How many nets do you see?

[runamuk]

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?

obviously I am an idiot and will now just walk away....you are right.... are you happy ...the indians deserve what the boldt decision gave them......I am white so it is all my fault that any other race has been downtrodden at any time in history...oh wait but I am downtrodden because I am female....

OUR legal system is screwed when a person can win a lawsuit for millions over a cup of coffee a person spilled on themselves.. we live in a society that is beyond help...whats worse is people think that it is ok and even right that you can be an idiot and still blame someone else. NO I do not understand any system that doesn't hold individuals accountable for their own actions.

well lets see forced insurance ..... hunting licenses and tags when another user group doesn't need them...proof of my status as an american when another user group doesn't need them...ummm taxes.... being taxed by a government that refuses to take no for an answer and just bullies the people.....as you said the only paper that matters is the treaties and the boldt decision.....

who needs fish anyway let the natives fish them into extinction I dont care .....not like I want my grandkids to see these fish....we can maybe see some examples at the natural history museum.....

so enjoy being right I am done with these discussions .....

[Dustin07]

these aren't productive arguments. The tribes still govern themselves. Contact the tribal game departments with a respectful email or phone call and express an interest in joint communication/boards to help preserve and rebuild the populations. Tribal game departments are making progess in protecting their renewable resource. They dont' want to die off either.

And while netting takes more fish than rods and reels, there are plenty of non-tribal poachers all over here too.


I also have no problem with the legal requirement to have health insurance, as the irresponsibilty of NOT purchasing health insurance pushes off your risk on to the rest of society, however that is a different thread, different argument.

[WSU]

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.

I completely agree with you.  I'm not attempting to defend any abuse of the resource, regardless of what user group is doing so.  I am just attempting to point out that there are multiple distinct issues at play here, and saying the tribes are single handedly killing the resource (or even mostly to blame in many of the issues people point to) is just plain false. 

[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?

OUR legal system is screwed when a person can win a lawsuit for millions over a cup of coffee a person spilled on themselves.. we live in a society that is beyond help...whats worse is people think that it is ok and even right that you can be an idiot and still blame someone else. NO I do not understand any system that doesn't hold individuals accountable for their own actions.

well lets see forced insurance ..... hunting licenses and tags when another user group doesn't need them...proof of my status as an american when another user group doesn't need them...ummm taxes.... being taxed by a government that refuses to take no for an answer and just bullies the people.....as you said the only paper that matters is the treaties and the boldt decision.....

First, regarding the McDonalds case, do you actually know the facts beyond what has been sensationalized in the news?  That case is a perfect example of corporate greed.  McDonalds was serving coffee at near boiling in order to keep people from refilling their coffee prior to leaving the store.  The person burned was an elderly lady who required massive surgeries to replace the burned skin on her legs and genitals.  Whats worse, she was not the first person burned that badly, and McDonalds was fully aware that its policy was causing horrific injuries to numerous people (dozens, not one or two).  But, instead of "taking responsibility" and conducting their business in a safe manner, they chose to save a couple cents per cup of coffee and continue burning the *censored* out of people in order to save a few cents.  If you ask me, McDonalds got held accountable for their actions.  Knowingly burn the *censored* out of people, end up paying for it.  Seems fair.

Regarding the other political issues you point, I think we have a lot of ideals in common.  There are a lot of areas where there is too much government and too much government intrusion.  You wouldn't know it by my hippy posts, but I'm more of an independent politically than anything else.  I certainly don't think the only paper that matters are treaties and the Boldt decision, but I certainly do think they matter.

[motcha]

Okay... your grandfather made a deal with another lets say... corporate owner... he said you can have this and we will take all this.   few decades go by and that corpration now wants to take back what they gave you... would you agree and give it back to say... ohhh... no problem.  We made good of what you gave us... but we will give it back now that you see what we made of it. 

You can say Tribes abuse the land and resources ... okay there are some examples... but if you really look into Tribal governments, we are actually as concerned as you.  Tribal harvest hasnt changed... but they are building brood stocks, hatcheries etc   Riparian projects... logging practices... land use cut-off.  I have an example here in NE oregon... the river here is est a return of 5000 fish... in the 80's there was almost an extinction... I have seen the hatcherie be placed all up and down the river... diversion dams removed... brood stock transplanted to rivers in which there were no returns...

