Warning and disclaimer: there's something in this post to offend nearly anyone. If you don't want to be offended, don't read it.

I'd like to thank Chucknduck for his intelligent post regarding overt racism even though it was followed by more ignorance than I've witnessed on this BB in a long time. Valid opinions, sure, but woefully ignorant of relevant facts nonetheless. The thread could almost as accurately be titled "hypocrites R us." If there was a treaty Indian fishing bulletin board, I would expect it to have a counter-thread titled something like: "fisheries biology and management for missing toothed redneck tarheel sport fishermen who pinch hollow-core lead on their line with their remaining teeth, eventually contracting lead poisoning."

KSR takes issue with Chuck's comments about baitfishing restrictions as elitism, but apparently doesn't see any parallel elitism in favoring hook and line fishing as acceptable, yet net fishing by Indians isn't? From whose perspective? Clearly KSR's, not the treaty Indian or probably the non-Indian gillnetter. Some will never get it. It ain't the fishing method or person that is either right or wrong; it's whether the fishery is sustainable. That is, are necessary spawning escapement goals being achieved? If so, the method used to harvest fish is pretty much biologically irrelevant. The harvest method is primarily a social management issue.

Bardo says whining is racist? Can't figure that one. Bardo, a racist opinion is just as racist as a racist action; only the outcomes are different, although the racist opinion may beget a racist action. Were you really thinking before you posted that? Yes, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. But here I observe mile-wide gaps between opinion and facts.

Slabquest attributes fisheries mismanagement to the "idiotic Boldt decision." We may not like the Boldt decision and disagree about many of its effects. But if the decision is so idiotic, why do most legal scholars who have reviewed it consider it an excellent piece of judicial work? And why has it never been overturned? Seems like an idiotic decision wouldn't be so likely to be upheld by appeals courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. I do agree with you, however, that adequate implementation of the decision lies somewhere between difficult and impossible.

Papafish is correct that there are already laws that "should" limit treaty and commericial netfishing, but enforcement - and I might add, management - are lacking. WDFW check barbed hooks and catch limits because those are things they actually can do. Enforcing most things related to treaty fishing are things they cannot do. Ought to spend their time doing that which they can, rather than that which they cannot. Law enforcement is not about writing tickets that get thrown out of court.

And why is it that "Only the lowest, mouth-beathing, knuckle-draggin' scum, would string a net across the mouth of a river?" A gillnet is a very efficient fishing tool, and sufficiently regulated so that spawning escapements are achieved, no more detrimental to a fish population than hook and line fishing. The primary difference is that gillnetting is more sensitive to precise management than hook and line fishing. Talk about elitism! Touting fly fishing elitism above bait fishing couldn't begin to compare to this. But thank you for this excellent example of a common ignorance about fishing method being at the core of fishery management.

This would make joke of the month among the commercial gillnetters and treaty fishermen who think the state is irresponsible in letting all us sport fishermen run up and down all the rivers, fishing where we cannot be seen and monitored and our catches cannot be accurately tracked, possibly over-harvesting depressed runs. BTW, I'm not saying a net cannot catch as many fish in a day as I catch in a year. And let us be clear that it wasn't Indians who wiped out the buffalo, or the passenger pigeon, or any other species that have become extinct. None of the extinctions of salmon and steelhead stocks on the west coast are attributed to Indians. You captured it well by saying ". . . it's simply a matter of being the A-hole de-jouir'."

Timberman sees things as simply as, ". . . the tribal fisheries takes 50% and sportsfisherman take 50%!! Talk about a blind ass!!" Uhm, what about the non-treaty commercial fishery? The non-treaty share is split between commercial and recreational fisheries. Were you wearing a blinder yourself, TM?

Dan S., thanks for including the link to WDFW's steelhead catch record. Not that it matters much when our self-styled fisheries experts are "sure" (like Fishnbrad's post that followed yours) that the treaty harvest is much greater than reported. Should we assume that sport catches are recorded with perfect accuracy? BTW, I'm not saying anybody's catch records are competely accurate. But they are the "official" records, so when something goes to court, that's what counts.

Tyler calls those who disagree ". . . retarted . . ." indicating he either cannot spell or type or both. Nice to have that intellectual horsepower on board. Fortunately, he's still got some schooling ahead of him, and there is hope.

