Tribal fishing

[Special T]

"Tribes have the right to fish. Non tribal is a privilege."


That comment is about the most racist comment I've seen on this thread.

Actually i think its  factual... now in ID hunting and fishing is an right but if you look it up in Wa it is a privilege.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[trophyhunt]

"Tribes have the right to fish. Non tribal is a privilege."


That comment is about the most racist comment I've seen on this thread.

Actually i think its  factual... now in ID hunting and fishing is an right but if you look it up in Wa it is a privilege.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I know, but I don’t care what the current Wa regulation says.  God gave us the RIGHT to provide for our family, not the state.  One human has no more Rights than the other in my world, don’t take this the wrong way though, I follow the laws.

[Special T]

"Tribes have the right to fish. Non tribal is a privilege."


That comment is about the most racist comment I've seen on this thread.

Actually i think its  factual... now in ID hunting and fishing is an right but if you look it up in Wa it is a privilege.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I know, but I don’t care what the current Wa regulation says.  God gave us the RIGHT to provide for our family, not the state.  One human has no more Rights than the other in my world, don’t take this the wrong way though, I follow the laws.

You must have had something in your coffee to make original comment then.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Bareback]

"Tribes have the right to fish. Non tribal is a privilege."


That comment is about the most racist comment I've seen on this thread.

There’s absolutely nothing racist about that statement. It’s a fact of life. The tribes that signed the Stevens Treaty in 1855 acquired the right to fish, it’s the law. On the other hand Washington license holders buy a privilege to fish. That is why big brother Jay could shut down fishing a couple of Marches ago but we could still boat.  I may not agree with it, which is a moot point, since it will never be changed.

I do get a kick out of the “racist” comment, which is completely irrelevant. 

[Igor]

"Tribes have the right to fish. Non tribal is a privilege."


That comment is about the most racist comment I've seen on this thread.

There’s absolutely nothing racist about that statement. It’s a fact of life. The tribes that signed the Stevens Treaty in 1855 acquired the right to fish, it’s the law. On the other hand Washington license holders buy a privilege to fish. That is why big brother Jay could shut down fishing a couple of Marches ago but we could still boat.  I may not agree with it, which is a moot point, since it will never be changed.

I do get a kick out of the “racist” comment, which is completely irrelevant. 

Where do you get the idea that the government "gives", or grants, rights ?

[Bareback]

Treaties. Read the Stevens Treaty succeeded by the bolt decision.

[Igor]

Treaties. Read the Stevens Treaty succeeded by the bolt decision.

So, according to you, government can grant a "right", like fishing, to one subset of US citizens, but not to other citizens ?  And, if government can indeed grant that "right", then does it not have the power to take away that right, or any right, or all rights ?
I have a feeling that you probably flunked Civics 101 in high school.

[Fishmaker57]

The government does not "grant" anything to the Tribes. They negotiate treaties, as Washington Tribes are considered Sovern Nations, with the US borders.

[Tbar]

Treaties. Read the Stevens Treaty succeeded by the bolt decision.

So, according to you, government can grant a "right", like fishing, to one subset of US citizens, but not to other citizens ?  And, if government can indeed grant that "right", then does it not have the power to take away that right, or any right, or all rights ?
I have a feeling that you probably flunked Civics 101 in high school.

Actually Igor, you may want to do some research. The rights were reserved, not granted. Stated clearly and explicitly in the treaty as well as discussed in the minutes multiple times. This was validated by SCOTUS in 1905.

[Igor]

Actually Igor, you may want to do some research. The rights were reserved, not granted. Stated clearly and explicitly in the treaty as well as discussed in the minutes multiple times. This was validated by SCOTUS in 1905.

Actually, I know and understand that.  I was responding to this comment:

"The tribes that signed the Stevens Treaty in 1855 acquired the right to fish......".

I was asking the one who made that comment if he believed that the government "granted" that right to fish?  I fully understand the concept of "reserved rights".

[Tbar]

Actually Igor, you may want to do some research. The rights were reserved, not granted. Stated clearly and explicitly in the treaty as well as discussed in the minutes multiple times. This was validated by SCOTUS in 1905.

Actually, I know and understand that.  I was responding to this comment:

"The tribes that signed the Stevens Treaty in 1855 acquired the right to fish......".

I was asking the one who made that comment if he believed that the government "granted" that right to fish?  I fully understand the concept of "reserved rights".

[Bareback]

Hoh Indian Tribe v. Baldrige, 522 F. Supp.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case involves the treaty fishing rights of three separate Washington coastal Indian tribes as they are affected by the regulations of the defendant Secretary of Commerce governing fishing for salmon in the waters of the Fishery Conservation Zone off California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska and regulations of the intervenor-defendant State of Washington in state waters of northwestern Washington.

