PDA

View Full Version : Anybody hear about this Trinity River Hoopa Fish Bust?



wjorg
11-05-2009, 01:51 PM
You hear about this bust? I live in SF and didnt hear a peep....

From USA Fishing....

Gillnets Take 90+ of Trinity Salmon Run
Tribal gillnets are literally wiping out the entire 2009 Trinity salmon run. It's tough enough the salmon have to make it through one gauntlet on the Lower Klamath but it's the second set of nets at the Hoopa reservation on the lower Trinity that are inflicting the biggest toll. The numbers of fish fighting their way to the spawning grounds on this important tributary to the Klamath are at all time lows.

We have been highlighting this travesty for the past three weeks and it finally looks like the main steam media is starting to pick up the story and bring it to light to those outside the fishing community. We encourage out readers to help us continue to spread this message (and what to thank those of you who have already done so).

For the week ending today October 28th only 9 (nine) king salmon and four coho made their way through the weir on the main stem Trinity at Willow Creek. That brings the entire Trinity river escapement of adult king salmon since October 1st to 95 fish. That's an average of just over 3 fish per day at a time when 100s of fish should be pushing through daily.

This was avoidable and in terms of the percentage of returning fish the gillnets have wiped out (harvested or whatever term one wishes to use) over 90% this year's entire Trinity fall run of kings. This complete disregard for sustainable runs will be felt for years and could lead to the continued closures of sport and commercial fishing along the California and Oregon coasts and both tribal and sport fishing in the lower Klamath in 2012 and 2013.

On October 22nd over 20,000 pounds of Trinity river salmon netted by Hoopa gillnetters (approximately 2000 fish) was intercepted by NOAA enforcement officers at a fish processor at pier 45 in San Francisco. Unfortunately the bust was unable to be prosecuted because the Hoopa tribe has never submitted a harvest plan. These processors sell to one so called "eco minded" chain (think health food) that profess that they sell only fish from sustainable fisheries". My only question is that if you can't prosecute the netters why can't you go after the state licensed commercial fish buyers for purchasing illegally caught fish? This catch also violates three (of the total of four) the Hoopa tribal fishing codes.
Despite the fact that the Hoopa netters were busted with 20K pounds of "subsistence" fish (being sold commercially) that they broke their own laws to catch the netting continues unabated. Dozens of nets are still in the river and likely catching 100s of fish nightly while just 9 fish have made it through this past week (October 21st to the 28th). Yes, the tribes certainly are the stewards of the river, or at least it's demise.

This picture (left) taken the second week of September on the lower end of the Hoopa reservation clearly shows a series of three nets that are set bank to bank that allows little to zero escapement. The nets are set to capture all fish moving up through a deep hole where the majority of salmon stage and rest. Due to competition, gillnetters always try to set below others making for little chance of escapement. These are just three nets of 44 that were counted. Tribal anglers call this subsistence fishing. With 44 nets stacked in just a small section of river (and only an average of 3 fish per day escaping above through the Willow Creek weir ) plunder or rape may be a better choice of words. The angler who sent us this picture said every hole had two to three nets and was "impassable, unless the fish grew wings".

Not all tribal members of the many along the Klamath and Trinity agree with what is happening. There are individuals and groups that are totally against gillnetting but have little say on the fishery practices of others through their own counsel. Many agree that gillnetting is not sustainable and is destroying their true native fisheries. You will find only truth in that statement today on the lower Trinity.

Guides and businesses along the river are afraid to speak up for fear of reprisals and threats of violence. Personally I have received (and documented) many threats against me and even my children for exposing what I and many believe to be the over harvest of salmon by tribal gillnetters on the Klamath and Trinity rivers for the past many years.

To be fair it was white cannery operators who first wiped out the Klamath salmon runs in the early 1900s (pictured right) but runs recovered once commercial netting stopped. Then, like now gillnets and greed were the reason for the collapse. The only difference between then and now was that at that time no dams had been built and fishery laws were enforced to allow a come back. Today with tribal nations and no accountability on the tribes to properly manage their harvest the run is being wiped out yet again and maybe for good.

