Fun5Acres


Believe me, I am no lover of the Boldt decision either! In fact, I think that it sucks! But we need to deal with what the cards are on the table now, and not what's still in the deck! I am not trying to put you down because I know that you're sincere in what you say. But here's what wrong with an argument such as yours. If you ever want an opportunity to turn the boldt decision around, you will need to change your agrument!

You said; Here where your arguments fails to hold water! You say; "in common with" as meaning any sort of percentage. If you go fishing ("in common with") me, you are not guaranteed 50%.....so why is anyone else??"

True, it doesn't mean that you are "guaranteed" to catch 50% of what is caught ; but it certainly does implie (legally) that your friend would have the same "opportunity" to catch 50% of what ever was there to be caught!

Since we get to hold our commercial fisheries 99.9% of the time before most of the tribes can get and opportunity to catch 50% of the harvestable run, how other way was a judge to rule on the "in common" definition?

If you read the decision you may understand what "in common" legally meant. Example;

"4. 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 [**16] 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, . . ."

So maybe now you can change your argument to other issues of the decision.

Finally, you said; Well if you look at this chart that was used on another thread, you may be surprised! If you look back into the mid 1800 hundreds (1866) when the treaties were first signed, you will see that "our harvest" of chinook was around less then a million pounds! By 1882 (16 years later) our harvest was over 43 million pounds of chinook. From that time on, the runs were on a downward spiral. It's pretty hard to blame the tribes for our declines when one really sees what has happen over time.

Notice how the runs were headed down long before the 21 dams were put into place on the Columbia? It paints a pretty bleak picture for how the commercial industry has demolished the fish runs!

The tribes have helped to diminish what's left of our fish runs, but I guess we had more to do with it then they did. Maybe if we really did divide all the fish in common back in the 1800, we wouldn't be where we are now. The pie has already been eaten, and now we all must fight for the few little crumbs that are left in the dish:D

Cowlitzfisherman

CFM......treaties were signed around here in 1855. that doesn't mean the tribes are responsible for the decline in salmon.. What is the case is that in this day and age of post-decline runs the tribes are not sacrificing "in kind" . the abuses of on and off reservation fish and game harvesting are well documented. The tribes could do alot more to help rebuild things but they are too busy working to maintain their treaty rights to care..in my opinion

I agree Grandpa

CFM…..First off, thanks for the Columbia River info. Obviously, you have spent a bit of time studying that river, and I won’t dispute your data. Instead, let me be more specific concerning the area I am more familiar with and I will speak from personal experience. Up until The Decision, it was possible to fish many of the North Olympic Peninsula streams for steelhead with assured success. I’m speaking of streams like Morse Creek, Salt Creek, Lyre River, East and West Twin Rivers, Deep Creek, Physt River, etc. The reason was simple….there was no interest in netting these streams. The Decision changed all that and within two seasons of The Decision, fish were tough to find. In all fairness, some of those runs are returning and once again fish can be caught (some of these streams are now closed, however), albeit not close to the numbers they used to be. The bigger rivers can withstand the net punishment much better than the little streams and rivers, yet The Almighty Buck drove the Tribes to nearly wipe those runs out. All the sport fishing up to that point had very little affect year after year, but all that changed with the introduction of nets to those small streams. I know what I experienced and saw.

Concerning the “50%” aspect of the treaties….Apparently most have been duped into believing that “50%” of a resource to 2% of the population is what my ancestors agreed to……you have to be kidding! I’m not being a smartass, but what’s that do to your gut? The feeling it leaves in mine hasn’t changed since I first heard it. Do the math...49 white guys with 49 fish equals 1 Indian with 49 fish. (based on 2% tribal influence to total population) And for what it’s worth, I don’t blame the Indians……I blame us!! We have allowed this idiot decision to stand and deserve what we get, but it’s not right…..and no matter how many times it is repeated, it doesn’t sound any smarter.

My two cents….I’m done with this….and again, thanks, CFM!

And it is a pretty sad state of affairs when I am considered the wrong "color" to be able to provide for my family. Since when is it not my right, but the right of a certain minority group to provide "subsistance" for my family?

I do not think the answer lies with decreasing the limit down to 3 crabs, as I agree with others that 3 crab is generally not worth the time or expense. I have always been an advocate for common sense retention, but was lambasted once for disagreeing with a fellow on this board for taking home crab when he was tired of eating it, and giving it away to "friends and neighbors".... I just do not feel the resource is plenty enough for that type of generousity. Take what you and yours can eat, but not you, yours, theirs, and ours....
I am also a staunch supporter of the notion that way too much seafood goes to waste in the store. Shelf life is far too short. If I cannot catch it, then I do not need to eat it. Simple as that. Take the commercials out of the equation and the problem is largely solved. Hell, the loggers had to learn different trades, same for the commercials. Their day is gone. Times change, and we must change with them. Not just some, but all.
This is my main gripe with the Tribes. They want all the modern conveniences that this "Foreign nation" has exposed them too, but they do not want to adapt to the changes necessary in todays world to bring benefit to all people. Mormons had to give up a religious belief/practice held dear to them when times changed (polygamy) even though it was deeply rooted in their religion and heritage.
Alas, we do not live in a fair society, although we espouse that we want fairness for all.
Anybody that is not in a minority group complains of unfairness, then the accusations start flying of bigotry and racism.
Until this way of thinking stops, we will continue to lose what is precious to us to the interests of small minority groups.

MC