Carl C. is sure that ". . . a certain group of people (is) taking more than they need and wasting it?" I don't understand how he can know how much they need. How much does a treaty Indian fisherman need? According to the U.S. Supreme Court, it's a " . . . moderate living." I don't know of any treaty fishermen who are even making a living by fishing these days. So while Carl knows that they catch more than they need, I think that if you ask the treaty fisherman who isn't making a living at it his opinion, it would be rather different than Carl's. What make's Carl's knowledge correct and the treaty fisherman's wrong?

Waste is a different issue. The state has a wastage law. It doesn't apply to treaty fishing. Some tribes have wastage regulations; some don't. Treaty Indians sometimes harvest salmon just for their roe when the market price for roe is high and the price for the fish is very low. Roe fisheries are nothing new. Non-treaty fisherman harvest herring specifially for their roe in Alaska, formerly in north Puget Sound, and in San Francisco Bay. So treaty Indians didn't invent roe fishing. Personally, I don't favor roe fisheries, but they are legal, and it is possible to have such fisheries without imperiling the fish population so long as the necessary spawning escapements are achieved - back to that management sufficiency issue.

Rockfish "bet(s) the amount of fish taken taken by tribal fisheries is astronomical considering they just cut open the carcasses and dump them straight into the bay or river." This is an ignorant allegation since cutting open carcasses and dumping them has nothing to do with the amount of fish taken being astronomical. Pardon my sarcasm, but I don't want that kind of logic in charge of managing my fisheries. Next he offers, "This has to stop, since the gulf states, california, quit netting. and here where there is some real sport fishing opportunity with out the netting longer sport fishing seasons." Aha, honesty at last. It often appears that the primary reason to restrict treaty net fishing, and non-treaty net fishing, is to transfer the fish harvest allocation from net fisheries to sport fisheries. I can't argue that it wouldn't be good for sport fishing. However, there are more just and logical arguements for doing this, at least in the case of non-treaty net fishing. Again, from Rockfish, "this state is way behind other states in rebuilding fisheries with this so called boldt decision." There is nothing "so called" about the Boldt decision. It's as real as they get, and it has been described as being up there with major civil rights court cases.

This post may be flame bait, but I have a point. It is not to defend treaty Indian fishing, although I could see it appearing that way. Most of the treaty Indian fishing bashing that I read on this BB seems to come from emotion based far more in ignorance than on facts. There's nothing I can do about your emotional reactions, but I'm willing to try to help all of us substitute facts for ignorance. I don't know all the facts, but I have studied the Boldt Decision and many of the subsequent decisions. (An aside - I was furious about the decision when it was issued, until I read it.) I've talked to lawyers and biologists, and none have ever indicated that there are any problems, legally or biologically, with the decision. Maybe that is why it hasn't been overturned. That is not to say there aren't a lot of problems associated with its implementation, chief among them being the perception of unfairness. The upshot is that this BB is an excellent forum for learning and intellectual discourse. Separating facts from opinions and emotions is an important step in furthering that cause.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

I hope you feel better now that you got this off your chest. Don't take it so personal. Everybody is entitled to an opinion and these people voiced theirs. I come here to read and learn not to knock things. This is America,land of the free. Freedom of speech. Just my .02

Salmo g it was a typing thing. There are some very interesting things you should all look at here. This was a project I had to do for my Senior Issues class.IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE

