Post by: silverdalesauer on March 13, 2023, 01:35:55 PM
Officials in California have issued a ban on salmon fishing anywhere along the state's coast for the remainder of the season, as the state's yearslong drought is still taking its toll on the once-abundant fish population.
In a recent announcement, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife said salmon fisheries that were originally scheduled to open on April 1 would remain closed through May 15. The decision came as part of a broader effort, involving state agencies in Oregon as well as the National Marine Fisheries Service, to cancel ocean salmon fishing along much of the coast — from Cape Falcon, Oregon, to the U.S.-Mexico border.
For California, the ban aims to protect the Chinook species of salmon, which previously inhabited several of the state's largest rivers and in recent years have been seen in dwindling numbers.
Thanks to multiple atmospheric river storms in California, rivers on land are roaring but the effects of years of drought are now being seen on the salmon population, CBS Bay Area reported. Last year, just 60,000 of the adult fish returned to the Sacramento River to spawn, officials said. This was a small fraction of the 196,000 fish expected there, and approached a record annual low for the area, according to the fish and wildlife department. Officials are also hoping that the fishing ban will prevent the Chinook population from decreasing further in the Klamath River, which is also threatened.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council has proposed additional policies to regulate salmon fishing off the coast of California through the spring of 2024, wildlife officials said. The proposals, which would ban commercial and ocean salmon sport fishing until April of next year, were approved by the council for public review at the end of last week.
This is the second time in history that California has canceled fishing season, CBS Bay Area reported, with the last ban taking place between 2008 and 2009 in response to another prolonged drought period.
"Fishery managers have determined that there simply aren't enough salmon in the ocean right now to comfortably get a return of adult salmon to reproduce for 2023," said John McManus, president of the Golden State Salmon Association, in comments to CBS Bay Area.
Jared Davis, who operates a charter boat for sport fishermen, told the station his entire summer has been wiped out.
"It's devastating," he told the station. "This is more than just an income issue for me. It's an inability to do what I love. So, on a financial level and on a personal level, it's devastating."
Dwindling marine life populations prompted wildlife officials in Alaska to cancel the winter snow crab season in the Bering Sea near the end of last year. It was a first in the state's history.
Post by: silverdalesauer on March 13, 2023, 01:38:13 PM
Today, on recommendation from California and Oregon agency representatives and industry advisors, the National Marine Fisheries Service took inseason action(opens in new tab) to cancel ocean salmon fishery openers that were scheduled between Cape Falcon, Ore., and the U.S./Mexico border through May 15.
The sport fishery had been scheduled to open off California in most areas on April 1. The actions were taken to protect Sacramento River fall Chinook, which returned to the Central Valley in 2022 at near-record low numbers, and Klamath River fall Chinook, which had the second lowest abundance forecast since the current assessment method began in 1997.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) has produced three regulatory options (PDF)(opens in new tab) for the May 16, 2023, through May 15, 2024, time period. None of the three options would authorize commercial or ocean salmon sport fishing off California until April 2024. The alternatives were approved by the PFMC for public review today.
On March 21, 2023, the PFMC will hold a public hearing in Santa Rosa to receive public comment on the three proposed regulatory alternatives. The PFMC will then meet April 1-7 in Foster City to adopt final regulations. More information regarding the PFMC meetings and options can be found on the PFMC website at www.pcouncil.org(opens in new tab).
Post by: RB on March 13, 2023, 01:51:35 PM
Post by: hunter399 on March 13, 2023, 01:56:10 PM
King inslee is all about the salmon.
Post by: Bareback on March 13, 2023, 02:30:19 PM
Post by: Skillet on March 13, 2023, 03:14:15 PM
Fishing politics makes for strange bedfellows, for certain.
