8000 Salmon In One Day? - Klamath

[Troutsource]

According to Steve Townzen on 9/6:

"Reports from the mouth of the Klamath are, "its silly with fish", the Yurok tribe reported catching 8 thousand fish in one day last week (http://www.trinityfishing.com/fishingreport.html).

Is this normal or does it indicate a great salmon season?

Also, I just found this article about "toxic algae in the Klamath (http://www.redding.com/news/2012/sep/12/toxic-algae-found-in-klamath-river/)."

"It hasn't resulted in a fish kill. We are concerned, but right now they are holding their own," Creager said of the spawning salmon.

[Frank Alessio]

Disgusting.....

[winxp_man]

Disgusting.....

+1


I wonder were the fish go? :confused:

[Darian]

Unless things have changed, the take of Salmon by Native Americans is regulated by the feds/state under the "Boldt decision" which gave them the right to net half of all available Salmon returning to rivers on reservation land in any given year (Boldt was the presiding federal court judge at the time).

So, as long as netting doesn't exceed the quota assigned for a given year, based on estimates of the number of all Salmon returning to the Klamath, it's legal and has been going on that way since the decision in the late 70's or early 80's (?).

I'm not sure what to say to the question, "I wonder were the fish go? :confused:

ps: It seems to me that having a large number of fish confined in close quarters in an estuary with toxic algae is formula for disaster.

[Frank Alessio]

Gotta hate that Algae....

[winxp_man]

Just agreeing with Frank that's all Darian........ ;)

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

I guess they are still planning on taking down several dams on the Klamath River?

That should cure the algae problem.

The wild salmon compared to farm raised fish are getting a higher price now so those native Americans are getting good money for their fish.

[dpentoney]

Anyone buying salmon netted in the Klamath River is not getting a good deal. Those fish take on a muddy taste soon after they enter the river. Those fish aren't nearly as good as fish from other North Coast rivers.

[Jake O]

1/2 of the total projected run just seems obsurd. This year the yurok tribe is allowed to harvest 105,000. To put this number in prospective, the ENTIRE california commercial salmon fishing industry boated approximately 175,000 chinook this season. I'm all for the Indians being allowed to fish with Gill nets, and catch a bunch, but the numbers are just obsurd....if they are allowed to harvest 1/2 of the run, and they actually do, and you assume that another 1/4 are lost to predation, natural causes, fisherman, etc., how can 1/4 of the returning run support itself?

Once again, all for indian rights, but certainly wish the quota numbers would be revisted.

[Rockman]

I agree, the nets are so abundant, it is hard to imagine how good the fishing would be if the quota's were reduced. In response to "muddy tasteing". I can not agree with that statement. I have eaten so many salmon from that river, and every one of them was great! I hope someday that the quota's will be reduced for the indians, which will benefit the entire river system.

[Mike O]

Seriously? Blame the natives for catching fish? Wow...just wow.

[Darian]

So Jake O,.... If I understand the statement that, "....This year the yurok tribe is allowed to harvest 105,000. To put this number in prospective, the ENTIRE california commercial salmon fishing industry boated approximately 175,000 chinook this season.", correctly, the commercial fishery caught 70,000 more than the Indian gill net fishery and that doesn't take into account the number caught by recreational fishers, so far.

How do we interpret these figures. If the Indians caught their full allocation (50%) all available fish, then commercial recreational fishers exceeded their allocation. On the other hand, if the commercial/recreational fishers caught their full allocation, it would mean that Indian gill netters didn't catch their full allocation. Doesn't seem to support your point....

Numbers are always subject to review and potential change but in this case the numbers are based on a percentage of available fish, complicated by an estimate of all fish available to catch. Each side is granted a 50% allotment. Being granted an allotment doesn't mean that either group will catch their full allotment of the fish.

In order to change the percentage stated in the Boldt decision, a suit would have to be filed in US District Court. Anything requesting review of the percentage aimed at a reduction of the allocation to Native Americans, only, would probably be viewed with suspicion unless it could show that the decision was faulty and/or come up with better method of allocation.