Just a cut in paste, if you want to dig further in to it go for it.

We can debate the verbiage I used all day, especially in a legal context. We could consider “granted” a court ruling.

I really don’t have a stance on the subject, Im just providing an opinion on the interpretation of the laws, which is subjective. I’ve been reading these court rulings and case laws (which there a close to a 100) for the last thirty years.

[Bareback]

You are correct Igor, I should have used reserved instead of granted.

[Wetwoodshunter]

Good job everyone for keeping this civil. I posted this somewhere else on this site a few years back but here is the low down.

The Tribes negotiated the treaties with the U.S. Government in 1855 and 1856. These treaties were negotiated to allow for the settlement of non-tribal people on currently owned tribal land. Each treaty is specifically written for each tribe or group of tribes that falls under the Treaty based on what they felt was essential to continue their way of life. At the signing of the treaties subsistence fishing, commercial fishing, and gambling (bone games among others) were all important aspects to the tribes. There are both treaties and minutes for the treaties that are equally important because the treaties were negotiated in a language not native to the tribes. In many instances something that was negotiated did not have a word to represent it (all marine rockfish the same etc.).

Before the treaties were signed the tribes owned everything, including all fish and game resources. For non-tribal, or tribal members in areas not currently deemed as their territory permission had to be granted by the occupying tribe in order to fish, hunt, or build. When the treaties were negotiated the tribes reserved 50% of the fish and game resources for their use as they saw fit, commercial, subsistence doesn't matter its theirs to distribute at will. non-tribal gets the other share of 50% to distribute as they see fit.

The Boldt decision reaffirmed the treaties as the supreme law of the land. Prior to this the State of Washington was dictating what they felt that the tribes treaty rights were effectively violating the treaties. Boldt affirmed that the tribes had a right to 50% of all of the resources and were owners of it and were responsible for managing their fisheries as they see fit. Tribal leadership participates in all forums for fishery management including, the International Pacific Halibut Commission, Pacific Salmon Commission, Whiting Joint Management Commission, North of Falcon Salmon process and Pacific Fishery Management Council.  In most cases the best ally to non-tribal fishermen at these forums are the tribes, as interests are generally the same with the coastwide picture. Domestically, like in the North of Falcon process things get trickier as how to split the pie varies dramatically around the table. A good example is a river fishermen may want to maximize in river fisheries while an ocean fishermen may want to see more fisheries in marine areas.

For salmon its not simply a 1:1 trade and shifting impacts from ocean areas to river areas or vice versa changes impacts in all systems where the mixed stocks may go. Timing of a fishery also significantly affects your stock composition as runs hit rivers at different times so your impacts on specific watersheds shift throughout the season. Things get even further complicated when rivers are managed for natural/hatchery origin components too as you may have a surplus of hatchery fish but a declining natural stock. When fishing on the hatchery stock you would also impact the wild stock, necessitating reductions of a fishery even though you see an abundance of hatchery fish in a system.

Any way you look at it fisheries as well as wildlife management is full of really tough decisions. No matter what people are going to get mad. I see the main issues with salmon as firstly predator control and loss of habitat. These two far out shadow the harvest that occurs, for instance shutting down all marine salmon fisheries yields a 2-3 day food supply for the killer whales. The other point is that during the peak of logging in this state, there were also bounties on sea lions and maximum hatchery production. Even though habitat destruction was at its greatest there were a plentiful fish and technology that pales in comparison to what we have today. Recreationally, which I assume is the sector that most of you participate in there has been an explosion of participants. For instance in a single recreational fishing opener Neah Bay port sampling counts may have in excess of 700 vessels participating but then stays consistent around 200 per day from May - August. Technology is constantly advancing to improve fishery success. Look at the size of the boats on the water compared to the past, bottom discriminations on chart plotters, ability to get within meters of that epic rockpile and repeat the drift, downriggers so you know exactly where your gear is fishing, electric reels were virtually non-existent 5 years ago. All I am saying is it all adds up to shorter sport season, similar to the whole scopes on mzloader discussion.

Just like the non-tribal fisheries the tribal fisheries feel the pinch too. Tribes manage their fisheries and it is far from a free for all like a lot of people want to believe. As far as gill nets, Tribes implement them frequently in commercial and subsistence in river fisheries, there is really not a better tactic for removing fish from a specific watershed. You can have an in-river gill net fishery in tributary or river with little to no impact on a neighboring system that may not have a healthy run.

Anyway, here is my but its only two cents in a multi trillion dollar discussion especially if you factor in zero non-tribal homesteading would have occurred without the treaties.

[Whitefoot]

 

"Tribes have the right to fish. Non tribal is a privilege."


That comment is about the most racist comment I've seen on this thread.