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.What then should WDFW do?
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.What then should WDFW do?
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 agree with you 100%
What then should WDFW do?
How do the not abdicate their role in harvest management given the process that they must go through to permit their fisheries?
Take for instance, the state moving slowly opening announcing a C&R season. It's been delayed as they wait to get agreement with the Upper Skagit Tribe on their run size forecast. I could make the case that it is functional co-management. Would it be wise to fall on the sword of expediency in this case? I mean this may be one of the few times that the state and the tribes may agree on something. What value would be placed on doing it quicker vs. the risk of losing the tribe as a potential ally on this one angling opportunity?
Everyone screams about "the state" or WDFW when it comes to these issues. No one seems to care enough to figure out he actual dynamic. If there was one thing that I learned going to those meetings to open the river it's that you have to understand the permitting pathway and the leverage any stakeholder may have. It seems to me that many people would rather get righteously indignant than to try and figure out a new path or find a way to change the paradigm. People love to get worked up and righteous. So often it get's in the way of actual success.
I am a bit past getting my kicks from emotion over fishing opportunities. I would much rather
You understand that the state can't unilaterally overturn Boldt no? It is a federal treaty. It has been adjudicated. I am not sure that there are even appeal rights at this point. Regardless of whatever else you may believe to be the case, it's a federal treaty. It isn't any different than an arms control treaty with Russia. The State is powerless. You can scream louder and be angrier but in the end, if you are screaming at The State of Washington, you are pissing in the wind. Federal treaties are more powerful than nearly anything else.
Unfortunately, there's only 2 ways to go about doing it.Honest question: how is a treaty terminated?
I agree with your take on treaty/non-treaty effects on fishing being minimal at best.Ian,
In an "ideal" world for whom? Treaty fishing by tribes is not an entitlement, regardless of how others feel about it. It is a treaty reserved right, protected by federal law. The treaty was enacted at a time when Indians still outnumbered whites, even if not by a very large amount. Legally, it doesn't matter what percentage of the state's population is treaty Indian. I strongly doubt that revisiting Boldt would result in it being overturned, because the applicable laws have not changed. Only Congress can change the applicable law. Former WA state Senator Slade Gorton attempted to do just that in the 1980s, and the effort fell flat on its face. Sentiment toward Indians switched from anti to pro in that time period, and there is little to no indication that it has changed.
Actions by the WA state governor and legislature are irrelevant in anything pertaining to treaty Indian fishing. The treaties are federal, and federal law trumps state law every single time.
Despite how you feel about this subject, there are analyses indicating that the present status of steelhead populations statewide, with the possible exception of the Quinault and Queets, is unaffected by either treaty or non-treaty fishing over the last 40 years. That doesn't mean that steelhead runs are at historically high abundance; far from it. What it means is that even if no steelhead fishing at all, treaty and non-treaty, had occurred over the past 40 years, most of the wild steelhead populations would be in the same status of low abundance as they presently are. Droughts, floods, and higher water temperatures have had some negative effects on freshwater productivity. But the over-riding consideration factor, by a very long shot, has been the very severe reduction in ocean survival rates. That could be due to increased predation, decreased primary and secondary productivity, competition, and probably more. The take home point being, for every 100 steelhead smolts entering salt water these days, fewer return subsequently as adults than did 10, 20, or 30 years ago.
Well...unless it involves getting high.and federal law trumps state law every single time.
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.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.
As Ian posted, either bilateral negotiated agreement or a unilateral act of Congress.Honest question: how is a treaty terminated?
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.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.
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....
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?
Which would mean on closed systems, the tribes should not fishIf 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
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 intoCharles -
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
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.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.