Post by: Fidelk on March 13, 2023, 03:42:33 PM
Post by: Stein on March 13, 2023, 04:07:20 PM
Post by: Stein on March 13, 2023, 04:08:53 PM
WA is a very complicated fishery, and Inslee doesn't have the power to just shut it all down. Of CA, OR and WA, WA will be the last to lose salmon fishing entirely. You can actually thank the tribes for that. It's true, the Boldt decision did cut all harvest in half - but by doing so it allied Washington fishermen with one of the most powerful lobbies around.
Fishing politics makes for strange bedfellows, for certain.
So tribal and rec/commercial fishing are connected? What would prevent shutting down our half and keeping the tribal half going? I have no idea, honest question.
Post by: Jake Dogfish on March 13, 2023, 04:17:10 PM
The tribes don’t want to shut down commercial fishing, they called Inslees recent support of a bill to ban gillnets in the Columbia racist.WA is a very complicated fishery, and Inslee doesn't have the power to just shut it all down. Of CA, OR and WA, WA will be the last to lose salmon fishing entirely. You can actually thank the tribes for that. It's true, the Boldt decision did cut all harvest in half - but by doing so it allied Washington fishermen with one of the most powerful lobbies around.
Fishing politics makes for strange bedfellows, for certain.
So tribal and rec/commercial fishing are connected? What would prevent shutting down our half and keeping the tribal half going? I have no idea, honest question.
If anything, they would get rid of sport fishing first.
Post by: Fidelk on March 13, 2023, 04:22:19 PM
Post by: storyteller on March 13, 2023, 05:00:46 PM
Post by: Wetwoodshunter on March 13, 2023, 05:09:22 PM
WA is a very complicated fishery, and Inslee doesn't have the power to just shut it all down. Of CA, OR and WA, WA will be the last to lose salmon fishing entirely. You can actually thank the tribes for that. It's true, the Boldt decision did cut all harvest in half - but by doing so it allied Washington fishermen with one of the most powerful lobbies around.
Fishing politics makes for strange bedfellows, for certain.
So tribal and rec/commercial fishing are connected? What would prevent shutting down our half and keeping the tribal half going? I have no idea, honest question.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/2022%20-%202023%20Final%20LOAF%20w%20signatures.pdf
Here you go it is all in here.
Post by: jstone on March 13, 2023, 05:40:01 PM
Post by: Skillet on March 13, 2023, 10:23:28 PM
https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-04/2022%20-%202023%20Final%20LOAF%20w%20signatures.pdf
Here you go it is all in here.
That's last year's North of Falcon meeting outcome. It is interesting to see how it all worked out. Those meetings are so contentious there's no predicting what comes out of them year-to-year.
What is certain, however, is that our carts are hitched to the tribal horses in Washington. If they fish, the cowboys fish.
Does anybody remember the old "EF Hutton" commericals? When Ef hutton speaks, everyone listens. That is the way I see it when people like Skillet and Tbar speak, what we don't know is pretty amazing
There are a handful of guys on this site that are far more knowledgeable about NOF than I am. But I agree, there is much unsaid on this topic.
Post by: Skillet on March 13, 2023, 11:04:42 PM
WA is a very complicated fishery, and Inslee doesn't have the power to just shut it all down. Of CA, OR and WA, WA will be the last to lose salmon fishing entirely. You can actually thank the tribes for that. It's true, the Boldt decision did cut all harvest in half - but by doing so it allied Washington fishermen with one of the most powerful lobbies around.
Fishing politics makes for strange bedfellows, for certain.
So tribal and rec/commercial fishing are connected? What would prevent shutting down our half and keeping the tribal half going? I have no idea, honest question.
That's a possibility, but the general idea is we split the allowable harvest 50/50. Half of nothing is nothing, and if there is nothing to harvest everybody is out. The basic point is that the tribal "momentum" is very strong, and it would be a very heavy lift for the federal agencies to deny the tribes a harvest of fish if there are fish available based on the models in place.