SB#______
Senator Tyler Celli
Additional Sponsors: Senator Ryan Crowther and Senator Jonathan Oquist introduced this bill, which was reported out of the economic stability committee.
The bill passed/failed by a _________ vote margin.
A bill
to establish tighter regulations on tribal netting of salmon by placing tougher laws
on tribal gill nets, wasting fish, and destroying wild fish runs.
1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America
2. in congress
3. assembled that.
4. Whereas 6,325 stocks of fish from California to Washington were assessed. (Beyond
5. The Crossroads)
6. Whereas 217 stocks have been extirpated.
7. Whereas 705 stocks were at high risk of extinction.
8. Whereas 145 stocks were at moderate risk of extinction.
9. Whereas 119 were of special concern.
10. Whereas 79 of the 1105 watersheds where pacific salmon and steelhead are known to
11. exist have gone extinct.
12. Whereas in 1987 treaty Indians caught 300,000 Chinook salmon. (NWIFC Salmon
13. Recovery)
14. Whereas in 1997 treaty Indians caught 115,000 Chinook salmon.
15. Whereas in 1987 treaty Indians caught 1.2 million Coho Salmon.
16. Whereas in 1997 treaty Indians caught 158,000 Coho Salmon.
17. Whereas NOAA Fisheries says “Extinction risks for northwest salmon are alarming and
18. will lead to the extinction of upper Columbia River and Snake River salmon and
19. steelhead by the end of the century. (NOAA Fisheries)
20. Whereas Snake River spring and summer run Chinook Salmon stocks there is a 67
21. percent risk of extinction in 100 years.
22. Whereas the risk of extinction for fall run Chinook salmon is 56 percent in 100 years.
23. Whereas the risk of extinction for Steelhead is 100 percent in 100 years.
24. Whereas upper Columbia River Chinook and Steelhead the risks are 90 percent and 100
25. percent.
26. Whereas there have been many reports from senators that have flown over the Columbia
27. River and counted more than 365 gill-nets in the river at one time. (Round Table
28. Associates)
29. Whereas gill-nets compound the problem because they kill almost every fish that they
30. catch. (Protected Or Plentiful)
31. Whereas several runs of wild fish run through the rivers at the same time.
32. Whereas endangered Snake River Chinook and Steelhead easily become entangled in the
33. Columbia River nets that are fishing for the “healthy runs.”
34. Whereas Tony Floor of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife says, “They are
35. wiping out one fish to get another.”
36. Whereas last year during the commercial salmon season the tribes sold $1,047,000 to the
37. public and commercial dealers.
38. Whereas there are endangered fish that are mixed in with the hatchery ones that the tribes are
39. fishing for.
40. Whereas it doesn’t matter to them if they sell or kill the endangered fish.
41. Whereas out of 16 fall runs of Chinook and Steelhead 10 are declining.
42. Whereas it is projected to be the second lowest or lowest return rate ever for the
43. Columbia River Chinook salmon.
44. Whereas the state wants to close the fisheries of the Columbia River to honor the
45. Endangered Species Act.
46. Whereas any shutdowns on the river would not include tribal fisheries.
47. Whereas when their catches decline some tribal members say they throw their net in the river
48. as much as to maintain their treaty rights as to catch fish.
49. Whereas Indians don’t follow state mandated seasons, didn’t get licenses, and did not follow
50. catch limit rules. (25 years after the Boldt decision)
51. Whereas Indians are entitled to 50 percent of the harvestable catch.
52. Whereas Indians make up one percent of the population.
53. Whereas Tom Nelson says “I go around the state talking to a lot of groups and most
54. think that Judge Boldt made a bad decision by ruling to let the Indians fish however they
55. want and not following any rules the state has made.”
56. Whereas Hood Canal Chum Salmon have returned in large numbers. (Egg stripping
57. continues)
58. Whereas tribal net fishermen are reported stripping chum salmon of their eggs.
59. Whereas they are reported putting the carcasses to waste by throwing them back in the water.
60. Whereas Rick Barnes said while fishing at Hoodsport he witnessed several tribal boats
61. going out into the middle of Hood Canal and dumping dead fish overboard.
62. Whereas Jim Langhelm of Gig Harbor fished on the south fork of the Skokomish River
63. on Hood Canal.
64. Whereas he reported he saw egg stripped carcasses of Chum Salmon all over the
65. Skokomish River.
66. Whereas Langhelm said he talked with an Indian running a gill net.
67. Whereas all he was doing was stripping the eggs.
68. Whereas he said that he was “tribal fisheries.”
69. Whereas the flesh of Chum Salmon is not in demand on the commercial market.
70. Whereas the Indians sell the eggs to Japan at a costly price for caviar.
67. Be it therefore resolved that the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
68. States of America in Congress enact the following legislation.
69. Section One: Short Title: Harsher Penalties on Tribal Fishing.
70. Section Two: Modified Regulation: The modification of the regulation is enforcing
71. harsher penalties, and shorter times to leave their nets in the water.
72. Section Three: Terms of Regulation: The terms of the regulation are that Indians will not
73. be allowed to strip eggs or sell eggs without the carcass for any kind of salmon or
74. steelhead. They will only be allowed to keep their nets in the river for 20 minutes at a
75. time. They will be fined up to $1000 for every dead wild or endangered fish they bring
76. up.
77. Section Four: Federal Agency Charged with Oversight: The Federal Agency charged
78. with the oversight of this bill is the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
79. Section Five: Requirements for Inspection: The inspections will be made by Game
80. Wardens from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. There will be at least
81. one on every river that is being netted by tribal fisheries in Washington. But there will be
82. more on rivers too large for one Warden to cover.
83. Section Six: Funding Source: The sources that will fund this legislation are one, money
84. from the fines that are collected by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
More taxes on fishing licenses. Some money will
86. also be used from the United States Department of Fish and Wildlife. This will cost about
87. $25 million.
86. Section Seven: Activation Date: This bill will go into effect January 01, 2002.
88. Section Eight: Penalty for non-compliance: The penalty for not obeying these laws will
89. be fines up to $10,000 and/or three to six months in prison.