We are upriver but we still reap the benifits of the nets ... but we have our quota as well.  I see many housing places that are not Tribal owned just as bad... I see many poaching cases in Tribal lands by members and non-members...

Flip the mirror and tell me how you would respond to some of these... let me know if you really think all of your 'examples' of waste and such are legit. 

[buckhorn2]

I understand a lot of what you say Motcha both sides are doing a lot now to further salmon runs and to have better enviromental practices. There are indian tribes spread all over the land in oregon and most of the rivers so why are the oregon tribes different from washinton tribes. I was wondering why washington tribes are co-managers of the resources and have a 50-50 agreement in the state when Oregon tribes do not is there a reason. Glad you posted it;s nice to get both sides.

[WSU]

I understand a lot of what you say Motcha both sides are doing a lot now to further salmon runs and to have better enviromental practices. There are indian tribes spread all over the land in oregon and most of the rivers so why are the oregon tribes different from washinton tribes. I was wondering why washington tribes are co-managers of the resources and have a 50-50 agreement in the state when Oregon tribes do not is there a reason. Glad you posted it;s nice to get both sides.

Some Oregon tribes are part of the split.  An example is the Nez Perce, who are involved in the present Columbia River litigation with BPA.  The Nez Perce are suing (with other plaintiffs) in an attempt to force BPA to operate the dams in a more fish friendly way and in compliance with the ESA.  BPA and the federal government have been violating the ESA for years, and a group of treaty tribes and conservation organizations had to sue in an attempt to force the issue.

[motcha]

I understand a lot of what you say Motcha both sides are doing a lot now to further salmon runs and to have better enviromental practices. There are indian tribes spread all over the land in oregon and most of the rivers so why are the oregon tribes different from washinton tribes. I was wondering why washington tribes are co-managers of the resources and have a 50-50 agreement in the state when Oregon tribes do not is there a reason. Glad you posted it;s nice to get both sides.

Thats a question I cannot answer.  But They are in cooperation with ODFW, I have been to the dams when they count and sort fish, ODFW is righ there with them.  They are there placing in antibiotics and recording brrods as well.

[wildmanoutdoors]

I’ve kind of been keeping up with this thread. I know a little about the Washington side of things and how the co-management works in this state. Lol

Let’s look at the Chehalis system for an example. 5 rivers that have not made escapement in years. Can anyone guess why the QIN gets to net the river 5 days a week into April when our Native steelhead stock is way under escapement? Do you think they are after the Native fish? They are not! They are after the returning hatchery and brood stock fish that return into April. As long as they can prove there are hatchery fish, which is easy, they can fish that stock. Even if there are Native fish present and under escapement, they can still fish by any means they want. Since the gill net is the most productive method that’s what gets used. They are also allowed to keep and sell by catch. That’s the native fish. Did you also know that in the treaty there is a clause that say’s they can keep fishing it as long as they don’t basically take the last pair and fish it into extinction. This doesn’t mean they can’t fish it under escapement. Or even until there are only 10 fish left.
Now for the 50/50 part, ya right, There meetings are behind closed doors. They tell the state what they want, the commission will just about always disagree, then the tribe threatens federal lawsuit. The state can’t win that battle in federal court or does it have the budget to even try to fight it.

This also happens on the Hoh and Quileute systems. None of these rivers have made escapement for years. But the treaty keeps em fishing. The public BS is the part about the tribes helping the resource, managing it correctly. Ect, ect.

The state cannot stop them, only if the federal Gov. steps in will you ever see a change. Im not arguing anyone here. Just hopefully clearing up some confusion and opening eyes that don’t know…
Hatchery and Brood stock programs are not the answer either, there the problem…and this is just the Steelhead!

[wildmanoutdoors]

To put it in a nutshell, The treaty tribes get 50% of the allowable harvest. If there wasent hatcheries and broodstock progams, or the clause, then they would not get to fish anymore. Because there would be no allowable harvest.
The reason the tribes get to fish even on Native stock with no hatchery fish or broodstock, is because of the clause solely.

[motcha]

There are very few ... if any true native/wild fish in the NW waters.  I see they are trying to clear things up... but if they are closed door meetings... how do you know what they say or do?? 

I don't even bother anymore.... despite a cogent explanation of treaty reserved rights, including restorative efforts instilled by tribes, people choose to base their "judgements" upon perceived notions. These people do relatively little research to back up their statements which most often are in direct opposition to actual on-ground activities. They base their perceptions on anecdotal observations instead of sound research.