I'm trying to decide how much I want to say on an open forum, but I think it's fair to say that once the TAC (total allowable catch) is established, it's going to be caught. By whomever is there to do the catching. If comm's and recs are shut out, that doesn't mean any certain increase of fish to the gravel. The TAC will be exploited. There is no political cover for cancelling the cowboy fishery, short of simply handing over 100% of the TAC to the tribes and permanently beaching the cowboy fleets.
I just can't see that happening, in the forseeable future, anyway.
I'm standing ready and willing to be corrected if any of the WA fish politics gurus on here want to chip in. Hoping @Tbar catches this and might be able to confirm or deny.
Post by: Stein on March 14, 2023, 06:08:50 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 14, 2023, 08:07:51 AM
Post by: Whitefoot on March 14, 2023, 08:14:30 AM
WA is a very complicated fishery, and Inslee doesn't have the power to just shut it all down. Of CA, OR and WA, WA will be the last to lose salmon fishing entirely. You can actually thank the tribes for that. It's true, the Boldt decision did cut all harvest in half - but by doing so it allied Washington fishermen with one of the most powerful lobbies around.
Fishing politics makes for strange bedfellows, for certain.
So tribal and rec/commercial fishing are connected? What would prevent shutting down our half and keeping the tribal half going? I have no idea, honest question.
That's a possibility, but the general idea is we split the allowable harvest 50/50. Half of nothing is nothing, and if there is nothing to harvest everybody is out. The basic point is that the tribal "momentum" is very strong, and it would be a very heavy lift for the federal agencies to deny the tribes a harvest of fish if there are fish available based on the models in place.
I'm trying to decide how much I want to say on an open forum, but I think it's fair to say that once the TAC (total allowable catch) is established, it's going to be caught. By whomever is there to do the catching. If comm's and recs are shut out, that doesn't mean any certain increase of fish to the gravel. The TAC will be exploited. There is no political cover for cancelling the cowboy fishery, short of simply handing over 100% of the TAC to the tribes and permanently beaching the cowboy fleets.
I just can't see that happening, in the forseeable future, anyway.
I'm standing ready and willing to be corrected if any of the WA fish politics gurus on here want to chip in. Hoping @Tbar catches this and might be able to confirm or deny.
Post by: baker5150 on March 14, 2023, 08:36:29 AM
Basically pay them not to fish.
Post by: Skillet on March 14, 2023, 08:42:25 AM
After watching the spring bear fiasco, I have little faith that we are basing anything on science. Between Orcas and wild fish conservancy, it honestly wouldn't surprise me if WA chose to determine there was zero surplus for man and we needed to leave it alone. I do agree the tribes would likely not play that game, but the rest of us would have little recourse.
WDFW can ignore their own scientists at will, but can't easily say the federal model that justifies the TAC isn't valid. And if they did, it wouldn't matter, since the fish will be caught anyway.
It *kind of* works like this:
Let's say the federal model spits out a TAC of 20 kings and 100 coho.
North of Falcon meetings then happen. This is the group of sausage-makers that hash out who gets what. Reps from WDFW, ODFW (Oregon), the tribes, commercial industry, recreational sector, various gov't agencies, etc attend.
To simplify things, let's say that of their half (10 kings, 50 coho), the tribes agree to trade 25 of their coho for 5 of the non-tribal king allotment. So now the split looks like:
Tribes - 15 kings, 25 coho
Cowboys - 5 kings, 75 coho.
The WDFW has secured more fish to catch (ie., "Opportunity") and the tribes have secured more commercial value. A gross oversimplification, but you get the idea.
Now, the WDFW gets to set seasons around the fish they have negotiated for. If at this point, the commission gets cute and wants to make a political statement about how few fish there are and cancel all cowboy salmon seasons, it won't matter. The TAC set by the feds will be caught by the remaining entities that are on the water due the the NOF meeting outcome.
