PDA

View Full Version : Unprecidented Fisheries Agreement between the States and the Columbia Tribes


Deleted User
02-24-2001, 12:13 AM
Read the following major news release. And then ..... *


PORTLAND – The Columbia River Treaty tribes and the states of Washington and Oregon have reached agreement on an unprecedented multi-year plan that establishes conservation goals for weak wild salmon stocks on the Columbia and Snake rivers.

The agreement, reached after months of negotiations, is expected to provide the cornerstone for a new, comprehensive Columbia River fisheries management plan expected to be completed by December, 2003.

Leaders from the Yakama, Nez Perce, Umatilla and Warm Springs tribes and the governors of four western states, including Gary Locke of Washington and John Kitzhaber of Oregon, have called completion of that plan pivotal if Columbia River wild salmon recovery goals are to be met. A major objective is to begin the work necessary to achieve rebuilding fish runs on the Columbia to 5 million fish within 25 years.

"This agreement has both logic and vision but, importantly, it provides the resource and fishers some level of certainty, something they haven't had much of in recent years," said Randy Settler, Yakama Nation Fish and Wildlife Committee Chair. "If the forecast holds up, this will be a year of celebration, but not without concern for the crisis we're facing on the energy and water issues."

"The agreement reached this week is a milestone in that it marks the first time we have had a coastwide, conservation-based approach to wild salmon management," said Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Director Jeff Koenings. "This approach is a fundamental building block in our diverse efforts to rebuild weak wild stocks. "We're truly entering a new era in salmon management on the Columbia River."

"The conservation agreement comes at a critical time," Koenings said. "The drought conditions we now face will create many difficult challenges in the months ahead, not only for fisheries managers, but for hydropower producers, farmers, business owners and many others. This agreement protects fish, and now with that framework in place, allows us to focus more clearly on these challenges and the need to balance diverse needs of water users."

The multi-year plan focuses on rebuilding Snake River spring and summer chinook, Upper Columbia spring chinook and Snake River sockeye. Under the plan, harvest rates will be adjusted based on the number of wild fish projected to return in a given year.

Tribal and state fisheries managers said that the agreement will provide stability in both harvest and hatchery production arenas and will allow managers to focus more of their efforts and time on addressing the difficult hydro power and habitat issues that are impeding salmon recovery, issues that are expected to be particularly challenging this year because of drought conditions.

"The tribes are appreciative of Governors Locke and Kitzhaber and their staffs for their diligence and commitment to get this agreement done," said Rapheal Bill of the Umatilla Tribe and vice chairman of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission.

"The fishery managers should be commended for their diplomacy, flexibility and sensitivity to changes in abundance. The resource is better for it," said Olney Patt, Jr., CRITFC chairman. "Management of the other Hs would do well to follow this lead."

Jerry McCormack, representing the Nez Perce Tribe in the negotiations, summed up the spirit of the agreement. "We've taken a major step in a positive direction in the salmon restoration effort. The key elements to success are all here."

The accord also provides:

a.. A sliding scale of harvest, restricting harvest as necessary to protect listed stocks, while providing opportunities for fisheries to access harvestable spring chinook.
b.. Establishes levels of incidental impacts on wild stocks, while fishing for steelhead, sturgeon and shad in select area fisheries.
c.. Agreement on a variety of hatchery issues.
The plan will allow tribal, commercial and sport fishers to fish on an unprecedented return of 364,000 spring chinook this spring while allowing the majority of wild spring chinook to pass through fisheries. Hatchery fish will provide the bulk of the catch and are the focus of these fisheries. Biologists expect nearly 300,000 of the returning fish be adult fish that were released from hatcheries two and three years ago.

"We should be mindful that this extraordinary spring chinook return is a gift from nature and will occur on a more consistent basis only if appropriate actions are taken to recover these wild fish," said Ed Bowles, Fish Division director for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. "This fisheries plan fits into a recovery plan very well but needs assistance from other factors affecting salmon survival in order to be part of a successful recovery effort," he added.

The plan, which the federal government will endorse as consistent with the conservation requirements of the endangered Species Act (ESA), sets harvest rates depending on the annual abundance of wild chinook salmon from the Snake and Upper Columbia Basin.