Good luck with that....

[Jake O]

[QUOTE=Darian;123109]So Jake O,.... If I understand the statement that, "....This year the yurok tribe is allowed to harvest 105,000. To put this number in prospective, the ENTIRE california commercial salmon fishing industry boated approximately 175,000 chinook this season.", correctly, the commercial fishery caught 70,000 more than the Indian gill net fishery and that doesn't take into account the number caught by recreational fishers, so far.



The difference in my mind is that they are taking that entire number from one watershed, whereas the commercial numbers are from up and down the entire coast.

To Mike O---not blaming indians for anything, they should be able to take what they are alloted--just which the alloted numbers would be revisited a little.

[shawn kempkes]

The Boldt decision originally had nothing to do with the klamath or any rivers in oregon or California. It only affected Washington. Several tribes were guaranteed the right to fish and hunt on there usual and accustomed places in several treaties that the territorial governor signed with them in 1859?. The state wasnt letting these tribes fish when and where they wanted to. So they sued and won. Judge Boldt said that the tribes were co managers of the rescources and they were entitled to half the allowable harvest of fish and game.

The Klamath indians had no such treaty and were guaranteed no such rights. NOAA is wrongly applying this ruling to the Klamath. IMHO

Here is how it is supposed to work lets say a river has an escapement goal of 100,000 fish
thats what it needs to ensure the health of the run. The run is actually 200,000 fish. So the tribe is entitled to 50,000 fish and the cowboys are entitled to 50,000 fish with the recreational fisherman getting short changed on a regular basis.

The escapement goal for the Klamath is 40,700 so anything above that is considered harvestable this years run size projection is 380 k fish so that leaves alot of harvestable fish.

The Yuroks share of the catch is 127 k fish

http://www.yuroktribe.org/departments/fisheries/documents/2012FallHMPsigned.pdf

[Darian]

I don't have first hand knowledge of this. What I've stated was from what I've read and memory. That being said, IMO, support for application of the decision in this state was/is based at least in part on the fact that it was issued by a ninth circuit court judge, regardless of an appeal was filed or reported, and all of the west coast is included in that judicial district. Much of the riparian land in this state, Oregon and Washington is located on reservation land and suits initiated by Native Americans based on treaty rights have, generally, been successful. Even the California Marine Life Protection Act (a state constitutional amendment) project had to agree to take native American fishing rights into account in establishing protected marine areas.

So, it seems to me that at least a part of the reason that provisions of the Boldt decision were applied here and maybe in Oregon as well is a matter of taking pre-emptive action. A new suit by Native Americans could go either way but most likely in favor of Native fisherman. Loss of such a suit could have even more drastic consequences for fish/fisherman than the Boldt decision....

[Mike O]

[QUOTE=Darian;123109]
To Mike O---not blaming indians for anything, they should be able to take what they are alloted--just which the alloted numbers would be revisited a little.


Sure...right after they revisit the historical allocation of land ownership.

[Jake O]

If you would like to donate your property to make for a more equal distribution I'm sure they would be more than happy to take it. ;)

[shawn kempkes]

I don't have first hand knowledge of this. What I've stated was from what I've read and memory. That being said, IMO, support for application of the decision in this state was/is based at least in part on the fact that it was issued by a ninth circuit court judge, regardless of an appeal was filed or reported, and all of the west coast is included in that judicial district. Much of the riparian land in this state, Oregon and Washington is located on reservation land and suits initiated by Native Americans based on treaty rights have, generally, been successful. Even the California Marine Life Protection Act (a state constitutional amendment) project had to agree to take native American fishing rights into account in establishing protected marine areas.

So, it seems to me that at least a part of the reason that provisions of the Boldt decision were applied here and maybe in Oregon as well is a matter of taking pre-emptive action. A new suit by Native Americans could go either way but most likely in favor of Native fisherman. Loss of such a suit could have even more drastic consequences for fish/fisherman than the Boldt decision....