Salmo g.,
I ALWAYS take the time to read your post because I’ve come to know you’ve always got something good to say and I have yet to disagree. As I reviewed some of the post on the “ban the nets” all I could think of was how many back wood ignorant hill billies are posting on here, (no offence to the true Hill Billies of course). I might not particularly like having the Indian’s net 50% of the “harvestable” run but we have to get over it, it’s not going away. I also don’t like seeing all the pressure that our rivers get these days by sportsman but guess what? That’s not going away either. I commend you for your opinions and the knowledge you always supply in your posts!

I've got to work better at posting rabble-rousing posts. I did't even get an honorable mention.

Salmo g.-
That was one of the best posts I have read in a very long time.

I was really disapointed in the direction Chuck'N'Duck's thread turned as I believed he brought up some valid points and opened it up for a very open discussion.

When will we learn the such ignorance and hatrid will get us know where?? If I was a fishery manager and came across the past two threads relating to treaty fishing, I would be very appauled and would be hard pressed to take an opinion, a fact etc. from a so-called sports fisherman.

I hate the blatant treaty netting as much as anyone but why can we not work together to force change??

The Wild Steelhead Coalition became successful because a large group of conservation minded fisherman stopped the *****ing, stopped the moaning, stop the name calling etc. etc. etc. and got together.

They worked hard to get the facts straight and present them in a proffesional manner to force change...and the WSC is only 1 year old and has many many more issues to take on.

Test Post

Hey Salmo,
"A-hole de jouir" was my line! And my remarks were to be inclusive of all mouth breathing knuckle draggin' scum who ever they are,.... and you know who you are.
It don't matter what your color or race may happen to be, if your using a hook-net-gun-or club, the wanton disregard for the resource, be it fish, fowl, or beast is what needs to stop.
I still don't think anyone can justify nets at the mouth of any river, sure don't need to worry about water quality, buffer zones, cattle grazeing, or land use issues when people run nets from bank to bank.

But thanks Salmo, for your very intellegent and know it all report. The rest of us dummies can now bask in your holy light!

i have an idea...give the indians their 50%, but make them use hook and line like everyone else, or better yet, make them take their harvest using the same methods their ancestors did. no modern machine made materials, hand woven nets made from forest materials. wooden spears sharpened with jagged rock. then they could really celebrate their heritage. how long do you think it would be until they lost interest in fishing and found real world jobs?

as long as we are both on a quota type system but required to use a single hook to their net i see no reason to support a double standard, especially when the majority is getting screwed.

no special interest elitism there Salmo...

Salmo G, Have you ever had the oppurtunity to experience up close and personal what every one is pissed off about? From your post it seems as though you have not. If you have not, I would like you to stop by your local river in the fall and check it out, preferably during the week.

Every person, fisherman and non-fisherman, that I have shown up close and personal what goes on when netting occurs becomes furious. I even had to explain to my 15 year old cousin what the Indians were doing on Hood Canal because he was pissed at there netting.

Salmo G instructive post....but my years of experience is that the socalled sustainable fishery is determined by politics and economics first and second with lastly science used to justify those decisions as long as it meets the needs of the first two determinants. Could I be wrong....doubt it? The evidence and history are there.

BTW could someone please define the terms "elitism" and "elitist?" Seems like they like to be used a lot lately.

gooose

SalmoG, alot of good info in your post. But my original questions in my post "50/50 split?" on 1/16, which must of really got Paul Fehr fired up (which wasn't my intention) #1, "Why do the indians get to fish the river (Sack) 30 to 60 days before we can?" #2, "Why for the last 2 yrs do they get to keep the kings and we can't?" If the Boldt decision was to be fair then what's going on up here?

Salmo g., you're clearly well read and don't state something as fact without having some data to back it up. Thanks for a thoughtful post. It was refreshing and I hope gives a few of the more prolific "itchy trigger finger" posters some ideas for how to carry on an intelligent debate.

