My letter here was sent to Mr. Monroe and Jennie in response to the ifish thread called "Bill Monroe speaks". He is the outdoor writer for the Oregonian - the highest subscription newspaper in the NW. Within that thread he states his case for being a netting advocate and for alerting the public of where to buy Indian netted salmon; in response to criticism on the fishing websites for doing so.
----------------

To: Bill Monroe (Oregonian outdoor writer) - April 27, 2002

Re: Media balance for Columbia salmon and steelhead allocation issues.

Hi Bill.

I wanted to send you some feedback and other information after reading Jennie's post of your Sunday column and other comments on the ifish BB.
In regards to your comments and your column, what I most want to communicate to you is that not all of us "complainers" are against Indian fishing rights. For me and many others it's to the contrary - we want them to get exactly their rightful and lawful share of these Columbia fish (as with other NW river fisheries). What we don't want is for them to get way more than that - which is the status quo! Having been one of the most publicly outspoken people on this issue the last couple years, I want to let you in on what I have learned via investigative efforts. If you are not already aware of what I will reveal to you here, please consider it for future balance within powerful media coverage. I see it as lacking in your column for tomorrow (Sunday 4/28/02).

To quote you: "And as to educating those who selfishly believe these fish are theirs alone. ..... From my view, anyone who considers this their personal fishery or the sole realm of sportfishing has their head in the sand." I have not seen this belief posted on the NW fishing websites concerning Indian netting, but have to a degree concerning commercial netters - with the exception of a few 'mentally challenged' guys that display overt Native American racism; who you took proper exception to in addressing their poor message (thank you). Most of these seeming 'selfish' fishers are people who feel they chronically come up with the smallest piece of the pie, while contributing the largest amount of money to producing these hatchery fish - in the form of immense contribution to the NW economy (see NSIA Newsletters), taxes, and license fees. And they are correct in their plaintiveness.

Since the most powerful controlling influences to the split of Columbia fish are the Col. Inter-tribal Fish Commission, the NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service), and the U.S. Department of the Interior, allow me to state what much of the basis for plaintiveness toward Indian netting is; and what I have found out in my investigations.

First, as I mentioned above, most of us 'complainers' are NOT against Indian fishing rights. We want them to have exactly what has been deemed rightful and lawful. The Treaties signed in the century before last called for "sharing the fish in common". Some interpreted that to mean the Indians get a share of the fish in per capita equal amounts. Others interpreted that to mean split the fish equally - 50% to American Treaty Indian Tribes and 50% to non-Indian Americans. In the infamous 1970's Federal Court decisions by Judge Belloni and Judge Boldt (Belloni's jurisdiction on the Columbia, Boldt's jurisdiction in western Washington state), they ruled descisively a mandate to split salmon and steelhead runs deemed harvestable equally - 50/50 between Indians and non-Indians. They also ruled that in any year that one party harvested more fish, the other party would receive more the following year to compensate. It hasn't been lived up to by the Indian Tribes. And anyone, please don't bring up that someone else's Euro ancestors didn't live up to agreements either. That was then, this is now - and two wrongs don't make a right. And they do not have legal effect on the law today!

Now it has evolved to these present situations. As you know, the Federal Endangered Species Act has had an over-riding impact on the amount of available harvestable fish. This is the ESA impact on native fish factor. It has been the driving force in setting fish quotas for all user groups in recent years - commercial netting, Indian netting, and sportfishing. But there are unpublicized factors that have illegally circumvented the Treaties and Federal Court mandates of equal sharing! As well as over-riding the Mitchell act for commercial fishing interests. However .....