In this grossly oversimplified case, the tribes will just catch all 20 kings and 100 coho, as is their right if the cowboys don't fish. WDFW doesn't have any reason to eliminate the cowboy fisheries, other than to poke a stick in their constituent's eye.
It would be a wholesale forfeiture of opportunity with no actual benefit, and I just don't see that as a politically defensible position for the commission.
:twocents:
Post by: Skillet on March 14, 2023, 08:48:23 AM
At what point will the State attempt to buy out the Tribes.
Basically pay them not to fish.
I think never. Fishing is a tribal right in Washington State, per the treaties everybody signed and the Boldt decision clarifying the meaning of the term "in common with all citizens of the Territory."
Post by: Stein on March 14, 2023, 08:56:36 AM
After watching the spring bear fiasco, I have little faith that we are basing anything on science. Between Orcas and wild fish conservancy, it honestly wouldn't surprise me if WA chose to determine there was zero surplus for man and we needed to leave it alone. I do agree the tribes would likely not play that game, but the rest of us would have little recourse.
WDFW can ignore their own scientists at will, but can't easily say the federal model that justifies the TAC isn't valid. And if they did, it wouldn't matter, since the fish will be caught anyway.
It *kind of* works like this:
Let's say the federal model spits out a TAC of 20 kings and 100 coho.
North of Falcon meetings then happen. This is the group of sausage-makers that hash out who gets what. Reps from WDFW, ODFW (Oregon), the tribes, commercial industry, recreational sector, various gov't agencies, etc attend.
To simplify things, let's say that of their half (10 kings, 50 coho), the tribes agree to trade 25 of their coho for 5 of the non-tribal king allotment. So now the split looks like:
Tribes - 15 kings, 25 coho
Cowboys - 5 kings, 75 coho.
The WDFW has secured more fish to catch (ie., "Opportunity") and the tribes have secured more commercial value. A gross oversimplification, but you get the idea.
Now, the WDFW gets to set seasons around the fish they have negotiated for. If at this point, the commission gets cute and wants to make a political statement about how few fish there are and cancel all cowboy salmon seasons, it won't matter. The TAC set by the feds will be caught by the remaining entities that are on the water due the the NOF meeting outcome.
In this grossly oversimplified case, the tribes will just catch all 20 kings and 100 coho, as is their right if the cowboys don't fish. WDFW doesn't have any reason to eliminate the cowboy fisheries, other than to poke a stick in their constituent's eye.
It would be a wholesale forfeiture of opportunity with no actual benefit, and I just don't see that as a politically defensible position for the commission.
:twocents:
Thanks, that makes sense. The benefit fishing has over hunting in this state is that there are fishing groups that have political swing. There are also more people fishing than hunting.
Honestly, the politics in this state are more slacktivist than activist, meaning they like to do stuff that makes them feel good as opposed to making an actual difference. Thus, I don't think they would really care what the tribes did, they would feel good about shutting down cowboy exploitation of an endangered resource that is starving federally protected, dwindling orcas and reducing genetic purity and diversity needed to recover federally endangered fish species.
See how easy that is? The Boldt decision simply says each side gets half. It doesn't guarantee either side will TAKE their half, just that they have the right to it if they want it.
I'm not sure any of the safeties in our system didn't also exist in CA, probably to an even larger degree - more boats, more people, more gear sales and that didn't help them.
Post by: Taco280AI on March 14, 2023, 11:08:44 AM
Post by: baker5150 on March 14, 2023, 11:11:09 AM
At what point will the State attempt to buy out the Tribes.
Basically pay them not to fish.
I think never. Fishing is a tribal right in Washington State, per the treaties everybody signed and the Boldt decision clarifying the meaning of the term "in common with all citizens of the Territory."
I'm talking about a voluntary, temporary buy out.
Post by: Stein on March 14, 2023, 11:25:14 AM
I bet an agreement like that is possible, who wouldn't want to be paid to not work provided their subsistence and ceremonial needs are met.
