Tribal netting

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by MasterAnglerTaylor, Jan 23, 2009.

  1. Err, before suggesting things are simply just based on Gaussian distributions, you may want to read the text.... The curve is actually a shape in which the lower population values show a very static recruit to spawner (nearly a level curve) until a "minimum" threashold is reached. Then from there, the value becomes asymtotic to a maximum carrying capacity. The neat thing about the curve is the resiliance of the population to mortality, yet it's complete crash and stasis below the critical threshold. I believe the specific values you are talking about are the MSY and MSH curves which are quite a bit different than what I was talking about.

    I think the biggest thing about this should be noted. I didn't disagree for the orginal cause of the Hood canal crash. Insteady I suggested that the ability of the fish to rebound in the "habitat intact" areas around hood canal was a poor example.
  2. I think that you're missing the point. Nobody said that nets don't have an affect, and I think that all folks will agree that irresponsible fishing is irresponsible.

    What was stated that is we have only a couple of options.

    1) Fix our problems associated with the 3 H's (hatcheries, habitat, hydro) in sum total and watch fish rebound.

    2) Fix our problem associated with harvest with a complete moratorium on any kind of mortality and take it back to the courts and see if the fish rebound

    In either case, since this is a federal issue the state doesn't have a lot of options, and they tend to begin with *US* doing something first.
  3. Yes, a unified message is not here. The tribes have to become part of the solution. Don't know how that can happen. I get pissed also when they sweep over the run I'm swinging through. I've have had to back out of the water to avoid them. I could really go on about this. :rofl:
    All I know is to is get involved with organizations I can align with. If you can't align with any groups then write, email, phone, visit the ones who can change things--your legislators, members of the WDFW Commission, the Senate Natural Resources Committee, and others. Let's give our anger and frustration to them. :D Only takes a couple minutes to express yourself. Do it often.

    It's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.

    Senate Natural Resources Committee--

    Phil Anderson, Interem WDFW Director

    WDFW Commission

    WDFW Commission members
  4. I know that I am not nearly as educated on this subject as many of you guys but since everyone is on the topic......I thought Id might ask a quicky.

    I think it was gt who claimed that habitat degredation was minimal on a few select rivers on the OP (Duck, Dosy, Hamma Hamma), and then one stated that those particular rivers do not get netted by tribes which is logical. Well my question is more pointed toward rivers such as the Queets for example. I mean, most all of the river flows through the National Park causing NO habitat degredation, yet the tribes are able to net 6 days a week at times! What else could be desimating the wild steelhead poulation on that system besides the tribes??? The Quinaults broodstock program, those fish interfering with the true wild fish?

  5. Jake, every expert you talk to can agree on one thing, they have for me so far-
    besides the 4 Hs there's also high seas and inshore interception, instream poaching, and some mystery variables like ocean acidification, feed availability issues, and shifts in ocean current patterns all having possible effects on fish returns.
    They aren't able to truly quantify the effects of any of these things because they're not able to measure them for obvious reasons. This also provides a handy excuse for inaction...but in my mind should provide the opposite. Because we don't know, harvest should be curtailed. Along with a BUNCH of other interventions.

    I agree with Mr Mello in that there's a lot of things to be done, but disagree with the idea that this is a Federal only issue- I mentioned that it's a hideously complex issue; complex because these fish fall under perhaps 30 different local and Federal Gov't jurisdictions, hideous because there isn't very good communications between them.

    Totally agree with Dan-
    the time we're spending posting on this would be better spent typing a simple note to our elected and appointed officials. All we're doing here is getting a little wound up, spinning wheels, maybe feeling a bit impotent.
    Hell, send you representative a link to this string!
  6. thanks for your insights mr mello. if the work you mentioned is available on-line, please post a link i would be interested in reading as out here we really don't have access to any university library.

    extinction is a harse word. but that is exactly the reason why the fish are not present on the canal. habitat in tact, no fish. someone actually caught that last wild fish. combine that with taking the fish population below sustainability, and there you have it what we all can clearly see today, extinct runs of anadramous fishes.

    with the current harvest methodologies and quotas, extinction is coming to your own favorite eco system, take it to the bank, and it will happen very suddenly and it's over at that point. shuffling your feet waiting for someone like CCA to 'lobby' there way into saving fish is a total joke.
  7. While I don't want to defend irresponsible netting in rivers, or any netting in rivers where runs are endangered, it has been suggested by salmon conservation-minded biologists (eg, David Montgomery, whose fine book was cited by Kent above), that the best way to have a commercial fishery on anadromous fish is to restrict harvest to river mouth fisheries. That is the only way that individual river stocks can be managed, since the stocks comingle in the saltwater.

    Sport anglers invest an inordinate amount of negative energy towards in-river commercial fisheries, because they are visible to them and they share the same waters that the sport anglers visit. Most say little (witness this thread) about the fact that the majority of commercial harvest is in the salt water. Out of sight - out of mind. Only a small proportion of that take is by tribal commercial fishermen.