One question......with respect to the Boldt Decision, where is the parallel between fishing "in common" and dividing up the pie into two equal pieces when the two parties are not equal in membership? How did they arrive at the conclusion that in common meant anything other than same gear, same days, same place, etc.?

I have to assume that somewhere in the document itself it's clarified (I couldn't stomach reading the whole thing), and I just didn't get that far.

Why not have an "itchy trigger finger" when they can always go and use the edit feature when whatever they are on leaves their blood system?

I for one would love to see more well thought-out posts around here, instead of the usual knee-jerk reactionary posts. Sure makes it more interesting/informative/enlightening than the narrow-minded name calling.

It's all about the mighty DOLLAR. If we don't change the value of the DOLLAR and how it relates to net fishing we won't be able to change anything.

If we reduce the demand for fresh caught fish and their eggs (asian markets) the netters will lose money, netting will no longer be profitable, and the netters will eventually stop.

DON'T BUY FRESH CAUGHT FISH!

By the way, most salmon you eat in restaurants is either locally farm raised fish or Atlantic Salmon from the east coast (nasty!).

Carl you hit the mark but not all of it...the economic/political thing in fishery decisionmaking is much larger. Waiting for Salmo G to reply regarding this. Hey guy I'm not flamin you...you made the post and created the reason for discussion... so deal with it?

Gooose

BTW still don't know what an "elitist" is?

People, This horse is now PULVERIZED!!!! send it to the glue factory already.....

I guess if a person doesnt agree its an ignorant post eh!!

[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: Timber Man ]

Nebb, you are right. Never have I experienced such a heated arguement, not debate, since abortion (don't go there).
I find it funny how there is only one side to the netting arguement but so many points of view on what the problem actually is.

TM Right On! Waiting for an answer. Nebb this thread is a bit more than the net bashing crap.

gooose

Salmo proves once again that he knows far more than anybody else...sheesh...can't have opinions anymore guys! Unless of course salmo agrees...probably should email him before ya post! To get his approval.

gill

Bravo, Salmo! Excellent discourse, intellectual observations. Information that everyone ought to read again, just to insure that we have a balance of opinion before we spout off and bash the Indians again.

KSR-
I sat in BC this summer, between fishing & crabbing trips, and read a very good book called "Indian Fishing" (Early Methods on the Northwest Coast)" by Hilary Stewart. It took me 4 days to read this 180 page book, and I read "Gone With The Wind" ( 1000+ pages ) in three days. There is THAT much information in it!
First of all, taking your statement literally in that they should all go back to using ancient methods: we don't have enough sustainable cedar left for them to do so, even if they wanted to. (Hmmmm....now who logged all that cedar? The Indians?)
And on that same note, if they are to go back to fishing in ancient ways, then so should we. Get rid of your graphite rod and anodized reel and dump those laser-sharp hooks in the trash, honey. And forget that monofilament cuz we're going back to guts and string. How many steelhead do you think us White-boyz are going to catch on this? Hmmmm....it certainly ought to be beneficial for escapement, don't you think?

And lest you think that I'm on "their" side, I'll correct you in that at times I've fished over 120 days per year. I have salmon boats, drift boats and catarafts and enough gear downstairs to open a tackle store. I live in an area that is heavily netted. So....go fish another river. If they're netting the Elwah, go to the Lyre. The Quillyute? Find those small steams that aren't netted. Live with it and adapt.

Quitcher*****in' and git fishin'
diana

Would you guys lay off of salmo? What he did was provide his opinion and commentary regarding what people said on the issue of tribal gill netting.

Agreeing or disagreeing in a debate is completely acceptable, as long as you can present your side in an educated and informed manner. Blindly ranting about something without at least making an effort to read up on the facts will not win anyone over, and only serves to help you see your name posted on a public forum.

Saying "(we) can't have opinions anymore guys" simply because someone put down a thought-out and eloquent position in the debate is silly. CERTAINLY you can have a differentiating opinion. I'm sure that salmo would fight for your right to have that opinion, as he seems to be a very educated individual.

Maybe some folks didn't make it through his comparatively long post, so I will repost the last paragraph:


In a nutshell, he was pissed about it when he first heard about the decision too. Then he did what many of us haven't done: he sat down and READ IT. He talked to lawyers (if there was something wrong with it you KNOW that a lawyer would find it and pick it apart) and biologists (they aren't the bad guys, folks. They're very intelligent people most of the time make excellent decisions) about the decision and found it, for the most part, well-written and bulletproof.

