Has anyone here ever read the complete treaty for Washington Tribes? They could be good reading for everyone. The page is www.nwifc.wa.gov/tribes/treaties/ I think that most of these may be overturnable if enough people got together.

Yes, I have read the treaties. But, I see nothing that would indicate they should be overturned.

The US Government, the Washington State Government, and the Tribes feel the treaties are valid and enforceable.

These are national treaties. It would take Congressional action to stop honoring a federal treaty, and I doubt if that will happen since the treaties were completed in good faith and have been interpreted as such many times in many courts.

I don't think it's a matter of popular opinion, it's a matter of law. Seems like we would be better off working as a team with everyone rather than fighting each other.

The salmon and bottom fish were getting hammered long before the Boldt decision in 1972 and the resource was in decline. I don't think the treaties are really the problem.


PS - This state's voters wouldn't even approve a gill net ban that many other states have in effect.

One of our Senators only wants to remove one of the Elwah dams and see what happens.

I see lots of clear cutting.

Point is, there are more meaningful things we could focus on and be changed than the treaties which are the "law of the land" - in my opinion.

You have some good points, but many laws and contracts have been turned over due to "good faith" being broken. One such point in the treaties is the hope that tribes will not have "spirits" booze, on their reservations. Good faith was broke there. I also feel that "in common" means same areas and rules. But that has already been ruled on. I agree that we all need to work together to end the decline of our fish. But that will never happen until every one HAS TO behave, or fish, the same way.

No Booze on the res??? That has always perplexed me. Indians can vote and are americans so I never understood how the Gov could say "You people can't drink" Does that not say that you are different and not equal to the rest of the world. While its true that there is a high rate of Alcohol abuse with the Tribes, I still never have understood how one ethnic race could be singled out. Off subject I know. Is it a tax issue ??? did they agree way back when that they would not drink???

Big Jim,

Overturning the treaties would take an act of Congress, given that the U.S. Supreme Court consistently rules in support of the treaties as the law of the land. And certain congress members, notably Slade Gorton, have introduced legislation to modify treaty fishing rights. Unsuccessfully. Every time. Now listen up. That's UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS TO OVERTURN TREATY FISHING RIGHTS IN CONGRESS. Sorry for shouting, but it does continue to amaze me how avid recreational anglers manage to keep themselves so uninformed about the basic issues affecting our fisheries. Please don't take it personally. The upshot is that few, if any, senators or congressmen and women want to be singled out and identified as Indian bashers. You may think it a fisheries conservation measure, but - trust me, I've been around this a while - Indian bashing is how it comes out in the broad public perception. The majority of Americans favor honoring federal treaties with Indian tribes, just as they favor honoring most of the treaties our federal government makes.

I'm not suggesting that you have to like it. I'm hoping, however, that you will understand that this is how it is. Unless a significant collection of Americans can assemble a majority of Congress, willing to be painted as Indian bashers, or worse, do not expect Congress to overturn treaty rights. In fact (sorry to rain on your parade) but if conservation so requires, you and I will be standing on the bank with our fishing gear collecting cob webs while the treaty Indians are the last interest group allowed to fish. Paraphrasing, treaty Indians will be the LAST group to be legally required to quit fishing for salmon and steelhead. That is how the law is laid out on this matter.

And if it matters, yes, I've read the 1854, 1855 treaties, the 1974 Boldt decision, the state superior and Supreme Court decisions, and all the U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and many of the decisions of the 70s and 80s by federal district court's fish master. To sum it up, I could think of a lot of impossible things that would be easier to change than it would be to change the laws pertaining to treaty Indian fishing.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo
Since the tribes are individual nations which have there own rights to contracts and treaties. Is it possible to negotiate a contract that would remove the nets for commercial fishing from the rivers? If so I would like to actively pursue such a situation.

------------------
Marty
www.steelheader.net
marty@steelheader.net

Hey all, I'm not trying to be an Indian basher. I happen to be part Indian, but not from this area. I don't want the whole treaties overturned, just the parts that are no longer productive to a nation. The constant me me me has done nothing but harm. When a set way doesn't work any more, it's time to move on. It is called progress. I would be the first to hang up my rod if everyone else would do so. I think that if the Feds step in, no one will fish. Including the Tribes. I have several friends who net and most of our bad experiences, that sport fishers see, are from people who just are greedy and flaunt the treaty in our face. The same happens with the native fish killers of our group. So we all need to get together and create progress. That means giving up something. Whether it be a sport season or a treaty. Good luck and bent rods!

While it is true that Native Americans are perhaps genetically more succeptible to alcoholism due to its relatively recent introduction to this continent, many tribes are actively fighting drug and alcohol abuse on their reservations with sometimes astounding results. Russel Means, an AIM activist, was arrested in Whitehorse last summer for protesting that (white) town's continued sale of alcohol to Native Americans (Sioux). Seems the White storeowners are more interested in making a buck than in the health of the tribe. Check out Means' book "Where White Men Fear to Tread"--a worthwhile read. But yes, alcohol peddlers have targeted reservations historically as involuntary markets--Budweiser used to send a float to powwows that tossed little cylindrical candies to
children--and the little cello labels were beer labels that read "Budweiser."