..... what has turned the tables on fairness and Federal Court mandates in all this scenario has been the political influenced Secretarial Order No. 3206 by the U.S. Department of the Interior that states the Indian Tribes will be the last to lose fishing opportunity due to ESA driven quota cutbacks. It was publicly stated that at it's foundation the Order was based on the damage the Columbia River dams have done to the fish runs. What they did not address is the fact that NW Indians have used electricity as long as non-Indians. And they use a LOT of electricity from the dams to light up their many lucrative gambling casinos, which were allowed and licensed as part compenstation for fish lost to dams. Dams that my ancestors, and many sportfishers ancestors, did not build either! It is unfair, and likely ultimately illegal. It's why the states of Oregon and Washington filed a lawsuit opposing efforts by the Col. Tribal Commission to stop all further sportfishing in the Columbia River. The Tribes also have threatened Federal lawsuits to get all the Columbia system dams taken down, for negotiation ammunition. While their influence may have lent help toward getting funding of these hatcheries out of our money, it was mostly done to get further unfair power of allocation of Columbia fish. The Tribes and states used these factors in a long and tough negotiation process to keep it out of the courts. This did help keep sportfishing seasons for Columbia fall Chinook and steelhead intact, and allowed for a quota of the unusually high numbers of returning spring Chinook, last year and this year. But .....

..... the states were no less than bullied into an unfair agreement for sportfishers in the process! I personally communicated with the lead state's negotiator, ODWF's Guy Norman, about the negotiations that went on unpublisized. Last year the Indians got an 8% ESA impact quota, while the non-Indian commercial netters and sportfishers got a combined 1% ESA impact quota. This year the process 'netted' a bullied agreement in which the non-Indians (commercial and sport combined) got a 2% ESA impact quota of springers while the Indians rustled a whopping 13% ESA impact quota! Thirteen times what the sportfishers got. Where is their care about the native fish or fairness in that? Then .....

..... when this year's run forecast was recently lowered from 334,000 fish to 'only' a quarter of a million springers - 250,000 - the sportfishers were cut off an assured season thru May in the mainstem Columbia. Did pressure from the Columbia Tribal Commission influence that decision? Do bears .... well, you know. I have heard various predictions on what will happen to the Indian quota, but if last season and historical occurances are indicitive, they will get their 13% ESA impact quota or close to it; or raise the dam removal Federal suit hammer again to get more of their much bigger unfair quota than the sportfishers got of their comparatively small 1% quota. And this is despite the fact that sportfishers are required to release non-clipped fish to a better than 93% survival rate (for verification of this contact ODFW's Steve King in the Clackamas office, and/or former ODFW head Jim Martin, and/or Steve Fransen of the Olympia office of the NMFS). As you are aware, your friend Bob Toman was among those that were involved in the two year catch and release study done on Willamette hatchery springers that provided those statistics, which was part of the factor in the allocation quotas on the Columbia. Furthermore, with knowledge of the kill everything effectiveness of gillnets on native fish, the Col. Tribal Commission refused pleas by the states to switch to the new more selective tooth tangle nets to save more native fish! The commercial netters have been ruled to use only those new type of nets. So ....

.... do you see more clearly why so many of us have become what you refer to as 'complainers'? Will you consider being more balanced in your coverage of these issues on behalf of the sportfishers of the Northwest? As for sportsmen getting together and doing something about this, I have run more than one letter writing campaign as a long time moderator of the ifish NW Discussion Board, and also as a moderator of the Piscatorial Pursuits website NW fishing Discussion Board. Many letters have been sent. Jennie has done a fine job of putting up a page of Congressmen and other influential people's addresses to write to about these issues. One of mine was answered personally by Oregon Senator Gordon Smith. I posted his letter to me on the ifish BB, in which he promised to look into these negotiations and see that the sportfishers get a fair deal. Hmmm. Didn't happen though. Many more letters will help.

As for the commercial fishing industry, that you also support, they have become an outdated form of fish havesting method in light of the plight of endangered native salmon and steelhead. Why? Because they aren't necessary to provide these fish for market. There is an abundance of farm salmon, and even steelhead, as well as Alaskan and Canadian commercial fisheries for this country's markets. And the Columbia netting industry has demonstrated a lack of care or compliance in saving native fish, as well as by-catch fish. They have been offered fair buyout compensation. However, if it can be demonstrated that they can fish effectively selectively with the use of these new tooth tangle nets, and comply with native fish revival, then why can't they net their target Willamette springers below the Oregon City falls, instead of below all the sportfishing effort? And net in the Columbia Gorge for fall salmon, instead of below all the sportfishing effort. As for the "Spring chinook from hatcheries [that] belong to everyone in the nation", most of us don't mind them buying these from sources that fish within fair and legally mandated quotas, and fish ethically within proper attempts to minimize damage to endangered irreplacable native fish stocks.

