Samish Tribe wants Boldt Case Reopened

Off of Juro's board ... might be interesting!

where they just was made a tribe? i heard that a new tribe was trying to get fishing [netting]rights and the other tribes where fghting to stop them.

thats right larryb, if the samish get the rights to fish then it will cut into the other tribes' share of the pie

Source of the rumor?

Now I'm gonna go read it...

Here is another article about the Samish.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/98746_samish06.shtml

Well I say let them re-open the Boldt Verdict. I think that thier might be another reason that the other tribes don't want the case re-opened. When the case is opened, the current judge might not find the same as Judge Boldt. So they might infact lose thier 50% allotment. The wacky world of law being what it is, could just gut the Boldt decision. Now wouldn't that be interesting?

MJ

More info on the subject-

Samish/Judge Boldt Thread

I'm no lawyer but I don't see how this could amount to much in terms of the ratio allotted sporties. Theoretically our 50% should stay the same.

Do you think there are any Federal judges out there that would seriously consider reexamining the entire decision based on one tribe's claim to fishing rights?

One can only hope I guess....

Bob,
I believe that Judge Boldt rendered a number of decisions in cases involving the official recognition of local tribes by the federal government. The only part of the Boldt decision that would be changed if the Samish tribe won their suit would be to add the Samish to those tribes having treaty fishing rights.

It looks like a clear cut case to me. If the Samish are a recognized tribe, then they were more than likely included in the treaties signed in the 1800's. They way I see the Boldt decision (in a nutshell) is that any recognized tribe has the right to harvest fish in their customary waters.

This also exposes the other tribes for what they are, greedy. They will stand on the Boldt decision, claiming that they are getting what is rightfully and customarily theirs, but will fight any other tribe who claim their right to the same benefits. It appears that their attitude is "what's good for the Goose, is good for the Gander... unless it negatively impacts me!" The other tribes should just back off and let the Samish bear the burden of proof to see if they qualify for the rights that the Boldt decision. All the other baloney about all the litigation and agreements being messed up should be considered secondary when you're argueing for what is right. If in fact the Samish have rights to the Native American portion of the harvest, who are the tribes to tell them they don't. And if the tribes can dictate who can or can't harvest fish, maybe the Boldt decision isn't good enough for the tribes and should be thrown out.

Looks like the shoe is on the other foot now. Having someone cut into a slice of your half of the pie sucks, doesn't it?

Quick Question. If they reopen the Boldt decision is this an opportunity for the sports fisherman? And who would represent our position?

Well, I see that the BIA is already funding the Samish's lawsuit to the tune of $100K.

Maybe they can find a real liberal judge that will rule in favor of the Samish retroactively.
That way the tribe could be awarded millions (or billions) of federal tax dollars for fish the tribe "would of" caught since 1974.

The Samish tribe better get on a spaceship and head to a galaxy far far away and learn how to use "The Force" because that's what it's going to take for them to win this one! The Samish tribe is asking for a legal ass whooping if they oppose anything having to do with the Lummi's or Nooksack's. Have you seen the Lummi Casino? Big $$$'s there folks! Big $$$ backing up their fishing rights and big $$$ to support politicians who are, or will be, on their side. Without a mega-profit casino, or even a reservation for that matter, the Samish tribe does not have the $$$ to support the legal resources (big $$$ attorneys) which are required to overturn a ruling such as the Boldt decision. The Samish tribe may, however, have enough money to buy their 899 tribal members quality shovels to help themselves dig their way out of the mountain of paperwork that the opposing tribes' attorneys will bury them in. My prediction is that nothing if anything will happen at least not anytime soon.

Speaking of Indian Casinos: I don't gamble at Indian casino's myself and I will not be giving them a damn dime of my money any time soon. I lose too much money in gear as it is trying to catch 50% of the fish......might have more money to burn if there were 90% of the fish allotted to the sportsmen, thus allowing me to catch fish more easily with less time (time is $$$) and $$$ out of pocket (gear, bait, etc.) invested. Until then, I will gamble at one of the local casinos run by my Italian brethren. Better food at those casinos anyways

As posted by 'flytyer' at The Flyfishing Forum...some very excellent info


Folks,

Fred suggested I provide some further information to you in a private message he sent to me. Fred, you were right, the info needed to be placed herein for the rest of the board to see.

That out of the way here goes.

