Post by: hogsniper on May 07, 2010, 04:16:51 PM
Post by: jackelope on May 07, 2010, 04:22:31 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on May 07, 2010, 04:25:36 PM
Post by: carpsniperg2 on May 07, 2010, 04:32:50 PM
Post by: Houndhunter on May 07, 2010, 04:36:41 PM
Hay bales hogsniper hay bales.....:yeah:
Post by: hogsniper on May 07, 2010, 04:48:09 PM
7 nets were stretched across at this one spot! Completely ridiculous!!
Post by: boonerboy on May 07, 2010, 04:51:31 PM
Post by: rougheye on May 07, 2010, 04:52:19 PM
Post by: bone head on May 07, 2010, 05:09:13 PM
Post by: bone head on May 07, 2010, 05:12:09 PM
Post by: singleshot12 on May 07, 2010, 09:50:36 PM
Post by: alecvg on May 07, 2010, 10:36:20 PM
Post by: BigGoonTuna on May 07, 2010, 10:44:06 PM
comparing commercial fishing in AK to tribal netting in WA is flat out idiotic. WA is about the only place in the country where nets are allowed in the rivers. not to mention the only one where netting is allowed for steelhead, especially where our runs are teetering on the brink of oblivion in many places.
Post by: sisu on May 08, 2010, 03:24:20 AM
yeah...so those nets can keep killing long after the tribe has forgotten about them.This is not true. Up river Bush Alaska has plenty of drift net allocations for Native fisheries as well as fish wheels, so don't go and state what you don't know.
comparing commercial fishing AK to tribal netting in WA is flat out idiotic. WA is about the only place in the country where nets are allowed in the rivers. not to mention the only one where netting is allowed for steelhead, especially where our runs are teetering on the brink of oblivion in many places.
I've helped natives I known on the Kuskokwim River with their river drift nets for personal and commercial use.
Post by: Houndhunter on May 08, 2010, 07:50:38 AM
comparing commercial fishing in AK to tribal netting in WA is flat out idiotic.
i agree, theres no comparison. i steelhead fish alot in the winter, and when the nets are in theres very few fish. you cant say its not the nets, the day they take em out is when we start catching fish again
Post by: sisu on May 08, 2010, 08:06:38 AM
Post by: runamuk on May 08, 2010, 08:33:38 AM
For everyone who "Bales" nets..... when this happens to the natives all they do is call the WDFG to come and see the nets. If this happens too much the state will either allocated more catch to the natives or possibly extend their season. In a sense its being penny wise and pound foolish plus I'm not about to get shot at over something like this. To each their own so i will put down the pen and let this alone now.
First thanks for all of your very interesting posts I did not know any of that about netting. I appreciate this last statement I think as annoyed as we get we really dont want to turn ourselves into the bad guy. I am happy to hear you caught the idiots bleaching it blows my mind how stupid people can be and how damn greedy they are :bash: :bash:
Conservation like Sisu mentions starts at home. Sure I am a greenie I like to grow organically I like to use sustainable methods over reaching for the chemicals but when I also have a serious problem I will use what is most effective then continue on being green if thats what you want to call it. I grew up being taught that it just makes good sense to give a crap about the environment and to never be greedy. My son caught some big fish already this season i have plenty in the freezer he is now on strict catch and release we don't need more fish let some other people catch a few ;) I call it sharing
those nets do not look good spread across the river when they supposedly closed it to pole fishing...so lets find ways to emphasize this aspect make the issue of closed due to numbers for one segment of the population..discriminating ...the way i read the Boldt they are supposed to get their % of the available game if that river is closed to angler it should be closed to nets because there are not enough fish to divide so it actually isn't upholding the decision it is giving special treatment to one group of people over another ??
Post by: jeepasaurusrex on May 08, 2010, 08:46:52 AM
Since there was no one watching them and they were in an illegal spot, we pulled them. They had several fish that had been in the net for a couple of days. We tossed them back as they were no good. The nets were piled on the bank, had gas dumped on them and set on fire. :fire.:
Post by: BigGoonTuna on May 08, 2010, 10:51:59 AM
Blame the Indian nets for part but let's start putting blame also on population explosion on the westside, small feeder streams disappearing, river banks over run etc all these help clean river water for eggs, how about all those chemicals I see neighbors using on their un-naturally enhanced green lawn, trees that clean water before it soaks into the ground being removed for a view or to be replaced with nothing...oh I could go on and on. Look around folks wild life needs habitat no matter what you say habitat (good quality) is disappearing, so don't put 100% blame on the Native American look instead in the mirror and you'll see why wild life is disappearing in high population areas.i don't live in a high population area. i agree that development, bad forestry practices, pollution etc are a big problem in those places, but i live on the coast and the #1 factor is HARVEST. we've got the quinault tribe netting 6 or 7 days a week for steelhead, and it's pretty hard to say it doesn't have a major impact when the nets do come out and fish flood into the rivers.
