How many nets do you see?

[WSU]

NOW ITS GETTING INTERESTING IN HERE. WATCH AND SEE WHATS SAID NOW. I THINK WSU MIGHT BE ONE OF THESE  ??

Not a tree hugger, just a little bit edjumacated on the issues.  Facts are facts whether you label people as tree huggers or not. 

[WSU]

Actually we shouldn't give all of "there land" back WSU but should wind those TREATIES up on little rolls and leave them in the outhouse were they belong.I can just imagine what this country would be like if the natives were in charge.Get over it they lost the white man won and they should be grateful for all the free handouts they receive.  

You are actually flat wrong, factually speaking (beyond mis-quoting me and mis-spelling).  This country sure was awful when the Indians ran it with salmon runs roughly 25 to 50 times (not percent, times) higher.  That sure sounds like a bad deal.  

Are regarding the treaties, it wasn't a win or lose type proposition.  At the time, a decision was made by our government to enter into treaties in order to avoid the cost associated with attempting to take all the land by force (a cost that, at the time, our government couldn't afford).  At the time, it was a sweet deal for us.  It still is.  The deal was we agree they catch half the fish (remember, at that point there were 25 to 50 times more fish because we hadn't screwed it up yet) and in exchange we get all the land you and I live on today.  Sounds like awfully cheap real estate to me.

[Dustin07]

Ever heard of Bison?

[WSU]

Actually we shouldn't give all of "there land" back WSU but should wind those TREATIES up on little rolls and leave them in the outhouse were they belong.I can just imagine what this country would be like if the natives were in charge.Get over it they lost the white man won and they should be grateful for all the free handouts they receive.  

You are actually flat wrong, factually speaking (beyond mis-quoting me and mis-spelling).  This country sure was awful when the Indians ran it with salmon runs roughly 25 to 50 times (not percent, times) higher.  That sure sounds like a bad deal.  

Are regarding the treaties, it wasn't a win or lose type proposition.  At the time, a decision was made by our government to enter into treaties in order to avoid the cost associated with attempting to take all the land by force (a cost that, at the time, our government couldn't afford).  At the time, it was a sweet deal for us.  It still is.  The deal was we agree they catch half the fish (remember, at that point there were 25 to 50 times more fish because we hadn't screwed it up yet) and in exchange we get all the land you and I live on today.  Sounds like awfully cheap real estate to me.

I don't think you have spent much time on reservations and viewed their way of living.
p.s. It was a war and the Natives lost. I do not remember a time when a party lost and received as many rights as the natives. I hope this doesn't happen but one day I'm sure the U.S. will get taken over (No kingdom in history has lasted forever) and I doubt the Americans will get any rights when it happens.

First, I have seen reservations and agree it is often a sad thing to see.  Second, I know there was a war.  What you don't realize is that it wasn't a war like you are apparently envisioning.  It wasn't that one side beat the other into submission and got an unconditional surrender.  A decision was made by the U.S. government that it was cheaper and more beneficial to enter into an agreement (treaties) to end the dispute.  The treaties are the word of our country.  I don't know about you, but I think people are only as good as their word.  If you are fine with being dishonest and reneging on our agreements and commitments, that is your prerogative.  I personally think people, and our government, should stand behind their words and commitments.

[motcha]

Wow... you sure do a lot of things about people on the intra-webs.  I mean come on fellas.. tell me how you really feel of the Indian people.  Sure most of you know or are acquainted with a Tribal member of some sort... buts its the other indians that are ruining evertything... getting free hand-outs... drunks... dirty... rude... over-harvesting... poachers... Did I miss anything??  Oh yeah.. they are remnants of the conquering of a nation.

[runamuk]

Actually we shouldn't give all of "there land" back WSU but should wind those TREATIES up on little rolls and leave them in the outhouse were they belong.I can just imagine what this country would be like if the natives were in charge.Get over it they lost the white man won and they should be grateful for all the free handouts they receive.  

You are actually flat wrong, factually speaking (beyond mis-quoting me and mis-spelling).  This country sure was awful when the Indians ran it with salmon runs roughly 25 to 50 times (not percent, times) higher.  That sure sounds like a bad deal.  

Are regarding the treaties, it wasn't a win or lose type proposition.  At the time, a decision was made by our government to enter into treaties in order to avoid the cost associated with attempting to take all the land by force (a cost that, at the time, our government couldn't afford).  At the time, it was a sweet deal for us.  It still is.  The deal was we agree they catch half the fish (remember, at that point there were 25 to 50 times more fish because we hadn't screwed it up yet) and in exchange we get all the land you and I live on today.  Sounds like awfully cheap real estate to me.

