Post by: birddogdad on March 10, 2021, 07:49:26 AM
https://hvb.958.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/60-day-Notice-final-with-exhibits.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0ar36CAc3LhUwhfQqibq_S5pm_KrlX0PeeL9RynFZex1k860nTOxCj4IU
Post by: HntnFsh on March 10, 2021, 12:28:35 PM
Post by: Jake Dogfish on March 10, 2021, 12:33:41 PM
Post by: WSU on March 10, 2021, 12:39:20 PM
No one has the authority to shut down tribal fisheries except the tribes.
The tribes have to get ESA authorization just like the state.
Post by: Special T on March 10, 2021, 12:42:51 PM
Post by: Stein on March 10, 2021, 12:43:14 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 10, 2021, 12:51:37 PM
Should be interesting.. Especially since Tribes are 14-0 when it comes to lawsuits.
It is interesting. I don't see how a lawsuit is ever going to force the tribes to stop fishing regardless of the danger to the salmon and steelhead. All of the past suits have been based on similar justification and every time, the treaties, adopted by Congress and signed by the President, maintain the tribes' rights to the fisheries. Non-tribal and sport fishing will lose their rights first. I don't see any of the tribes officially forfeiting their fishing rights. Some tribes have been proactive with the WDFW and USFWS in developing breeding programs and voluntary limits. But were I them, I'd never give up my fishing rights. :dunno:
Post by: Stein on March 10, 2021, 12:56:51 PM
Post by: Jake Dogfish on March 10, 2021, 12:57:21 PM
No one has the authority to shut down tribal fisheries except the tribes.
The tribes have to get ESA authorization just like the state.
They get ESA authorization. They don’t have to do anything.
Post by: Special T on March 10, 2021, 12:57:36 PM
Changes to tribal harvest reporting is about all you could hope for to make a difference IMO....
I will be following along.
Post by: huntnphool on March 10, 2021, 01:06:33 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 10, 2021, 01:16:31 PM
Don't the treaties allow them half the harvestable amount? Seems like they are arguing they are going far over that with help from the state and feds.
I don't believe so. My understanding is that those aren't part of the treaties and are non-binding goals set between the participating tribes, the DFW, and the USFWS for projected returns and harvest. Anyone care to comment or correct me? Bueler, Bueler?
Post by: Jake Dogfish on March 10, 2021, 01:22:11 PM
However, our reported catch has a expansion factor from anywhere 5 to 10 times what we catch. Tribes just report there “reported catch”. We are losing in a much bigger way on equity in this area imo.
Post by: WSU on March 10, 2021, 01:23:50 PM
Don't the treaties allow them half the harvestable amount? Seems like they are arguing they are going far over that with help from the state and feds.
I don't believe so. My understanding is that those aren't part of the treaties and are non-binding goals set between the participating tribes, the DFW, and the USFWS for projected returns and harvest. Anyone care to comment or correct me? Bueler, Bueler?
The Boldt decision found that "in common with" means half.
Post by: huntnphool on March 10, 2021, 01:36:40 PM
Don't the treaties allow them half the harvestable amount? Seems like they are arguing they are going far over that with help from the state and feds.
I don't believe so. My understanding is that those aren't part of the treaties and are non-binding goals set between the participating tribes, the DFW, and the USFWS for projected returns and harvest. Anyone care to comment or correct me? Bueler, Bueler?
The Boldt decision found that "in common with" means half.
+1
Post by: Stein on March 10, 2021, 01:51:37 PM
From my perspective, we (non-tribal, non-commercial) are paying a huge price towards a bill that will never get paid. I think many of us would be OK if there was some sort of coherent plan and either an end in sight or at least more shared sacrifice.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 11, 2021, 10:53:52 AM
Don't the treaties allow them half the harvestable amount? Seems like they are arguing they are going far over that with help from the state and feds.
I don't believe so. My understanding is that those aren't part of the treaties and are non-binding goals set between the participating tribes, the DFW, and the USFWS for projected returns and harvest. Anyone care to comment or correct me? Bueler, Bueler?
The Boldt decision found that "in common with" means half.
That's good to know. Who confirms harvest numbers?
Post by: Special T on March 11, 2021, 12:50:34 PM
Don't the treaties allow them half the harvestable amount? Seems like they are arguing they are going far over that with help from the state and feds.
I don't believe so. My understanding is that those aren't part of the treaties and are non-binding goals set between the participating tribes, the DFW, and the USFWS for projected returns and harvest. Anyone care to comment or correct me? Bueler, Bueler?
The Boldt decision found that "in common with" means half.
That's good to know. Who confirms harvest numbers?
My understanding is it is reported but not by individual tribe it is reported to NW Indian Fisheries Commission. I heard that this was so that this was to reduce hate or retribution to individuals and thier tribe.
https://nwifc.org/