Post by: upwind on May 08, 2010, 11:12:35 AM
Post by: h2ofowlr on May 08, 2010, 11:36:56 AM
Post by: MuleySniper on May 09, 2010, 12:02:44 AM
MS
Post by: BigGoonTuna on May 09, 2010, 10:14:31 PM
they should just shut down all fishing, netting for salmon and steelhead no matter what anyone says for at least a year tops and then look at the numbers????? send each tribe fish form the slaughter grounds of alaska in the years that the fishing is off limits. make it an even yr for the tribes and an odd for no netting? everyones ideas sound great but were talking about the gov and tribes. we will see next to no fish at all before anything sensable happens watch and see :fishin:that might work on the coast, but in the puget sound rivers i don't think it would really help. there's been zero sport harvest for over 10 years(more like 20 on most rivers) and the runs are still going downhill. i don't think most of them are coming back, either. the nisqually has probably some of the best habitat out of all the puget sound rivers and one of the worst fish returns.
Post by: Sneaky on May 09, 2010, 11:19:02 PM
Post by: jeepasaurusrex on May 10, 2010, 08:18:50 AM
Post by: alan on May 10, 2010, 09:26:39 AM
Post by: Little Dave on May 10, 2010, 09:52:27 AM
Post by: alan on May 10, 2010, 11:05:54 AM
Post by: meathunter on May 10, 2010, 11:17:05 AM
We are all held as stewards of the land, our river fisheries for salmon and steelhead are in trouble and nothing changes in tribal netting? I don't think i will ever be able to rap my head around that.
Post by: buckhorn2 on May 10, 2010, 11:44:03 AM
Post by: haus on May 10, 2010, 12:16:54 PM
that might work on the coast, but in the puget sound rivers i don't think it would really help. there's been zero sport harvest for over 10 years(more like 20 on most rivers) and the runs are still going downhill. i don't think most of them are coming back, either. the nisqually has probably some of the best habitat out of all the puget sound rivers and one of the worst fish returns.Some of the fisheries studies point at the Puyallup delta habitat or lack there of for the cause of limitations in the Puyallup River system fishery, but then you look at the Nisqually....... :dunno:......the winter steelhead fishery was good there in the 80's, same with the puyallup. What has changed? Its not like we weren't logging down to the stream beds prior to the 80's, its not like the puyallup river delta had more habitat in the 80's. The nisqually habitat has hardly changed. So what gives? If the habitats good and the pollution levels haven't changed...... :dunno: ........I think its harvest but I don't think its entirely one group, rather a combo. We don't own our fish when they hit that open ocean and last I checked they don't all stay near our borders. Combine that with the survivors getting raped at the river mouths.....
Post by: Dustin07 on May 10, 2010, 01:21:15 PM
i agree with the hay bales its retarded that the states and local areas all around talk *censored* about the white man segregating and profiling on us talkin about wanting us for them to get rid of the nets. in all honesty either let the white man fish with nets also or grow the *censored* up stupid indians this is the twentieth century now we wear clothes n *censored* now and have rods n reels to catch the fish. i say one and all not one then some.
Also, you get more flies with honey than vinegar. Its actually the 21st century (not the 20th) and I don' recall seeing any naked people fishing in the river. Making blind ignorant and angry statements about the tribes isn't going to accomplish anything. We need to partner with them, to hopefully share resources in reproducing/protecting the habitat and mutually putting an end to the netting. Before making a general rant about 'stupid' people, perhaps run your post through a spell and grammar checker. I know you're just passionate, but anger and racism won't accomplish anything.