The klamath reservation the yurok and karuk tribes reservations were created by congress and presidental orders and not by treaties.
In Washington there are tribes that werent part of the treaties that have no standing under Boldt and they dont have the Same rights as the treaty tribes. They still get to fish but their allocation comes out of the sport Commercial share. One of the tribes has abandoned gill nets and is starting to use a purse seines instead of gill nets because they canselect out the wild fish.

[Darian]

Just an opinion but, since Native Americans enjoy independent, sovereign status and many natives do not reside on a reservation without affecting their status in a recognized tribe, I'd say that when a reservation was created has no bearing on whether all or part of provisions of the Boldt decision are applied here (California) or not. Groups of Native Americans not recognized in the past have petitioned congress for and received recognition for themselves and reservation status for the land they have lived on historically. In California and in other states, Native Americans can petition congress to grant reservation status to land that they have never occupied to construct gambling casinos without affecting their sovereign status. In other words, treaties are with between people or groups of same, not land.

Aside from that, I'm also of the opinion that this state, at least, has decided to apply whatever principals from the Boldt decision that they see fit to apply in order to avoid raising any reason that would aggravate Native Americans over fishery rights. It's only prudent as in this state, the feds/state have already lost a suit over adequate flows in the Trinity River.

[cyama]

This appears to be the decision. http://www.fws.gov/arcata/fisheries/reports/tamwg/meeting15_march06/Fishing%20Rights%20of%20the%20Yurok%20and%20Hoopa% 20Valley%20Tribes%20October%205,%201993%20%20Solic itor.pdf

At least one of the people in this discussion is a lawyer and it is not me.

I am just happy to watch the salmon swim freely on the Yuba and catch the bad ass trout and steelies on the Yuba and Feather!

[Darian]

Hmmmm,.... Just re-read the entire thread and noticed that the following quote was attributed to me but was posted by Jake O:

Originally Posted by Darian
To Mike O---not blaming indians for anything, they should be able to take what they are alloted--just which the alloted numbers would be revisited a little.

[Rherrjr]

Jake O - "If you would like to donate your property to make for a more equal distribution I'm sure they would be more than happy to take it."

Really?!?!?!?!?!?! lol, regardless of the health of a watershed or not, this statement sums up the bigoted, ethnocentric, ideologies that the Native Americans have to deal with in our society today. And as for the the watershed goes...the native fishing is a very minor issue compared to the habitat destruction and land raping which is still occurring on a wide spread international basis....and who's responsible for that? lol property donation :lol:

[Mike O]

If you would like to donate your property to make for a more equal distribution I'm sure they would be more than happy to take it. ;)

I am not the one complaining about native catch rates. It's a trade I am comfortable with. Casinos and fish for my house.

[Jake O]

Jake O - "If you would like to donate your property to make for a more equal distribution I'm sure they would be more than happy to take it."

Really?!?!?!?!?!?! lol, regardless of the health of a watershed or not, this statement sums up the bigoted, ethnocentric, ideologies that the Native Americans have to deal with in our society today. And as for the the watershed goes...the native fishing is a very minor issue compared to the habitat destruction and land raping which is still occurring on a wide spread international basis....and who's responsible for that? lol property donation :lol:

Why is everyone so quick to assume that everything someone says has racial conotations....... Mike suggested land distribution, and "jolking around" i suggested he could donate his property. A fishing board should be about good hearted fun, with some serious discussion mixed in. This comment was intended as the former. And yes, there are clearly greater problems affecting the fisheries, problems wich the Yurok tribe actually fight against. I did not and do not intend on taking any shots against Native Americans. Fish on gents, native americans and colonel custards alike!

[Troutsource]

Per Steve Huber: "Yes there are a lot of fish in the system but catches have not been as easy as past banner years due in part to all the tribal net pressure (http://www.usafishing.com/klamath.html). The commercial season is supposed to close on September 23rd and if the nets are pulled we could see a huge push of fish over the last week of September."