Does anyone but me smell something a little fishy about the indians treaty rights concerning what they can and can not do according to the original treatys that they supposedy abide by? Shell fishing? trading with foreign nations? (how about stripping hood canal chums of eggs to sell to japan and leaving dead fish to rot ?) look over the original treatys at http://members.tripod.com/rampy/treatys.html and think about it? after we ban all the commercial nets this is our next target. I hope you see what I see (the fact that they only see what they want to see) comments?

[This message has been edited by ramprat (edited 05-07-99).]

It seems to me the wording is not that clear. What does in common with mean. To me It should mean the same rules for evryone?
The Foriegn nation clause seems to make enough sense. Same rules for everyone seems fair to me.

The last post is not from jim, He was the last person to post from this computer, and I frogot to change it to my name
Joe

yes somethings does smell like roten fish much like the ones I've seen in piles on beaches just roting, totaly wasted well exept the eggs that are probably in japan. the worst thing that most people don't realize is that it's not legal for them to do these things with the fish and game. the court system is just to chicken to stand up and fight it so they just keap backing up. what really makes me mad is the guy that has the big mouth and will cary on about how the Indians do this and don't do that. then on the way home from work will stop and spend all kinds of money on cigarets, firworks or a game of black jack. the way I see it is if you saport them then you might as well join them at the end of a short rope in a tall tree. that's just my apinion sorry if I steped on yer toes next time I will get yer entire foot. one more thing. the non-Indian that don't follow the rules like releasing wild fish might as well get a net and get really drunk and go fishing there ain't much difference a poacher is a poacher Indian or not.


dcrzfitter

Not to step on anyones feet, but in the not to distant future the indians will be raising and stocking the rivers with more fish than the state is doing. The way I hear it they already have more fish biologist than the state does. I'm not sticking up for the indians, just sheeding the light of things to come. Also unfortunatly we don't have any juristiction on there nets.It's up to them to police there selfs.Ban can,t touch indian nets. Sorry

Not to step on anyones feet, but in the not to distant future the indians will be raising and stocking the rivers with more fish than the state is doing. The way I hear it they already have more fish biologist than the state does. I'm not sticking up for the indians, just sheeding the light of things to come. Also unfortunatly we don't have any juristiction on there nets.It's up to them to police there selfs.Ban can,t touch indian nets. Sorry

Directly, no, BAN won't touch them ... indirectly ... you bet!!

First off it is going to place an awful lot of political pressure on them ... in the light of all the media coverage of the decline of the salmon, if the the white commercials are halted ... they'll be the only ones left commercially harvesting fish ... they're going to look awfully bad to keep harvesting at anywhere close to the current levels ... this may take awhile, but you watch ... a lot more fish are going to return with the commercials out of the water ... while some areas will not see much of an increase, there will be many areas that see lots more fish make it back, and what are all the "habitat destruction" supporters going to say then???

Additionally, it is going to take the white "heavy harvest" mentality away and perhaps pave the road for new management objectives ... remember, we are suppossed to be co-managers ... without the commercials involved, they very well may be a restructuring of how many fish we want in the rivers ... in which case, if these goals are higher than currently set, then they get less ... period, again, remember that they only get half the harvestable fish.

As to the tribes doing more ... hah! perhaps they are on the east side, but not around here ... in fact, it was the Quillayute tribe that forced the guides' association to cut back Snider Creek plants from 100,000 to 50,000 ... that spells out l-e-s-s f-i-s-h i-n t-h-e r-i-v-e-r! Even if there are a few areas where "they are" ... they aren't ... it is government grants and state money paying for these "Tribal Efforts" ... still sounds like you and me doing it!

And I have to agree with dcrzfitter ... in my book, I will never spend a dime at a tribal enterprise of any sort until the nets come out ... period! No gambling, no smokes, no fireworks, no fish products ... notice the lack of La Push accommodations on my accommodations section ...

But back to "Jim-Joe's" question on the meaning of "in common with."
That's what the Boldt Decision was all about, Joe. Judge Boldt made the (infamous) decision that the wording as designed when the treaties were signed meant 50-50, tribal and non-tribal.
And then he died...

Bob, you are right. I am from the east side (unfortunatly) where the Yakamas are working with the state on differant programs. I have fished the o.p. when a net would go floating by in front of me. As for politicle clout I've I beleive they laugh at it. They do what they want. I still believe we might see them putting back to resource more than the whites. It's happening now on the Yakima river. There will always be an exception to every case. But I still can't fish for steelhead or salmon on the Yakima. I'm always hearing about budget cuts.(Reiter) will it ever stop?

I actually am a non-native who use to work with the Tulalips at one time (1995-98) and I would have to say their pertty responsible when it comes to protecting watersheds and producing salmon. The Tulalip Bubble Fishery is a sport fishery provided to the non-native sport fishing guys, like myself, as a gesture of good will. They don't have to open it up if they don't want too, but many years ago, the Tribe made the offer to the state, therefore the creation of the fishery. The Tulalips have voluntarily quit netting the inside the snohomish river to protect summer chinnok and week native steelhead stocks (therefore a most recent improvement in the numbers of summer run steelhead returning). The Tulalip have replaced over a many culverts in the N.Fork Stilly that were blocking fish migration, and most recently they have over the past year have re-classified all the fish streams in snohomish county in order to challenge the County on its weak or lack thereof of adequate stream buffers. The Tulalips also kill sealions whenever they get a chance (I personally enjoyed this one). The only thing I was unhappy with was the Tribe's participation in the San Juan sockeye fishery. Other Tribes definately have worse track records.