The NOF process doesn't look at all aspects when they come up with their magic number. The state could simply say, hey, our science says the right number is much lower when you take into account the needs of Orcas, climate change and the hot wind from Olympia. So, we're going to drop the cowboy harvest and pay the tribe to drop theirs. Done deal, we get to pay more in tax to not fish. :(
Post by: Skillet on March 14, 2023, 11:45:46 AM
The state could pay the tribes not to fish. Say the Tulalips catch 10,000 salmon this year (completely made up number). They sign an agreement with the state saying instead of 10k fish, we're going to only catch 1k for ceremonial and subsistence in return for the state paying us $X.
I bet an agreement like that is possible, who wouldn't want to be paid to not work provided their subsistence and ceremonial needs are met.
The NOF process doesn't look at all aspects when they come up with their magic number. The state could simply say, hey, our science says the right number is much lower when you take into account the needs of Orcas, climate change and the hot wind from Olympia. So, we're going to drop the cowboy harvest and pay the tribe to drop theirs. Done deal, we get to pay more in tax to not fish. :(
That is a possible scenario, I suppose. But based on my experience in this industry and knowing the players involved, I find it extraordinarily unlikely.
You're starting to worry me with your fervor to find a way to shut down the cowboy fisheries Stein! :chuckle:
Post by: salmosalar on March 14, 2023, 01:40:29 PM
After watching the spring bear fiasco, I have little faith that we are basing anything on science. Between Orcas and wild fish conservancy, it honestly wouldn't surprise me if WA chose to determine there was zero surplus for man and we needed to leave it alone. I do agree the tribes would likely not play that game, but the rest of us would have little recourse.
WDFW can ignore their own scientists at will, but can't easily say the federal model that justifies the TAC isn't valid. And if they did, it wouldn't matter, since the fish will be caught anyway.
It *kind of* works like this:
Let's say the federal model spits out a TAC of 20 kings and 100 coho.
North of Falcon meetings then happen. This is the group of sausage-makers that hash out who gets what. Reps from WDFW, ODFW (Oregon), the tribes, commercial industry, recreational sector, various gov't agencies, etc attend.
To simplify things, let's say that of their half (10 kings, 50 coho), the tribes agree to trade 25 of their coho for 5 of the non-tribal king allotment. So now the split looks like:
Tribes - 15 kings, 25 coho
Cowboys - 5 kings, 75 coho.
The WDFW has secured more fish to catch (ie., "Opportunity") and the tribes have secured more commercial value. A gross oversimplification, but you get the idea.
Now, the WDFW gets to set seasons around the fish they have negotiated for. If at this point, the commission gets cute and wants to make a political statement about how few fish there are and cancel all cowboy salmon seasons, it won't matter. The TAC set by the feds will be caught by the remaining entities that are on the water due the the NOF meeting outcome.
In this grossly oversimplified case, the tribes will just catch all 20 kings and 100 coho, as is their right if the cowboys don't fish. WDFW doesn't have any reason to eliminate the cowboy fisheries, other than to poke a stick in their constituent's eye.
It would be a wholesale forfeiture of opportunity with no actual benefit, and I just don't see that as a politically defensible position for the commission.
:twocents:
Thanks, that makes sense. The benefit fishing has over hunting in this state is that there are fishing groups that have political swing. There are also more people fishing than hunting.
Honestly, the politics in this state are more slacktivist than activist, meaning they like to do stuff that makes them feel good as opposed to making an actual difference. Thus, I don't think they would really care what the tribes did, they would feel good about shutting down cowboy exploitation of an endangered resource that is starving federally protected, dwindling orcas and reducing genetic purity and diversity needed to recover federally endangered fish species.
See how easy that is? The Boldt decision simply says each side gets half. It doesn't guarantee either side will TAKE their half, just that they have the right to it if they want it.
I'm not sure any of the safeties in our system didn't also exist in CA, probably to an even larger degree - more boats, more people, more gear sales and that didn't help them.
