Treaty Fishing on the Stillaguamish

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Jason Griffith, Sep 27, 2012.

  1. Evan Burck

    Evan Burck Fudge Dragon

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,569
    Media:
    61
    Likes Received:
    1,742
    Location:
    Duvall, wa
    Home Page:
    Not really. I'm trying to make the point that we take far more than the stilly tribe does. If you want to start another debate, start another thread. All you do is come on and show how little you know or understand this issue. You think you know, but you don't. The problem with people who don't know much are that they're unaware of how little they know. Many on here on the opposing viewpoint of you have worked in fisheries for years. Literally their job. And you come on here saying they don't know anything. So if you're going to make claims about how many fish someone's taking, come back with evidence; hard numbers to back up your claim. That's all I'm asking.
     
    Jason Rolfe likes this.
  2. troutpounder

    troutpounder Active Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    315
    Likes Received:
    60
    Location:
    everett
    I am not saying they dont know, what i am saying is I have a DIFFERENCE in opinion. Your will never change my feeling towards in my opinion the unfair taking of resource, and I will never change yours. That is fine with me, but just because you disagree you say I dont know what I am talking about. That is kinda foolish....
     
    Fishlikeyoumeanit likes this.
  3. Evan Burck

    Evan Burck Fudge Dragon

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,569
    Media:
    61
    Likes Received:
    1,742
    Location:
    Duvall, wa
    Home Page:
    Our opinions are probably not so different. It's in what we choose to do with it where we differ. You choose to take an "us vs. them" approach, and those of us with more experience in the matter have taken to working with them to make things better for both of us. I can tell you right now which one works far, far better and actually sees results.
     
  4. troutpounder

    troutpounder Active Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    315
    Likes Received:
    60
    Location:
    everett
    Well I would say there should be no vs them at all. I would say it should be ONE set of rules and laws that ALL of us follow
     
  5. Evan Burck

    Evan Burck Fudge Dragon

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,569
    Media:
    61
    Likes Received:
    1,742
    Location:
    Duvall, wa
    Home Page:
    Ideals and realities are often two different things. There is nothing that can be done to change how this works. Once that's accepted, whether we (or they) like it or not, then we can actually do something to make things work for both of us, and work together for things like habitat management, river cleanups, etc. You have to work with what you got. No point in debating opinions on things that will never change.
     
  6. bennysbuddy

    bennysbuddy the sultan of swing

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2010
    Messages:
    2,701
    Likes Received:
    905
    Location:
    m-ville
    I vote this for best sane post of the week
     
  7. triploidjunkie

    triploidjunkie Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    2,617
    Media:
    147
    Likes Received:
    1,667
    Location:
    Grand Coulee, WA
    Most of the treaties were signed as a legally binding agreement for land. A deed if you will. Saying do away with treaties because times have changed is asinine. It would be akin to selling your house, only to have the buyer come back years later and want his money back because the bottom fell out of the housing market, and it's only worth half now. And he's keeping the house too.
     
    Craig Pablo likes this.
  8. Skeena88

    Skeena88 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    Messages:
    235
    Likes Received:
    17
    Location:
    Covington WA
    Troutpounder said " I would say it should be ONE set of rules and laws that ALL of us follow".

    I think we already have that. It is called the Treaty of Point Elliot.

    Troutpounder said " I am sorry I do not agree with treaty fishing".

    Too bad. Its a condition of the contract. If you want to abolish article 5 of the Treaty which affirms the Tribe's right to fish, I suspect that you would also have to abolish Article 1. That would upset a lot of people. Article 1 is the one where the tribes cede title to the land around most of Puget Sound.
     
  9. Josh

    Josh dead in the water

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    3,099
    Media:
    11
    Likes Received:
    591
    Location:
    NW Washington
    Evan has made a really good post that I hope you (and everyone who harbors strong feelings on this sort of topic) read carefully. He is 100% correct. He isn't giving you opinion, it's fact. You can rail all you want against United States vs Washington and the treaties that were signed in ~1845. But you might as well be shouting at the wind to make it stop blowing for all the good it will do you.

    You think that tribes are screwing the rest of us out of a resource that we deserve? Guess what, there are plenty of tribal members who think they were screwed out of land and a way of life that they they deserve. You can come up with legitimate arguments to support both opinions, many men smarter than us have spent years doing so. But the ship has sailed on both of those worlds. The paths to undoing the Boldt decision or the treaties themselves are so unlikely as to be non existent without a time machine. I made a joke about that in the other thread, but it isn't far from the truth. This stuff isn't changing. The best thing that can happen for the resource is for treaty and non-treaty fishermen to put aside old grievances and find common ground on the goals we all share. Namely, increasing the number of fish. 50% of zero is still zero. Since 1974, some treaty and non-treaty groups have taken this path together and seen results. Some are still dragging their feet for whatever reason almost 40 years later. While I'm no expert, as I understand it, the Stilly tribe should be counted as one of the more engaged partners in regards to working to improve habitat and fish returns.

    Or, like I said elsewhere, if you think you've got a legitimate court case to overturn US v. WA, then by all means hire a lawyer (a team of them) and start your march through the courts. But I've gotta tell you, you've got about as much chance as a tribal member does of getting "his" land back from under your house. Things are the way they are in this particular situation and they aren't likely to change. The best path forward is to work together so that there are enough fish that nobody gives a damn about 50/50 splits.

