Post by: 85yota on May 02, 2021, 12:27:35 PM
What Yall think about this.. From talking to a gal who works at the hatchery on the skykomish..tribal fishing is a huge issue with no count of what they take.. Kelly sure seems strong on this issue
Post by: jstone on May 02, 2021, 12:41:00 PM
Totes full of fish get waisted. Happens and no one cares. That’s why it’s always funny listening to the news about other reasons. We had a family cabin up the Chiwawa river as a kid. Saw all kinds of salmon way up the river. Not so much anymore.
Post by: jstone on May 02, 2021, 12:42:08 PM
Post by: h20hunter on May 02, 2021, 12:47:56 PM
Post by: Tbar on May 02, 2021, 12:56:08 PM
My opinion is nets should not be used as they are in rivers. Also, it is clear to me that reporting is essentially non existent or enforceable. I don't have a solution but 8n general the path we are on is the wrong one.How is it clear to you? Care to take a day and learn the reporting and enforcement on said river. Biologists literally check virtually every fish and update the model in real time. In addition to this enforcement is present 24 hours a day during the fishery. Some of the tribal fisheries have been cut down to minutes to adequately asses all factors.
Post by: Tbar on May 02, 2021, 12:58:44 PM
See it on The Puyallup every year.!!You do realize some totes of fish are processed at the hatchery then returned to the water to decompose and feed the river?
Totes full of fish get waisted. Happens and no one cares. That’s why it’s always funny listening to the news about other reasons. We had a family cabin up the Chiwawa river as a kid. Saw all kinds of salmon way up the river. Not so much anymore.
Post by: 87Ford on May 02, 2021, 01:02:13 PM
Post by: L8NITE on May 02, 2021, 01:19:55 PM
Post by: ASHQUACK on May 02, 2021, 02:14:15 PM
Post by: Tbar on May 02, 2021, 02:28:16 PM
Very simple answer is to stop the commercial purchase of tribal caught salmon/steelhead. Unless they are licensed by and follow rules set by the rest of the commercial fleet. Stop the money and that stops the majority of the incentive.This is an ignorant statement to say the least. We literally fight over the scraps. Between the multiple intercept fisheries and open ocean fisheries the tribal take is minimal at best. On a side note, fisheries have been so limited many tribes have been buying their own fish for several years.
Post by: JKEEN33 on May 02, 2021, 02:35:51 PM
Very simple answer is to stop the commercial purchase of tribal caught salmon/steelhead. Unless they are licensed by and follow rules set by the rest of the commercial fleet. Stop the money and that stops the majority of the incentive.This is an ignorant statement to say the least. We literally fight over the scraps. Between the multiple intercept fisheries and open ocean fisheries the tribal take is minimal at best. On a side note, fisheries have been so limited many tribes have been buying their own fish for several years.
BS!
Post by: Tbar on May 02, 2021, 02:41:51 PM
Bring facts, participate in some processes. Please explain any life cycle of any stock that you care to explain or are knowledgeable on. Please feel free to include any terminal fishery impact and how you measured the terminal impact to a given stock.Very simple answer is to stop the commercial purchase of tribal caught salmon/steelhead. Unless they are licensed by and follow rules set by the rest of the commercial fleet. Stop the money and that stops the majority of the incentive.This is an ignorant statement to say the least. We literally fight over the scraps. Between the multiple intercept fisheries and open ocean fisheries the tribal take is minimal at best. On a side note, fisheries have been so limited many tribes have been buying their own fish for several years.
BS!
Post by: fishngamereaper on May 02, 2021, 02:45:28 PM
Post by: Special T on May 02, 2021, 02:48:42 PM
If i could get the tribes to do one thing different it would be the PR game.See it on The Puyallup every year.!!You do realize some totes of fish are processed at the hatchery then returned to the water to decompose and feed the river?
Totes full of fish get waisted. Happens and no one cares. That’s why it’s always funny listening to the news about other reasons. We had a family cabin up the Chiwawa river as a kid. Saw all kinds of salmon way up the river. Not so much anymore.
I personally think a bunch of the animosity stems from facts/issues most folks dont know about. It appears to me that Tribes do what they do and try and keep it on the DL and not talk outside of the tribe. Considering that the state and sportsman have very little control over Tribes im not surprised that they deal with those outside of the tribes via lawsuits. Unfortunately this inward approach only allows the building of distrust and resentment.
Im sure a balance exists between sportsmen and the general publics public's views that the tribes take into account. One area where I wish Tribes were more vocal/transparent about is predator control that they are doing. Tribes are consumptive users and have the ability to manage predators where the WDFW seems locked in a stalemate with the govenor and this Animal Rights Activists supporters.
While not directly comparable im impressed with Thomas Sewind from the Pacific Balanced Marine Management in BC. He is trying to push for Piniped management in BC and I belive has a Good PR campain. While each tribe is different it is unfortunate they do not advertize the culling of cormorants, the increased harvest of cats, or the management of wolves.
Perhaps Sportsmen and Tribes are in a Mexican standoff as to whom should signal that we should work together on certain issues. Perhaps its the combination of the lack of Tribal cohesive thoughts on public displays of management, and the farct that sportsmen, in large part, are a bunch of hard headed folks with a strong independent streak.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Tbar on May 02, 2021, 02:57:23 PM
You realize who funded the last pinniped study? The one that has generated a lot of momentum towards management.If i could get the tribes to do one thing different it would be the PR game.See it on The Puyallup every year.!!You do realize some totes of fish are processed at the hatchery then returned to the water to decompose and feed the river?
Totes full of fish get waisted. Happens and no one cares. That’s why it’s always funny listening to the news about other reasons. We had a family cabin up the Chiwawa river as a kid. Saw all kinds of salmon way up the river. Not so much anymore.
I personally think a bunch of the animosity stems from facts/issues most folks dont know about. It appears to me that Tribes do what they do and try and keep it on the DL and not talk outside of the tribe. Considering that the state and sportsman have very little control over Tribes im not surprised that they deal with those outside of the tribes via lawsuits. Unfortunately this inward approach only allows the building of distrust and resentment.
Im sure a balance exists between sportsmen and the general publics public's views that the tribes take into account. (https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F%5Bimg%5DOne+area+where+I+wish+Tribes+were+more%26nbsp%3B+vocal%2Ftransparent+about+is+predator+control+that+they+are+doing&hash=3069d310f41af07e678accdba86203b40f56211a)[/img]. Tribes are consumptive users and have the ability to manage predators where the WDFW seems locked in a stalemate with the govenor and this Animal Rights Activists supporters.
While not directly comparable im impressed with Thomas Sewind from the Pacific Balanced Marine Management in BC. He is trying to push for Piniped management in BC and I belive has a Good PR campain. While each tribe is different it is unfortunate they do not advertize the culling of cormorants, the increased harvest of cats, or the management of wolves.
Perhaps Sportsmen and Tribes are in a Mexican standoff as to whom should signal that we should work together on certain issues. Perhaps its the combination of the lack of Tribal cohesive thoughts on public displays of management, and the farct that sportsmen, in large part, are a bunch of hard headed folks with a strong independent streak.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: cem3434 on May 02, 2021, 02:58:45 PM
Very simple answer is to stop the commercial purchase of tribal caught salmon/steelhead. Unless they are licensed by and follow rules set by the rest of the commercial fleet. Stop the money and that stops the majority of the incentive.This is an ignorant statement to say the least. We literally fight over the scraps. Between the multiple intercept fisheries and open ocean fisheries the tribal take is minimal at best. On a side note, fisheries have been so limited many tribes have been buying their own fish for several years.
The scraps that you simply return to the river? I know several commercial fishermen and they dont return totes full of fish to the water to be wasted or "feed the river" as you put it. I'm sure your ancestors just took the eggs generations ago and threw the rest of the fish back in the river, right? Give me a break and learn the definition of ignorant before you cast stones. :bash:
Your credibility is laughable at this point!
Post by: Alan K on May 02, 2021, 03:00:35 PM
I don't have an issue with tribal folks fishing with whatever method they want if it's for their own subsistence. Having commercial fishing while numbers continue on a downward spiral is a crazy, both tribal AND non-tribal.
It seems like it's always the sport guy with a single line and barbless hook that gets their seasons cut first. How the heck does that make sense? Having a handful (relative to sport fishermen) of folks/companies taking such a large chunk of the take of such a coveted and declining resource for profit just doesn't seem right.