The Hoopa's are entitled to a 6000 fish quota this year. There is no telling how many fish of that quota they have caught (on top of the 2000 + they tried to illegal sell) because they have no harvest plan and don't report catches to any outside fishery agency.

Gillnetting and sportfishing quotas are all based on wild ass guess (WAGS) theories of ocean abundance and river returns that are made months in advance. More often than not these WAGS are wrong and when they are overly optimistic can result in far too many salmon being harvested. This year again shows how overly optimistic WAGS result in far too many fish being harvested.

It's time for West Coast fishery managers (PFMC, CDFG, NOAA, USFW) to do away with the WAG and practice modern fishery management.

Alaska has had great results in managing both sport and commercial salmon harvest by using sonar counters on many rivers. I feel that sonar would be ideal to manage the Klamath and Trinity river fisheries. It would do away with the WAG and harvest would be controlled by escapement. That is sound management and ensures enough salmon make it back to seed future returns.

(Pictured Left: One can clearly see the gillnet marks on this Trinity steelhead. The fish was just small enough to be able to push through the nets. Today a smaller fish is much more likely to survive as most larger brood stock salmon and steelhead are taken out by the nets)

The 101 bridge on the lower Klamath would be an ideal spot for a primary sonar counter. It's an area where the channel is small and the transponders could be easily mounted onto the bridge pilings to count all returning fish.

For instance if the Yurok tribe is allowed 20% of the in-river return for their commercial fishery they would be allowed to harvest no more (or less) of the escapement that moves past the counter at the 101 bridge. 10,000 fish move past the counter they could harvest 2000 fish, no more or less. 100,000 fish move up they get 20K, no more or less but no fishing until minimum escapement goals have been met ABOVE THE 101 BRIDGE.

Currently using the WAG, Yurok tribal netters harvested over 35000 (+ DUE TO ALL THE UNCOUNTED FISH AND THOSE NEVER REPORTED) fish in under two weeks early in the season. In the time being sport anglers harvested just 11% of their 32,000 fish quota in 2009. In 2008 sport anglers landed just 10% of their quota 22.5K fish quota but the Yurok tribe took their full allotment of 22,500 fish before 10% of the run even migrated above tide water.

To maintain an accurate count, sonar should also be installed at the mouth of the Trinity and in the main stem Klamath just upriver from the Trinity. Fish that turn into the Trinity could be counted at the mouth and again at the Willow Creek weir. The Hoopa's would be allowed to harvest their allotment of fish that make it past the Willow Creek weir, no more, no less but no fishing until minimum escapement has been met AT THE WILLOW CREEK WEIR.

Over harvest by subsistence Yurok netters on the lower Klamath has been a big problem for years but the actual impact in numbers of fish is unknown. By having sonar counters along the length of the river the true impact of legal and illegal gillnetting would be known and harvests and allotments could be adjusted to make up for these impacts in real time or loss of fishing rights in the following years.

Just a few ideas based on what has worked in Alaska which has tribal and commercial gillnetting, resident dip netting and sport all on the same rivers. They are able to adjust fishery harvest in real time and always error on the side of the fish. It's a proven method of proper fishery management. After all what sense is there is spending 10s of millions to tear down dams if tribal gillnetters continue to over harvest the brood stock.

It's time that for new styles of fishery management but unfortunately it's too late for Trinity river bound kings and coho this year. The over harvest by tribal gillnetters this season will effect future seasons of both California and Oregon sport and commercial salmon anglers for the next several years. There can be a better future for salmon, tribal, commercial and sport anglers if we are bold enough to give up old practices and work together to rebuild the salmon runs.
We owe it to future generations to correct what we ALL have screwed up so badly.
Mike Aughney
fishsite@aol.com

wjorg
11-05-2009, 01:56 PM
You tell me now about a traditional and sustainable harvest....