He's offered to provide to us his insight on what is in the Boldt decision, and maybe what he has to say is more than we all claim to know. Don't condemn Salmo because he has an educated opinion, and that he has the intelligence to be able to put it into words. Instead, one-up him. Go do some "book larnin". Form your OWN educated opinion, and present it BETTER than he did. You will do your cause a greater service by writing intelligently than simply posting on emotion and slamming those who disagree.

[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: Dave Jackson ]

i've got a great idea. skunk cabbage.thats what the indians used to use on the raft river. very selective. i think the sea-at-koos started using skunk cabbage before the indians did

It was an excellent post,Salmo.I also appreciate Chuck'nducks post.

I would like to ask you if you know what the proceedure is for tribal harvest counts.I have always heard that the Tribes are self regulating.Is this completely true? How much oversite does the State have with regards to fish numbers collected by the Tribes?Do the Tribes have their own governing body that regulates all the tribes together,or does each seperate tribe regulate itself?

I don't like the nets because I think Salmon and Steelhead are of more value to myself and the economy as a sportfish rather than a foodfish,but my biggest beef with the tribes has always been accountability and not their right to share the harvest.

Thanks.

Diana, my post was not about logging the remaining cedar...it was about levelling the playing field (that should be obvious to most everyone)...read it again, i posted it as an idea, not as something i think they should be required to do...just something to think about. you dont have to read it if you dont want to, and you dont have to like it either.

why is this thread still open???

KSR-
My post was not made to get into a logging issue. You said they should be required to use ancient techniques. I said they can't. If you were to read the history of their fishing methods, there isn't enough cedar left for them to use to fashion the nets that they employed 400 years ago. "Even if they wanted to". Which they don't, I'm sure. And we don't want to go back to sticks and string, either. I'm debunking a comment made quite often by disgruntled fisherman.

Here's another bit of information. I was employed as a financial manager about 10 years ago. And Indian from Neah Bay came in and needed a loan. His income was fishing. I got a first hand look at fishing income. I had his orgional sales tickets and tax returns in my hand. He made slightly over $100,000 on fish sales, and almost $6,000 on egg sales. It sounds like a lot to most people, unless one is self-employed. His boat cost was $70,000, and was financed for 10 years. On top of this, he had fuel, deckhands, ice and fishing gear ( nets, drums, lighting, winches, etc. ) to pay for. This guy did not live an extravegant lifestyle. I'd say he barely got by financially while supporting a wife and 3 children. I don't think many Indians fish for the money alone. I think Indians fish for the same reason the rest of us do. They enjoy it and it's in their blood. And I've seen several Indians fishing rod & reel on the Elwah and on the Suez in Neah Bay.
The Boldt Decision is here to stay. Adapt. They don't net EVERY river.
diana

BB Friends and others,

I should have known it wouldn't take much to keep this hornet's nest stirred up.

Apparently I got carried away and made a few sarcastic attacks on some of you. If you are one who feels this way, I apologize. I usually try to attack incorrect statements, factual errors, and the like; not people. Bright people say incorrect or dumb things. At least I do, and some folks think I'm fairly bright.

And it's fine by me that you have opinions. And no, I don't think anybody needs their opinion approved by me or anyone. I just think it's useful to know if my opinion is based on emotion, ignorance about a subject (I'm a dummy about a lot of things), or facts supported by verifiable data. Believing that a certain group catches more or less than 50% of the fish doesn't make it so. And if data are incomplete, then data don't make it so, either, but the data are what you can take into court and win, if that matters to you.

I really enjoy this BB. I learn a lot. I hope I return half as much as I receive. And if your mind is already made up and you don't want to be confused with the facts, well, that's OK too; you're not the one I'm trying to reach.

Oh, and a little history. I was born and raised in one of western Washington's many cultural backwaters, so as a hillbilly, I thought I knew who I was poking fun at. For instance, do you know why the yuppies in Sedro Wooley don't drive BMWs? Because they can't fit a gun rack in the rear window.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Well, I have heard the stuffed shirt, in the box, opinion and have heard way too much of the knuckle dragger opinion. With a better defintion of the problem, somewhere in there is probably an answer, at least to our anxieties.

There's yuppies in Sedro Wooley? They're realling moving up over there.

I just want more pictures of helicopters and fish.

...so anyway...

As a follow up, Salmo, you said this about increasing the non-tribal, non-commercial take of fish:



Can you expand on the more just and logical arguements and how we can get people sympathetic to those arguments on the WDFW Commission?