I am very familiar with the Skagit River system tribes and how they view the Samish Tribe filing for inclusion in the U.S. v. Washington case that produced the infamous Bolt Decesion. The three tribes with fishing rights on the Skagit (Swinomish, Upper Skagit, and Saud-Suiattle Tribes) are opposed to having the Samish Tribe be granted fishing rights. The Samish Tribe, along with the Snoqualmie (which has regained federal recognition) and Snohomish Tribes (which has not regained fedreal recognition yet) were not included in the Bolt decision because they were not parties to the case that brought it about, not were they federally recognized at the time of the decision either due to having lost their federal recognition.

The Skagit tribes along with the other Point Elliot Treaty Tribes (This is important because these are the tribes that were granted the 50% of harvest and the right to fish commercially for steelhead.) are the tribes that Judge Bolt gave the absolute right to net the rivers and take 50% of the harvest. All of these tribes have kept all of the depositions, testimony, expert anthropologist documents, etc. related to the case just in case one of the other non-treaty fishing tribes was re-instated as rederally recognized. In short, they do not want or desire to have another tribe allowed in on the tribal net fishing for salmon and steehlhead. Also, they are very concerned about one of the three tribes mentioned above getting re-recognized and getting the federal court to re-open or re-visit the case from which the Bolt decision came.

They are concerned about the Bolt decision being altered to possibly remove steelhead as food fish (there is very scant historical evidence that steelhead were used as food fish by the tribes, that is why the tribes insist on calling steelhead "steelhead salmon". Unfortunately, at about the same time that this case was working its way through the Federal District Cout in Seattle, steelhead, cutthroat, golden trout,
and rainbow trout were reclasified into the same genus (or family) as pacific salmon. This allowed them to simply add steelhead to the food fish category very easily. Since they were of same genus as pacific salmon, and called steelhead salmon by the tribal attorneys, they were included in Judge Bolt's decision as steelhead salmon. This is why a re-opening or re-visiting of the case could mean that steelhead would be removed from the harvest allocation. And steelhead get a very good price on the commercial market, musch better than pacific salmon.

The other thing they are concerned about is the 50% of the harvest allocation could be reduced to 25% or less. And there is the possibility that the court will simply rule that the state of Washington gets to set seasons and limits on the number of fish a particular tribe may catch with its nets. None of the above is wanted by the tribes currently covered by the Bolt decision.

At the same time, they do not want to allow by agreement (which would avoid re-opening the case with the possibility that the ruling will be changed in a manner that is less favorable to the tribes) the non-treaty fishing tribes in on the fisheries. Theri hope is that the court will not allow the Samish to have the case re-opened. However, the Samish has been successful in getting the court to consider their petition to be heard for declaration as a treaty fishing tribe, which is the first step in getting the Bolt decision re-visited.

Two of the Skagit tribes as well as most of the other treaty fishing tribes in Western Washington have spend rather large sums of money both last year and this year buying coho and chum from their respective tribal fishermen, and there are not very many of them anymore due to the low or non-existent price for river salmon. The tribes have been paying their fishermen $1.00/fish gutted and head removed, and the fishermen have been selling the roe to an imitation cavier maker. One of the Skagit tribes spent nearly $30,000.00 last year doing this. The Western Washington tribes have been giving many of the fish to food banks and homeless or domestic violence centers as a way to get rid of the fish. Of course the tribes then get PSA's from the local news outlets about their humanitarian feeding efforts of non-tribal members in their communities and counties.

The real reason they are buying the fish from the fishermen is so that the few tribal members who still fish continue to do so. They are concerned that if no one fishes, it will place their claims to 50% of the harvest in jeopardy if they case gets re-opened. At this time, there is zero market for river salmon and the only reason that there are still some tribal fishers netting the river for salmon is that between the price they get for the roe and the $1.00/fish they get from the tribes, they make some money.

This action by the Samish can well prove to be the beginning of the end of the 50% of harvest of salmon and steelhead "salmln" by the fishing treaty tribes in Washington.



Given that the papers have given us no hope, flytyer is confident changes could come up about...for our benefit...the biggest one being that steelhead would no longer be a foodfish...that would be a grand victory for the greatest fish that swims!!

I've worked on many of these issues in years past, and perhaps I have some credibility with you now.