Scientists compared the abundance-based harvest plan with the National Marine Fisheries Service's previous ESA fisheries management plan, where the fishery impact on wild Snake River chinook was fixed at 9 percent. They concluded that the impact reduction when wild fish runs are low in the new plan makes it at least as conservative for fish recovery as the previous plan, yet provides more opportunity to harvest hatchery fish in years of major abundance.
-------------

* ..... see that it says the agreement for ESA impact on wild stocks of endangered fish are to be restricted to 9%. The latest from the State's negotiations on this year's Col. springer run is that sportfishers and non-Indian commercial netters will split a 2% ESA impact and in return the Indian's demanded and got a whopping 13% ESA impact. I hope the full detailed story comes out soon. It is going to be a very unfair split of the fish any way you look at it, in strong favor of the Indians still. The only positives are that we should be able to fish finclipped mainstem Columbia springers in the near and distant future on some limited basis, which is much better than not getting to fish the mainstem above I-5 at all, as it's been for so many years. And also it sounds like this plan will help the runs recover. We'll see. - RT

Pete
02-24-2001, 07:24 AM
I'm struggling to understand the basis for the current split of the havestable fish. The numbers certainly don't make me happy, but are there agreements (other than Boldt and it's progeny) that explain the allocation? Is there an assumption that the tribes' harvest allocation are historic? Is it contemplated that non-tribal allocation is partially consumed by the detrimental effects of other non-tribal activities such as logging, irrigation, power generation, suburban sprawl, etc...?

Barnyard
02-24-2001, 09:38 AM
R.T. et all...Talked to the Secratary for Bob Tweit(SP) of WDFW and she said the agreemnent was signed to allow the sports fishermen to fish the lower river through April...The 1% is the best we will get unless the run sizea increase....

Joe Schwab
02-24-2001, 09:56 AM
Tribal fishermen are finally getting a comercial season on Spring Chinook, anglers are finally getting to fish the lower river after how many years? Whats the beef? Sometime when you have nothing else to do read the Treaty of 1855. How many times have we heard how the tribes were bought out. Nonsense! They were never compensated for the loss of fishing opportunity. Only empty promises and token inlieu sites on the river after we built the mighty power dams.
The fact is and I said it ten years ago that the tribes will ultimately be the driving force that puts salmon back into the system. Nothing the states or the federal government has done has worked. Sports fight the commercials, guides can't put an organized force together to be reckoned with. Think about it. If the tribes are successful in putting millions of fish into the system won't everyone benefit. Of course trout unlimited might object to hatchery fish polluting the system. Bottom line; the tribes were not responsible for the loss of fish in the Columbia river system. They are in a very big way responsible for their return.

------------------

Oakie Drifter
02-24-2001, 02:56 PM
My opinion, though no one asked, is this:
Make a fair value exchange of gill net boats for a casino(s). After all, thats where the real money is. http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/s/net6/wave.gif

Deleted User
02-24-2001, 05:54 PM
The Indians have already been given lucrative gambling casinos to augment their gillnet income. And those highly profitable casinos are run with lots of electricity from the dams. Hmmm. The irony.

RT

dusty4
02-24-2001, 06:33 PM
Gathering roots and berries has pretty much given way to more productive farming. Indiscriminate logging is being replaced by tree farming. Even comfy caves are not as appealing as they once were. It is well past time to take a more sensable look, and yes, I do mean $$$, at our "shared" resources.

A fish in the river is worth ten in the store.

WildHawg
02-24-2001, 06:47 PM
Well put Captain Hook. I am not a fan of the ESA allotment, as I feel it unduly favors indigenous harvest of native fish when they are in dire need of protection. Sportfishing, with its discriminate methods allows the release of native fish, while the gillnet kills all.

You are however correct when you state that we have not followed through in our treaty obligations. Somehow a compromise needs to be reached that allows them their take, while protecting native fish. There are no easy amswers, however I do respect your consideration of both sides.

SteelieSteve
02-24-2001, 07:42 PM
Well said RT.. the Indians make a huge amount from their casinos. They are definetly getting there revenge for earlier wrongs done by the earlier treaties. Payouts from the casinos are the lowest I've ever heard of... something like 2%. You go to the Nevada casinos and they payout a much bigger figure to lure gamblers. The Indians have a captive market and milk it well. So I'm thinking they are getting pretty well compensated without a 13-1 fish kill percentage. Just my .02.