I still like my idea, give them the OK for slot machines if they give up hunting/fishing rights.(except limited REAL ceremonial) They get to have Resort gambling with all the jobs and money. We get the fish(whatevers left).

I realize this is prety much a fishing chat but I can't rezist to remind everybody that as bad the Indians are with the fish, you should see what they are doing with our big game. I am an avid and getting avider fisheman and hunter.basicaly my entire hunting erea was totaly destroyed by the Yakima Indians and there over harvest ways. we never should have gave them a single casino unless they turned over ALL fishing and hunting SPECIAL RIGHTS. personaly I would like to do away with Indians alltogether. lets just make them American's like you and me no reservations just 50 UNITED STATES like it says on the map. as for the Indians planting more fish and that stuff. yes I can see it in some rivers. I fish the Nisqaully alot and those fish are from Indian hatcheries. AS for the majority I think they take 3x more than they put out.yes some Indians have a good side so I've heard but I have a difficult time believing some of the stories. they like to say they are doing one thing and really be doing somthing else. Back to the big game hunting by Indians, I don't call them native americans just look up the word native and according to Webster I am a native because I was born in this land, they often publish that they only kill 10 animals in an place out of 35 hunters. but what they don't tell you is that they aren't checked they only report by honesty and if they are checked then they slap a tag on the animal and still have sometimes 2 or 3 more and often kill entire herds and take what they want just to let the rest rot.I could go on allday but I better not. just keap getting the BAN signatures and next we can take down the Inians on the Federal level were they allways run when we try to do something to them on the state level.

Duck in the FOG. You could have fished for Salmon in the Yakima this year, it was open. They (tribes and state...all our money) have done a decent job of going from none to about 4,000 Chinook (Upriver Bright Clones). I still paid for it but I got to fish for kings somewhere other than at Ringold (w/o a boat).

Was there a mandate within the Boldt Decision that allows the Indians to dilute and disrupt your resource by enhancement?

[This message has been edited by AkBill (edited 05-01-99).]

AKBill Unless I missed something they(Indians) are trying to improve the resource for everyone. There commitment is getting larger while ours is getting weaker. It will happen take heed. The resource will be getting better do to the help of the Indians. The state funding is getting weaker every year. The indians are in the process of buying dying state funded hatcheries. It's not a question of pointing fingers. It will happen. I'm not indian but I only beleive what I see. Dino did you work at Marq Packaging?

The finger pointing quickly gets out of hand. Evrybody wants to point at one intrest group, we are all part of the problem. Commercal, sport,and native fishing, logging, land devolopment, water use, dams, pollution.
Face it, everytime we wipe our ass and flush we are adding to the problem. Each spoke of the wheel needs to be adjusted to make it work.

hey duck in the fog, I also only believe what I see. as one example, I think in 1987 or 88 they opened lake washington for sockeye sportfishing. on opening day, around july 4th, I was there. launched the boat at the mouth of the cedar river, jetted out to the fishing area and flipped on the fish finder. WOW, from one end of the screen to the other was the biggest school of fish I had ever seen. proceede to catch my limit in 1 hour(6 fish).
as required, if they open the sport fishery they have to let the indians net too. they did so the next day.
I went out to the same place the next afternoon, flipped on the finder, and there was not a fish to be seen. looked over the whole lake and nothing. maybe they flew away?
this is just one of many times I have seen the same type of thing. the fastest way to destroy something is to get it where it has no escape.

For all of you who are sick of the year around slaughter of our big game animals by off-Reservation hunting, there is HOPE. The court case against Indian hunting just got out of State Supreme Court and is off to the Federal Court in San Fransico. Thank God, becuse unlike the states in the rockies where off-reservation hunting is not aloud,and their state Gov. backed the issue,our state Gov. just looks the outher way. Theres a group thats trying to stop the year round slaughter of Wash. big game, they can be contacted at END TREATY ABUSE at P.O.BOX 11187 Olympia Wa.98508-1187 (360-866-1793) Even if its as little as displaying a bumper sticker every bit will help. Chip in if you can and join the fight. Look whats happened since the Bolt decision, our Big Game is next if something is not done.

MAC, nice to hear from a fellow End treaty abuse saporter. I have a bumper sticker that a drive with pride.I went to a couple of the protest at the capital in Olimpa but haven't been able to stay updated. Do you know of a web site with updates to find out how the latest is with the fight to end the treaty abuse? glad to see it go up another level away from this states hands. from what I have heard the Indians cases like this in the past with other states didn't hold water. let me know if you learn anything new I and many others would greatly apreciate the updated info

Mr."T", Theres no doubt that this did happen, but you're talking about 10 years ago. I suppose they should't have the right to fish ? Just us whites have the right, right. What happens when there's not enough funding for the Cedar river prodgect. Do you think the indians will help? Who knows?