    50% of a decade worth of record fish returns will make everyone forget this kind of stuff real fast.
     
    svira, mtskibum16, JS and 3 others like this.
  10. Augerinl

    Augerinl New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    4
    Amazing how interesting a thread can be when its discussion instead of mud slinging. Good read.
     
    Fishlikeyoumeanit and aplTyler like this.
  11. skyrise

    skyrise Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    56
    Location:
    everett, wa.
    Jason, thanks for the info. And the phone number for poachers.
    And for the restrictions put on the Chum run (self imposed).
    just wish the State had the same attitude about Chum on the Skykomish that you all have. hope to count more than 6 spawned Chum this year than i did last year.
    maybe you would have some insight on that. Sorry to get off track.
     
  12. aplTyler

    aplTyler Inept Steelheader

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    529
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    The Evergreen State
    And the balance is restored to WFF... for now.

    Nice posts by all!
     
  13. Fishlikeyoumeanit

    Fishlikeyoumeanit New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2012
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    6
    Wow, looks like I missed a bit tonight. Jason, thanks for the info. Hearing people "in the know" put out good information is comforting to say the least. Shows that people care. I would hope that the younger tribal members (and non-tribal members) have it instilled in them that this is bigger than them or what they can get away with in the early am. This has to be about growing and sustaining these fisheries for all of us. For now and many years to come. People need to know that there are eyes out there that are not going to put up with illegal fishing, littering, fill in the blank. If you show people you give a shit, it may stick with them.
    Fish on!
     
    TROUTsniffer likes this.
  14. Jamie Wilson

    Jamie Wilson Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2006
    Messages:
    1,005
    Likes Received:
    103
    Location:
    Arlington WA
    Jason - thanks for the info. I am also interested in how any bi-catch is handled. Specifically steelhead during the chum season.
    Any insight here??
    Jamie
     
  15. TD

    TD Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    949
    Likes Received:
    236
    Location:
    North End
    I almost didn't open this thread because I assumed it was going to be another 8 pages of bantering. The word "Treaty" vs. "Tribe" in the title eventually brought me around to opening it. I'm glad I did. I learned quite a bit. Thank you Jason for stepping up on a public forum to talk on this subject. That takes courage and a good heart. Also, extend our thanks to whoever guided you to this site.
     
  16. Mike

    Mike Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    256
    Media:
    145
    Likes Received:
    47
    Location:
    Someplace between here and there
    Jason,

    That comment is the key to this discussion in my opinion. As long as the tribes use gill nets to harvest indiscriminately, I will have issue with them. There are methods to harvest selectively. These methods along with habitat improve will truly allow a river to be a viable and complete environmental system once again.

    While we can all work together to improve the habitat, as you stated it is up to the tribes to decide how they harvest. When tribal by catch is eliminated, I will start believing what I hear.
     
    troutpounder likes this.
  17. Jason Griffith

    Jason Griffith Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2012
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    50
    Mr. Pounder- Your beef lies with the Supreme Court and the US govt. The US signed a treaty with the Tribes guaranteeing them the right to hunt and fish in their usual and accustomed areas, in common with the people of the land. The court interpreted this as 50%, and it has been settled for a good while now. You might not be happy about it, but it isn't going to change anytime soon.

    We take into account "that many fish" when we are planning for preseason and track it in season. Coho are healthy on the Stilly and they can handle harvest and still be productive for generations to come. I know it is hard for folks to wrap their mind around, but sport impacts are significant too, just diffuse and not in your face. We have 5 guys or so out fishing (yes, with nets), how many non-treaty folks are impacting Stilly Coho in the river and salt? For many years (and this year is no exception), our netting has never been the majority of impact on Stilly CO, when you look at all the Stilly fish harvested from AK on down.
     
    Skeena88 likes this.
  18. Jason Griffith

    Jason Griffith Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2012
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    50
    What "by catch" are you referring to? You can be selective by when you choose to fish in the river. The species come into the river at different times and we limit our impacts by the weeks we fish and the mesh size we use. For example we have only caught a handful of CK (<10) and and one chum during CO mgmt this year (I don't have the numbers right in front of me at home). The CK impacts during CO are included in the preseason planning so that the total ER doesn't go above 0.15 in all (treaty and non) southern US fisheries.

    I think folks blow the by-catch thing way out of proportion. The real problem is fishing in mixed stock areas (i.e. the Sound). It is very difficult to protect the weak stocks in that environment. We would manage a lot more effectively if all fisheries took place in the river.
     
    Skeena88 and rymo like this.
  19. Jason Griffith

    Jason Griffith Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2012
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    50
    All fish retained in treaty fisheries (even take home ones that aren't sold) are counted and reported on fish tickets. I can post the final numbers after each mgmt period if folks would find that interesting. It is probably fewer than you think.

    Typically very few STLHD are caught during Chum mgmt, but I would need to go into the database to give exact numbers (~<10). Most, if not all, are hatchery STLHD. We typically have a small STLHD fishery in Dec. and early Jan that targets the hatchery run. We stop in mid-January to let the wild fish up. The Tribes (Tulalip, Stilly) have agreed to not have a directed fishery for Stillaguamish summer stlhd, and instead take their summer allocation out of the winter hatchery run.
     
  20. dflett68

    dflett68 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2010
    Messages:
    605
    Media:
    6
    Likes Received:
    200
    Location:
    snohomish
    there are nearly 21,000 members of this forum. how can you possibly suggest that you know, even roughly, what percentage of them disagree with you on this issue? how can you learn anything when you already know everything?
     

Share This Page