I saw some pretty disgusting things out by the Skok valley growing up, and have seen plenty of tribal folks in parking lots selling fish out of the back of a minivan in less than sanitary conditions. The leftovers at the end of the day would end up dumped. This was a good 15-20 years ago though so for all I know they've since cleaned up their act.
I'm not much of a fisherman, only getting out a time or two a year if a buddy has an open spot on their boat, but based on what I've seen and heard about the issue the reality is probably somewhere in the middle. Tribal fishermen are far from the choir boys the article tries to portray them as, but at the same time it's impossible to believe that the gill netting in rivers isn't having a significant impact. :dunno:
And closed door negotiations at North of Falcon certainly doesn't inspire confidence that things are based on science or common sense. If it were, there wouldn't be any problem with transparency.
Post by: ASHQUACK on May 02, 2021, 03:04:14 PM
Post by: cem3434 on May 02, 2021, 03:04:44 PM
Post by: Tbar on May 02, 2021, 03:09:02 PM
Managing for maximum sustainable take doesn't work when the models don't function as predicted. They need to have some significant buffer in there. If they already do, it's clearly not enough since numbers continue to decline.There are nearly zero fisheries managed for msy. They are almost all cut short by impacts. I honestly cannot think of a msy fishery in this state.
I don't have an issue with tribal folks fishing with whatever method they want if it's for their own subsistence. Having commercial fishing while numbers continue on a downward spiral is a crazy, both tribal AND non-tribal.
It seems like it's always the sport guy with a single line and barbless hook that gets their seasons cut first. How the heck does that make sense? Having a handful (relative to sport fishermen) of folks/companies taking such a large chunk of the take of such a coveted and declining resource for profit just doesn't seem right.
I saw some pretty disgusting things out by the Skok valley growing up, and have seen plenty of tribal folks in parking lots selling fish out of the back of a minivan in less than sanitary conditions. The leftovers at the end of the day would end up dumped. This was a good 15-20 years ago though so for all I know they've since cleaned up their act.
I'm not much of a fisherman, only getting out a time or two a year if a buddy has an open spot on their boat, but based on what I've seen and heard about the issue the reality is probably somewhere in the middle. Tribal fishermen are far from the choir boys the article tries to portray them as, but at the same time it's impossible to believe that the gill netting in rivers isn't having a significant impact. :dunno:
And closed door negotiations at North of Falcon certainly doesn't inspire confidence that things are based on science or common sense. If it were, there wouldn't be any problem with transparency.
Post by: Alan K on May 02, 2021, 03:20:03 PM
Managing for maximum sustainable take doesn't work when the models don't function as predicted. They need to have some significant buffer in there. If they already do, it's clearly not enough since numbers continue to decline.There are nearly zero fisheries managed for msy. They are almost all cut short by impacts. I honestly cannot think of a msy fishery in this state.
I don't have an issue with tribal folks fishing with whatever method they want if it's for their own subsistence. Having commercial fishing while numbers continue on a downward spiral is a crazy, both tribal AND non-tribal.
It seems like it's always the sport guy with a single line and barbless hook that gets their seasons cut first. How the heck does that make sense? Having a handful (relative to sport fishermen) of folks/companies taking such a large chunk of the take of such a coveted and declining resource for profit just doesn't seem right.
I saw some pretty disgusting things out by the Skok valley growing up, and have seen plenty of tribal folks in parking lots selling fish out of the back of a minivan in less than sanitary conditions. The leftovers at the end of the day would end up dumped. This was a good 15-20 years ago though so for all I know they've since cleaned up their act.
I'm not much of a fisherman, only getting out a time or two a year if a buddy has an open spot on their boat, but based on what I've seen and heard about the issue the reality is probably somewhere in the middle. Tribal fishermen are far from the choir boys the article tries to portray them as, but at the same time it's impossible to believe that the gill netting in rivers isn't having a significant impact. :dunno:
And closed door negotiations at North of Falcon certainly doesn't inspire confidence that things are based on science or common sense. If it were, there wouldn't be any problem with transparency.
Yikes, if that's the case what does it say about the quality of their modeling? :yike:
Post by: Tbar on May 02, 2021, 03:30:17 PM
Post by: Alan K on May 02, 2021, 03:52:42 PM
In the timber industry, models for maximum sustainable yields are NET of all factors - rainfall, site class, stock type, growth rates, regulatory buffers (your murrelet example fits in here), and more. I just assumed fish models were net of all impacting factors too. :dunno:
Models are only as good as the data input, and if they aren't working then something is clearly off in the equation. Getting a model generated that works with all kinds of external factors is undoubtedly difficult and I don't blame them for having a junk model so much as I do for obviously not having enough buffer built in to account for the risk.
Post by: MADMAX on May 02, 2021, 04:20:56 PM
The great lakes have better coho and chinook fishing than the pacific NW
The tribes put in but sure take a bunch
Not enough sustinence in the casino biz ?
Post by: Tbar on May 02, 2021, 04:38:33 PM
Not a jab, but if the allowed salmon harvest number was designed from a model for zero increase in population, and zero decrease in population, and the population declined afterwards then models were clearly off in the wrong direction. If you're saying there is already a buffer built into the equation to account for the risk of the model being off in the wrong direction and the numbers STILL decline, then the models are even further off yet than if managed at MSY.Timber has played a role in the decline as well. One major change environmentally over the last 30 years is broadcast spraying of herbicides. Is this the death of salmon? No. Do we have a metric that asses impacts to water tables within a watershed associated with nuking it? No. In fact we do not even have a database that monitors the amount of herbicides applied in this state. That said do I have a better mouse trap to both maintain broadleaf suppression (your growth rate to maintain a model) or invasive management? No. Salmon are influenced by thousands of factors, many overlap Industries (RMAP,TFW,culverts,sediment mobilization and others).
In the timber industry, models for maximum sustainable yields are NET of all factors - rainfall, site class, stock type, growth rates, regulatory buffers (your murrelet example fits in here), and more. I just assumed fish models were net of all impacting factors too. :dunno:
Models are only as good as the data input, and if they aren't working then something is clearly off in the equation. Getting a model generated that works with all kinds of external factors is undoubtedly difficult and I don't blame them for having a junk model so much as I do for obviously not having enough buffer built in to account for the risk.
Even with the death by a thousand cuts reality, the single most influential factor is probably predator management. We are all trying to model these impacts. There was a noted flaw in the last model produced that had to due with fish age at point of consumption. Most of this type of information is public and not hidden in the north of falcon process. There have been several public presentations on the pinniped impacts to chinook study. It's easy for many make ill iinformed comments and the next guy takes it as gospel.
Post by: Tbar on May 02, 2021, 04:42:31 PM
I’m not the sharpest razor in the pack but I can’t believe every single hatchery in this state is not pumping smolts out at the maximum if for nothing else to make sure the orcas get fedThis will likely create a false carrying capacity for unregulated predators (mmpa, mbta). In addition to that there is a severe deficiency in juvenile rearing habitat. The habitat equation becomes even more difficult when it has agriculture and salmon competing for the same real estate. So it is quite a bit more complicated than just factory production.
The great lakes have better coho and chinook fishing than the pacific NW
The tribes put in but sure take a bunch
Not enough sustinence in the casino biz ?
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on May 02, 2021, 04:55:17 PM
Post by: Tbar on May 02, 2021, 05:00:03 PM
The Gorge dam is detrimental to salmon, now that’s funny since salmon can’t get that high in the river.🤣Based off of a 1930s bi-op? Or do you have another source to cite. I believe if we are all bound by bas then a more informed biop will contradict the pervious one. There is only one party to the negotiation that wants to cite the old biop.
Post by: MADMAX on May 02, 2021, 05:18:32 PM
I’m not the sharpest razor in the pack but I can’t believe every single hatchery in this state is not pumping smolts out at the maximum if for nothing else to make sure the orcas get fedThis will likely create a false carrying capacity for unregulated predators (mmpa, mbta). In addition to that there is a severe deficiency in juvenile rearing habitat. The habitat equation becomes even more difficult when it has agriculture and salmon competing for the same real estate. So it is quite a bit more complicated than just factory production.
The great lakes have better coho and chinook fishing than the pacific NW
The tribes put in but sure take a bunch
Not enough sustinence in the casino biz ?
False carrying capacity?
It puts fish in the ocean
I don’t get it I guess
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on May 02, 2021, 05:37:23 PM
The Gorge dam is detrimental to salmon, now that’s funny since salmon can’t get that high in the river.🤣Based off of a 1930s bi-op? Or do you have another source to cite. I believe if we are all bound by bas then a more informed biop will contradict the pervious one. There is only one party to the negotiation that wants to cite the old biop.