These are some of the things sportfishers would like influential media members, such as yourself Bill, to consider before their public influencing writing goes to press. Thanks much for your time and consideration. -- Steve Hanson (STS magazine)
---------------

You can read Mr. Monroe's column in the Sunday Oregonian (4/28/02), and communicate via his invite to billmonroe@news.oregonian.com

Great letter RT! Thanks for taking your time to write it.

Cowlitzfisherman
Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

WOW! Well said RT. I'll e-mail him and just say ditto what Steve said.

Wow RT...........all this from a guy that sits on a donut? You da man, you da man!

Crayfin

RT,
You must have been waitin' for the right opportunity to come forward with the hard facts and Bill Monroe gave you that chance. Great post. Very enlightening! Hope Bill, and others like him, read it.

This imbalance of justice has to come to an end. Any thoughts on how to resolve these issues? I'm sure you have many and would love to hear them.

For the record and as you know, it doesn't matter what the quota is on the Columbia, I can't catch'em anyway. There are no Springers that need to worry, when they see my boat a comin'. I enjoyed having you in my boat today. Next time I'll listen to your advice....maybe my luck will change!!!!

Great post Steve.

Thanks for the comments. Bill did read my letter and sent this cordial reply take on it to me this afternoon:

Steve,
What in the world are you doing up earlier than I am, by the way? I hope you were heading for the Columbia...I'm gonna try the St. Helens area.

Thanks for the thoughtful letter Steve...I'll ask Guy about some of those figures. Frankly, however, I'm not sure what investigations you've made or information you developed, unless it was that. Faulting the tribes for using electricity for casinos is a little out there...the Belloni and other court rulings apply only to harvestable surplus, as I'm sure you're aware, not the
run. The states control the predictions (the Columbia's will change again this week...I noticed a 13,000 dam count the day they decided there weren't enough dailies higher than 10,000) and thus the surplus. I've not seen feds or tribes at any of the tac team meetings. Frankly, NMFS is so weak right now I'm not sure they could influence a fly to leave the kitchen. The issue
is over a valuable fish, not let-them-eat-chilean-salmon or BC farmed fish...this fish has a reputation for being different and it has a good
market. I think the states realize they screwed up with early allocations and especially with the steelhead take, but it's still experimental...there's some indication now that the tribes are considering some test netting
of their own...we'll follow that, too. And as for letting them net below the falls or in the gorge...well, that's out there with the casino lighting thing, Steve. [....... (leaving out some sensative editor info) ...]. This
being only the second year in more than 20 to fish down there and the fact that some are being saved for Umatilla, The Dalles, Pendleton, Tri-Cities and Spokane anglers who want their chance, too...
Call me at the office any time.
Leave a message and I'll call you back.

Thanks again,
Bill
-----------

Thank you Bill.

This is what I replied back to Bill with the following issue clarifications, subsequent to his letter:

4/28/02 -- Thanks for taking the time for the replies Bill. It so happens that we went to the St. Helen's area also this morning. I hope you had better luck than us - we had no bites for a half day fishing. We started fishing our way from dolphin #72 below Sand Island a ways, on down to #62. It was as dead fishing as I even seen down that way; while we were there for awhile anyway. No fish seen hooked, and all replies to inquiries were "no fish seen". My friend didn't have a water thermometer, but it felt upper 40's to me. So I am at a loss to explain why it was so slow out there with lots of fish due thru yet - I hope! I have heard that sometimes they release more water from Bonneville Saturday nights into Sunday, and the rising water can put fish off the bite. But perhaps it was slow in that area due to a lull in the run there - with better fishing elsewhere on the Columbia today? We spent a couple hours up the lower Willamette Channel and saw only a few fish caught out of many boats. No bites for our boat today. It will be very interesting to observe the dam counts in the near future, for sure! ...