I don't think you have spent much time on reservations and viewed their way of living.
p.s. It was a war and the Natives lost. I do not remember a time when a party lost and received as many rights as the natives. I hope this doesn't happen but one day I'm sure the U.S. will get taken over (No kingdom in history has lasted forever) and I doubt the Americans will get any rights when it happens.

First, I have seen reservations and agree it is often a sad thing to see.  Second, I know there was a war.  What you don't realize is that it wasn't a war like you are apparently envisioning.  It wasn't that one side beat the other into submission and got an unconditional surrender.  A decision was made by the U.S. government that it was cheaper and more beneficial to enter into an agreement (treaties) to end the dispute.  The treaties are the word of our country.  I don't know about you, but I think people are only as good as their word.  If you are fine with being dishonest and reneging on our agreements and commitments, that is your prerogative.  I personally think people, and our government, should stand behind their words and commitments.

I completely agree that we should agree to our word HOWEVER times have changed population has grown wild spaces have dwindled, technology has changed how we hunt and fish now back when the treaties were written no one needed a license to harvest game duh just go harvest it....why do we now have to have a license and they dont? tell me why one user group should be treated different than another?  I need to feed my family they need to feed theirs they harvest game I pay taxes to support but I have to buy my game?  think about it for a minute or two...... the treaties give the right to a reasonable harvest what is going on is not reasonable....

 I work on a reservation.

[Copperwood]

 

[grundy53]

This country sure was awful when the Indians ran it with salmon runs roughly 25 to 50 times (not percent, times) higher. That sure sounds like a bad deal.  

Are regarding the treaties, it wasn't a win or lose type proposition. At the time, a decision was made by our government to enter into treaties in order to avoid the cost associated with attempting to take all the land by force (a cost that, at the time, our government couldn't afford). At the time, it was a sweet deal for us. IT still is. The deal was we agree they catch half the fish (remember, at that point there were 25 to 50 times more fish because we hadn't screwed it up yet) and in exchange we get all the land you and I live on today. Sounds like awfully cheap real estate to me.

Except these Indians are NOT the same Indians as they were then. back then they only took what they needed to survive. now they shoot elk and let them rot, they gill net salmon and steelhead and let them go to waste. they run casinos and earn a way higher amount of money then they need to sustain themselves. they don't even need to harvest wildlife to survive anymore... that's why they waste it. if they lived like they used to i would agree with you... but they don't. SCREW THEM

[WSU]

I completely agree that we should agree to our word HOWEVER times have changed population has grown wild spaces have dwindled, technology has changed how we hunt and fish now back when the treaties were written no one needed a license to harvest game duh just go harvest it....why do we now have to have a license and they dont? tell me why one user group should be treated different than another?  I need to feed my family they need to feed theirs they harvest game I pay taxes to support but I have to buy my game?  think about it for a minute or two...... the treaties give the right to a reasonable harvest what is going on is not reasonable....

 I work on a reservation.
[/quote]

I never said the harvest going on is reasonable.  In fact, I specifically said there shouldn't be harvest of a stock that consistently fails to meet escape (such as the Skagit). 

It is an interesting point regarding the change of the world.  Clearly the world does not exist as it did when the treaties were signed.  The strange thing is, people use this as ammo for both positions.  Folks argue that the Indians are wrong because they sell the fish the catch.  What part of subsistence is that, right?  Well, the logical problem as I see is that we have created a world in which money is required.  The tribes can no longer roam around catching and killing what they need, and living accordingly.  Clearly in todays world they need money for the necessities of life.  This is especially true because much of the territory they relied on for their former way of life is now owned by non-Indians and is no longer available.  This trade, land for the right to fish and hunt, is how the present situation came to be.  This is the same reason that you are limited in your pursuit of fish and game.  The Indians (not all, but the treaty tribes) traded their land for a the reservation and the right to preserve their hunting and fishing way of life.  This is a right they reserved.  You are stuck because the government is honoring its deal. 

I like to think of the flip side.  Would we all feel the same if we agreed to give away all our land in exchange for the right to hunt and fish, and then a few generations down the road someone took those rights away from our grand kids?  Told our grand kids "I know we had a deal, and thanks again for all the land, but you are now SOL."  Sound fair?

[grundy53]

I like to think of the flip side.  Would we all feel the same if we agreed to give away all our land in exchange for the right to hunt and fish, and then a few generations down the road someone took those rights away from our grand kids?  Told our grand kids "I know we had a deal, and thanks again for all the land, but you are now SOL."  Sound fair?