Go look at the gorge, the dam is way above where salmon could navigate up do to step incline/ falls.
Post by: Born2late on May 02, 2021, 05:38:47 PM
My only experience with salmon somewhere else is in kodiak , ak. They have weirs with fish counts so they know how many fish are through to spawn so they know they have enough breeding stalk for the next cycle. Does washington do anything like that ? If not how do they know the amount of fish that are getting through? I'm not familar with how its done hear.
Also They have zero of the wetland stuff like we keep creating in the name of saving the salmon,yet they have rivers that produce incredible returns.Why does it work there and not here.The river closest to town the buskin One quarter the size of the stilly yet can support steelhead, dollies and pinks and silvers in massive numbers.Would it be possible to model a river or two after how they do it and see if it makes a difference? I remember talking to my buddy about how they even test the oxygen (i believe it was )in the lakes so they know how many sockeye it will support each return then adjust catches accordingly.Just seems like they have some much of a better understanding on what needs to be in place to get the returns desired.Have you ever researched or observed how they do it?
Post by: HntnFsh on May 02, 2021, 05:40:06 PM
I'm curious which tribe's import fish , beyond the ones doing it to supplement menu options at casino's.
The Chinook tribe, the Cowlitz tribe, the Yakima tribe and probably others i am not thinking of get surplus fish from certain hatcheries.
Post by: Tbar on May 02, 2021, 05:54:38 PM
Seals are at carrying capacity. Sea lions are growing at an unsustainable rate and occupying areas where they have not occurred in the past and are becoming residents. Cormorants are in desperate need of management. We have bird species that are showing up in places where it is not common for them to occur. And yes they area all eating salmon. He'll we have pelicans at the mouth of the river.I’m not the sharpest razor in the pack but I can’t believe every single hatchery in this state is not pumping smolts out at the maximum if for nothing else to make sure the orcas get fedThis will likely create a false carrying capacity for unregulated predators (mmpa, mbta). In addition to that there is a severe deficiency in juvenile rearing habitat. The habitat equation becomes even more difficult when it has agriculture and salmon competing for the same real estate. So it is quite a bit more complicated than just factory production.
The great lakes have better coho and chinook fishing than the pacific NW
The tribes put in but sure take a bunch
Not enough sustinence in the casino biz ?
False carrying capacity?
It puts fish in the ocean
I don’t get it I guess
Post by: Tbar on May 02, 2021, 06:02:26 PM
TbarI think a short answer is that this region is loved to death. We have very little that is not manipulated, from diking, development, infrastructure to management practices by various industries. I don't have a specific answer however I do know at least a couple scientists have worked extensively in Alaska.
My only experience with salmon somewhere else is in kodiak , ak. They have weirs with fish counts so they know how many fish are through to spawn so they know they have enough breeding stalk for the next cycle. Does washington do anything like that ? If not how do they know the amount of fish that are getting through? I'm not familar with how its done hear.
Also They have zero of the wetland stuff like we keep creating in the name of saving the salmon,yet they have rivers that produce incredible returns.Why does it work there and not here.The river closest to town the buskin One quarter the size of the stilly yet can support steelhead, dollies and pinks and silvers in massive numbers.Would it be possible to model a river or two after how they do it and see if it makes a difference? I remember talking to my buddy about how they even test the oxygen (i believe it was )in the lakes so they know how many sockeye it will support each return then adjust catches accordingly.Just seems like they have some much of a better understanding on what needs to be in place to get the returns desired.Have you ever researched or observed how they do it?
Post by: Alan K on May 02, 2021, 06:02:47 PM
Not a jab, but if the allowed salmon harvest number was designed from a model for zero increase in population, and zero decrease in population, and the population declined afterwards then models were clearly off in the wrong direction. If you're saying there is already a buffer built into the equation to account for the risk of the model being off in the wrong direction and the numbers STILL decline, then the models are even further off yet than if managed at MSY.Timber has played a role in the decline as well. One major change environmentally over the last 30 years is broadcast spraying of herbicides. Is this the death of salmon? No. Do we have a metric that asses impacts to water tables within a watershed associated with nuking it? No. In fact we do not even have a database that monitors the amount of herbicides applied in this state. That said do I have a better mouse trap to both maintain broadleaf suppression (your growth rate to maintain a model) or invasive management? No. Salmon are influenced by thousands of factors, many overlap Industries (RMAP,TFW,culverts,sediment mobilization and others).
In the timber industry, models for maximum sustainable yields are NET of all factors - rainfall, site class, stock type, growth rates, regulatory buffers (your murrelet example fits in here), and more. I just assumed fish models were net of all impacting factors too. :dunno:
Models are only as good as the data input, and if they aren't working then something is clearly off in the equation. Getting a model generated that works with all kinds of external factors is undoubtedly difficult and I don't blame them for having a junk model so much as I do for obviously not having enough buffer built in to account for the risk.
Even with the death by a thousand cuts reality, the single most influential factor is probably predator management. We are all trying to model these impacts. There was a noted flaw in the last model produced that had to due with fish age at point of consumption. Most of this type of information is public and not hidden in the north of falcon process. There have been several public presentations on the pinniped impacts to chinook study. It's easy for many make ill iinformed comments and the next guy takes it as gospel.
I don't disagree with any of that, my point is that the models are clearly messed up, either in their known inputs or the margin for error (buffer I refer to) if the numbers continue to decline. There are just no two ways about it. Why not cut harvest allotments 50% when the model says cut it 25%, and see what happens for a couple years. Maybe it will ferret out that the actual reduction number should have been around 32% and then you know how much more to factor into the model. Being overly conservative is what's needed rather than risking being too aggressive if things are truly as dire as they are made out to be.
It's frustrating when the timber industry gets smeared over fish related issues in today's day and age. There is no doubt there was a bunch of raping and pillaging going on back in the day, but with Forest and Fish and the neverending scrutiny under a magnifying glass the industry faces I think it's hard to justifiably blame it. Virtually all RMAP's have been completed in the woods, but the benefits of opening all of that fish habitat in the upper extents isn't realized when thousands of small landowner, city, and state fish barriers downstream are still cutting off access to said habitat. On herbicides, I don't remember if it was a DOE or WSDA presentation I watched, but they monitor stream systems at several points on the streams/rivers. They showed the measured contaminate levels at different points and as soon as all of these waterways get down to the lowlands where the population centers are, the pollution went through the roof. I don't recall specific numbers, but I'm sure the info is published in reports somewhere. There is no doubt in my mind that it's down low that off label uses that could be dangerous to fish are happening, likely by Joe Homeowner who ordered some chemical online for his yard and didn't bother or didn't care to read and abide by it. I guess long story short is while I don't doubt there is some impact to fish by the timber industry, the actual impact in 2021 is far less than the blame it receives.
My solution would be to:
DRASTICALLY reduce harvest until we figure out the true sustainable number given today's impacts. The model currently being used is clearly broken with numbers continuing to decline.
Mandate that funding be prioritized for fish barrier removals/replacements on state, county, municipalities, and small landowner lands ahead of all the BS pork our governments waste money on, to allow access to the upland habitat that awaits.
Greatly reduce the seals/sealions and other natural predators that have little to no management. It's hard to believe there is any danger to seal populations when you're out trolling and can count 7-8 within 100 yards of you and you have to worry about your fish being stolen before it gets to the boat.
Ramp up hatchery production, with the costs covered primarily by the commercial fishing industry. For every estimated fish harvested commercially, work through the numbers and require they provide funding for 1.25 returning fish.
Have an increasing price per salmon on sport catch cards. Don't necessarily have a limit on total salmon caught, but say the first costs $5, the 10th might cost $20, the 20th fish $50. And have those escalating costs feed right back into hatchery production.
Everyone would feel the brunt (cost) of salmon recovery, and at least in the short term miss out on some opportunity. When numbers come back, things start getting loosened in a responsible manner, and eventually back to what we all think of as normal. Right now we are down to the 'scraps' and we either continue to grind it down to nothing or make some meaningful changes that will turn things around.