Bruce

[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: B. Gray ]

Salmo, nice to hear from you my friend...it's been a while!

Hmmm...I thought about whether or not I would respond to the "net" threads, and decided that it wasn't worth it. However, this one brings up some points that are well worth discussing. Here goes...

It seems that the impetus behind these posts is tribal fishers taking more than 50% of the harvestable portion of fish runs (real and/or perceived).

It looks like there are quite a few opinions out there that don't realize that the Boldt decision does indeed divide harvestable portions 50/50, but that the 50/50 split is not between tribal fishers and us on the riverbanks with rods and reels. It's a 50/50 tribal/non-tribal split. Therein lies the answer to your questions, G-Man.

If there are, say, 1000 harvestable fish in a particular run on the 'Sack, and 250 are caught in Neah Bay, and 100 are caught in the San Juan Island's commercial fisheries, and 150 are caught by sporties in Puget Sound, how many are left for you to catch up in Deming?

That's 500 fish for the Indians, and 500 for the rest, all of which were caught before they even reached the Nooksack. No season.

If you don't like that scenario, don't blame it on the Indians. Blame it on the North of Falcon process that allocated the non-tribal share to offshore fisheries that caught them all. Be sure to blame it on the sportfishers who did not participate in the NoF process and try to get a bigger allocation, too.

As far as a sport season being 30 or 60 days after the Indians fish, there are similar reasons. If there is not a large harvestable portion, then the tribes and the hatchery are going to get their shares first. Then comes ours. It's the price we pay for being the last ones in line, geographically, to harvest the resource (off shore sports/commercial fisheries, tribal off shore fisheries, tribal lower river fisheries, hatcheries, then us). The solution, again, is participate in the NoF process to take a chunk of that allocation from the users earler in line.

The tribal fisher's ability to use monofilament nets, power boats, etc., is absolutely protected by the Boldt decision. There is no question that it is perfectly legal, even encouraged to make sure they catch their share.

I have lots of opinions about the Boldt decision. My emotional opinion is to not like it (I want more for me...and I think that's the great majority of opinions on this subject..be honest). Legally, however, it is one piece of amazing jurisprudence. Years of research from all the parties involved infused more fact into a case than I've ever seen. The great majority of it was a body of stipulated facts, agreed to by all or most of the parties. It went back and forth throughout the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court, and by the time they were done with it, it is pretty much untouchable. It is indeed seen in the legal world as part of the body of civil rights cases that shaped our nation throughout the sixties and seventies.

Here's another observation about the Boldt decision. It came about due to the same type of ignorance, anger, and blatant racism that has been displayed on this BB over the last several days.

Before the Boldt decision, Indians (3% of the population) were harvesting 6-10% of the salmon and steelhead in Washington. Sportsfishermen, commerical fishermen, and charter boat captains were bent out of shape, and sought restrictions on net fishing for the Indians. They displayed the same emotional bias and lack of respect for the cultural heritage and financial well-being of other people that I've been hearing my whole life.

The state bought into it, and placed restrictions on the tribal fishers. When the Indians ignored them and fished anyway, they were arrested and their gear was confiscated. When the courts (federal) ordered the state to return the gear and respect the treaty rights to fish, they in turn ignored the courts, repeatedly.

Finally the federal courts had had enough, and along came the Boldt decision. As noted above, it is an incredible piece of work.

Since then, those 3% are now taking a federally protected 50%, more or less.

If we don't learn from the past, we are bound to repeat it. Look what happened last time...

There are abuses in all fisheries. Non-tribal commercials, sports fishers, and tribal commercials all do it. It's impossible to measure how much abuse takes place, but the tribal abuses are much more obvious since they take place in near shore or in river situations at well-known and easily accessed places.

There are a pretty finite number of tribal fishermen out there, and there are abuses. There is a massive amount of non-tribal sport fishers out there, hundreds of thousands, and their abuses take place everywhere, often in places where enforcement is all but impossible. Instead of tossing hay bales, why aren't we calling for slashing all the tires of "sports" men out there in the woods? Tossing hay bales is just as cowardly and just as much a waste of time.

Let's clean up our own act, and police the actions of others within the bounds of the law. Report abuses by all user groups. Break the law to get back at them makes you no better than them.

Sorry this is a bit rambling and disjointed, I'm trying to do a few things at once right now...I'll probably have more later!

Fish on...

Todd.