We need to find out what market was buying that fish and notify their customers.

shawn kempkes
11-05-2009, 03:14 PM
According to the Boldt decision the tribe cant legally fish if they haven't filed a harvest management plan witht the state. If noaa had any balls they would stop them from fishing until a hmp was filed.

Darian
11-05-2009, 03:57 PM
Aside from the fact that it's a shame that these fish are making their way into the commercial market place, there're so much emotion and conflicting information in the article it makes my head ache.

If I understand correctly, an interception of fish was made by NOAA agents. They were, however, unable to "prosecute" as the tribe had not filed a "Harvest Management Plan." This would seem to mean that it was not illegal to catch/sell these fish. So, is it only illegal if an HMP is on file :?: :?: Notice the count of fish intercepted was approximately 2,000 fish (as opposed to 20,000 pounds of the same fish). According to the article, the Hoopa allocation for this year is 6,000 fish. Assuming that the intercepted fish were caught this year, the Hoopas are entitled to catch another 4,000 fish. That's still within the legal limits of regulations. Altho the intercepted fish are attributed to the Hoopa Tribe (based on third party statements), the author lays the blame for demise of the runs on Yuroks as well.... :confused:

Once again, evidence supporting claims of the numbers of gill nets set (44) in the lower Trinity River is based on anecdotes from other parties. Only three nets have been photographed. The balance is accounted for by word of mouth. :confused:

Seems to me that the whole point this article is trying to make is that the system of measurement for establishing allocations of catches between Native peoples and commercial/recreational fishers needs to be revisited. IMHO, this subject is too important an issue to cloud with an article of this nature but I guess this is the state of modern journalism. ](*,)

cbjuhr
11-05-2009, 05:07 PM
I appreciate your need for fair and unbiased journalism. While I am no journalist I have been following these posts at USA fishing and following up to get as much color to the reports from locals and guides in the area. The fall Trinity Chinook run is basically nonexistent above Hoopa when the rest of the rivers, especially north of us are having decent to good years.

What should have been a good salmon run this year has been decimated. There are alot of nets in the river versus other years, both on the Klamath and Trinity. Do you really need pictures of 44 nets on a website? Why even make that point? I am not an expert regarding the law but I doubt having a net or multiple nets allowing zero fish of a certain size to pass is legal. I feel strongly that the Native American's should be able to net but "real" enforcement is needed soon.

In my own experience so far this season in the area I have caught quite a few steelies and they seem to be smaller with the only biggish one having net marks on it. Could it be a coincidence, yes, but I have a feeling there is a better explanation.

Tony Buzolich
11-05-2009, 06:12 PM
Darian,

Take a look at a few of the videos on You-Tube of the way the Indians today harvest their "subsistance salmon" and it'll make you sick.

20,000 pounds of illegal salmon at a cannery! And they can't prosecute! Because of some "legal" technicality. That's really BS and just goes to show that we have WAY too many lawyers writing and protecting laws that favor abuse. Technicalities @#%#@......

Abuses like this aren't new. Years ago I was offered salmon by Indians when fishing near Wichipec. After saying no, I couldn't continue fishing fearing that my truck would get trashed. Other guys fishing on the river all would say the same thing.

shawn kempkes
11-05-2009, 07:51 PM
I have no problem with the tribes harvesting hatchery salmon or wild salmon on runs that can handle it. what I object to is the use of non selective fishing like using gill nets or drift nets.