Also worthy to note that the poorest areas in the nation are on tribal land--the Pine Ridge Reservation (Oglalla Sioux) has the lowest per capita income in the United States. I mention this by way of noting how prosperous western Washington tribes seem by comparison, but nothing can ensure that--not the fish, obviously, not the casinos, nothing.

Let the natives keep the natives? Sure. It's not like there's a choice. Seems to me the ones who need to get booted off the water are the white guys like the one I saw snag AND RETAIN a dolly on the Stilly a week ago. Pathetic. His "usual and accustomed" should be reduced to the pool under his toilet seat.

Hey Fishkisser99, Sorry but Ive got to nail you on your remarks. I realize everyone has an opinion, you have yours and heres mine. You are WRONG WRONG WRONG, your liberal attitude is whats wrong with this state and its indian fishery problems!!! Everybody always says, oh those poor indians, but you know, they are people just like all other races so why dont they drop the free ride(crutch) and be constructive members of society. Now I realize not all tribal members fall into this classification but comments like you made sure make the horrible cheaters rise to the surface!!!!

I rarely say never but in this case I will. YOU ARE WASTEING YOUR TIME THE INDIAN FISHING RIGHTS WILL NEVER BE OVERTURNED,AMENDED, NOTHING WILL BE TAKEN AWAY!!!!!!!!!! Take that energy to get all the white mans nets out of the water and the high seas nets!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dick, I've been saying this for a long time but it has fallen on deaf ears. I've said this over and over again and still some people think that it will change . I just don't know about some people. I'm not a native advocate but I know some rights won't be changed. Ours or theres. Jim Marquis

Here's some more things to think about regarding the Treaties with the Tribes:

1) The Treaties gave the Tribes absolutely nothing;

2) The fact that the Tribes have treaty reserved fishing right have nothing to do with the fact they're Indians;

3) Treaty reserved fishing rights will be the only thing that will save salmon on the Columbia River; and

4) If you're looking to overture or abrogate the Treaties, you can probably find an unlikely ally: The Tribes.

Let me explain.

Point #1. The Treaties took away almost everything the Tribes had. Land, water, resources, culture ties, etc. The only thing they retained was a little strip of land (the reservation) and the ability to fish in their usual and accustomed places. Not much of a bargin.

Point #2. The Tribes have treaty rights because they negotiated an agreement with the Federal government. Therefore, only those Tribes that negotiated this clause in their Treaty have those right. It's possible for someone to be 100%, full blooded Indian and still not have Treaty fishing rights. How? If they are not a member of a Tribe that has those rights, they don't have them as an individual, despite the fact they may be 100% Native American. Conversely, if the Federal government agreed to provide Treaty fishing rights to 40 year old white guys from Vancouver, Washington I would have them too. But they didn't, so I don't.

Point #3. All the environmental laws on the books haven't helped the salmon in the Columbia River. With the discussion of tearing out dams, it's getting very troubling for some members of Congress. If things get really difficult, Congress can always "remedy" the situation with a stroke of a pen. However, when the Tribes go to court to enforce their rights, there is nowhere to turn. The salmon must be restored. It's the law.

Sometimes the Tribes take some fish, sometimes they take a whole lot of fish. Sometimes they take so many it drives alot of us nuts. But in the end, the Treaties and the fish will be there long after the Snake River dams come down.

Point #4. Some Tribal members would like nothing more than to abrogate the Treaties. Why? They would get their land back. All of it. The purpose of the Treaties was to settle the State of Washington, and elsewhere. I'm not sure what would happen if the Tribes ended up owning the entire State. Face it, the purpose of those Treaties is not to protect the Tribes, they are there to protect the rest of us.

I will end this lengthy rambling by saying that I'm not a lawyer nor a Tribal member. Just a salmon/steelhead angler trying to understand the issues and make sense of a difficult situation.

MSB

In the indian debate I don't see how anyone can think that the indians "owned" all of the land in the state of Washington, I mean because they had a settlement next to a river somewhere does that mean they owned the entire river to it's headwaters, somewhere that they never set foot? I am totally into honoring treaties, even if the last fish is caught in an indian net. I have nothing but sympathy. Meanwhile all us liberal thinkers are giving them money, fish, sympathy, what's going on there on the Res? We are enablers. C

I'm just a squirrel tryin to get a nut!
But in this day and age of all the racism, equal right and all that crap goin on. EQUAL RIGHTS IS EQUAL RIGHTS. (So the loudmouths say.) I only see Indian butchering rights with the treaties. The netting and fishing isn't done so they can make money. It's done because a peice of paper says they can and they want to flaunt it. There never will be true equal rights in this country for any groups especially minority groups who have Special Rights already yet claim they want equal rights. That makes no sense to me whatsoever! But hey I guess we need something to complain about eh?

Fish on Baby!

(if any get through the nets!)