Post by: Tbar on May 02, 2021, 06:10:44 PM
You realize there is zero harvest on several stock and we are not seeing improvements.Not a jab, but if the allowed salmon harvest number was designed from a model for zero increase in population, and zero decrease in population, and the population declined afterwards then models were clearly off in the wrong direction. If you're saying there is already a buffer built into the equation to account for the risk of the model being off in the wrong direction and the numbers STILL decline, then the models are even further off yet than if managed at MSY.Timber has played a role in the decline as well. One major change environmentally over the last 30 years is broadcast spraying of herbicides. Is this the death of salmon? No. Do we have a metric that asses impacts to water tables within a watershed associated with nuking it? No. In fact we do not even have a database that monitors the amount of herbicides applied in this state. That said do I have a better mouse trap to both maintain broadleaf suppression (your growth rate to maintain a model) or invasive management? No. Salmon are influenced by thousands of factors, many overlap Industries (RMAP,TFW,culverts,sediment mobilization and others).
In the timber industry, models for maximum sustainable yields are NET of all factors - rainfall, site class, stock type, growth rates, regulatory buffers (your murrelet example fits in here), and more. I just assumed fish models were net of all impacting factors too. :dunno:
Models are only as good as the data input, and if they aren't working then something is clearly off in the equation. Getting a model generated that works with all kinds of external factors is undoubtedly difficult and I don't blame them for having a junk model so much as I do for obviously not having enough buffer built in to account for the risk.
Even with the death by a thousand cuts reality, the single most influential factor is probably predator management. We are all trying to model these impacts. There was a noted flaw in the last model produced that had to due with fish age at point of consumption. Most of this type of information is public and not hidden in the north of falcon process. There have been several public presentations on the pinniped impacts to chinook study. It's easy for many make ill iinformed comments and the next guy takes it as gospel.
I don't disagree with any of that, my point is that the models are clearly messed up, either in their known inputs or the margin for error (buffer I refer to) if the numbers continue to decline. There are just no two ways about it. Why not cut harvest allotments 50% when the model says cut it 25%, and see what happens for a couple years. Maybe it will ferret out that the actual reduction number should have been around 32% and then you know how much more to factor into the model. Being overly conservative is what's needed rather than risking being too aggressive if things are truly as dire as they are made out to be.
It's frustrating when the timber industry gets smeared over fish related issues in today's day and age. There is no doubt there was a bunch of raping and pillaging going on back in the day, but with Forest and Fish and the neverending scrutiny under a magnifying glass the industry faces I think it's hard to justifiably blame it. Virtually all RMAP's have been completed in the woods, but the benefits of opening all of that fish habitat in the upper extents isn't realized when thousands of small landowner, city, and state fish barriers downstream are still cutting off access to said habitat. On herbicides, I don't remember if it was a DOE or WSDA presentation I watched, but they monitor stream systems at several points on the streams/rivers. They showed the measured contaminate levels at different points and as soon as all of these waterways get down to the lowlands where the population centers are, the pollution went through the roof. I don't recall specific numbers, but I'm sure the info is published in reports somewhere. There is no doubt in my mind that it's down low that off label uses that could be dangerous to fish are happening, likely by Joe Homeowner who ordered some chemical online for his yard and didn't bother or didn't care to read and abide by it. I guess long story short is while I don't doubt there is some impact to fish by the timber industry, the actual impact in 2021 is far less than the blame it receives.
My solution would be to:
DRASTICALLY reduce harvest until we figure out the true sustainable number given today's impacts. The model currently being used is clearly broken with numbers continuing to decline.
Mandate that funding be prioritized for fish barrier removals/replacements on state, county, municipalities, and small landowner lands ahead of all the BS pork our governments waste money on, to allow access to the upland habitat that awaits.
Greatly reduce the seals/sealions and other natural predators that have little to no management. It's hard to believe there is any danger to seal populations when you're out trolling and can count 7-8 within 100 yards of you and you have to worry about your fish being stolen before it gets to the boat.
Ramp up hatchery production, with the costs covered primarily by the commercial fishing industry. For every estimated fish harvested commercially, work through the numbers and require they provide funding for 1.25 returning fish.
Have an increasing price per salmon on sport catch cards. Don't necessarily have a limit on total salmon caught, but say the first costs $5, the 10th might cost $20, the 20th fish $50. And have those escalating costs feed right back into hatchery production.
Everyone would feel the brunt (cost) of salmon recovery, and at least in the short term miss out on some opportunity. When numbers come back, things start getting loosened in a responsible manner, and eventually back to what we all think of as normal. Right now we are down to the 'scraps' and we either continue to grind it down to nothing or make some meaningful changes that will turn things around.
Post by: Alan K on May 02, 2021, 06:17:31 PM
Post by: Alan K on May 02, 2021, 06:31:14 PM
Post by: Tbar on May 02, 2021, 06:37:48 PM
That should make it easier to solve then with human predation removed from the equation right? Would seem like a pretty easy decision to start removing natural predators next then. :dunno:Yes, with congressional approval. And back to modeling. We always set harvest levels on the conservative side. When we update the input with hard data the opportunity has usually passed. When indicators show lower than expected numbers we do not fish.
Post by: Alan K on May 02, 2021, 06:43:56 PM
That should make it easier to solve then with human predation removed from the equation right? Would seem like a pretty easy decision to start removing natural predators next then. :dunno:Yes, with congressional approval. And back to modeling. We always set harvest levels on the conservative side. When we update the input with hard data the opportunity has usually passed. When indicators show lower than expected numbers we do not fish.
And back to my original point too haha.... The buffer in the model isn't conservative enough if numbers continue to decline. :chuckle:
I really do appreciate the discussion, it's a high profile issue that everyone cares deeply about, but we have so much red tape required that keeps us from making adjustments that keep pace with the ever changing dynamics.
Post by: Tbar on May 02, 2021, 06:51:07 PM
That should make it easier to solve then with human predation removed from the equation right? Would seem like a pretty easy decision to start removing natural predators next then. :dunno:Yes, with congressional approval. And back to modeling. We always set harvest levels on the conservative side. When we update the input with hard data the opportunity has usually passed. When indicators show lower than expected numbers we do not fish.
And back to my original point too haha.... The buffer in the model isn't conservative enough if numbers continue to decline. :chuckle:
I really do appreciate the discussion, it's a high profile issue that everyone cares deeply about, but we have so much red tape required that keeps us from making adjustments that keep pace with the ever changing dynamics.
I would really like to put up some specific FRAM models, followed by proposed management, actual effort, escapement and the following estimated out migration. If you would like to sit down some day I'd love to brainstorm a better mouse trap.
Post by: Tbar on May 02, 2021, 07:39:42 PM
I certainly didn't say stop the tribes from fishing nor did I suggest that they stop. I suggest that commercial sales should be done on a commercial permit or licensed through the state. WHY is that ignorant?Commercial sales comply with state law. Correct me if I am wrong but commercially caught fish have to be able to be tracked back to its origin. It must be accompanied by a fish ticket (identical wdfw and tribal) that states #, date and pounds as well as method of catch and catch reporting area.
Post by: Bareback on May 02, 2021, 08:31:40 PM
Non tribal take is not just hook and line. Its also loss of habitat due to development. It’s degradation of water quality. It’s reducing rivers carrying capacity do to logging, roads, dikes, culverts, farming, hdro...... and the list goes on. The 4 Hs.
Tbar makes some very valid points. Tribes have the right to fish. Non tribal is a privilege.
Sure, I’ve seen some tribal practices I didn’t necessarily approve of but I’ve also seen many non tribal, commercial and rec behavior I didn’t approve. At this point in the game finger pointing will do no good. People need to work together.
Post by: Special T on May 03, 2021, 05:48:16 AM
Yes the tribes. My example has more to do with PR than a specific issue. I also understand that the rules For Canadian and Alaskan Natives are different thsn down here.You realize who funded the last pinniped study? The one that has generated a lot of momentum towards management.If i could get the tribes to do one thing different it would be the PR game.See it on The Puyallup every year.!!You do realize some totes of fish are processed at the hatchery then returned to the water to decompose and feed the river?
Totes full of fish get waisted. Happens and no one cares. That’s why it’s always funny listening to the news about other reasons. We had a family cabin up the Chiwawa river as a kid. Saw all kinds of salmon way up the river. Not so much anymore.
I personally think a bunch of the animosity stems from facts/issues most folks dont know about. It appears to me that Tribes do what they do and try and keep it on the DL and not talk outside of the tribe. Considering that the state and sportsman have very little control over Tribes im not surprised that they deal with those outside of the tribes via lawsuits. Unfortunately this inward approach only allows the building of distrust and resentment.
Im sure a balance exists between sportsmen and the general publics public's views that the tribes take into account. (https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F%5Bimg%5DOne+area+where+I+wish+Tribes+were+more%26nbsp%3B+vocal%2Ftransparent+about+is+predator+control+that+they+are+doing&hash=3069d310f41af07e678accdba86203b40f56211a)[/img]. Tribes are consumptive users and have the ability to manage predators where the WDFW seems locked in a stalemate with the govenor and this Animal Rights Activists supporters.
