Free: Contests & Raffles.
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.
Quote from: Skillet on March 13, 2023, 03:14:15 PMWA 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.pdfHere you go it is all in here.
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
Quote from: Stein on March 13, 2023, 04:08:53 PMQuote from: Skillet on March 13, 2023, 03:14:15 PMWA 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.
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.
At what point will the State attempt to buy out the Tribes.Basically pay them not to fish.
Quote from: Stein on March 14, 2023, 06:08:50 AMAfter 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 cohoCowboys - 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.
Quote from: baker5150 on March 14, 2023, 08:36:29 AMAt 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."
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.
Quote from: Skillet on March 14, 2023, 08:42:25 AMQuote from: Stein on March 14, 2023, 06:08:50 AMAfter 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 cohoCowboys - 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. 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.
Quote from: Stein on March 14, 2023, 11:25:14 AMThe 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!
I will fish. I will hunt.
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.
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.
