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.