon or near British Columbia.With all the people moving to Oregon I don't know if it will hold out much longer either. Not as bad as Washington is getting, but they're on the same road it seems.
Post by: snake on June 05, 2016, 01:05:15 PM
Post by: Russ McDonald on June 05, 2016, 02:32:21 PM
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Post by: snake on June 05, 2016, 05:55:10 PM
Post by: DIYARCHERYJUNKIE on June 05, 2016, 06:07:51 PM
Post by: snake on June 05, 2016, 07:53:51 PM
Post by: HntnFsh on June 05, 2016, 08:28:32 PM
I hope she doesn't, but i'm afraid she will. She will be 10 times worse than Obama. ANYWAY... I believe closing the skok will have a big impact on the area. The see the Hatchery being sold to the tribe in the future.
Hadnt thought about that. But wouldn't surprise me. Still think that was the hidden agenda of why the WDFW chose the Gene banks that they did!