    However, as several others have pointed out, habitat degradation, both in spawning rivers and the salt, are responsible for a significant, yet unknown portion of the problem. Quantifying that part of the problem is made substantially more difficult, because of the variable that commercial fishing puts into the equation.

    The experiment that I would like to see is a commercial fishing moratorium - before it is too late, as it may be in California. We then could start to quantify the effect of commercial fishing vs. habitat destruction on individual fish stocks. Once we start to get a handle on the habitat (and hydro, which is really a habitat issue) side of the problem, assuming we see a recovery of stocks, we could re-establish commercial fisheries on a river by river basis with harvest permitted only in estuaries and river mouths where the fish are already committed to their natal river, thus avoiding impact on other stocks.

    I have no confidence that such an experiment will ever be conducted, however. We have seen too many generations of fisheries management, where commercial harvest is so far ahead of ecological health (or sport fishing) in determining policy that those issues essentially carry no weight, for me to believe that will ever change. Even ESA status for our Puget Sound salmon and steelhead stocks has not led to substantive changes in that regard. It is the nuclear fission management strategy; with each half-life decrease in stocks we keep reducing our harvest at a rate that guarantees a continued "managed" decline.

  8. Lemme see what I can dig up, but it's copyrighted material so I don't think I can just fotocopy and post... The book I read was in the Tacoma Public Library, so I'm hoping that you can find yours in a local library too. In all seriousness, this book completely changed the way I viewed fisheries, my impact, and the impacts of industry...

    Here's the title:

    The Behavior and Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout Thomas Quinn
    ISBN: 9780295984575
  9. Without a doubt this is one of the most contemporary and seminal works on the state of thes fish to date. iagree
  10. thanks, as soon as the library finishes their remodel and reopens, i'll go down and search it out.

    river mouth netting??????

    how about river mouth fish traps from which: a) an accurate count of allowable quota can be obtained and b) from which unclipped fish can be released unharmed and untouched.

    nets kill everything, no matter where they are set.
  11. Here's a suggestion. We offer the tribes control over the fisheries from the river mouth to the headwaters. In exchange they have to create a statewide tribal agency to enforce some agreed upon rules. 1) agree to reduce their their commercial harvesting 50% which should make 50% more fish available for recreational opportunities. 2) all guides are licensed by the tribal agency, with 25% of licenses reserved for non native guides.

    It puts all the tribes together and lets them figure out how to deal with each other instead of the state trying to patch things together piecemeal. It reduces the amount of fish being netted and it promotes more sport angling revenues for their respective tribes. Most importantly it puts them in charge of a fishery they appear to value so fervently and it does so on a level that makes them accountable to each other as tribes rather than just the State and Federal Government.

    I keep hearing how the government can't get it right, let's let the indians have a try.

    Too Crazy?

  12. qt
    I was going to stay out of this. There's to many opinions mixed in with some facts and that always delutes the truth. Although I can agree with most of your ideas and have stated some of the same things myself, but I strongly disagree with your statment about CCA! It's been a slow process to turn decades of stupidity and greed around to looking at things from a common sense viewpoint and seeing that something has to change if there are going to be fish in 50 years. I don't know if your statment was based on your opinion or observation.
    I do attend the committee meetings and attended the senate NR commitee meeting on Jan 21,09 which was an invitation only testimony senate meeting. Represented was WDFW,A tribal rep, a netter rep,chater boat rep and CCA. At one point, Senator Jacobson(the man that is and has been the head of the fisheries commiteefor over 10 years and controls more final decisions than the director of WDFW) asked the temporary director of WDFW what they were doing about selective netting! That is CCA's main push and they have presented their case backed by scientific information and provable,undeniable truth. They have accomplished more in a very short time than anyone else to my knowledge, and they are gaining respect from everyone. I don't care if you dont support them but get your facts straight before you slam them, or perhaps get involved and see what you think!
    This is by no means a personal attack as I enjoy most of your posts but we all have to unite, get educated and support a group that can take it all the way and create lasting change based on the truth and common sense. It is happening but needs far more support.
    Get pesonally envolved,join and support a sportsmans group that is in alignment with your idealogy and write letters to your represenatives. They may not be biologists but they have to listen to what the majority wants or face not being re-elected.
  13. This is simply the best and most creative idea on the subject I've yet heard. Good job thinking JR.

  14. Couple of caveats. Abuses of the system are abuses and shouldn't be tolerated. And yes, nets have an impact!

    Quinaults and Yakima tribes would laugh you out of the room. As for the other tribes, since they aren't self regulating, they are already "managed" so to speak with the WDFW. In some cases, the relationship is good, and in others not so good. If you want to take a beef with anything, look at the bizzare-ly inflated estimates for returns that allow very high harvest levels. The latest example of this occured in the Grays Harbor harbor Chehalis river fisheries, and subsequent fish collapses.