I agree with Preston that the only significant effect of a Samish Tribe ruling is that the Samish will be entitled to share in the existing 50% treaty harvest of salmon, steelhead, and shellfish. This is why existing treaty tribes oppose the designation. They may recite other reasons, but that is the primary one. It would dilute the value of the treaty fishing franchise held by existing treaty tribes. Consider, for example, the Chehalis Tribe is a non-treaty tribe (wouldn’t sign, although Governor Stevens tried very hard to persuade them to do so). The Chehalis Tribe can only fish on their reservation, and their catch is attributed to the non-treaty allocation after the insistence of the Quinault Tribe, which does have treaty rights. This action increased slightly the allocation to the Quinault Tribe in the Chehalis River fishery.

I disagree with some of the opinions of Flytier that Sparkey posted. Revisiting the Boldt case to hear the motion of the Samish Tribe or appeals of existing treaty tribes is highly unlikely to have any effect on reclassifying steelhead from or to the foodfish catagory, nor is it likely to change the 50-50 treaty - non-treaty harvest allocation. The 50% allocations to treaty and non-treaty fisheries was ruled on, and upheld, by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1985. Any present motion for a hearing in U.S. District Court will not overturn a Supreme Court decision, although there is a remote chance of it setting the stage for a Supreme Court re-visitation. U.S. v. Washington is the law of the land since the Supreme Court decision in 1985.

The classification of steelhead as gamefish, rather than a foodfish, in Washington State by the state government, is irrelevant to treaty fishing. Steelhead (rainbow trout) and cutthroat trout were reclassified from the genus Salmo to Oncorhyncus by the American Fisheries Society in 1989, 15 years after the 1974 Boldt decision. This classification has absolutely nothing to do with the inclusion of steelhead within the treaty fishing right. There may be a confusion that if steelhead were classified as a gamefish by Congress, as with the Black Bass Act, then commercial harvest of steelhead might be prohibited, but cannot be assumed.

Along with suggesting that re-opening the Boldt case might get steelhead removed from the treaty harvest allocation, Flytier’s narrative inaccurately indicates, “. . . steelhead get a very good price on the commercial market, musch better than pacific salmon.” I would have to ask, compared to which Pacific salmon, pinks and chums? In recent years, the ex-vessel price for steelhead has been around $0.65 per pound or so, sometimes less. Steelhead have lost their luster in the marketplace due to the increased availability of farmed Pacific and Atlantic salmon. When steelhead used to bring higher prices in the market, Pacific salmon were also proportionately higher. However, the salient point is that steelhead continue to have some commercial and cultural value to treaty tribes, and re-opening part of the Boldt case has somewhere between little and no chance of changing the treaty tribes right to harvest and sell steelhead.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo g.-
Thanks for the insight!!

It seems that flytyer is very optimistic...lets hope for the best!!!!!

As posted by flyter

Ryan,

Salmo G makes some valid points; however, if the Samish Tibe is successful in getting the court to declare them a treaty fishing tribe the court would also have to re-visit the U.S. v Washington (Coldt decision) case. If this happens, all aspects of the original decision would be open for review and change. Also, as Salmo said, the case could then also be taken back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court.

One of the very important things to remember about the Samish Tribe's going to the court is one of thier arguments is that Judge Bolt was impaired in his decision making at the time due to possibly having Alzheimer's Disease. That is why the whole decision would be subjected to review and reconsideration. And this is precisely why this is such an important case for we sportmen to watch and why the 0ther tribes are so opposed to the Samish in this case.

It would be a great day if the tribes could figure out how to sell us non tribal guys fishing licenses on their quota. They could go around Washington state and sell us "federal " licenses. We would be essentially be buying into the the tribes 50% only they would get the money instead of Gary "GRID" Locke to do another study or fund some other losing proposition. The state could not go around the federal laws and the tribes wouldn't need to fish as they would make more from our license sales. Just a thought.

Fishinnut,
That is a great idea, but I do see a problem. How will the Indians know when they've reached their 50% allottment? It is easier to count and track fish taken by nets, but more difficult to tell how many were taken by "Federal Licensees", unless each license issued is only good for a limited number of fish. You would get the numbers at the end of the season after the punchcards were turned in. Also, getting every tribe to buy into this would take a miracle.

But, like you said in your opening statement - ".....if the Tribes could figure out how...."

I will always be in favor of ideas that will move towards the elimination of nets in the river

bring this back up top.