While not directly comparable im impressed with Thomas Sewind from the Pacific Balanced Marine Management in BC. He is trying to push for Piniped management in BC and I belive has a Good PR campain. While each tribe is different it is unfortunate they do not advertize the culling of cormorants, the increased harvest of cats, or the management of wolves.
Perhaps Sportsmen and Tribes are in a Mexican standoff as to whom should signal that we should work together on certain issues. Perhaps its the combination of the lack of Tribal cohesive thoughts on public displays of management, and the farct that sportsmen, in large part, are a bunch of hard headed folks with a strong independent streak.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
I have heard of great long term predator studies done by Tribes in this state that have not been shared with the public, not salmon related. I feel this is a shame and a lost opportunity.
Thank you for participating in this discussion it is very interesting.
Post by: trophyhunt on May 03, 2021, 06:29:32 AM
That comment is about the most racist comment I've seen on this thread.
Post by: Special T on May 03, 2021, 07:12:29 AM
"Tribes have the right to fish. Non tribal is a privilege."Actually i think its factual... now in ID hunting and fishing is an right but if you look it up in Wa it is a privilege.
That comment is about the most racist comment I've seen on this thread.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: trophyhunt on May 03, 2021, 07:19:36 AM
I know, but I don’t care what the current Wa regulation says. God gave us the RIGHT to provide for our family, not the state. One human has no more Rights than the other in my world, don’t take this the wrong way though, I follow the laws."Tribes have the right to fish. Non tribal is a privilege."Actually i think its factual... now in ID hunting and fishing is an right but if you look it up in Wa it is a privilege.
That comment is about the most racist comment I've seen on this thread.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Special T on May 03, 2021, 07:35:54 AM
You must have had something in your coffee to make original comment then.I know, but I don’t care what the current Wa regulation says. God gave us the RIGHT to provide for our family, not the state. One human has no more Rights than the other in my world, don’t take this the wrong way though, I follow the laws."Tribes have the right to fish. Non tribal is a privilege."Actually i think its factual... now in ID hunting and fishing is an right but if you look it up in Wa it is a privilege.
That comment is about the most racist comment I've seen on this thread.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Bareback on May 03, 2021, 07:53:18 AM
"Tribes have the right to fish. Non tribal is a privilege."
That comment is about the most racist comment I've seen on this thread.
There’s absolutely nothing racist about that statement. It’s a fact of life. The tribes that signed the Stevens Treaty in 1855 acquired the right to fish, it’s the law. On the other hand Washington license holders buy a privilege to fish. That is why big brother Jay could shut down fishing a couple of Marches ago but we could still boat. I may not agree with it, which is a moot point, since it will never be changed.
I do get a kick out of the “racist” comment, which is completely irrelevant. :tup:
Post by: Igor on May 03, 2021, 07:57:07 AM
"Tribes have the right to fish. Non tribal is a privilege."
That comment is about the most racist comment I've seen on this thread.
There’s absolutely nothing racist about that statement. It’s a fact of life. The tribes that signed the Stevens Treaty in 1855 acquired the right to fish, it’s the law. On the other hand Washington license holders buy a privilege to fish. That is why big brother Jay could shut down fishing a couple of Marches ago but we could still boat. I may not agree with it, which is a moot point, since it will never be changed.
I do get a kick out of the “racist” comment, which is completely irrelevant. :tup:
Where do you get the idea that the government "gives", or grants, rights ?
Post by: Bareback on May 03, 2021, 08:45:07 AM
Post by: Igor on May 03, 2021, 08:57:26 AM
Treaties. Read the Stevens Treaty succeeded by the bolt decision.
So, according to you, government can grant a "right", like fishing, to one subset of US citizens, but not to other citizens ? And, if government can indeed grant that "right", then does it not have the power to take away that right, or any right, or all rights ?
I have a feeling that you probably flunked Civics 101 in high school.
Post by: Fishmaker57 on May 03, 2021, 09:07:35 AM
Post by: Tbar on May 03, 2021, 09:27:04 AM
Actually Igor, you may want to do some research. The rights were reserved, not granted. Stated clearly and explicitly in the treaty as well as discussed in the minutes multiple times. This was validated by SCOTUS in 1905.Treaties. Read the Stevens Treaty succeeded by the bolt decision.
So, according to you, government can grant a "right", like fishing, to one subset of US citizens, but not to other citizens ? And, if government can indeed grant that "right", then does it not have the power to take away that right, or any right, or all rights ?
I have a feeling that you probably flunked Civics 101 in high school.
Post by: Igor on May 03, 2021, 09:35:58 AM
Actually Igor, you may want to do some research. The rights were reserved, not granted. Stated clearly and explicitly in the treaty as well as discussed in the minutes multiple times. This was validated by SCOTUS in 1905.
Actually, I know and understand that. I was responding to this comment:
"The tribes that signed the Stevens Treaty in 1855 acquired the right to fish......".
I was asking the one who made that comment if he believed that the government "granted" that right to fish? I fully understand the concept of "reserved rights".
Post by: Tbar on May 03, 2021, 10:01:27 AM
:tup:
Actually Igor, you may want to do some research. The rights were reserved, not granted. Stated clearly and explicitly in the treaty as well as discussed in the minutes multiple times. This was validated by SCOTUS in 1905.
Actually, I know and understand that. I was responding to this comment:
"The tribes that signed the Stevens Treaty in 1855 acquired the right to fish......".
I was asking the one who made that comment if he believed that the government "granted" that right to fish? I fully understand the concept of "reserved rights".
Post by: Bareback on May 03, 2021, 10:04:53 AM
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case involves the treaty fishing rights of three separate Washington coastal Indian tribes as they are affected by the regulations of the defendant Secretary of Commerce governing fishing for salmon in the waters of the Fishery Conservation Zone off California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska and regulations of the intervenor-defendant State of Washington in state waters of northwestern Washington.
Just a cut in paste, if you want to dig further in to it go for it.
We can debate the verbiage I used all day, especially in a legal context. We could consider “granted” a court ruling.
I really don’t have a stance on the subject, Im just providing an opinion on the interpretation of the laws, which is subjective. I’ve been reading these court rulings and case laws (which there a close to a 100) for the last thirty years.
Post by: Bareback on May 03, 2021, 10:07:41 AM
Post by: Wetwoodshunter on May 03, 2021, 10:22:38 AM
The Tribes negotiated the treaties with the U.S. Government in 1855 and 1856. These treaties were negotiated to allow for the settlement of non-tribal people on currently owned tribal land. Each treaty is specifically written for each tribe or group of tribes that falls under the Treaty based on what they felt was essential to continue their way of life. At the signing of the treaties subsistence fishing, commercial fishing, and gambling (bone games among others) were all important aspects to the tribes. There are both treaties and minutes for the treaties that are equally important because the treaties were negotiated in a language not native to the tribes. In many instances something that was negotiated did not have a word to represent it (all marine rockfish the same etc.).
Before the treaties were signed the tribes owned everything, including all fish and game resources. For non-tribal, or tribal members in areas not currently deemed as their territory permission had to be granted by the occupying tribe in order to fish, hunt, or build. When the treaties were negotiated the tribes reserved 50% of the fish and game resources for their use as they saw fit, commercial, subsistence doesn't matter its theirs to distribute at will. non-tribal gets the other share of 50% to distribute as they see fit.
The Boldt decision reaffirmed the treaties as the supreme law of the land. Prior to this the State of Washington was dictating what they felt that the tribes treaty rights were effectively violating the treaties. Boldt affirmed that the tribes had a right to 50% of all of the resources and were owners of it and were responsible for managing their fisheries as they see fit. Tribal leadership participates in all forums for fishery management including, the International Pacific Halibut Commission, Pacific Salmon Commission, Whiting Joint Management Commission, North of Falcon Salmon process and Pacific Fishery Management Council. In most cases the best ally to non-tribal fishermen at these forums are the tribes, as interests are generally the same with the coastwide picture. Domestically, like in the North of Falcon process things get trickier as how to split the pie varies dramatically around the table. A good example is a river fishermen may want to maximize in river fisheries while an ocean fishermen may want to see more fisheries in marine areas.
