Same as the tribes. WDFW doesn't tell the tribes how to prosecute tribal fisheries. Neither should the tribes be telling WDFW how to prosecute the non-treaty fisheries.
Proposed Coastal Steelhead Rules
- Thread starter brownheron
- Start date
Honest question: how is a treaty terminated?
I should clarify that "the state" is in quotes repeatedly to indicate that I'm referring to government as a whole, not just WA state. That said, federal stances can absolutely be challenged by individual states, we see it more and more every day in the political arena. How many lawsuits have been filed by red/blue states against the past 2 administrations and specific pieces of legislation?
I'll continue to be passionate about our dwindling opportunities in the great outdoors. Just another factor in the precipitous societal decay the PNW has seen in the past decade. Worth getting worked up about, imho.
Sent an email to Losee last night asking what anglers can do to help, so it's not all talk.
Unfortunately, there's only 2 ways to go about doing it.
1) bilateral agreement to either disband or amend the treaty
2) one side unilaterally terminates, thus breaking the treaty, and all hell breaks loose (this was the US' default policy in the late 1800s that led to countless conflicts)
Treaties are a big deal. Article 6 in the US Constitution asserts that "treaties are the supreme law of the land". Treaties are built upon trust law, so the framework is designed to last in perpetuity. This obviously gets messy in a hurry since times inevitably change.
What once may have been the path of least resistance for both parties in a treaty eventually leads to an ongoing hostage situation like we see between tribes and the US today. The US was originally supposed to adopt the role of "guardian" over the tribes, providing protection, health care, education, etc...in exchange for massive tracts of former tribal land. All fine and good on paper, but a quick drive through your local indian rez illustrates the effectiveness of these agreements.
This brings me back to my question in my earlier comment, if tribal members so strongly disagree with gill-netting, and so strongly wish to see free-flowing rivers full of wild fish, where dey at?! Ball is in their court, always has been. A treaty could be renegotiated anytime with tribal leadership onboard, and that's a fact.
I agree with your take on treaty/non-treaty effects on fishing being minimal at best.
My point is that us non-treaty anglers seemingly give up ground every single year under the guise of helping the fish, while the tribes continue to net the rivers and we simply take it. The messaging is ludicrous.
"No bait, it helps the fish", thank you sir may I have another. "Single point barbless only, it helps the fish", thank you sir may I have another. "No fishing from a boat, it helps the fish", thank you sir may I have another.
Meanwhile, our treaty brethren are setting gillnets with jet sleds (very traditional method steeped in tradition) 3-4ths across the same rivers we're told are most threatened. Regardless of the impact of either user group, you can't tell me that situation isn't completely FUBAR. The closed door meetings you refer too make the situation even harder to stomach.
I too am a loud and proud proponent of the exact regulations Rob proposed, year round fishing, CnR all wild fish, selective gear, no nets. Doesn't matter who your parents are or which one of your relatives were wronged 5 generations back, we all want more fish and a level playing field. Pretty damn simple for the average angler to agree with, but damn near impossible for the governmental/bureaucratic monstrosities to do anything but manage a resource into irrelevance.
Well...unless it involves getting high.
They should not be dictating policy but they can due to leverage. They can because it's difficult to justify any saltwater fisheries impacts on Chinook. The whole whale thing really makes chinook the driving factor in all of PS.
How many impacts are available for the S. Fork Nooksack Springers? What impacts are available for Sauk springs? I find it funny (odd) that he Stilly is the stream that the tribes use for leverage when negotiating saltwater fisheries but they probably could shut everything down using other streams or lumping the risk of multiple streams. Wouldn't NMFS look at all the streams if WDFW "went it alone?" The effort to keep the saltwater boat fishing going is what is driving the lack of leverage everywhere else, or at least the PS. The whole time, the department is in a constant no win situation. I understand the frustration but the frustration for me is geared towards the situation more than WDFW.
Look at the Queets. It's a stream that I dearly miss. The tribes will net their hatch fish along with the will bycatch for 36 days right. Sport anglers will get 0 days. The runs are not sufficient for WDFW to have a season. What would happen if they did open a C&R season? I'm fairly sure that all hell would break loose from the three letter acronym groups (TLA's). Which TLA would strike first? I'm guessing WFC but it could be another. Would the tribes balk? I suspect not actually. However, WDFW can not open a season there. How can they win? Can anyone make a plausible argument as to how WDFW has mismanaged the Queets into it's current state?
The tribes pushed to close the Chehalis to steelhead fishing. What steelhead fishing? Is there a thriving gear show that I don't know about? Is this the hill to die on? If it opened, what TLA sues given it's current run sizes. If it doesn't open are we going to hear the same TLA's wine because to many hatchery fish hit the gravel (answer: yes). The solution to that is to end hatchery plants. This would lead to....yup you guessed it, no fishing.
As far as the no bait, year round C&R. That is all well and good as an idea. In fact, I don't see it having any real impact myself. However, the situation as it is makes it a non-starter. The question would be which TLA sues first. Departments of all types dislike being sued. It's expensive, time consuming and helps accomplish exactly 0 goals that a department may have.