Thanks for the insight folks!!!

[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: Timber Man ]

TODD, Thanks again for taking some time to answer some of our questions, not from your opinion but from your legal experiences. Any answers to my last question about not being able to keep fall chinook when the natives get to? Chinook release is printed in the regs now for the last two years.

[ 01-20-2002: Message edited by: G-MAN ]

Salmo G thanks for the e-mail....your answer/opinion was right to a point as I believe my comments/opinion to you were right to a point.
Nice dialogue anyway.

TimberMan I"m not even close to you in height....do I really gotta bow? :p :p

Gooose

Timberman, you don't want me to bow to you. What are you think'n? I don't bow to any one! I don't care what your business card says or what your name, rank, and serial number is. Get over it!

Never limits-Give it a frickin rest Carlos!!! I dont bow to anyone either bud!!!It was a joke if ya cant take it dont read it!! I never said I had a business card anyway..But my rank is there :p

Salmo G- Thanks for the email you definently shed some light on the netting for sure..It's hard to understand sometimes!!


Goose-BOW NOW!!! :p :p

Timber Man YOU ARE THE MAN! I'm too whooped too argue with your largeness after poundin gravel and frickin vertical cliffs for two days!
Oughta invite you over for some of this ....might equal the field :p .

Shame some of the new guys don't know the history of this board....oh well give the smolts a break.

Crap can I wait a couple of days before bowing down.... lifting a beer even hurts after this weekend? BTW you should have been there for the Elk herd this morning....frickin awesome way to start the day!

One Beat Gooose

G-Man,

I don't know exactly what the deal is on the Nooksack with the chinook, but it's likely one of these two things.

First, as I noted in my last post, the non-tribal share may have already been harvested before the fish even got to the river. Believe it or not, at the NoF meetings they have models that show how many fall chinook are heading into the Nooksack, and where they're all going to be all summer and fall. Their models will show how many will be caught in Canada, and off our shores, in Neah Bay, and in the Straights, and in the San Juans, and in Bellingham Bay. (Not by tribal fisheries).

If there are open seasons in any of those areas at the right times, some of the fish caught will be part of the Nooksack River non-tribal share of fall chinook. Depending on the length and timing of the seasons, there may not be any non-tribal fall chinook left for a river fishery. When the fish show up, the Lummis and Nooksacks get their shares. We've already got ours.

The second possibility is that the fish are taken for subsistence and/or ceremonial purposes. It's not quite as common knowledge as it should be, but when harvestable surpluses are measured, it's not total fish minus escapement equals surplus. It's Total Fish - Escapement Needed - Fish Needed for Subsistence/Ceremonial Purposes = Harvestable Surplus, which is then divided in half.

The tribal fall chinook fishery in the Nooksack could be pursuant to subsistence and ceremonial needs. These fisheries may be allowed even if there is no harvestable surplus. Tribal managers contend that these fisheries may even be allowed if the target fish are ESA listed because their treaty right to take fish for these purposes is not affected by the ESA.

I didn't even know they had a tribal fall chinook season in the Nooksack. I'm guessing there probably won't be one for long if there is, since they look to be phasing out the hatchery run there and the wild run is very endangered.

G-Man, try sending an e-mail to your Region 4 bios in Mill Creek. Ask them if one or both of these reasons is why the Nooksack is not open for fall chinook. I'll bet one of them is, probably the NoF possibility.

Fish on...

Todd.

Rambling is fine when you provide some data to support it.

OK, finally have time to respond to Salmog's original post:



The idiocy lies in several areas.

First, it is idiotic to render a decision that (as you agree) is nearly impossible to implement.

Second, it must be understood that the decision is an interpretation. The second amendment states that one's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Obviously, since one can not own a stinger missle or machine gun (thank God)it is being infringed. Long ago the courts interpreted the amendment to exclude most weapons. Why? BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT WHAT THE WRITERS ENVISIONED OR THE INTENT OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT. I have yet to meet a person that claims that the fiasco we now have is what was envisioned or intended by the signers of the treaties.

Finally, yes the decision has withstood legal challenge. Overturning a legal decision is akin to challenging a NFL call - you must show irrefutable proof of illegality. Judge Boldt could have ruled the "other way" and that, too would have most likely held up. There is (and was) a great deal of sympathy for the indians in the general population and his decision was "politically correct" for the times. If he were, say, ruling in 1946 on a treaty we held with the Japanese, I would guess bias of interpretation would be different, eh?

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