I know little of the politics on how to go about this. I am a tech geek and not much of a lobbyist.
Is there anything we can do to have a motion to get the netting schedule or the gill nets out of service or at least cut down.
Is this even an item that can be fought or brought up on a ballot or such. Just tired of seeing and hearing about it.
It's not fair in this day and age that special rights are increasing while equal rights fall.
Just wondering if anyone can or is willing to help.

The Grays Harbor basin is one of the most abused systems as far as tribal netting goes. Unfortunately, the tribes wield all the power in these matters. The more I learn about these matters, the more discouraging it gets. Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is that not much will change in this age of political correctness. What.... disenfranchise the downtrodden... heaven forbid! The fish be damned!

Boycott the Casinos !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

exactly what local said..........If everybody did not use the casino's or bought cigarettes from the tribes ,they would'nt have the funds to kick our arse every time we go to court......IMO

I thought the same thing today, my buddy Karry Batson showed me the Queets nettin schedule and we sporter maybe have 2 weeks of sporatic no nettin days on the Queets through the entire season, makes me sick! Its BS and we aught to flock together and stick the new governer with something or just Hay Bail every one we find or truck tire em lol! Chris

Last time the netting issues were up on ballot they got voted down.......how did you vote back then?

Why not have the goverment pay the tribes Not to fish. They have paided farmers not to grow corn/wheat etc....

And: Boycott Casinos !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If we REALLY did this it might give us some bargining power !!!!

Unfortunetly far more people use the casino's than fish for salmon and steelhead. Therefore that kind of boycot would have little impact on tribal income.

I keep saying the only way is for a federal export ban on our fish. They are our fish and food supply. Since stocks are dwindling they should only be consumed in the US. Tribals included unless they can prove a centuries old trade with Japan. If that dream could come true then net all you want. You'll just drive the price down to nothing making netting uneconomical. No more targeting fish just for the roe either. Not much of a market for it in the US.

Our best chance of gaining any ground on these issues is to band together and fight for it. There are several groups working on our behalf: PSA, RFA, Sportfishing PAC (and others). Join one or all of these. Even if you don't actively participate, get your name on the roster and send in your dues. It'll be the best $25 you've spent in long time.

The more members each group has, the more clout they will have with legislators. To be taken seriously, we have to present a united, organized position. These groups are working hard to promote sportsfishing. They need you to stand behind them.

I say we need an elite taskforce camera team loaded with some camcorders, just to specifically target all the netter , to film all the Roe taken and fish wastin and the rest of the BS next season, if not this winter! Or arrange a bigger fleet of boats then last year and clog the nettin grounds with protestin sportfisherman, anyone up for it?

I'm sure I'll get blasted for this one but, I'm against all tribal/commercial fishing........I think all runs that navigate waters on there own should not be targeted( if you want commercial fishing...do it out of a pen)have them farm there own fish,or go 12 miles out to sea and net there...........the runs would be absolutely huge in years to come if people didnt net our waters....commercial/tribal alike.......and if a compromise had to be made absolutely no netting with-in 2 miles of shore and none in the straits or puget sound area at all.none........just my .02 cents

You know, prior to WWII there was no netting except in ocean waters far off shore. But the government was scared of the Japanese submarines destroying our fishing fleets and hindering the war effort by creating a bit of a food source shortage. So they allowed the fishing fleets to "fish" (if you wanna call netting fishing) withinthe strait and the sound. We have long since defeated the Japanese and are back to "normal"....maybe we should consider getting the netting "back to normal too"

ive been told that they tried to buy out the tribe but they said no because it was part of there heratige and they didnt want to give it up.. but i doubt that there will ever be any way to stop them from netting.. state is to scared of them to try and do something to help...

I think it's actually written into several treaties that they can't sell the right even if they wanted to. We can't do anything about tribal issues except possibly under the ESA which so many want to gut.

Spartan,

I have to take issue with your claim that all netting was done far out at sea prior to WWII. That simply is not true. Gillnets and seines have been used on the lower Columbia River and in Puget Sound since the late 1800s. In addition, fish wheels were used on the Columbia River and fish traps in Puget Sound until about 1927.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Here's a far out idea. Why don't native americans jump into the US social and economic melting pot with the rest of us. Many have, and good for them. Lets phase out reservations and treaty rights. Lets require native americans nation wide to change their lifestyle. Lets make them equal instead of subsidizing their existence with money legal rights to declining resources. Do you think when the fishes are finally all gone we, and they, will not have to make changes as a result? Why not do it now?

That last question was retorical BTW. I already know the answer.

I agree with cdseattle on supporting the groups that support me. I am wiling to be involved in anything that is started or is happening that can actually make a difference.
As far as the boycotting of casinos, I don't see that happening. Also is there laws that stop any ballots from banning tribes since they are souveirgn. I assume there is. I guess I need to read up on my politics and find this info.
It seems such a shame that tribes get there own rivers and still need all that fish.
Can't the Boldt decision be challenged. Also what and when was the last thing to be voted on?

[QUOTE] [I have to take issue with your claim that all netting was done far out at sea prior to WWII. That simply is not true. /QUOTE]

I am not so sure that there isn't some truth to this...I have also heard that nets were not allowed inside Puget Sound at some previous point in history .....needs some research I think. Regardless of that I would say that banning nets inside Puget Sound has some merit as it did when the BAN (net ban initiative) was unsuccessfully tried here.

Net bans have been very successful in states along the Gulf Coast , especially in Florida. It did not work here partially because of the commercial fishing lobby and partially because the general public would not go along with the ban because it had no effect on the tribes..That was a real short sighted opinion shared by way too many potential supporters.