For salmon its not simply a 1:1 trade and shifting impacts from ocean areas to river areas or vice versa changes impacts in all systems where the mixed stocks may go. Timing of a fishery also significantly affects your stock composition as runs hit rivers at different times so your impacts on specific watersheds shift throughout the season. Things get even further complicated when rivers are managed for natural/hatchery origin components too as you may have a surplus of hatchery fish but a declining natural stock. When fishing on the hatchery stock you would also impact the wild stock, necessitating reductions of a fishery even though you see an abundance of hatchery fish in a system.
Any way you look at it fisheries as well as wildlife management is full of really tough decisions. No matter what people are going to get mad. I see the main issues with salmon as firstly predator control and loss of habitat. These two far out shadow the harvest that occurs, for instance shutting down all marine salmon fisheries yields a 2-3 day food supply for the killer whales. The other point is that during the peak of logging in this state, there were also bounties on sea lions and maximum hatchery production. Even though habitat destruction was at its greatest there were a plentiful fish and technology that pales in comparison to what we have today. Recreationally, which I assume is the sector that most of you participate in there has been an explosion of participants. For instance in a single recreational fishing opener Neah Bay port sampling counts may have in excess of 700 vessels participating but then stays consistent around 200 per day from May - August. Technology is constantly advancing to improve fishery success. Look at the size of the boats on the water compared to the past, bottom discriminations on chart plotters, ability to get within meters of that epic rockpile and repeat the drift, downriggers so you know exactly where your gear is fishing, electric reels were virtually non-existent 5 years ago. All I am saying is it all adds up to shorter sport season, similar to the whole scopes on mzloader discussion.
Just like the non-tribal fisheries the tribal fisheries feel the pinch too. Tribes manage their fisheries and it is far from a free for all like a lot of people want to believe. As far as gill nets, Tribes implement them frequently in commercial and subsistence in river fisheries, there is really not a better tactic for removing fish from a specific watershed. You can have an in-river gill net fishery in tributary or river with little to no impact on a neighboring system that may not have a healthy run.
Anyway, here is my :twocents: but its only two cents in a multi trillion dollar discussion especially if you factor in zero non-tribal homesteading would have occurred without the treaties.
Post by: Whitefoot on May 03, 2021, 10:23:36 AM
"Tribes have the right to fish. Non tribal is a privilege."
That comment is about the most racist comment I've seen on this thread.
Post by: trophyhunt on May 03, 2021, 10:34:40 AM
one group of people who get rights over others because of race has nothing to do with race? Oh, ok."Tribes have the right to fish. Non tribal is a privilege."
That comment is about the most racist comment I've seen on this thread.
There’s absolutely nothing racist about that statement. It’s a fact of life. The tribes that signed the Stevens Treaty in 1855 acquired the right to fish, it’s the law. On the other hand Washington license holders buy a privilege to fish. That is why big brother Jay could shut down fishing a couple of Marches ago but we could still boat. I may not agree with it, which is a moot point, since it will never be changed.
I do get a kick out of the “racist” comment, which is completely irrelevant. :tup:
Post by: trophyhunt on May 03, 2021, 10:36:42 AM
:chuckle:thanks for checking in Jerky man! How’s your hunting season going??"Tribes have the right to fish. Non tribal is a privilege."
That comment is about the most racist comment I've seen on this thread.
Post by: Platensek-po on May 03, 2021, 10:42:20 AM
one group of people who get rights over others because of race has nothing to do with race? Oh, ok."Tribes have the right to fish. Non tribal is a privilege."
That comment is about the most racist comment I've seen on this thread.
There’s absolutely nothing racist about that statement. It’s a fact of life. The tribes that signed the Stevens Treaty in 1855 acquired the right to fish, it’s the law. On the other hand Washington license holders buy a privilege to fish. That is why big brother Jay could shut down fishing a couple of Marches ago but we could still boat. I may not agree with it, which is a moot point, since it will never be changed.
I do get a kick out of the “racist” comment, which is completely irrelevant. :tup:
Woooow. Amazing. Somebody needs to a history lesson before spouting dumb stuff like that
Post by: Whitefoot on May 03, 2021, 10:51:25 AM
:chuckle:thanks for checking in Jerky man! How’s your hunting season going??"Tribes have the right to fish. Non tribal is a privilege."
That comment is about the most racist comment I've seen on this thread.
Post by: Special T on May 03, 2021, 10:53:06 AM
Hoh Indian Tribe v. Baldrige, 522 F. Supp.This comment or question isnt just for you but you stated that youve been reading this stuff for 30 years...
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case involves the treaty fishing rights of three separate Washington coastal Indian tribes as they are affected by the regulations of the defendant Secretary of Commerce governing fishing for salmon in the waters of the Fishery Conservation Zone off California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska and regulations of the intervenor-defendant State of Washington in state waters of northwestern Washington.
Just a cut in paste, if you want to dig further in to it go for it.
We can debate the verbiage I used all day, especially in a legal context. We could consider “granted” a court ruling.
I really don’t have a stance on the subject, Im just providing an opinion on the interpretation of the laws, which is subjective. I’ve been reading these court rulings and case laws (which there a close to a 100) for the last thirty years.
If a good book exists on the issue of Tribal hunting/fishing rights and how we have arrived at the present day inwould love to know the name.
If one does not exist i belive it is in the best intrest of all that something akin to it were pursued. I belive that sportsmen like me would like to know more but aside from a lifetime of research a well rounded starting point doesnt exist. I enjoy the Legal discussions of Viva and Barnes on You tube in large part because they are instructive of the issues. I belive the same kind of discussions where the issue is explained and the different positions are as well would do a lot to educate the general population. It is possible to do so with out attacking either position and letting folks decide for themselves.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Wetwoodshunter on May 03, 2021, 11:40:19 AM
Hoh Indian Tribe v. Baldrige, 522 F. Supp.This comment or question isnt just for you but you stated that youve been reading this stuff for 30 years...
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case involves the treaty fishing rights of three separate Washington coastal Indian tribes as they are affected by the regulations of the defendant Secretary of Commerce governing fishing for salmon in the waters of the Fishery Conservation Zone off California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska and regulations of the intervenor-defendant State of Washington in state waters of northwestern Washington.
Just a cut in paste, if you want to dig further in to it go for it.
We can debate the verbiage I used all day, especially in a legal context. We could consider “granted” a court ruling.
I really don’t have a stance on the subject, Im just providing an opinion on the interpretation of the laws, which is subjective. I’ve been reading these court rulings and case laws (which there a close to a 100) for the last thirty years.
If a good book exists on the issue of Tribal hunting/fishing rights and how we have arrived at the present day inwould love to know the name.
If one does not exist i belive it is in the best intrest of all that something akin to it were pursued. I belive that sportsmen like me would like to know more but aside from a lifetime of research a well rounded starting point doesnt exist. I enjoy the Legal discussions of Viva and Barnes on You tube in large part because they are instructive of the issues. I belive the same kind of discussions where the issue is explained and the different positions are as well would do a lot to educate the general population. It is possible to do so with out attacking either position and letting folks decide for themselves.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Tell the Truth : The Collected Columns of Billy Frank Jr
by Billy Frank Jr. and Kari Neumeyer
Here is a good place to start.
Post by: Igor on May 03, 2021, 11:59:54 AM
I have not read this book, but here are some quotes from it:
"Tribes do not exercise rights because Congress granted them rights. Tribes exercise rights based on their original and indigenous sovereignty."
These "reserved" rights, meaning never having been transferred to the United States or any other sovereign, include property rights, which include the rights to fish, hunt and gather, and political rights. Political rights reserved to the Indian nations include the power to regulate domestic relations, tax, administer justice, or exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction.
What I infer from this, is that at one time everyone in this country had these same rights, however treaties "reserved" these rights to the tribes, while everyone else (non-indigenous) essentially "transferred" our rights to the United States government.
It's not a perfect example, but I feel that we are, slowly but surely, "transferring" our 2nd Amendment rights to the government, too.
Post by: nwwanderer on May 03, 2021, 12:09:43 PM
Post by: OutHouse on May 05, 2021, 09:15:28 AM
"Tribes have the right to fish. Non tribal is a privilege."
That comment is about the most racist comment I've seen on this thread.
It's not a racist statement. It's legally spot on. You may not like it, but it's reality. I've probably said this on this forum before, but most Europeans never had a "right" to hunt and fish. The King owned the forest and the rivers. Had to have permission or a license to hunt or fish (after all the animals were the king's property). This goes back to medieval times. Tribes retained their rights by negotiating treaties. They did a very good job at that. The joke is sort of on us. With few exceptions, we've allowed hunting and fishing to remain a privilege.
