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