SS

finclipped
02-24-2001, 08:39 PM
While I don't believe the tribes are responsible for the current salmon mess, the tribes really need to address the native kill issue.

We should all target hatchery fish and promote survival of the remaining wild stocks. These fish have the genetic code to perpetuate their species and by continually removing them from the gene pool, we are at best delaying their recovery and at worst contributing to their extinction. The tribes and commercials have been extremely resistent to adopting more selective harvest methods, that will decrease wild fish mortality, while possibly increasing catch of hatchery stock. This is most frustrating to me and shows the hypocricy (sp) within the tribes and commercials.

Given it took the largest expected spring run on record to open fishing up to sportsman, I wonder if it will be another 30 years before we have another chance to fish on the mainstem.


[This message has been edited by finclipped (edited 02-24-2001).]

WaterDog
02-24-2001, 09:13 PM
Fishing issues aside.....

The Casino's have made $0.00 from me. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif I'd rather spend money on bait and fuel than **** it away. I thought it was sad when Spirit Mt. passed Multnomah Falls as Oregons most visited place. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/frown.gif

------------------
EAT, SLEEP, FISH!
website (http://www.sites.onlinemac.com/rspofford)

[This message has been edited by WaterDog (edited 02-24-2001).]

WheresMyBobber
02-24-2001, 09:41 PM
Why aren't old outdated Treaties subject to ammendment just like our own Constitution?

If there's a problem with wild fish runs (which there is), then all people involved in the harvest or protection of these fish should play by the same rules to fix the problem. Either you truly care about the native runs, or you don't.

We can and have changed the US and State Constitutions to address problems, why not the Treaties?

This subject makes my blood boil...I'll stop now.

BUGLEMAN
02-24-2001, 11:27 PM
A treaty can be modified, the parties with a vested interest just have to sign a new one. It would be nice to see the native peoples trade a casino for commercial fishing rights but they don't need to because of lands they currently hold prior to the mid 1980's. Sad but true. Also how was the casinos "given as compensation for loss of fish" was there a compact signed or a treaty. Did the Indians sign a waver to not sue the Feds for destroying a 16,000,000 fish run. I don't think so, I think the real word for the white man (read Govenor R.+ K.) is justification. So, as soon as the Indians get their act together or as soon as there is no more fish or a few more extinctions there will be lawsuits. So, that is where my hope is.

I see two fronts for us: the indiscriminant killing of native fish by native peoples (a possible sort term problem) and the federal government and it's dams (long term). The Fed. needs to get it's @__ sued off into oblivion or at least a serious threat of extreme damages - some how from the indians or even the industry for destroying our fish runs. It has no science only deception. The mainstem springer return is in my opinion (I hope not) pure luck. The dams on the Snake must go for us to have any consistent fisheries. The proof will be in 3-6 years. Dead smolt=no big ones.

I can't even believe the Indians wanted to take 13% that is just ugly. Also why do we never here about the Sockeye they are awsome fish with some incredible specialize adaptations. Obliterated by the dams etc. The corps cares about salmon only because it has to......no, I don't even want to go there.

What do you people think? Am I at least close?

nwjetboat
02-25-2001, 12:07 AM
Although the tribes will have the trump card when it comes to pressuring Uncle Sam to restore salmon runs, IMHO, when push comes to shove, they will sell out for a settlement involving $$$$$$$$$$$. I wish the tribes put the fish first, but 21 century greed has a strong hold.