So the question remains: How is it possible to change the paradigm? The answer is more fish. WDFW is not able to do that.
I'd much rather be having this discussion with you and WW over a glass of wine after a day of fishing. However, this is what we have left, talking about opportunities that we used to have or wished that we had. So, instead of prepping for winter fishing, I'm going hunting this weekend.
Do you like elk? If I am successful, I'll be headed past Oly and would love to have a beer.
As Ian posted, either bilateral negotiated agreement or a unilateral act of Congress.
If by ". . . we simply take it" you mean that the treaty tribes just do their thing independently and without caring what the non-treaty sector does, then yes. What should we be doing? The job of a commercial fisherman is to catch as many fish as fast and efficiently as possible. The job of a treaty fishery manager is to regulate fishing so that a sufficient number of fish escape to spawn to perpetuate the population. Most treaty fishermen and managers don't give a rat's ass whether you get to fish or not, let alone have any concern about the quality of the fishing you experience. So you may want a level playing field; the tribes, not so much. They like having lots of leverage. And yes, some government fish management agencies may manage the steelhead resource into irrelevance, and I have postulated that WDFW may have already worked itself into agency irrelevance with respect to salmon and steelhead.
Charles,
Nooksack and Sauk springs are lumped with the summer and fall Chinook, so no special considerations are given. The Stilly stands out in the basins of origin analysis and therefore is the driving stock. It's a sad state because wild Stilly Chinook are not recoverable any time soon, say the next 50 to 100 years. I think the best alternative is for WDFW and the Stilly Tribe to culture Stilly Chinook in the hatchery as a long-term measure so that they may recover to a naturally self-sustaining population in the future should the habitat recover. And meanwhile stop using the few wild fish, that are the product of hatchery fish spawning in the natural environment, to restrict fishing in Puget Sound and game fish seasons on the Stillaguamish River. But that would defeat the purpose of the Stilly Tribe's chairman to fvck with the state and non-treaty recreational fishermen.
WDFW could allow a Queets and Quinault non-treaty recreational CNR season with, most likely, no measurable effect on their respective steelhead populations, but that would require not managing by the numbers under the statewide steelhead management policy. Same for the Chehalis, which has its own steelhead run as well as being the funnel for several tributary rivers that have steelhead runs.
How is it possible to change the paradigm? The easiest way that I can think of is to update the 2008 statewide steelhead management plan. And if you're coming by with elk, there will be beer here. Actually there will be beer even if you don't have elk with you.
Nooksack and Sauk springs are lumped with the summer and fall Chinook, so no special considerations are given. The Stilly stands out in the basins of origin analysis and therefore is the driving stock. It's a sad state because wild Stilly Chinook are not recoverable any time soon, say the next 50 to 100 years. I think the best alternative is for WDFW and the Stilly Tribe to culture Stilly Chinook in the hatchery as a long-term measure so that they may recover to a naturally self-sustaining population in the future should the habitat recover. And meanwhile stop using the few wild fish, that are the product of hatchery fish spawning in the natural environment, to restrict fishing in Puget Sound and game fish seasons on the Stillaguamish River. But that would defeat the purpose of the Stilly Tribe's chairman to fvck with the state and non-treaty recreational fishermen.
WDFW could allow a Queets and Quinault non-treaty recreational CNR season with, most likely, no measurable effect on their respective steelhead populations, but that would require not managing by the numbers under the statewide steelhead management policy. Same for the Chehalis, which has its own steelhead run as well as being the funnel for several tributary rivers that have steelhead runs.
How is it possible to change the paradigm? The easiest way that I can think of is to update the 2008 statewide steelhead management plan. And if you're coming by with elk, there will be beer here. Actually there will be beer even if you don't have elk with you.
I just finished Mountain in the Clouds which chronicles the demise of PNW salmon. Pretty depressing book. Despite the fact people are always screaming " science is real," no one seems to pay much attention to it and it readily changes based on who might benefit and who's in power. Agencies like the Army Corp of Engineers are a joke, as are most every other state or federal agencies charged with enforcing fish friendly law or policy. Any time there has been an opportunity to make a buck, science, laws, and enforcement go out the window. From the book, "The long term effect of Washington's traditional policy of relying on hatcheries while not enforcing environmental laws has been the reduction of nutrient cycling of the sea and a rearrangement of those who benefit from the process." While I disagree with the approach many of the tribes have taken, they have been repeatedly screwed since the 19 century w/ no accountability for the transgressors. Overfishing, over logging, land stealing, etc. are just a few of the challenges faced over and over by the tribes. As I said, I disagree w/ their approach (which in the case of hatcheries is simply doing what we have done ineffectually), but understand how they might not play nice now that they have leverage. We are where we are from knowingly overfishing stocks, clear cutting leading to habitat degradation, dams w/out adequate fish passage, the commercial development of areas critical to salmon spawning, industrial pollution, and non-enforcement of mitigation requirements and other protective measures. Oh, and our politicians have eagerly played along when receiving campaign contributions from those who benefit from actions listed above. We've done it to ourselves.