I would like to see more tribes go to a method like the colville tribe is using.http://ospreysteelheadnews.blogspot.com/2009/10/colville-tribe-testing-selective.html

Darian
11-05-2009, 09:42 PM
cbjuhr,.... Let's set the record straight here. With the exception of humor and fishing stories, I don't advocate making exaggerated statements to support claims of illegal or abusive fishing or any other practice by a single enthic or racial group as it's almost always biased towards an authors personal agenda. :cool:

Further, I have no problem understanding that runs of Salmon/Steelhead are in decline and enforcement of applicable laws/regulations is needed but griping/whining about this while not supporting provision of funding to carry out these activities is non-productive. :nod:

The question about photos of 44 nets on a website is not the point. If there are that many in the river, why didn't someone report it to tribal authorities and/or document the result (enforcement or not). :nod: As written this article leaves too many questions unanswered. :confused:

For example, some of the unanswered questions raised in my mind are:

can tribal fishers elect to take all of their allocation in the earliest part of the run :?: If so, wouldn't that allow using legal gill nets, regardless of the number, to accomplish that goal :?:

If Salmon/Steelhead taken by tribal fisherman can be legally sold (as stated by Robert, fishwater, in another thread), is selling 1 pound any different than selling 20,000 pounds (2,000 fish) :?: The total allocation of 6000 fish apparently wasn't reached yet. :confused: That point needed clarification and could've been taken care of in the article but you chose to make that the emotional grab for readers. :-\"

If, as Shawn stated, it's illegal for the tribe to fish without an HMP on file, why is it being allowed by the responsible agency :?:

The acts committed were either legal or illegal. If illegal, NOAA agents would've confiscated the catch and referred the case to the US or District Attorneys office for action. NOAA didn't do that as they apparently did not have a case. After all, they caught the sellers/buyers in the act. :nod: IMO, The reason for the failure to file a Harvest Management Plan making it impossible to prosecute doesn't hold water. :|

Write a better article next time.... :nod:

Jgoding
11-06-2009, 11:41 AM
As I said in an earlier post... if you're going to manage a fishery then manage the fishery. If we're going to let them close off the rivers with nets then why cry about it? Obviously they're not supposed to so then it comes down to enforcement and monitoring/establishing proper quotas. Sounds like enforcement has dropped the ball as nets are totally blocking the river, quotas were set relatively high for the actual run, and the tribe didn't even file the proper paperwork (or something). Obviously the lack of government enforcement seems to to be the largest contributor to this debacle. (so surprising isn't it!)

Darian
11-06-2009, 03:36 PM
I'm curious what impact the Fish kills of 2004 at the mouth of the Klamath had to do with reduced returns over the last few years.... :?: :?: :?: If I recall / understand correctly, this should be the last year of fish returning from that cycle. Also, what's the window for returning Fall-run Salmon on the Trinity?? Are they likely to've returned before and / or after the period that the largest number of nets was observed....??? I seem to recall reports of outstanding fishing on the Trinity over the last few years. :confused:

I've been thinking about the suggestion made by the author about measuring escapement / returns by placement of sonar devices at strategic locations on the Klamath /Trinity Rivers.... :-k Seems to me that this is a very good idea. Atho, the info obtained would appear to be usable only in future years since allocations are established before the fish return. Not sure but I'd bet that records of commercial catches contribute to establishing the number of returning fish for establishing quotas. :-| That's one numerical component that's missing with stopping commercial fishing.

If something similar has not been implemented / installed, maybe it should be explored with BIA, DFG, NOAA, Tribal Council,.... Somebody.... :confused:

Dabalone
11-06-2009, 04:35 PM
As I said in an earlier post... if you're going to manage a fishery then manage the fishery. If we're going to let them close off the rivers with nets then why cry about it? Obviously they're not supposed to so then it comes down to enforcement and monitoring/establishing proper quotas. Sounds like enforcement has dropped the ball as nets are totally blocking the river, quotas were set relatively high for the actual run, and the tribe didn't even file the proper paperwork (or something). Obviously the lack of government enforcement seems to to be the largest contributor to this debacle. (so surprising isn't it!)