Post by: OutHouse on May 05, 2021, 09:20:29 AM
Treaties. Read the Stevens Treaty succeeded by the bolt decision.
So, according to you, government can grant a "right", like fishing, to one subset of US citizens, but not to other citizens ? And, if government can indeed grant that "right", then does it not have the power to take away that right, or any right, or all rights ?
I have a feeling that you probably flunked Civics 101 in high school.
The government can grant rights and taketh away (felons lose rights). In this scenario, they are called treaty rights. Under our constitution, treaties are considered the "supreme law of the land". Court's, governments, what have you, have to abide by them. There is probably a supreme court case that leaves open the possibility of revoking treaties but I don't see it happening.
Post by: Igor on May 05, 2021, 09:27:17 AM
The government can grant rights and taketh away (felons lose rights). In this scenario, they are called treaty rights. Under our constitution, treaties are considered the "supreme law of the land". Court's, governments, what have you, have to abide by them. There is probably a supreme court case that leaves open the possibility of revoking treaties but I don't see it happening.
You are just flat WRONG. The government did not "grant rights" via treaty. Read this:
Dr. David E. Wilkins writes in Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law, "Tribes do not exercise rights because Congress granted them rights. Tribes exercise rights based on their original and indigenous sovereignty." These "reserved" rights, meaning never having been transferred to the United States or any other sovereign, include property rights, which include the rights to fish, hunt and gather, and political rights. Political rights reserved to the Indian nations include the power to regulate domestic relations, tax, administer justice, or exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction.[12]
Hopefully, that clears it up a little for you.
Post by: OutHouse on May 05, 2021, 09:59:53 AM
The government can grant rights and taketh away (felons lose rights). In this scenario, they are called treaty rights. Under our constitution, treaties are considered the "supreme law of the land". Court's, governments, what have you, have to abide by them. There is probably a supreme court case that leaves open the possibility of revoking treaties but I don't see it happening.
You are just flat WRONG. The government did not "grant rights" via treaty. Read this:
Dr. David E. Wilkins writes in Uneven Ground: American Indian Sovereignty and Federal Law, "Tribes do not exercise rights because Congress granted them rights. Tribes exercise rights based on their original and indigenous sovereignty." These "reserved" rights, meaning never having been transferred to the United States or any other sovereign, include property rights, which include the rights to fish, hunt and gather, and political rights. Political rights reserved to the Indian nations include the power to regulate domestic relations, tax, administer justice, or exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction.[12]
Hopefully, that clears it up a little for you.
You are correct but see my first comment: "Tribes retained their rights by negotiating treaties". I slipped up in the second comment!
A simpler way of viewing it is that westerners had to bow to the king and maybe receive privileges or permission. The tribes very clearly negotiated that they need permission from no one. Again, the joke is on us who don't have the rights. We've allowed a permissive/licensed based system. Probably should have fought harder on that during the last 1000 years. I suppose the bottom line is the tribes did a much better job of preserving their rights (some here say we have a god given right to hunt).
Post by: Igor on May 05, 2021, 10:12:33 AM
We've allowed a permissive/licensed based system. Probably should have fought harder on that during the last 1000 years. I suppose the bottom line is the tribes did a much better job of preserving their rights (some here say we have a god given right to hunt).
I would agree with you 100%.
Post by: OutHouse on May 05, 2021, 10:22:24 AM
We've allowed a permissive/licensed based system. Probably should have fought harder on that during the last 1000 years. I suppose the bottom line is the tribes did a much better job of preserving their rights (some here say we have a god given right to hunt).
I would agree with you 100%.
I suppose ownership has something to do with it as well but don't know the legal background to that. I could be wrong but my perception is that the Tribes may have some type of ownership or quasi-ownership right in the fish and wildlife.
Perhaps Tbar, Whitefoot or Plat could enlighten us on that.
Post by: GWP on May 05, 2021, 10:34:46 AM
We've allowed a permissive/licensed based system. Probably should have fought harder on that during the last 1000 years. I suppose the bottom line is the tribes did a much better job of preserving their rights (some here say we have a god given right to hunt).
I would agree with you 100%.
I would guess if there were no 'rules' there would be no game left. At all. Humans in general will not control themselves. Some just want to kill for the thrill.
Post by: OutHouse on May 05, 2021, 10:48:03 AM
We've allowed a permissive/licensed based system. Probably should have fought harder on that during the last 1000 years. I suppose the bottom line is the tribes did a much better job of preserving their rights (some here say we have a god given right to hunt).
I would agree with you 100%.
I would guess if there were no 'rules' there would be no game left. At all. Humans in general will not control themselves. Some just want to kill for the thrill.
I think you're right about that. Bison are a good example.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on May 05, 2021, 11:45:17 AM
Post by: GWP on May 05, 2021, 12:40:03 PM
We've allowed a permissive/licensed based system. Probably should have fought harder on that during the last 1000 years. I suppose the bottom line is the tribes did a much better job of preserving their rights (some here say we have a god given right to hunt).
I would agree with you 100%.
I would guess if there were no 'rules' there would be no game left. At all. Humans in general will not control themselves. Some just want to kill for the thrill.
I think you're right about that. Bison are a good example.
A big part of that was to wipe out the Indian's food/fur source so their land could be settled. 'Commanche Moon' is a well documented book/narrative about how we made agreements with the Indian's, broke the agreements, took more land, made more agreements, broke those agreements, took more land and pushed them into living on reservations. Essentially wiping them out for the most part. Or 'rehabilitated' them, as it were.
Same with the fishing here. The 'Indian Fishing Wars' never really got 'sort of' settled until the 1980's, when for the FIRST time, treaties/agreements, were honored. There were a LOT of broken promises along the way. Easy to read up on it. An embarrassment really. If you make an agreement, you should keep it. The 'non Tribal' side was not too good at that.
Post by: snarkybull on May 12, 2021, 09:18:49 PM
"Tribes have the right to fish. Non tribal is a privilege."
That comment is about the most racist comment I've seen on this thread.
It's not a racist statement. It's legally spot on. You may not like it, but it's reality. I've probably said this on this forum before, but most Europeans never had a "right" to hunt and fish. The King owned the forest and the rivers. Had to have permission or a license to hunt or fish (after all the animals were the king's property). This goes back to medieval times. Tribes retained their rights by negotiating treaties. They did a very good job at that. The joke is sort of on us. With few exceptions, we've allowed hunting and fishing to remain a privilege.
To expand on this:
The tribes as a people retained their right to fish. The state as a people also has a right to fish. The state has deemed that fishing is a privilege to its citizens. The tribes (different tribes do things their own way) have the ability to say whether fishing is a right of their members or a privilege. That is up to them. They generally have tribal laws in place that can revoke the right (or privilege) to fish after violations of their tribe's fishing laws or regulations, most notably in commercial fisheries.
Wetwoodshunter can correct me if I misspeak here, but I felt it was noteworthy to this thread that the treaty referenced the people as opposed to individuals.
Also, in at least some of the treaties the President of the United States retained the ability to move them to another reservation at any future time "as he deems fit". Think about that for a bit.
Post by: wags on May 16, 2021, 06:53:18 PM
Most of the Puget Sound salmon runs doomed. Too many people want too few fish, too much toxic runoff into the waters of the Sound, too much politics, etc, etc..
I am a commercial salmon fisherman in Alaska where the runs that I fish are the most scientifically and intensely managed runs in the world. Our Bristol Bay sockeye runs have been getting bigger and bigger over the past ten years, exceeding projected run sizes nearly every year. Kings runs are even increasing in our district. All wild fish.
Almost all of the Treaty fishing in Washington is sustained by hatchery runs. Heavy fishing on a river that has mixed stocks of few wild fish and large runs of hatchery fish will ultimately wipe-out the wild fish; absolutely no question about it.
Perhaps the fact that the Tribes are the largest political donors to the Democrat Party is Washington has something to do with the situation?
Post by: Meathunter06 on May 16, 2021, 07:26:44 PM
All the arguments are now pretty much moot.:yeah:Nothing is going to change until we eliminate the Demonrat party
Most of the Puget Sound salmon runs doomed. Too many people want too few fish, too much toxic runoff into the waters of the Sound, too much politics, etc, etc..
I am a commercial salmon fisherman in Alaska where the runs that I fish are the most scientifically and intensely managed runs in the world. Our Bristol Bay sockeye runs have been getting bigger and bigger over the past ten years, exceeding projected run sizes nearly every year. Kings runs are even increasing in our district. All wild fish.