 If my grand kids were irresponsibly WASTING wildlife and abusing there right. then no it wouldn't bother me one bit. i think the old Indians would be sickened by whats going on and be the first ones to take it away from them. just my

[bone head]

this all had to do with the netting and how lots of the fish caught in the netting were going to waste. i have relatives that are full blooded tribal members up in northwestern montana and herd alot of good and bad things. wsu i've grown up in the logging industry and have seen good and bad loggers in my little bit of time i've been on this earth. there are non native people in this world that do wrong and quite a few but there are also native members that do wrong also meaning no ones perfect and there will never be. the one thing that upsets me are the netting thats not sportsman like at all but what is. motcha and i are friends and he is a native friend of mine so i do have native friends and would probably share anything i know with lol. so motcha how'd ya do this last weekend on the mtn? lol did you see some snow?? lol

[WSU]

this all had to do with the netting and how lots of the fish caught in the netting were going to waste. i have relatives that are full blooded tribal members up in northwestern montana and herd alot of good and bad things. wsu i've grown up in the logging industry and have seen good and bad loggers in my little bit of time i've been on this earth. there are non native people in this world that do wrong and quite a few but there are also native members that do wrong also meaning no ones perfect and there will never be. the one thing that upsets me are the netting thats not sportsman like at all but what is. motcha and i are friends and he is a native friend of mine so i do have native friends and would probably share anything i know with lol. so motcha how'd ya do this last weekend on the mtn? lol did you see some snow?? lol

True enough.  There are certainly folks of all races, professions, etc. that run the spectrum from good to bad, responsible to irresponsible. 

Also, I agree with many on here that irresponsible netting practices should not be allowed, whether allowed by a tribe, WDFW, or whoever.  My main point is that the tribes have a right to fish, and that most of the problems we face today are of our own creation. 

[runamuk]

this all had to do with the netting and how lots of the fish caught in the netting were going to waste. i have relatives that are full blooded tribal members up in northwestern montana and herd alot of good and bad things. wsu i've grown up in the logging industry and have seen good and bad loggers in my little bit of time i've been on this earth. there are non native people in this world that do wrong and quite a few but there are also native members that do wrong also meaning no ones perfect and there will never be. the one thing that upsets me are the netting thats not sportsman like at all but what is. motcha and i are friends and he is a native friend of mine so i do have native friends and would probably share anything i know with lol. so motcha how'd ya do this last weekend on the mtn? lol did you see some snow?? lol

True enough.  There are certainly folks of all races, professions, etc. that run the spectrum from good to bad, responsible to irresponsible. 

Also, I agree with many on here that irresponsible netting practices should not be allowed, whether allowed by a tribe, WDFW, or whoever.  My main point is that the tribes have a right to fish, and that most of the problems we face today are of our own creation. 

yes and the problems they have are of their own creation......if every person would buck up and be personally responsible for themselves instead of blaming someone else we wouldn't be in this mess.....and by mess I mean country going down the toilet faster than a dead goldfish.....

I like to think of the flip side.  Would we all feel the same if we agreed to give away all our land in exchange for the right to hunt and fish, and then a few generations down the road someone took those rights away from our grand kids?  Told our grand kids "I know we had a deal, and thanks again for all the land, but you are now SOL."  Sound fair?

 If my grand kids were irresponsibly WASTING wildlife and abusing there right. then no it wouldn't bother me one bit. i think the old Indians would be sickened by whats going on and be the first ones to take it away from them. just my

Actually that is exactly what is happening on our public lands...public meaning all of ours we are being pushed off so other user groups can continue to over harvest as they were guaranteed by a poor decision made by a judge who should have been removed......my grandchildren will be SOL at this rate on OUR collective land...why does being a white american mean we have no rights or say or are the scape goat for every bad action a hundred plus years ago??  I didn't do crap to any Indians or african americans or any other race I was born and american and as such am supposed to have a constitution and bill of rights protecting my freedoms.....apparently that was all just paper to be changed but we must honor the treaties...holy crap my blood pressure just spiked    off to find my bucket to soak my head.......that is if I am still allowed to own a bucket.....

[WSU]

I gotta say, your post illustrates your misunderstanding of our legal system.  This issue isn't whether you feel you are getting screwed or whether you did anything to Indians.  Further, the bill of rights has little to do with the discussion we are having.  Perhaps you can explain how it does and what amendment is being infringed upon?

[Sneaky]

You're right, WSU. This issue isn't that I feel like I'm getting screwed (even though I feel we are all getting the short end of the stick here) doesn't matter. Our feelings are irrelevant. The treaties are what they are and that's that. Just like the Boldt decision. However, I feel it is necessary to re-examine the resources available and how hey have changed. The tribes are abusing these resources. To me, this isn't an issue of the tribes netting the fish, it's an issue of ANYONE netting the fish. Our state simply does not boast the populations necessary for commercial fishing of any kind, in my opinion. To me, it doesn't matter whose nets are strung all the way across the river. If the tribes wish to continue to fish at all in the future, they need to start taking a look at a new conservation strategy. The fish will eventually die out if they can't make it up river.