Yeah... At the end of the day, to blame the Tribes is disingenuous at best. They aren't the ones telling us we can't fish; as @Salmo_g said, that's WDFW, acting on WDFW policy, which dictates no fishing over stocks not meeting escapement.
I think there is a very legitimate question about whether the Tribes should be fishing as usual, but it is their treaty right to do so, and as has been discussed, it doesn't really matter if their planned fisheries violate WDFW's rules. They really can do what they want; it's up to us whether we want to follow suit and schedule fisheries that very well might endanger wild stocks. We probably shouldn't, but man, speaking personally, the temptation to do the wrong thing is strong....
I think there is a very legitimate question about whether the Tribes should be fishing as usual, but it is their treaty right to do so, and as has been discussed, it doesn't really matter if their planned fisheries violate WDFW's rules. They really can do what they want; it's up to us whether we want to follow suit and schedule fisheries that very well might endanger wild stocks. We probably shouldn't, but man, speaking personally, the temptation to do the wrong thing is strong....
This is how the last salmon and steelhead die in this state. It happens in a "well our hands are tied" bureaucratic bullshit storm while we all watch a predictable outcome come to fruition as foretold by "the science" we "must follow". The only thing most stakeholders want to debate is who gets to kill the last one.
In a state where there is so much pride over progressive environmental policy nobody even questions tribal or commercial fishing in any genuine real sense. Again, why would the party on power go against one of the largest campaign contributors? Answer: they won't. Unless of course it's Jay "the snake" Inslee's pet carbon agenda. Then you get tribal presidents calling him a snake. To which I have to admit that is highly entertaining as much as it is saddening.
Forgive the ignorant question, but when the Boldt decision allocates only 50% of harvest to treaty tribes, why are systems closed to non treaty fishing being netted? Does this go back to the dispute between WDFW and the tribes regarding escapement numbers?
If you follow the science fifty percent of zero is zero...........
I don't think you're question is dumb. I've asked the same one myself. I look forward to a good answer.
Which would mean on closed systems, the tribes should not fish
You're not following the science......
Charles -
I your salmon example (Nooksack, Sauk, and Stilly) the details become very important. Those details are in the latest (2022) co-manager Puget Sound Chinook management plan.
Off the top of my head the alllowable impacts for the Stilly and Nooksack are similar while the allowed impacts for the Skagit springs (includes the sauk) are much higher so it would be unlikely that Skagit spring impacts would limit PS mixed recreational fisheries (an assumption that is the bases of your concerns). It could potentially become a concern if for some reason the non-treaty fisher opted to use the majority of their impacts for an in-river fishery.
When it comes to the Nooksack and the Stilly their individual stock migration patterns are hugely important. The majority of the Nooksack might north in Georgia straits and as result the vast majority of the Nooksack encounters in PS recreation occur in MA 7 and 6. While the Stilly fish mostly migrate north on the outside of Vancouver Island and the returning fish are encounter in a wider area - MA 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11. This result the fewer allowable Stilly impacts per MA thus usually the more limiting stock.
Yes complicated and the process does not make it easy to parse out these deals. Maybe I can join you and Salmo for that beer and get inot more detail if you want.
curt
I your salmon example (Nooksack, Sauk, and Stilly) the details become very important. Those details are in the latest (2022) co-manager Puget Sound Chinook management plan.
Off the top of my head the alllowable impacts for the Stilly and Nooksack are similar while the allowed impacts for the Skagit springs (includes the sauk) are much higher so it would be unlikely that Skagit spring impacts would limit PS mixed recreational fisheries (an assumption that is the bases of your concerns). It could potentially become a concern if for some reason the non-treaty fisher opted to use the majority of their impacts for an in-river fishery.
When it comes to the Nooksack and the Stilly their individual stock migration patterns are hugely important. The majority of the Nooksack might north in Georgia straits and as result the vast majority of the Nooksack encounters in PS recreation occur in MA 7 and 6. While the Stilly fish mostly migrate north on the outside of Vancouver Island and the returning fish are encounter in a wider area - MA 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11. This result the fewer allowable Stilly impacts per MA thus usually the more limiting stock.
Yes complicated and the process does not make it easy to parse out these deals. Maybe I can join you and Salmo for that beer and get inot more detail if you want.
curt
Complicated and frustrating from a management standpoint, but really fascinating from a biology standpoint. The different ways the different stocks migrate is a really interesting topic to get into
This "no one seems to pay much attention to it (science) and it readily changes based on who might benefit and who's in power" facsinates me and I completely agree. It seems to me in my brief existence that what's popular today as science may not be agreed upon or accepted tomorrow. I watched a half dozen members, each from a different agency (state, federal and tribe) discuss, debate and argue so many different facets of projects that my former employer was mandated to build, that timelines for the projects never met schedule. When one large and very complex project finally started to gain traction, suddenly the science of that particular spring Chinook's genetic origin came into question; oh, they've been extinct for decades and those captive brood don't represent the native (extinct? extirpated?) species.... The money spent on that project reached 8 figures and then abandoned.
Mountain in the Clouds, I'd like to say I really enjoyed the book but enjoy? It was very thought provoking.
