I think you guys are putting way too much hope on the letter of the law. It would be nice if the tribes were allowed to fish the same as all the rest of us...So when there is no fishing they don't fish either...that's what the law implies, right? Well it doesn't get enforced that way. The tribes have won in court against this state virtually every time so the state is very reluctant to take them on again. Just observe the North of Falcon process and you will see that the tribes hold the trump cards on virutally every fishery. If they don't agree it doesn't happen and if they want something they get it. Remember when they were drifting gill nets last fall on the OP rivers when the state had posted emergency closure signs. The photos were posted right here. Tribal police stood by and watched.

I honestly believe that the political climate in this whole country has been one of appeasement and extreme socialistic policies that have lead to a steady crumbling of our society and , yes, terror attacks. This same ACLU driven mind set is helping the tribes gain more and more clout and a much bigger free ride. The benefits far outreach the limits of the treaties of 1854 and 1855. And our government is ready to give even more.

Perhaps it is the threat of using their legal clout to remove all the dams on the Columbia that makes everyone so scared? Maybe if that eventuality was staring us in the face we would stand up and say to the tribes that we all get the same rules ...period.

So reading all the laws and analyzing them with a sensible scrutiny is a waste of time in a way. We feel better because we feel we have a just complaint against the tribes but the real complaint should be against the system of government that has allowed all this lopsided socialism to get so far advanced. Some day we just might stop feeling sory for everybody and make them get ahead on their own merit instead of our tax money.

Here are a few passages from the Boldt Decision worth reading. If you can find the time I would recommend reading the entire decision sometime…

"To this court the evidence clearly shows that, in the past, root causes of treaty right dissension have been an almost total lack of meaningful communication on problems of treaty right fishing between state, commercial and sport fishing officials and non-Indian fishermen on one side and tribal representatives and members on the other side, and the failure of many of them to speak to each other and act as fellow citizens of equal standing as far as treaty right fishing is concerned. Some commendable improvement in both respects has developed in recent years but this court believes high priority should be given to further improvement in communication and in the attitude of every Indian and non-Indian who as a fisherman or in any capacity has responsibility for treaty right fishing practices or regulation. Hopefully that will be expedited by some of the measures required by this decision."

"To the great advantage of the people of the United States, not only in property but also in saving lives of citizens, and to expedite providing for what at the time were immediate and imperative national needs, Congress chose treaties rather than conquest as the means to acquire vast Indian lands. It ordered that treaty negotiations with the plaintiff tribes and others in the Northwest be conducted as quickly as possible. Isaac I. Stevens, Governor of Washington Territory, proved to be ideally suited to that purpose for in less than one year during 1854-1855 he negotiated eleven different treaties, each with several different tribes, at various places distant from each other in this rugged and then primitive area."

"The treaties were written in English, a language unknown to most of the tribal representatives, and translated for the Indians by an interpreter in the service of the United States using Chinook Jargon, which was also unknown to some tribal representatives. Having only about three hundred words in its vocabulary, the Jargon was capable of conveying only rudimentary concepts, but not the sophisticated or implied meaning of treaty provisions about which highly learned jurists and scholars differ."

"We will construe a treaty with the Indians as 'that unlettered people' understood it, and 'as justice and reason demand, in all cases where power is exerted by the strong over those to whom they owe care and protection,' and counterpoise the inequality 'by the superior justice which looks only to the substance of the right, without regard to technical rules.'"

"Each of the basic fact and law issues in this case must be considered and decided in accordance with the treaty language reserving fishing rights to the plaintiff tribes, interpreted in the spirit and manner directed in the above quoted language of the United States Supreme Court. Each treaty in this case contains a provision substantially identical to that in the Medicine Creek treaty:"

"The right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations, is further secured to said Indians in common with all citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary houses for the purpose of curing, together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses on open and unclaimed lands: Provided, however, That they shall not take shellfish from any beds staked or cultivated by citizens, and that they shall alter all stallions not intended for breeding-horses, and shall keep up and confine the latter."

The above should clarify several misnomers previously posted.

Plunker

What misnomers are you referring to? Can you be a little bit more pacific?

The decision is over 140 pages, and says a lot more then what you have quoted. There is no need to mention names, but which ones are you referring to?

Cowlitzfisherman

Cowlitz - Misnomer was probably a poor choice of words. I wanted to point out that the decision was not simply based upon the Medicine Creek Treaty or any one treaty but rather upon many of the 11 treaties negotiated by Stevens and covered all of western Washington.