A net ban at this time would be largely less effective because the non tribal nets are few and far between. It is the tribal nets that continue to devastate our runs.

I saw a gill net in the Green/Duwamish right in Tukwila on my way home today....Saw a couple of sports guys upriver ....sorry guys the nets are intercepting what you are waiting for.

Salmo,

I guess my history books are wrong. I am a bit of a WWII buff and have some info out of these books to the fact I state. I will emailthe editors of these books for ya and have them correct their mistake in future printings........

If the native tribes are going to fish (because we are forced to let them), fine let em fish, but damnit do it they way they did it back then. Don't allow them to use powered craft, don't allow them to use nylon nets or net the rivers from one side to the other trapping anything that remotely had a chance of getting to the upper river. Cease all export sales, and hold them to their spiritual guidance that they won't take anymore than they will consume in a season. I seriously doubt that many would desire to fish the way their ancestors did.

For God's sake somebody in a position of authority has got to wake up and understand that this isn't justice to the Native Americans. The tribes are as greedy and corrupt as any group I have ever seen. This is an abuse of power, position, and authority. It needs to be taken away - PERIOD.

And I can also chime in that from working for seafood processors in the past that the money isn't in the canning of the fish or fresh prep, in fact they loose money on the meat of the fish and it's processing. The money is made on the sale and export of eggs to Japan.

This data is nearly 20 years old now but I'm sure still relevant to some degree. My Frat brother's dad owns one of the major cannery's in AK, and I worked in Kenai one summer. We were about the 6th week into production after a lengthy strike and we were standing on the docks. One of the other brothers (owners) commented that the cannery showed a two and half million dollar loss against the corporation for processing and canning but the egg sales to the Japanese showed a sixty six million dollar profit as he pointed to the stack of egg crates about 5 feet high by 20 feet wide by 50 feet long on the loading dock. That was only 1/3 of the way through the season, and that was back then.

Imagine what the worth is in today's market. No wonder they can lobby so effectively. There's way too much money to be had. It pays to let go of three of four million to special interest lobbiests to insure the survival of your income.

As I saw it the biggest reason the net ban got voted down was quite simply poor advertising on the facts about what the nets do and how the ban would have helped. The "No" side made all kinds of false claims that the public took as being gospel and that is what ultimately screwed us. In fact it was so bad I couldn't even get my brother to vote for it as he truly believed the atrotious lies that were stated about what the ban was going to do.

As was stated above I think the best thing the US could do would be to tell the "Native Americans" that they have been conquered and disband the treaties. I don't ever see this happening but it should. There is no reason that these people should have better rights than anyone else. In fact it goes against everything that the US is supposed to stand for!

the only reason i could see the tribes agreeing to be equal just like everyboby else would be $$$$..............we'd have to pay them to do so and plus,they'd never go for it........my buddy who is a little bit of an extremeist thinks we should just go back to cowboys and indians..........not saying , I believe in this theory but if that was the only solution............so be it...............now as for commercial netting.............the US government has the only say in this matter and if enogh people whine and gripe........and sign enough petitions we could get something done possably..............

So if what I'm understanding from the info so far is that a levy could only affect the commercial netting and not the tribes?
Does anyone know of anyone trying to fight the treaties and actually getting anywhere?

No. The tribes are sovereign nations. The US has no jurisdiction unless it's under something like ESA (maybe) or a better example is the worldwide Whaling moratorium. Other than that we need to worry about the other "half" of the fish being caught.

good so the US has no say over tribes, but there in our country( majority rules)...so as of right now all native americans ....get out......go invade your own country and net there fish.........whew, i said it .....that felt good.......

if you can't beat them join them i suggest years ago at a fishery's meet that the state let the quinalts (sp) take over the chehalis system and run it like they do their river. they could get more federal dollars be better able to control the pollution in the harbor and i do believe that the sports fisherman would come out ahead. just my opinion

Or maybe we could sue the US Federal Government, The Supreme Court of the US vs. The People of the US, asserting that Judge Boldt was Insane when he made the decision. Or go after Judge Jones, the guy that really opened up the can of worms in the first place when he allowed for this, 'How the words of the treaty were understood by this unlettered people, rather than their critical meaning, should form the rule of construction.' An 1899 Supreme Court decision in the matter of Choctaw Nation v. United States that Judge Boldt used as the ruling guidlines for his decision. These guys had to be insane when you think about.........

Grandpa,

You're probably thinking about the old Initiative 77 (I think that was the name, maybe it was 66 or something) line. Anyway, no non-treaty purse seining was allowed south of that line during the summer season. Gillnetting was allowed, at least in the fall coho and chum fishing season. The upshot is that WDFW (formerly WDF) had that rescinded by the Legislature after U.S. v. Washington made it obsolete.

I'll stand by my contention that seining and gillnetting were commonly practiced in Puget Sound north of the Initiative XX line. I used to know guys who fished on gillnetters and purse seine boats in the Sound in the 30s and 40s. I've got a book about fishing around somewhere with photos of seining and gillnetting on the Columbia River in the early 20th century.

Further, beware what you wish for in consideration of the law of unintended consequences. Some people think that pushing net fishing further out in the ocean will somehow result in greater salmon and steelhead returns to rivers. Don't count on it. The technology exists to deplete fish resources regardless of where the fishing actually occurs. The closer to a terminal area that fishing occurs, the more precise the potential management is. After all, it's the number of fish harvested from any given population that counts, not where they are harvested. You control harvest by limiting fishing time, gear, and area, and most of all - by allocation. Absent a harvest allocation, people are smart enough to get around all other restrictions to the point of overfishing.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.