Post by: seth30 on May 10, 2010, 01:23:00 PM
Post by: Dustin07 on May 10, 2010, 01:29:47 PM
Post by: bolsen on May 10, 2010, 02:31:49 PM
Post by: alan on May 10, 2010, 03:19:40 PM
are you sure the pollution levels haven't changed? I was under the impression they had.i agree with the hay bales its retarded that the states and local areas all around talk *censored* about the white man segregating and profiling on us talkin about wanting us for them to get rid of the nets. in all honesty either let the white man fish with nets also or grow the *censored* up stupid indians this is the twentieth century now we wear clothes n *censored* now and have rods n reels to catch the fish. i say one and all not one then some.
Also, you get more flies with honey than vinegar. Its actually the 21st century (not the 20th) and I don' recall seeing any naked people fishing in the river. Making blind ignorant and angry statements about the tribes isn't going to accomplish anything. We need to partner with them, to hopefully share resources in reproducing/protecting the habitat and mutually putting an end to the netting. Before making a general rant about 'stupid' people, perhaps run your post through a spell and grammar checker. I know you're just passionate, but anger and racism won't accomplish anything.
lol one not racist, got plenty of indian mexican and negro friends but what, they too all believe in fair chase and they all have their rod n reels.. and two most of the peopl who net are wasting fish, drive by one of those salmon for sale places along the columbia most of those fish are molting and black already and theyre trying to sell them off for supermarket prices or higher. then take alook around the places they are livin in, thats what i mean about livin in the 20th century (21st) and screw the spell check i am who i am im not puuuurr*censored*t deal wit it lol
Post by: grundy53 on May 10, 2010, 03:39:47 PM
Post by: Dustin07 on May 10, 2010, 03:48:05 PM
Dustins right.... we should all hold hands and sing koombyah and hope for world peace. if we all work together we can bring back unicorns and fairies..... :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: then i woke up and i was stuck in reality. the Indians won't "work" with you. why would they? there is nothing in it for them. they don't give a rats @$$ about anything except thereselves. >:(
And illiterate online posts filled with profanity and derogative stereotypes will accomplish more?
Quote
i agree with the hay bales its retarded that the states and local areas all around talk *censored* about the white man segregating and profiling on us talkin about wanting us for them to get rid of the nets. in all honesty either let the white man fish with nets also or grow the *censored* up stupid indians this is the twentieth century now we wear clothes n *censored* now and have rods n reels to catch the fish. i say one and all not one then some.
I have no idea what the last sentence even means.
Post by: CastleRocker on May 10, 2010, 04:05:52 PM
now you guys see what the columbia would look like if you ever got the gilnetters off the river...
EXACTLY!!! I've been trying to get that across to some of my idiotic friends that I sport fish with for YEARS! It's still a hot topic when we are out fishing. Makes for some good "spirited discussions".
When I last looked, (back when I was a full time commercial fisherman), the commercial driftnetters are the ONLY legal thing keeping tribal setnets from the lower Columbia. Get rid of them and guess what comes next? (Go look at the picture on page #1). Yeah, you can doubt it all you want, but the reality is that it's Federal Law. Good luck trying to change that one with our new U.S. Supreme Court.
Post by: Houndhunter on May 10, 2010, 07:34:03 PM
Post by: WSU on May 10, 2010, 09:00:32 PM
I'm not a fan of the Bolt decision and dont agree with the allocation #'s but fish do get past the nets and if they were all pulled then there is no way the sports fishermen could stop the surpus of fish going up to the spawning beds. When you get a lot of over escapement the fish do more damage to themselves then the nets ever could do. As they go to lay their eggs they will disturb another bed of already laid eggs and usually kill off the whole bunch, the rest that dont die off instantly they then develop a disease that creates a film over the once healthy egg and eventually break free and float down the river. Every other nest that infected egg comes into contact with spreads that disease to an otherwise perfectly healthy nest.
This is the biggest bunch of BS ever. Are you honestly going to claim that salmon didn't do better before we screwed the environment and/or over-fished? There is no "over-escapement" as far as biology goes. There is over escapement as far as those who are economically interested are concerned, i.e. "I could have made more money."
As far as the picture goes, it certainly seems wrong to be fishing stocks that haven't been meeting escapement (even artificially low escapement). Anyone who argues otherwise needs to explain what I'm missing.
Post by: WSU on May 10, 2010, 09:03:07 PM
I definitely think that the treaties need to be amended. Whats your guys opinion on that? Will it ever happen in our life time? This you get half we get half and usual and accustom hunting grounds in my opinion is B.S.
We are all held as stewards of the land, our river fisheries for salmon and steelhead are in trouble and nothing changes in tribal netting? I don't think i will ever be able to rap my head around that.