The Sacramento and Feather King salmon runs have almost disappeared. Govt. was managing and enforcing those fish without Indian gill netting to deal with, outstanding job. Governments MO is reactive instead of pro active, I guess the situation on the Klamath or Trinity has not reached the UH OH stage yet so why mess with it, its not completely broke yet.

jayclarkflyfishing
11-07-2009, 08:07 AM
Don't know if any of you have seen this documentary but I found it to be very enlightening.

http://www.riverofrenewal.org/page.asp?content_id=13706



Jay

JayDubP
11-07-2009, 02:27 PM
Gill netting is an easy target.

BUT as I asked fishwater (robert) in another post- are there counts at enough places on the Klamath and Trinity to determine how many fish are really taken by gill netting? (or any other means).

IMHO, we can all argue about what needs to be done and what is being done right and wrong, BUT until we have some legitimate counting methods in place spo we can see the facts-- all we can do is speculate.

Darian
11-07-2009, 11:00 PM
Isn't there an existing requirement for a Salmon punch card for recreational fishers on the Klamath drainage :?: Of course, that would only reflect the recreational take. :|

In order to get a reasonable measure, you need some measuring at sea (commercial catch rates), measuring at a lower river location and at strategic points along the rivers. All of which cost more money than the state apparently has and one of these measures (commercial catch rates) is not available for years in which commercial fishing is banned. :|

All of these measures might provide info for more accurate allocations but wouldn't necessarily result in any reduction in illegal activities. Also, from what has been posted under this thread, it isn't entirely clear that the netting cited was illegal just a large number of nets. Certainly, law enforcement people haven't intervened. At any rate, adequate enforcement is, again, a function of funding or lack thereof. :|

Soooo,.... IMHO we had one good measurement in place (commercial catch rate) but have lost it. One count takes place up stream of the reservation at Willow Creek. Good to measure escapement but not usable if the total amount of the return is not known. Another is the punch card system (Salmon/Steelhead). Of course, return of punch cards at the end of the year is hit and miss. Compliance rates are not 100%.

Maybe the real solution to measurement is to revisit this whole issue with DFG and the Tribal council if agreeable. :confused:

ycflyfisher
11-09-2009, 10:51 PM
According to the Boldt decision the tribe cant legally fish if they haven't filed a harvest management plan witht the state. If noaa had any balls they would stop them from fishing until a hmp was filed.


I've got to agree. I wasn't shocked the individual who wrote this article made the claim, I am shocked that he appears to be correct.

ycflyfisher
11-10-2009, 12:16 AM
Darian,

I'm in agreement that there's lots of reasons to question the credibility of the guy who wrote this one. For starters, I seem to recall this being the same guy who a year or two ago was claiming the Yurok took 60+k fish. That's a bit difficult for me to believe.

Also agree that there's lots of reasons to question the objectivity of his first hotsheet on this subject. A fisheries professional sees 45+ nets, some of which are claimed to be spanning the river, and he elects to contact some guy with a little known website, instead of the tribal authorities, yet sticks around to see the nets are averaging some 80+ fish(also tough for me to believe), and then goes on to state that none of the nets were attended. Not a single solitary legal fisherman on the river. Not one. That isn't just hard to believe it's straight up BS. Either he's lying or his "insider" spun a yarn that was very questionable, and he took it at face value. Either way after the supposed fact, his fact checking or his credibility seems to be lacking to me. As picture proof of all this abuse he offers up a single pic of three nets that aren't buoyed or ID'd that were obviously set by one offender as proof. Maybe it happened but I'm doubting the extent to which the truth is being reflected here.

He then goes on to state that a single net (based on his insiders observations on this very unlikely day eclipsed the total escapement for a three week period based on his misinterpretation of the WC weir counts. Clearly the author is not aware of the mechanics of the WC count or is aware and purposely attempts to sway his readers that the WC count is a total and definitive one. Even if it's true to a great extent, this is simply not responsible journalism. I'm having a hard time believing that if this did happen at the magnitude as told by the author this story isn't broken by mass media and not some fishing website.