As shown in the title of the lawsuit:
"UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, Quinault Tribe of Indians on its own behalf and on behalf of the Queets Band of Indians, et al.,"

The Listed Plaintiffs Are:
"UNITED STATES of America; Hoh Tribe; Makah Tribe, Muckleshoot Tribe; Nisqually Tribe; Puyallup Tribe; Quileute Tribe; Skokomish Tribe; Lummi Tribe; Quinault Tribe; Sauk-Suiattle Tribe; Squaxin Island Tribe; Stillaguamish Tribe; Upper Skagit River Tribe; Yakima Nation."

"The case area is that portion of the State of Washington west of the Cascade Mountains and north of the Columbia River drainage."


A few more interesting quotes from the decision follow:

"[The] treaty was not a grant of rights to the Indians but a grant of right from them -- a reservation of those not granted"(to the US citizens).

"The Northwest Indians developed and utilized a wide variety of fishing methods which enabled them to take fish from nearly every type of location at which fish were present. They harvested fish from the high seas, inland salt waters, rivers and lakes. They took fish at river mouths as well as at accessible points or stretches along the rivers all the way to the headwaters. Some locations were more heavily utilized than others. Like all fishermen, they shifted to those locales which seemed most productive at any given time. Fishing methods varied according to the locale but generally included trapping, dip netting, gill netting, reef netting, trolling, long-lining, jigging, set-lining, impounding, gaffing, spearing, harpooning and raking."

"At the treaty negotiations, a primary concern of the Indians whose way of life was so heavily dependent upon harvesting anadromous fish, was that they have freedom to move about to gather food, particularly salmon, (which both Indians and non-Indians meant to include steelhead), at their usual and accustomed fishing places. The Indians were assured by Governor Stevens and the treaty commissioners that they would be allowed to fish, but that the white man also would be allowed to fish."

"There is nothing in the written records of the treaty councils or other accounts of discussions with the Indians to indicate that the Indians were told that their existing fishing activities or tribal control over them would in any way be restricted or impaired by the treaty. The most that could be implied from the treaty context is that the Indians may have been told or understood that non-Indians would be allowed to take fish at the Indian fishing locations along with the Indians."

"Acculturation of Western Washington Indians into western culture began prior to treaty times and has continued to the present day. Today most Indians wear traditional western clothing, speak English, utilize the western economic system and western technology, share western religious traditions and participate in the western socio-political organization. Traditional religious rites and ceremonies are no longer widely observed by most tribes. Modern Indians share similar goals with modern non-Indians to acquire most items of American material culture."

"An exclusive right of fishing was reserved by the tribes within the area and boundary waters of their reservations, wherein tribal members might make their homes if they chose to do so. The tribes also reserved the right to off reservation fishing "at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations" and agreed that "all citizens of the territory" might fish at the same places "in common with" tribal members. The tribes and their members cannot rescind that agreement or limit non-Indian fishing pursuant to the agreement. However, off reservation fishing by other citizens and residents of the state is not a right but merely a privilege which may be granted, limited or withdrawn by the state as the interests of the state or the exercise of treaty fishing rights may require."

I'll be honest here and admit that in my opinion much of the Boldt Ruling and other court decisions are total BS but my opinion is worth about as much as piss in the wind.

There is no reasonable way to construe that the treaties limited the citizens fishing to a privilege instead of a right held in common nor does the language of the treaties provide for the Indian harvest shellfish that is cultivated by non-tribal citizens.

I also have a serious problem with the idea of Indians having both exclusive tribal citizenship with special rights and US citizenship with exemptions from the responsibilities that go with that US citizenship.

If a tribe wants to be a sovereign nation that sovereignty should separate it and its citizens from the United States and not create a privileged class of people within the US.

It is my hope that the days of special people with special rights might be numbered.


Here are some words from Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce as previously posted:

"If the white man wants to live in peace with the Indian he can live in peace.
There need be no trouble.
Treat all men alike.
Give them the same law.
Give them all an even chance to live and grow...
all people should have equal rights."

"I only ask of the government to be treated as all other men are treated.
We ask that the same law shall work alike on all men...
with one sky above us and one country around us,
and one government for all...
that all people may be one people."

--Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce in a speech on January 14, 1879 to President Rutherford B. Haynes and a large gathering of cabinet members, congressmen, diplomats generals and others.

Thanks Plunker for clarifying that, and for giving such a reasonable reply. It's good to see that people can discuss these kinds of issues without getting mad at each other, or overreacting. If you could reference the page numbers of what you haven taken your quotes from, it would really help the common every day guy to understand its fullest meaning. The average guy isn't going to take the time to read the entire decision.