My sources for the information I wrote are from the NMFS, ODWF, NSIA, and others I'm not comfortable revealing. I'm confident it's fairly accurate. ... As for your reply comments to my information and your thoughts about the heated issue of unfair Columbia fish allocations strongly favoring the Tribes, like many sportsman I do feel differently than you about encouraging people to buy their gillnetted hatchery and native fish on the road side; because it subsidizes this unfair and native fish taking fishery. And it gives a message that we are alright with it. As I mentioned in my first letter to you, we wouldn't be against these sales if the Treaties and Federal Court mandates for equal allocations of the fish were lived up to, and the Tribes also made better efforts to save the native fish. They have not; including refusing to go along with the states strong requests to switch to the tangle nets, as the commercials are mandated to use now.

I haven't "faulted" the Tribes for using dam produced electricity; I have taken issue with them 'faulting' non-Indians for doing so as they themselves have always used it too; now in large amounts in their fish compensating casinos. Because their main negotiating weapon for unfair and illegal by Federal Court mandate allocations is the fish run damage caused by the dam's electricity producing turbines - yet they have used it all along too! In that regard, I don't see it as the issue stretch that you and they do. And it is certainly very pertinent, because it is the main basis for the key Secretarial Order # 3206, of which I explained in my first letter, that is one of the two main factors leading to such a grossly unfair allocation differential - 13% ESA impact on native fish for Indian netters to 1% for us sportsmen - which are not surplus fish; they are endangered fish! It's these that drive the fishing allocations, not surplus hatchery fish. As the 70's Fed. Ct. mandates said, equal split of "fish deemed harvestable" - which is the estimated tolerable kill impact on native fish, in this current era.

I do agree with you that the sportsmen proposed commercial netting locations above the majority of sportfishing effort is a long stretch of hope. But it is not entirely unfeasable. They may well prefer that to another gamble with an anti-netting ballot initiative.

And I agree with you that the NMFS has been rendered ineffective due to being placed between the proverbial "rock and a hard place". The 'rock' is a combination of Col. Tribal Comm. selfish goals, abetted by # 3206, and their contined threat of regional ecomomic disaster by suing to have the Feds take down some Columbia River dams. The 'hard place' is the combination of signed Treaties and Federal Court mandates that the states of Oregon and Washington are armed with; and used in their filed lawsuit that was settled out of court - poorly for the sportfishers. I'd love to see some stronger northwest political leadership pursue an injunction and possible lawsuit challenging the US Dept. of the Interior's narrow sighted Order # 3206, and an upholding of the 70's Fed. Ct. mandates as the proper jurisdictional force in these allocations! That is a key for getting the sportfishers closer to fair NW fish allocations! Especially with the sportfishers having the least impact on released native fish, and also paying more for the harvestable hatchery fish.

Us sportfishers are primarily asking you to consider these factors of the equation when writing published opinions of netting rights, and helping subsidize their netting by sending more fish buyers their way. Thank you from most of us sportsmen, for your consideration. I am fully aware of your good intent and integrity, Bill. And I would be happy to discuss this further with you anytime it's convenient for you. Thanks again. Take care. - Steve (RT)
-----------------

As for what you all can do to help this situation is use this information, and other forth coming information, and write your own personalized letters to Oregon and Washington Congressmen, and influential members of the state's fisheries departments. Big numbers of letters will help get us a fairer allocation on the Columbia and other rivers!
-----------------

Hey Dan (slackliner), you did everything right on your V-sled tiller handle today. You can't hook fish unless biters get near your proper gear. So, tight lines 'slackliner'. We came across Nanook (Rick) out there, and got to say hello to him and his 2 ladies out there. That cracker didn't even have a bit yet. Of course, they had only been there for about 15 minutes.

Steve

RT, I for one appreciate your efforts in representing the sport anglers. I don't know Bill, but I would rather see him represent the sports anglers views more so than the tribes or non tribal commercials. They have plenty of representation and the allocations always point that out.

It sounds to me like Bill wants to report on all fishing related topics not sports anglering specifically. I would guess most of the readers are looking for sports angling reports, and the audience is generally not sympathetic to gillnet commercial fishing. In fact, it ticks me off.

Man! I shore wish I had de brains and time to write like y'all. Dang glad you is on the right side. Sho nuf!!

Besides this gets me a post so Bob won't dump me arse, hee hee.

P.S. RT: You wanna get 'lected to sumpton maybe?