1 / 8

The Suquamish Tribe Treaty Fisheries in Puget Sound

The Suquamish Tribe Treaty Fisheries in Puget Sound. Brief Historical Background & Chronology of Events Treaty of Point Elliott Judge Boldt Decision Judge Rafeedie Decision Shellfish Implementation Plan Sharing, Allocation and Used and Accustomed Areas (U&As) Case Study: Geoduck Clam.

sinclair
Download Presentation

The Suquamish Tribe Treaty Fisheries in Puget Sound

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Suquamish Tribe Treaty Fisheries in Puget Sound • Brief Historical Background & Chronology of EventsTreaty of Point ElliottJudge Boldt DecisionJudge Rafeedie Decision • Shellfish Implementation Plan • Sharing, Allocation and Used and Accustomed Areas (U&As) • Case Study: Geoduck Clam vbarry@suquamish.nsn.us www.suquamish.nsn.us

  2. Chronology of Events: • Treaty of Point Elliott • Article 5 secured fishing rights in • common with all citizens • Judge George Boldt Decision • 1974, half of the available salmon & steelhead • Judge Edward Rafeedie • 1994 half of TAC for shellfish on • public & private land / waters

  3. Objective of Plan: • To provide a framework, principles and • course of action for cooperative management • Goal: • To provide Treaty & non-Treaty parties the • opportunity to harvest their share in an orderly manner • Procedures: • Calls for interim and long term management plans (Suquamish is involved in drafting plans for eight species in roughly 5 management areas) • Coordination among Tribes: • Tribes are responsible for all inter-tribal coordination • Principles addressed in Plan: • Sharing • Management plans for resources in public waters • Commercial shellfish growers • Private property w/o commercial shellfish growing • Dispute resolution

  4. Overlapping U&As: Where 2 or more Tribes have overlapping U&As, the combination of tribal harvest shall not exceed 50% of the overall TAC Intertribal Allocation: Allocating the tribal share shall be determined by the affected Tribes through appropriate intertribal agreement. Lack of such agreement shall not entitle a combination of Tribes to take over 50%

  5. http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/shelfish/geoduck/

  6. Harbo 1997 Geoduck Tracts 18’ to 70’ MLLW • How to Establish the Biomass • Each Tract: • Is surveyed prior to fishing • Method used is random / systematic • Scuba divers swim transects perpendicular • to shore • Geoduck siphons (shows) are counted • within 6’ X 150’ transects (900ft2) • Random weight samples are collected • Biomass is calculated using a show factor • How to Determine Quotas • Biomass from each surveyed tract is summed in the area to manage • The total poundage is multiplied by 0.027 to • determine annual TAC • The annual TAC is divided by 2 between state & tribes Seattle

  7. Central Sound Region • TAC = 1.2M lbs • State share = 600K lbs • Treaty share: • SR1 = 300K lbs • Exclusive Suquamish U&A • SR2 = 200K lbs • Suquamish Tribe • Tulalip Tribes • SR3-4 = 100K lbs • Jamestown Tribe • Lower Elwha Tribe • Lummi Tribe • Port Gamble Tribe • Suquamish Tribe • Swinomish Tribe • Tulalip Tribes • Issues: • State considers the whole region as basis for TAC • Tribes have to calculate TAC in their respective U&As • State has disproportionately harvested within the region, affecting future treaty TACs • Current situation: • Tribes part of the Central Sound Management Plan are requesting the state to harvest proportionately within the overlapping U&A sub regions. • State is willing to accommodate some proportionate harvest over time but have not put a plan forward after 4 years of negotiations • Not all Tribes agree on how to deal with state’s years of disproportionate harvest SR3-4 SR2 SR1

More Related