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.