FYI: Tribal Poaching Patrol - Fly Fishing Forum
Pacific Northwest Sea Run Forum No such thing as rainbow trout, only landlocked steelhead

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-22-2003, 05:14 PM
Hillbilly Hillbilly is offline
Recent Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: saukskagitstilliguamishfortsonmillpond
Posts: 6
Post FYI: Tribal Poaching Patrol

http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/03/9/21/17508810.cfm
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #2  
Old 09-22-2003, 07:36 PM
fredaevans fredaevans is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rogue River
Posts: 3,856
The idea is good, but a 100 acre reservation?

From this point on, I think I'll just bite my lips shut. I wonder what their enforcement options really are?
fae
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #3  
Old 09-23-2003, 02:40 PM
flytyer flytyer is offline
Pullin' Thread
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NW Washington
Posts: 3,346
Fred,

Provided they get a formal "Articulated Agreement" with the Snohomish and Skagit Counties Sheriff's Offices, they will have the same authority to arrest non-Indians both on- and off-reservation (it is actually a reservation of about 53 acres) as the Sheriff's Deputies from these counties.

I personally think this has the potential of being a very good thing for fishing and hunting law enforcement in the Sauk and Skagit above Rockport. It would sure be nice to see another 3 or 4 fish and game cops in that area on a regular basis. The poachers will have a problem with it though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #4  
Old 09-23-2003, 03:51 PM
Mean Mr Mustard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Good to get the ducks in a row for enforcement, but what about the various county prosecutors?

Sorry, the eternal pessimist shows through yet again...

mmm
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #5  
Old 09-23-2003, 06:13 PM
KerryS KerryS is offline
Skidrow Woolley Fly Club
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Skagit system
Posts: 661
Hopefully this thread won't deteriorate like itís cousin on the other board.

My only concern is why the heck are they buying a 27 foot boat and patrolling the sound? Why not stick to what they know best, the upper rivers? I question the motive of this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #6  
Old 09-23-2003, 06:59 PM
Mean Mr Mustard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Kerry,

Might it be a perk for tribal leaders, or

Might it be to maintain a tribal presence, in Puget Sound, for the tribe's commercial fishing interests?

Sure seems to me to be a waste of funding dollars. Let the lower tribes spend up a big boat - you know they will; freeing up funds for a more thorough local enforcement on the upper rivers' spawning grounds.

$.02

mmm

Last edited by Mean Mr Mustard; 09-23-2003 at 07:02 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #7  
Old 09-24-2003, 11:27 PM
flytyer flytyer is offline
Pullin' Thread
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NW Washington
Posts: 3,346
MMM,

The Sauk's cannot fish in the Sound commercially unless they are invited to do so by the Swinomish or Upper Skagit tribes. They have no history of fishing in the Sound like the other two Skagit Valley tribes. This being the case, I suspect they are buying the 27 ft boat as a means to show the other two tribes that they will help with inforcement in the Sound; thus, having the other two tribes continue to invite them to harvest shellfish in the Sound.

The three Skagit Valley tribes with fishing rights per Bolt (Samish was a "decommisioned tribe" at the time of the Bolt decision and have no fishing rights as a result) have been working on a way to help WDFW enforcement officers the last five years. The stumbling block has been money to hire the tribal officers. The three tribes have all received federal grant monies for the express purpose of helping enforce the fishing regulations of WDFW in the Skagit drainage.

I for one am glad that the three fishing treaty tribes are taking their co-management of the resource seriously and have pursued funds in order to hire more "fish cops". Lord knows that the WDFW enforcement folks have a huge territory to cover with far too fewd officers for the task. I bet the poachers are not going to be happy about this change though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Fly Fishing Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Caspian Tern Patrol Eric Pacific Northwest Sea Run Forum 0 04-22-2013 12:09 AM
POACHING PROBLEMS DEERHAAWK Our Environment 2 03-28-2005 10:32 AM
Poaching advise? OC Stripers and Coastal Gamefish 5 07-23-2003 11:02 AM
...the new Chatham Beach Patrol... Penguin Stripers and Coastal Gamefish 11 09-06-2002 12:11 PM
Last day of tribal netting on coastal Olympic Peninsula rivers juro Pacific Northwest Sea Run Forum 1 08-29-2001 03:46 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:53 AM.



Copyright Flyfishingforum.com (All Rights Reserved)