Hi, everyone. Long time, no post.

Anyone who knows me or has seen my posts over the last couple of years knows that I couldn't stay out of this one for too long.

My two cents will be short and sweet. Well, probably not, but I'll strive to keep it as short as I can.

As usual, read Salmo's posts. He's one of the more informed sportsmen I know when it comes to the law. His post above is right on the money.

Secondly, this is not about equal rights. As noted above, it's about a deal. White men take the land, and Indians move onto the reservation and retain the right to fish usual and accustomed places. That's it. Wherever they fished at treaty time, they can fish now, with absolutely no intervention on the part of the state, except for the equal sharing of the harvestable portion of the run.

Read the Boldt decision, and read all of the other cases that lead up to it. I'm sorry that I don't have all of the legal citations handy, but here are a few case names. I hope they're accurate, but I'm going on memory, memory that is somewhat distant.

Puyallup Tribe v. State of Washington
Passenger Fishing Vessel Owners v. Wash.
United States v. Washington.

All of these cases have several chapters, starting with arrests of Indian fishers and ending, after several trips there, at the Supreme Court. The Boldt decision was not the final chapter, but is the biggest, by far, of the rest. However, reading the rest is important to get the proper context of that decision.

Go to your local county law library and tell the librarian you would like to see those cases. Bring about a five gallon bucket of quarters to make copies of them all, and a wheel barrow to carry them all out, and then go home and read them all.

While I don't necessarily agree with the decision, it is amazingly well thought out and is a viable, if not acceptable, solution to what was becoming a problem of absolutely massive proportions. At the very least reading them will give you the historical and factual context to make an informed opinion about tribal fishing. I don't want to seen nets in rivers, or anywhere else for that matter, but I give about four seconds of my time to someone who sees a net, thinks it's bad, and then starts badmouthing the feds, states, and tribes all at once for letting it happen, unless they know the historical and factual history behind those nets being there. If you know that history and then don't like the netting, then you and I agree wholeheartedly. If you know the history, and like the nets, then I respectfully disagree with you. If you don't know anything, but spout off either way, then I don't really have time to care about your opinion.

I hope everyone had a nice V-day. Robbo, I hear you got a new ride. Any luck breaking it in up there? Maybe we can do a little fun fishing some time.

Talk to you all later.

Fish on.

Todd.

Wow, I guess everyone here is pretty well informed about issues. I like that. To all who think I'm a flaming A****LE, I'm just testing the waters not meaning to upset anyone. This topic is a very important one to our sport and life style. I honestly know that it will take everyone, including Indians to save our fish. Cohoangler has points along with everyone else. Todd and Salmo both are well informed and should help all of the rest who aren't get that way. I myself am constantly learning more everyday about our sport. But until we all start making the right, and informed, decisions NOTHING will change. Then when the fish are gone and every one is complaining that their rights are not being met, they can only point fingers at themselves. We all must think long and hard about what is important here. The fish? Or our bellies full of fish?

The tribes have treaties that cannot be broken. Even the tribal members themselves cannot sell or give away these rights. No court in the land will ever go against these treaties because it would be avowing that the word of the U.S. government is no good.
And Salmo...I sure hope you didn't just plug Slade Gorton as a friend of sport fisherman!!

Friends,

This has been a good discussion, and I appreciate everyone's interest. Big Jim, I didn't mean to flame you with my response. I was venting my frustration about misinformation and ignorance of the facts about treaty fishing and its case law and the many irrational opinions expressed about it. I will try to keep my frustration to myself and stick to posting facts and personal opinions (hopefully rational ones at that).

stlhead, I sure don't consider Slade a friend of either fish or fishermen. Slade introduced his anti-treaty legislation when he was first elected to the Senate. I think he did so in revenge. After all, Slade was the state Attorney General who argued the Boldt case before the U.S. Supreme Court and lost.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Friends,

This has been a good discussion, and I appreciate everyone's interest. Big Jim, I didn't mean to flame you with my response. I was venting my frustration about misinformation and ignorance of the facts about treaty fishing and its case law and the many irrational opinions expressed about it. I will try to keep my frustration to myself and stick to posting facts and personal opinions (hopefully rational ones at that).

stlhead, I sure don't consider Slade a friend of either fish or fishermen. Slade introduced his anti-treaty legislation when he was first elected to the Senate. I think he did so in revenge. After all, Slade was the state Attorney General who argued the Boldt case before the U.S. Supreme Court and lost.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Hey Salmo, I did not think you had flamed me. I'm probably the least flameable guy in the world. I started this topic to see how other people feel about this issue. And how informed everyone is. I am glad that most everyone here has an opinion on this and that there are people who know what they are talking about. Some just scream and shout but never look into the problem. Those are the finger pointers I mentioned before. I have met many fisher people on rivers when the nets are in who want this and that but never try and find out why they don't happen. I knew that nets are a HOT topic with just about all fishers. If I pushed anybodys buttons I wonder how they have the patients to fish. I'm very glad to have started this discussion and hopefully someone has learned from it.