Deleted User
02-25-2001, 12:37 AM
There are a lot of very good points made here. The one I take exception to is that 'we' have not lived up to our Treaty obligations. The ancestors of a few of us probably didn't live up to all the Treaty provisions in the previous century. This century, and in particular right NOW, it's the Columbia Tribes that are not living up to the Treaties - by an ugly long shot! The Treaties call for a 50-50 split of fish deamed harvestable by the State fisheries biologists; and now within bounds of the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the NMFS interpretion of that. The Indians have canjoled and gotten a 13% ESA impact on native fish for their netting practices, while the non-Indian commercial netters and sportfishers combined have been dealt a shared 2% ESA impact of Columbia spring chinook salmon. 0.8% will go to the sportfishers, despite the fact that sportfishers can and will, by mandate in fact, fish selectively; only taking finclipped hatchery fish above I-5. It IS the Indians that are NOT living up to the Treaties. Why? Because they can get away with it! It's largely due to more influence in Washington D.C. This is via the Dept. of the Interior Secretarial order # 3206 that mandated the NMFS to give preferential consideration to the Columbia Indians, outside of what the Treaties called for, primarily because of the loss of fish due to the Columbia and Snake River dams this century. This is NOT called for by Treaty. What was signed for by both sides, and mandated by Federal Court review decisions in the late 60's and mid-70's, was an equal split of fish "deamed harvestable"! Dams were not taken into consideration in these signed agreements; nor was Indian power boats and Indian mono-gillnets taken into consideration. Both of these unfortunate things evolved after the Treaties. But neither amounts to a reasonable cause to default the Treaties, especially outside Federal Court dicisions! ... Few of today's sportfisher's ancestors were involved in building the fish thwarting dams! AND the Indians have used electricity since the inception of hydropower dams in the Northwest. They are using it in huge amounts in the Indian gambling casinos in which they make huge profits. Likely, a significant amount of these big dollars must be getting diverted to help elect politicians favorable to the fiasco that is being allowed to occur against the sportfishing throng that pays for these fish. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/mad.gif And like the saying goes - "2 wrongs don't make a right"!

RT

Ed
02-25-2001, 09:26 AM
A springer season will equate into more sport fisherman. More sport fisherman equates into increased public awareness. If this spring season goes well the allocation process will certainly be revisited if it perceived as unfair. I don't see us taking any "silent" steps backward. First things first, lets get people on the water catching fish and then take the necessary next steps.

SteelieSteve
02-26-2001, 12:32 AM
Aren't the treaties of the previous century ancient history? Haven't the people and the government made amends and paid enough for the wrongs of the 1800's? The fish runs to the Columbia basin will never be what they once were. Time to get on with the facts of life today and stop the native fish taking all together. THE indians are getting thier revenge in the form of gambling and making a huge profit. If they need a subsistance fishery well and good but I know you can buy fish from them up on the Columbia for cheap(I know people that have), that is not subsistance fishing that is greed. We cannot continue to pay for the mistakes made during the expansion years of the United States. We, the sports fishermen/women pay large and continuing higher prices to catch fish. No gillnetting should be allowed, period!

SS

ssteelheadsteve
02-26-2001, 09:08 AM
Abrogate all treaties with Native Americans.
Cut off the welfare ***** and the Farmers.
Bomb London. Give me back my native lands in Scotland that were stolen by the British.
Fair is Fair Right ?

BUGLEMAN
02-26-2001, 09:29 AM
I agree from a knee jerk gut reation that the Indians would take a monitary settlement over fish.

One trend that is incouraging me is that the EPA has said, as reported in the Oregonad last week, that it will enforce water quality violations on the Snake River resevors when it comes to warming of the water. This year will be interesting regarding that issue.

As far as the Sec. order #3206 I could see where a united fishermans organization could sue for relief from that order. It appears the states have sold us out in the latest compact so we have to get our rights as citizens. I am tired of BS letters etc. from our representatives. Another option would be the petition process in Oregon. We could write a law forcing the state to get us our share since the polititions won't do it for us?????? I know every fisherman would sign it. Picture this, a protest fishing day on the Columbia/signature drive. I like the idea of a couple 1000 boats fishing illegally with hooks on thier wiggle warts (good one RT). Lots of media and attention - even national. What are they going to do, we are legally entitled to 1/2 of the harvestable fish.

Deleted User
02-26-2001, 01:53 PM
Good take Buggleman! And I like your ideas. Petition more ballots against gillnets and also unfair fishing allocations. After the springer closure on sportfishers, while the Indians continue to gillnet them, would be a great time for a publisized protest fish-in. We would be legal fishing the Wiggle Warts for walleye, but holding up some finclipped springers for the TV cameras before releasing them would go dwon great! Stay tuned. - RT

bajaspecial
02-27-2001, 10:40 AM
http://www.kgw.com/kgwnews/story.html?StoryID=14855