It is news to me that the Hupa have a commercial take in their ordinance because everything on the net that's recent doesn't indicate that's so. I think (not certain) the Yurok who do have a commerical take ordinance elected not to persue a commercial take this year for the tribe as a whole.

I think most of the fisheries professionals are thinking very much along your train of thought. We really haven't seen appreciable numbers of chinooks moving over the WC weir since the fishkill in 2002 past the first week in Oct most seasons since and there were some strange goings on this year in the K-T basin. Namely the mouth was closed for more days than is typically the norm later into the run progression, coupled with a bump in flows from both Iron Gate and Lewie in late Sept into the first week in Oct reportedly to attempt to bring the very much higher than the norm water temps on both rivers down. The boat races and that corresponding bump seemed from memory to me to happen a week or so later than the norm.

I agree with the author that the WC count was very much lower than the norm (compared to how the run was trending to that point) for the first week in Oct, but I'm not seeing it being alarmingly low for the next two weeks that he seems to think is proof the Tribe made a concerted effort to wipe out all the fish when compared to how the run progressed in 2006-08. The WC count itself is not spectacular, but it's not nearly as bad as the author seems to think it is either. A count of 1100 or so chinooks at the WC weir puts the up river escapement at around 20K fish a fact that seems to escape the author. Not great or not even good, but considering the relative lack of abundance of Chinooks present in 2006 and considering the predominant LH of those fish, I'm not seeing how anyone in the know was predicting a huge abundance for this year. I don't follow the population trends as closely as I once did, and honestly I'm not sure what the level of optimism was for this year's run based on the monitoring data, but the in river conditions (i.e. river temps were higher the sole time I was up there this year the week of 9-19 than they were in the fish kill year and we didn't record a single temp below 70 in the am and 72 in the PM on the K from Dillion down to Johnsons and didn't get one below 70 on the T until we were up around Pigeon Point) weren't exactly favorable for upmigration. I don't see it being totally out of the question that the fish blitzed the river more than is the norm on the bump in flows for the boatraces or during the temp relief bump in flows in late Sept.

We did see seemingly(relative) good numbers of salmon moving up the K below the confluence the week I was there and up the K above the confluence. The typical sight, salmon moving up all day long with concentrated movement in the AM and PM, but movement all day long. The thing we saw that I never seen before was next to no one fishing the T side at Pearson's and next to no salmon compared to the norm visably moving up the mouth of the Trinity. There's usually a half dozen or more rods down there just from the old retired guys that set up shop at E-nee-nuck and BC. Don't know where those guys were fishing this year but they weren't at the mouth of the T in numbers this year. One day we saw two rods, another day, one, the rest of the times we stopped there was no one down there. Can't say my observations are anything more than ancedotal, but I'm not shocked that we're seeing Chinook abundance on the T this year that may be a bit on the low side.

Darian
11-10-2009, 09:24 AM
Thanks for the info. I was hoping you'd jump in here. Beyond trying to debunk the hot sheet info, I didn't have a bunch to offer except questions/observations.... :confused: Apparently, the author's not giving up easily, tho. Check out the other threads on this subject area. :-?

JayDubP
11-10-2009, 03:44 PM
I always question articles- UNLESS there are facts and pictures. Write teh article, provide the proof!

Let us see your pictures of "40 gill nets across the river"

I am not defending our fisheries management, love to see all parties take fish on a monthly basis- BUT that needs cameras and modern fish counts. Spend some of that money the feds give for "studies" (just go $4.8 million in stimulus money to do more studies)

trinity
11-10-2009, 10:26 PM
Thanks for the post ycflyfisher. I am very skeptical of those usafishing reports, they are very slanted and do not seem to be trustworthy. I am not a fan of gillnetts, as the author of usafishing is not either, but responsible reporting is paramount, and I do not think the author is being responsible in his criticism.

From my personal experience the past few years on the Klamath and Trinity, the Indians are not the scapegoat! And I think it is very dangerous to play that blame game.