Almost all of the Treaty fishing in Washington is sustained by hatchery runs. Heavy fishing on a river that has mixed stocks of few wild fish and large runs of hatchery fish will ultimately wipe-out the wild fish; absolutely no question about it.
Perhaps the fact that the Tribes are the largest political donors to the Democrat Party is Washington has something to do with the situation?
Post by: trophyhunt on May 16, 2021, 07:32:50 PM
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah:All the arguments are now pretty much moot.:yeah:Nothing is going to change until we eliminate the Demonrat party
Most of the Puget Sound salmon runs doomed. Too many people want too few fish, too much toxic runoff into the waters of the Sound, too much politics, etc, etc..
I am a commercial salmon fisherman in Alaska where the runs that I fish are the most scientifically and intensely managed runs in the world. Our Bristol Bay sockeye runs have been getting bigger and bigger over the past ten years, exceeding projected run sizes nearly every year. Kings runs are even increasing in our district. All wild fish.
Almost all of the Treaty fishing in Washington is sustained by hatchery runs. Heavy fishing on a river that has mixed stocks of few wild fish and large runs of hatchery fish will ultimately wipe-out the wild fish; absolutely no question about it.
Perhaps the fact that the Tribes are the largest political donors to the Democrat Party is Washington has something to do with the situation?
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 17, 2021, 11:53:21 AM
one group of people who get rights over others because of race has nothing to do with race? Oh, ok."Tribes have the right to fish. Non tribal is a privilege."
That comment is about the most racist comment I've seen on this thread.
There’s absolutely nothing racist about that statement. It’s a fact of life. The tribes that signed the Stevens Treaty in 1855 acquired the right to fish, it’s the law. On the other hand Washington license holders buy a privilege to fish. That is why big brother Jay could shut down fishing a couple of Marches ago but we could still boat. I may not agree with it, which is a moot point, since it will never be changed.
I do get a kick out of the “racist” comment, which is completely irrelevant. :tup:
Due respects, Trophy, they get rights that others don't because the US government signed a treaty guaranteeing those rights. It has zero to do with race. Our government signs treaties all the time which give some people rights that aren't given to others.
Post by: Platensek-po on May 17, 2021, 11:58:55 AM
All the arguments are now pretty much moot.Yeah and none of the rivers in Bristol bay have ever been dammed. Not entirely sure why people think that decreased salmon runs are the tribes fault. Did the tribes put a city of a couple million people on the water where the salmon run? Did the tribes damn all the rivers? Maybe the tribes have had huge commercial operations in the oceans? What’s the population of the tribes vs not? Seems to me that percentage wise the tribes have done more than anyone to try and protect the salmon runs. But now that it’s all been messed up and they have rights to fish while you don’t it’s their fault? Man some people can’t see the past at all.
Most of the Puget Sound salmon runs doomed. Too many people want too few fish, too much toxic runoff into the waters of the Sound, too much politics, etc, etc..
I am a commercial salmon fisherman in Alaska where the runs that I fish are the most scientifically and intensely managed runs in the world. Our Bristol Bay sockeye runs have been getting bigger and bigger over the past ten years, exceeding projected run sizes nearly every year. Kings runs are even increasing in our district. All wild fish.
Almost all of the Treaty fishing in Washington is sustained by hatchery runs. Heavy fishing on a river that has mixed stocks of few wild fish and large runs of hatchery fish will ultimately wipe-out the wild fish; absolutely no question about it.
Perhaps the fact that the Tribes are the largest political donors to the Democrat Party is Washington has something to do with the situation?
Post by: hunthard on May 17, 2021, 12:14:49 PM
Post by: Special T on May 17, 2021, 12:20:39 PM
The salmon problem is complex and likely many different adjustments are necessary. I will also add that I have not dove deep into the subject. I have listened to several comission meetings on wildlife issues. Mc Issac always seems to ask for specific detailed examokes of how we could facilitate positive change. This requires more than just complaining ir being a keyboard warrior.
I belive one of the changes that has broad appeal is predator control. Cormorants, Merganzers, seals and such could me managed. Its not easy but it is an area that Tribes have extra authority to excercise, and agreement with sportsmen. Have you written the comission, the senate or house Nat resource committee, joined and advocated with a sportsmens group?
I have and must say that the solution will not be one miracle cure but fixing lots of smaller contributing problems.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: wags on May 17, 2021, 04:27:56 PM
I won't argue against your points, most of them are quite valid. However, here we are now, what do we do?All the arguments are now pretty much moot.Yeah and none of the rivers in Bristol bay have ever been dammed. Not entirely sure why people think that decreased salmon runs are the tribes fault. Did the tribes put a city of a couple million people on the water where the salmon run? Did the tribes damn all the rivers? Maybe the tribes have had huge commercial operations in the oceans? What’s the population of the tribes vs not? Seems to me that percentage wise the tribes have done more than anyone to try and protect the salmon runs. But now that it’s all been messed up and they have rights to fish while you don’t it’s their fault? Man some people can’t see the past at all.
Most of the Puget Sound salmon runs doomed. Too many people want too few fish, too much toxic runoff into the waters of the Sound, too much politics, etc, etc..
I am a commercial salmon fisherman in Alaska where the runs that I fish are the most scientifically and intensely managed runs in the world. Our Bristol Bay sockeye runs have been getting bigger and bigger over the past ten years, exceeding projected run sizes nearly every year. Kings runs are even increasing in our district. All wild fish.
Almost all of the Treaty fishing in Washington is sustained by hatchery runs. Heavy fishing on a river that has mixed stocks of few wild fish and large runs of hatchery fish will ultimately wipe-out the wild fish; absolutely no question about it.
Perhaps the fact that the Tribes are the largest political donors to the Democrat Party is Washington has something to do with the situation?
The tribes are putting more salmon into the water from hatcheries now than the State does. The problem is when those healthy runs of hatchery fish come back along with scarce native fish, the wild fish are caught along with the natives in a non-selective manner. This will result in the extinction of the wild runs.
There are selective methods (fish traps) that are being developed on the Columbia river that allow the wild fish to be released. Maybe these methods should be explored on Puget Sound rivers as well?
Post by: Platensek-po on May 17, 2021, 07:17:03 PM
I won't argue against your points, most of them are quite valid. However, here we are now, what do we do?All the arguments are now pretty much moot.Yeah and none of the rivers in Bristol bay have ever been dammed. Not entirely sure why people think that decreased salmon runs are the tribes fault. Did the tribes put a city of a couple million people on the water where the salmon run? Did the tribes damn all the rivers? Maybe the tribes have had huge commercial operations in the oceans? What’s the population of the tribes vs not? Seems to me that percentage wise the tribes have done more than anyone to try and protect the salmon runs. But now that it’s all been messed up and they have rights to fish while you don’t it’s their fault? Man some people can’t see the past at all.
Most of the Puget Sound salmon runs doomed. Too many people want too few fish, too much toxic runoff into the waters of the Sound, too much politics, etc, etc..
I am a commercial salmon fisherman in Alaska where the runs that I fish are the most scientifically and intensely managed runs in the world. Our Bristol Bay sockeye runs have been getting bigger and bigger over the past ten years, exceeding projected run sizes nearly every year. Kings runs are even increasing in our district. All wild fish.
Almost all of the Treaty fishing in Washington is sustained by hatchery runs. Heavy fishing on a river that has mixed stocks of few wild fish and large runs of hatchery fish will ultimately wipe-out the wild fish; absolutely no question about it.
Perhaps the fact that the Tribes are the largest political donors to the Democrat Party is Washington has something to do with the situation?
The tribes are putting more salmon into the water from hatcheries now than the State does. The problem is when those healthy runs of hatchery fish come back along with scarce native fish, the wild fish are caught along with the natives in a non-selective manner. This will result in the extinction of the wild runs.
There are selective methods (fish traps) that are being developed on the Columbia river that allow the wild fish to be released. Maybe these methods should be explored on Puget Sound rivers as well?
I agree. I’m not saying that the natives are all glorious stewards of their fisheries. Nor do I think they are out their trying to lay waste to salmon. I think salmon face a huge uphill battle for various reasons. Hatcheries are and have been a problem. Habitat is key but at this point how much will it matter?? Oceanic conditions are also changing and playing a role. Truth is salmon are somewhat of a delicate niche species and therefore will be difficult to sustain. I don’t think there is one glorious save everything answer either. The answer is uncomfortable for most and requires sacrifices and hard work from everyone. Heck that’s hard to get even half the people to do either much less all.
Post by: h20hunter on May 17, 2021, 07:18:42 PM