    The tribes can only (in a legal manner) take 50% of the fish over the escapement goal. The rest has already been intercepted by nearshore net fisheries and other states and countries. The biggest/hardest thing for people to get over: By the time the nets are soaking, we've already done our damage to the run to the tune of 50% fish over escapement.

    Finally if you were proposed this scenario would you take it? As a sport fisherman/group of sport fishermen would you accept it? I don't know but a few souls who would and if you're in minority, then kudos to you :)
  15. Johnnyrockfish,

    I don't see anything attractive to the tribes in your proposal. They already have most of what you describe and then some. The only thing you're offering them is guide licensing fees, and that is far less than what you're asking them to give up. For an analogy consider this: here, I'll give you $25 and you give me $100. Fair enough, OK? Why do you think the tribes would be interested in your offer?


    Nearly all the treaty tribes are now self-regulating or have defacto self-regulating status. Johnnyrockfish's offer overlooks that the treaty tribes already have predominate control of anadromous fisheries in WA and expects them to give up some of their management authority to other oversite, including rival tribes.

  16. whew.
    gt: "how about river mouth fish traps from which: a) an accurate count of allowable quota can be obtained and b) from which unclipped fish can be released unharmed and untouched.
    nets kill everything, no matter where they are set. " Hell yeah brother. now you're hearing me.
    Johnny Rockfish, getting waaaay out of the box...good on you. I think it would be a fox/henhouse scenario, but new ideas shouldn't be judged harshly till really examined.

    River Elf, bringing in some hardcore experience...and I know you know what you're talking about...yup, CCA is getting somewhere quietly, and we need to help. Lot of folks don't realize how ripe for change things are at this moment. There's three seats open on the Commission including the chair I believe, someone correct me if wrong.

    and Mr Mello, thanks for hitting the creamy center. Until returns can be precisely predicted with a high degree of confidence, (and will that ever happen?)-demonstrated by a track record of accuracy, harvest HAS to be dialed down to prevent stock collapse.

    when it comes to predicted vs actual returns vs harvest, the emperor has no clothes.

    BTW....all you gillnetters and tribals who monitor these threads, the CCA is coming for you. ;)Time to grow up.

    there's way more of us than there are of you.
  17. Gee Spaz, you're not supposed to tip your hand. Do you play poker this well? You spoiled the ambush.

  18. So the deep and inherent issue is that we are asking them to give up what boils down to cash. Nobody wants to give up cash.

    So what you have to do is put some kind of long term project together that includes "fence months", true "fence months" that include sport anglers.

    Than you make the possible increase in fish returns in say 5 (or whatever) years theirs to cash in on. Before that opener we can open sports fishing for a couple seasons to get a more accurate view of their impact. And we pay close attention to the boat impacts if any.

    The goal at the very least is to establish a time of the year when these fish can do their thing unmolested by anybody. Only than can we have some kind of direction on how to manage all these interests.

    Just ideas.
  19. _G, I know nuthink...nuthink! Just an outsider's view...but the writing is on the wall, totally. I hope I at least gave someone the shivers for a second.

    There's no denying the momentum. Everyone knows the status quo is ending, choking on its own greed...and that fisheries science is rapidly outpacing the ability to obfuscate, PR it away, or deny the truth.
    so yeah, I'll just say it.

    Time to grow up.
    My future fishing day may be something like this:

    "Out of bed early, we'll be fishing the no-motor, selective fishery area on the Nisqually today, from Alder to Frank's Landing. Haven't decided where I'll put in yet, maybe at the new Peissner Rd boat launch or maybe the one further down at Nisqually Pines. Ever since the C&R section went to a one wild fish per year limit I've been avoiding the crowds and fishing farther up. MEAT fishermen, whuddayagonnado. After what's usually a six fish or so day, I'll head down to the Nisqually tribal co-op and pick up a hatchery fish for dinner, fresh from the trap. Wish they were a little cheaper, but then a half-dozen fulltime riverkeepers don't come cheap."

    there are win-win-win solutions, folks just need to adjust their ideas of what winning really is. Having a river full of wild fish, an intact and thriving native culture, a sustainable sport fishery, and rivers without conflict...yeah, it could happen.
    feel free to diss the dream if you want.

    do I get bonus points for using the word, "obfuscate"? :)
  20. The incentive is that 75% of the guides are native and the fees for charters go back to them. Also, licenses to float or bank fish would also go to the tribes. Probably way to complicated but the traditional way of thinking isn't working so we need to brainstorm....

    The topic of the thread is Tribal Netting. If we try to solve every other problem (other countries fishing!!) at the same time we're going to move nowhere so we need to focus on the tribes. How can the tribes realize more $$$ from recreational fishing than netting? That, to me, is the nut we have to crack.


Share This Page