I would like to know what you propose the change should be? Keep in mind, we got all the land we now live on in exchange for the tribes reserving the right to catch half the fish. Perhaps we should give all the land we live on back in exchange for them agreeing to give up their reserved fishing rights?
Post by: WSU on May 10, 2010, 09:11:03 PM
Blame the Indian nets for part but let's start putting blame also on population explosion on the westside, small feeder streams disappearing, river banks over run etc all these help clean river water for eggs, how about all those chemicals I see neighbors using on their un-naturally enhanced green lawn, trees that clean water before it soaks into the ground being removed for a view or to be replaced with nothing...oh I could go on and on. Look around folks wild life needs habitat no matter what you say habitat (good quality) is disappearing, so don't put 100% blame on the Native American look instead in the mirror and you'll see why wild life is disappearing in high population areas.
I couldn't agree more. Nets are to blame, but in general, our practices and population explosion is much more to blame. The tribes were netting at high rates prior to us arriving. The combined hundred years of logging, building, etc. all add up. Someone above asked what has changed since the 80's. A large thing that is often overlooked is that these factors build over time and have a cummulative effect. The sedimentation that results from road building/logging continues to exists. Same goes for the forest's inability to obsorb rainfall. Plus, our rivers continue to have many of the same problems such as pollution, diking of rivers (which reduces habitat, especially for juvenile fish, and often especially in the lower stretches of rivers which is very important), etc.
Post by: 3dsheetmetal on May 10, 2010, 09:16:25 PM
Post by: Dustin07 on May 11, 2010, 08:30:27 AM
Underwater video of low dissolved oxygen event in Hood Canal (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1iv37Yn8bg#)
Post by: WSU on May 11, 2010, 08:37:17 AM
NOW ITS GETTING INTERESTING IN HERE. WATCH AND SEE WHATS SAID NOW. I THINK WSU MIGHT BE ONE OF THESE :tree1: ?????
Not a tree hugger, just a little bit edjumacated on the issues. Facts are facts whether you label people as tree huggers or not.
Post by: WSU on May 11, 2010, 08:41:29 AM
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.
Post by: Dustin07 on May 11, 2010, 08:46:09 AM
Post by: WSU on May 11, 2010, 09:23:43 AM
I don't think you have spent much time on reservations and viewed their way of living.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.
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.
Post by: motcha on May 11, 2010, 09:27:55 AM
Post by: runamuk on May 11, 2010, 09:51:18 AM
I don't think you have spent much time on reservations and viewed their way of living.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.
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.
Post by: Copperwood on May 11, 2010, 12:10:19 PM
Post by: grundy53 on May 11, 2010, 12:15:00 PM
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 >:(
Post by: WSU on May 11, 2010, 12:35:00 PM
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?
Post by: grundy53 on May 11, 2010, 12:40:05 PM
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 :twocents:
Post by: bone head on May 11, 2010, 01:02:49 PM
Post by: WSU on May 11, 2010, 01:21:04 PM
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.
Post by: runamuk on May 11, 2010, 07:09:11 PM
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 :twocents:
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 >:( :bash: >:( :bash: off to find my bucket to soak my head.......that is if I am still allowed to own a bucket.....
Post by: WSU on May 12, 2010, 09:12:58 AM
Post by: Sneaky on May 12, 2010, 09:43:15 AM
Post by: runamuk on May 12, 2010, 09:46:49 AM
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.... :bash: :bash: :bash:
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 .....
Post by: Dustin07 on May 12, 2010, 09:52:01 AM
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.
Post by: WSU on May 12, 2010, 09:58:33 AM
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.
Post by: WSU on May 12, 2010, 10:09:25 AM
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.
Post by: motcha on May 12, 2010, 11:41:41 AM
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.
Post by: buckhorn2 on May 12, 2010, 12:10:33 PM
Post by: WSU on May 12, 2010, 01:08:45 PM
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.
Post by: motcha on May 12, 2010, 02:16:17 PM
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.
Post by: wildmanoutdoors on May 12, 2010, 03:13:55 PM
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!
Post by: wildmanoutdoors on May 12, 2010, 03:26:12 PM
The reason the tribes get to fish even on Native stock with no hatchery fish or broodstock, is because of the clause solely.
Post by: motcha on May 13, 2010, 09:13:45 AM
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.