There is nothing wrong when people can voice their thoughts on such an important decision as the "Boldt Decision".

Thanks for you well thought out reply.


Cowlitzfisherman

Cowlitz,

My electronic copy of the decision has been renumbered as pages 1-122 instead of the original page numbers of 326-423 and the only online version that I know of is formatted in a manner that makes it difficult to guess the page number of a particular paragraph.

Most of the quotes I posted are from parts I-IV so they may be found within the first few pages.

It is my observation that the decision may not be understood to its fullest without reading it entirely through more than one time.

I wonder what the outcome would be if the judgements were ever revisited by by the supreme court. I would think that the decision would stand in its entirety. What would you predict?

Today, the decision seems to be administered by the tribes with the backing of the USF&WS and with any enforcement being one sided.

It's a 1 for me, 1 for you; 2 for me, 1 for you; 3 for me, 1 for you; 4 for me, 1 for you setup.

Plunker

What I foresee would be some big changes in how WDFW would have to "manage" the current commercial fisheries issue. I could see some major changes being made by the courts concerning their current share of the allowable "take" of harvestable fish.

Personally, I think that it would benefit the sport fishermen and the tribes both if it was to go back to the courts. But then again, I believe that the commercials still have a choke hold on what policy our WDFW would try to support. This time it could be the Tribe and sport fisher's vs WDFW & the Commercials! That's why we need to change the current legislative mandate of the WDFW.

What do you think?



Cowlitzfisherman

1) A little knowledge is dangerous. An informed opinion includes more than just U.S. v. Washington, etc. Key rulings on treatys and treaty fishing date to U.S. v. Wynans, 1905, and possibly earlier. Taking a treaty, or a small piece of one, out of context, and ignoring the century of case law that informed and influenced it, and you get the umpteenth uninformed PP BB debate of opinions on treaty fishing that collectively are worth, well, about what is paid for them.

2) Am I as smart as CFM thinks I am or not? Not sure I followed that. I didn't jump in right away, emotionally or rationally, because I was out of town, away from email and the internet. Am I biased? Hell yes. It should be impossible to be informed and not be biased by that information. What cracks me up are biases that are uninformed and based upon the value of visceral knowledge - "well, I just know it's BS, therefore, it just is!" But I love it for its entertainment value. Eddie is correct; Judge George Boldt was no bleeding heart liberal. It's highly unlikely that Alzheimer's influenced his decision; the ninth Circuit and then the Reagan Supreme Court upheld it.

3) No offense taken at all, Aunty M.

4) Todd and I have answered all these questions previously in other threads, I believe. A search over the last 5 years should turn them all up. Plunker provided a couple key relevant pieces of the decision in this thread.

5) CFM, sorry, guess I didn't see the Aug. 4 Lewis R. thread. You could email me if you think I'm missing or ignoring something significant here. Or, you could call me when the fishing is hot!

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo...I think you've stumbled on somethng....The entertainment value....that's what this is all about isn't it?

Now does anyone really think that old Salmo is going to support someone's view that is different then his own? Now really.


Cowlitzfisherman

What ever happend to the new nets that don't harm the fish? Didn't the Indians have to change from gill nets to these? I thought it was to make them release wild fish. I could be wrong...

Fishingjunky15

It was all a big lie!

Cowlitzfisherman

Now Cow, I can't remember you supporting an idea, or opinion that you didn't agree with

Jerry

If you're talking about my reply back to Salmo, I would be more than willing to "discuss" the legal points with him (but waiting a week or so to do so really isn't reasonable or fair). Remember, Salmo is a fed, and his position allows him the opportunity to have access to legal counsel to form opinions or support his answers. There are more state and federal people than you think that monitor this web site.

That's not being paranoid either, this site is has been used often to monitor the flow of opinions! I just got an email today from WDFW that invited me to "proof read" the next regulation pamphlet before it goes out.

Now what does that tell you? Can you say;"WDFW is right on top of things...as usual ! "


Cowlitzfisherman

So Feds like Salmo and the WDFW guys are sititing at their taxpayer funded computers looking at PP? No wonder we are so broke in this state. Hell CFM it takes hours to read all the quotes from statutes and treaties...Whew! Not to mention all those hours of research to come up with all the quotes in the first place.

I do think some good things may come from this discourse. Atleast all types of opinions are coming out. I find WDFW people more that receptive to sensible suggestions.

You might have a tough sell trying to convince them to go to court against the tribes though.