I have never read the Bolt decision but I was under the impression it was suppose to be a 50/50 split? If this is true, why is it EVERY YEAR the indians get to put their nets in 30 to 60 days before I can fish for salmon? (Nooksack river) Why for the last 2 years do they get to keep fall kings and we cannot? I can not get a straight answer from any game warden. Can any of you tell me? TODD? RT? This really pisses me off every year!!!

i think its 50/50 tribal/commercial if you want to read an article about the judge boldt decision go to and do a search. i think the articles called 25 years after the boldt decison
tyler
Seattle Times

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Tyler Celli ]

Tyler, nice touching story about Billy Franks and the Boldt decision, I read the whole thing, but it doesn't answer my questions.

Here is the Boldt decision.

Boldt Decision link

G-man
Don't know the particulars of the salmon split on the Nooksack hwoever you need to remember that the non-tribal fishers catch most of the our salmon long before the reach the river. Sport anglers catch Nooksack salmon as well as most other Puget Sound chinook stocks during the blackmouth seasons as well as most other saltwater fisheries.

If you feel that river fishers are getting the short stick get involved in the salmon season setting process. It is called the "North of Falcon Process". This is were the season are set and how the catches are divided among the various users groups. The commerical and various saltwater groups know how the play the game well and get most of the catch. Historically few river fishermen have bother to become involved in the season setting thus they get only the leavings. WDFW's web site should some be posting dates and locations. Meetings are typically in March and February.

Tight lines
Smalma

G-man, don't kid yourself. 50/50 is being generous. It is more like 90/10.

As far as my understanding of the bold decision goes, I think it is 50% of the HarvestABLE numbers, not the actual harvest. Harvestable numbers (at least for shellfish, as that is where my boldt decision knowledge originates) are determined as 1/3 of the total population, leaving the native american catch as 1/6 of the returning population, independant of what commercial and sport catches are. I may be wrong, it has been a while since i read it, but that is my understanding of it.
Matt Korb

Read that but, still don't understand why they get to keep the kings and we can't. I was told the Govnt wanted to eliminate our fall run so it wouldn't spawn with the native springs so why can't I help? Because I'm white?

I havent ever seen a tribal member digging roots latley, and in the columbia basin there are no berries. I'll bet if we went out and dug 90% of the roots there would be very little uproar unless of course we brought in a drag line to do it!!! Its not about tribal wellness or heratage, its about power and money.

G-Man,

I have had some info access to what has gone on behind closed doors. It is very complex and nobody knows all the facts and ramifications. From all I have been able to find out, I will give you a very abbreviated summary - otherwise it would fill pages. >

The Treaties signed with the Columbia Tribal Indians in the 1800's, and most of the Treaties signed with individual tribes in the state of Washington in the 1800's, called for salmon and steelhead runs to be "shared in common with", between Indians and non-Indains. Many non-Indians considered this to mean fishing for them in a like manner and the same amount of fish per person. Most Inidans considered this to mean splitting the fish while only they could net for them as was their custom. Yet they were allowed via these treaties to fish in an accustomed manner - which was with mostly dipnets and also some canoe set crude river nets. Both sides contended they were not getting their treaty shares for a long time. So the issue was taken to landmark Federal Court cases in the early 70's. Judge Belloni presiding over the Columbia case and Judge Boldt over the Washington cases. Both cases and rulings came down alike - Federal Court mandates that the fish deemed harvestable (salmon and steelhead getting enough escapement to sustain the run; the rest deemed havestable) were to be split evenly - 50/50. This is still Federal law.

Yet under the threat by the tribes that they will sue the government to have all Columbia and Snake dams removed (their behind the scenes trump card - because of fear they have an outside chance to win such a suit that would economically devistate our region), the U.S. Dept. of the Interior came out under this pressure to issue Secretarial Order No. 3206, which states that in times of limited harvest the Indian tribes will be the last to be restricted from harvest of fish. This Order has been the machine that has driven the NMFS (National Marine Fishery Services) to over-ride Federal law in giving the Columbia Tribal Commissioned net fisheries an astonishly unfair 6 1/2 times higher quota of spring chinook, followed by attempts to close the fall chinook Columbia sportfishery altogether, so the tribes could have bigger shares of the ESA impact (Fed. Endagered Species Act protection of wild fish) in the netting harvests; which kill native fish while we release non finclipped native fish!