"Foregone opportunity" has not been adjudicated. The state used to argue that if the native share was not taken then the cowboys could take them. They called it "foregone opportunity". It has never been before a court as to whether foregone opportunity is actually a legally justified. The risk in this scenario is that a judge will say that it is.
The court hearing such a case would be a federal court, not a state one.
My understanding is the the state could stop all fishing based on conservation needs. I don't think that will happen due to politics but that is the only way that the state can keep natives from fishing as I understand it.
Post by: Stein on March 14, 2023, 05:17:32 PM
The state could pay the tribes not to fish. Say the Tulalips catch 10,000 salmon this year (completely made up number). They sign an agreement with the state saying instead of 10k fish, we're going to only catch 1k for ceremonial and subsistence in return for the state paying us $X.
I bet an agreement like that is possible, who wouldn't want to be paid to not work provided their subsistence and ceremonial needs are met.
The NOF process doesn't look at all aspects when they come up with their magic number. The state could simply say, hey, our science says the right number is much lower when you take into account the needs of Orcas, climate change and the hot wind from Olympia. So, we're going to drop the cowboy harvest and pay the tribe to drop theirs. Done deal, we get to pay more in tax to not fish. :(
That is a possible scenario, I suppose. But based on my experience in this industry and knowing the players involved, I find it extraordinarily unlikely.
You're starting to worry me with your fervor to find a way to shut down the cowboy fisheries Stein! :chuckle:
I hope I'm wrong. I do think WA is becoming a test bed to try out some wacky stuff that won't be friendly to sportsmen. All bets are off when the politicians start messing with fish and game management.
Post by: Skillet on March 14, 2023, 05:31:31 PM
Post by: HUNTIN4SIX on March 14, 2023, 06:01:14 PM
Post by: metlhead on March 14, 2023, 07:04:09 PM
Post by: bigdub257 on March 14, 2023, 07:33:45 PM
I will fish. I will hunt.
:yeah:
Post by: metlhead on March 14, 2023, 07:59:26 PM
Post by: Bullkllr on March 14, 2023, 08:21:05 PM
Growing up in the '70s, surrounded by some of the most hardcore steelhead guys one would ever know, I find our dwindling opportunities disheartening. Heck, my dad quit fishing the rivers in the early '90s because he wasn't gonna waste a whole morning to hook only a half dozen fish. They saw reductions coming in spite of massive hatchery output and return. I believe now, we can almost see the end. It is a shame to cut out the consumer group that funds a large part of what is still available. Like we taught our local community children that for years did water quality, Stream Team, River of Words, and cleanup, folks that do not get to enjoy a resource will eventually not care about it. The same will happen with the salmon. Watch the State try to bring em back then.That's pretty much my story and I agree with your conclusion. Recovery has been mostly virtue signalling lip-service. The state will be happy with remnant/ghosted populations of wild fish. Then they can sell permits for city dwellers and newcomers to go look at orcas and sea lions.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 25, 2023, 09:46:52 AM
I'd guess that all the people that want to fish will head to what remains open....and those places will close early.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 25, 2023, 10:21:11 AM
Post by: metlhead on March 25, 2023, 10:57:08 AM
Post by: Stein on March 25, 2023, 12:22:37 PM
Why cull sea lions? They are one reason we supplement with hatchery fish. Salmon are for them. It is worrisome that many more folks will come north, increasing total catch. State is sure to hit the panic button again.
How do the sea lions know to only eat hatchery fish?
We created an artificial environment that allowed furbags populations to explode and coupled that with things like small holes in dams that allow them to hunt far more effectively than in the wild which then further increases their numbers.
Look at the studies out there, furbags are at the top of the list of things that kill salmon. They are one of the few things on the list we could do something about today and effect this fall's run.
Post by: metlhead on March 25, 2023, 12:25:17 PM
ut a dead horse.