At the start of the new millenium this caused the states of Oregon and Washington into a joint lawsuit against the NMFS and Tribes to get a fairer share of the ESA impact affected allocation of fish deemed harvestable for the sportfishers. It was settled out of court by getting the "Unfair Pair" (NMFS/Tribes) to allow a fall salmon sportfishery in the Columbia and by allowing the non-Indian ESA fishing impact to go up from 0.9% to 2% (which was 1% for commercial non-indian netters and 1% for sportfishers). BUT, they would only go along with the increase to 2% if the Indians got an increase from 8% ESA impact in 2000 to the 2001 13% ESA impact that they got!!! How could they get away with this? Along with many unfair complexities, the main trump card is the threatened law suits to take out all the dams! The Indians have a weak administration by the balls! It is a similar situation in Washington state, due to many other complexities in addition to No. 3206 out of Wash, DC. The WDFW also has a weak administration in dealing with the atrocities of unfair allocation of fish favoring the tribes. But I must also say they are very weak in dealing with non-Indian snagging and litering too. >

I have stayed out of these latest threads about the nets, because my past efforts to get letter writing campaigns going to our reps in Wash, DC and to state reps got a paltry response. But you asked 'RT or TODD' specifically about this G-Man, so there a large part of the puzzle to your question. >

What can the hundreds of thousands of NW sportfishers do about this? Again - write letters using this info in my post here and from other's posts to your reps, asking Federal and state legislators to enact a modern justifiable law that prevents an Indian lawsuit to take down all the dams. And for them to circumvent the wrongful Dept. of the Interior Sec. Order No. 3206, so that we get our Federally mandated 50% share of the fish! That WE pay for. It can't hurt to mention in your letters that the Indians have been using electricity from these dams for as long as non-Indians have. And at a very high rate in the brightly lighted Indian gambling casinos, which were allowed to the Indians partly in compensation for lost fish income potential. These are very highly profitable! In fact, enough so that it's allowed the Indians to become campaign contibuting constiuents to politicians in Wash, DC. The only way to get back our rightful fish is a huge letter campaign outlining these things, and that we are ready to vote in politicians that will get this back to the Federal Court mandated 50/50 even split. Go do it this time! And join organiztions like the RFA, NSIA, ANMW, and WSA to help fund their Wash, DC lobbying on behalf of our rights, and lawful fishing opportunity.

I will put this up as a separate thread post - it's important for those that quite reading netting threads to see this, to help get them involved in writing campaigns.

RT

[ 01-21-2002: Message edited by: RT ]

G-Man,

I'm certainly no expert on the subject but the tribes get to "fish" earlier because this is one way how the fishery managers estimate a run forcast. They have compiled years of data; catch efforts, run timing, run strength, etc. They throw all this data into a database and this information helps them predict the run size. Since the netted chinooks are already dead, they keep them rather than throwing them overboard because this would cause more bad publicity and guys would get on this board and complain that the tribes are wasting all their fish.

50/50!! yeah right..

RT

Very good post, I see you have done your homework. You are to be congratulated for your understanding as well as personal involvement in the tribal netting issues.

There are many ways people who wish to see gillnetting end can help. Writing your elected officials is a very big and important part of any plan of action. Unfortunately sport fishermen are some of the worst when it comes to placing pen to paper and actually writing. One aspect we may wish to pursue is placing pressure on the commercial processors for accepting any fish that was not harvested in a manner likely to protect wild fish. If the treaty gillnetters loose access to their processors it could reduce their willingness to harvest in this manner. Another aspect we should investigate is getting some tribal fishermen on tape stripping the eggs from a chum salmon and throwing the carcass back in the water. Federal officials can get more done sometimes with the right emotional ammunition.

It is time for we sport fishermen to stop whining and start doing. Send a letter or e-mail and make a positive impact on this natural resource. Carry your camcorders during treaty netting season. Ask the guy behind the meat counter at Safeway where they got that unmarked salmon or steelhead and what seafood processor they bought from?

There are always way to make an impact.

Thank you

POS Clerk