Friends,

The true beauty of a viscerally formed and held opinion is that it remains unchanged by any amount of factual information. By comparison, rational opinions are incredibly boring, since they’re based only on facts and estimates of facts. The visceral opinions expressed on this board are highly entertaining, but unfortunately they don’t teach us anything useful. But venting and ranting makes me feel better sometimes, too. So here’s mine. I must say that it disturbs me how adept some of my fellow anglers are at spouting off with all the intelligence of a box of rocks. Yeah, I know there’s no IQ requirement for obtaining a fishing license, and I’m not suggesting that there be one. Just that it irks me how that 80% majority of fishermen are giving the remaining 20% a bad image. But if you try replacing some of your visceral opinions with rational ones, the world might just make a little more sense to you, hopefully without depriving us of all entertainment value.

This post may seem pro treaty fishing to some of you, but I’m really only trying to describe facts as I understand them. If flaming makes you feel better, go for it. But in fact, I’m just an angler who is pro fish, pro common sense, and pro law, in that particular order.

History lesson: The U.S. government made treaties with Indian tribes because 1) they acknowledged tribes as the rightful owners of the land and resources they occupied and utilized; 2) treaties were perceived by the government as the more upright way to deal with Indians; 3) the government perceived treaties as a less costly way of obtaining land from Indians than the alternative costs in lives and resources by way of making war. The government may have been right or may have been wrong, but that’s how they felt at the time. Treaties are the supreme law of the land; it’s in the constitution, and it’s well established in case law by the U.S. Supreme Court. You aren’t required to like it, but it might help if you understood it. The Supreme Court has been upholding treaties since at least 1906, including treaty fishing rights. The court upholds them, not due to liberal judges and lawyers, but because that is the law, yet some of us seem amazingly immune to understanding that.

Treaty tribes have a right to fish. You and I have a privilege, not a right. That’s in the Supreme Court decisions too. So when you talk about your or our fishing rights, you ain’t talking about much. Sorry. I don’t like that much, either, but that, my friend, is how it is. The tribes’ fishing rights are the supreme law of the land. If they waste the fish they catch, sell them, take them home to their families and eat them, it’s all OK and covered by their rights under law. Just as the tribes have no business telling the state how to manage the non-treaty share of the resource, the state has no business telling the tribes what to do with theirs or how to manage it. While using native steelhead for halibut bait is repulsive to most of us, that is certainly within a tribe’s treaty fishing right, so long as the steelhead was legally harvested and accounted for.

BTW, you and I may think we hold certain high moral ground on some of these issues, but please understand that most of these are simply relative values. There is nothing intrinsically superior to using herring instead of steelhead for bait. At least not in a biological or ecological sense. That is a matter of human value. And that value is likely to be different for a recreational steelhead angler than it is for a commercial halibut fisherman. Some anglers think it’s a crime against nature for a native steelhead to be caught in a treaty gillnet. Yet, those same anglers don’t think twice about whacking a similar native steelhead caught on their hook and line. Of course, neither of those steelhead will survive to spawn, so aside from different human values, what’s the difference?

A few other items worth noting. Indians fished for subsistence and commercial purposes. Coastal tribes traded dried and smoked fish to interior tribes, and sold fish to whites at the time of the Lewis and Clark expedition, if not before. That meets every technical definition of commerce. Just as the treaties did not prohibit white citizens from employing new technology (monofiliment, aluminum boats, etc.), the treaties did not, and could not, prevent the Indians from adopting new technology either. I just can’t fathom where some you get off thinking that treaties must limit tribes to using old style traps, spears, small nets, etc. Where do you get that information? The rocks in your head? Sorry, that’s flaming at no one in particular on my part. It’s not necessary to make up such ideas; the facts are readily available, but they’re probably of no interest to those who cannot be bothered by or influenced with facts. Here’s another that just might ruin your day: the courts found no instance where tribal fishing ever destroyed a salmon or steelhead run. They did not find the same for you and me, fellow citizens. Now don’t get me wrong; I do believe that tribal fishing has adversely affected some fish runs, but when it comes to outright destruction, none of the tribes even comes close to us. Makes ya’ think the fish need a lot more friends like us, huh? I mention this in the remote hope that some of you will think first before putting your mouth, er keyboard, in gear sometimes. Bashing treaty fishing might be fun, but it doesn’t make the basher appear very intelligent to an informed audience. Another item: no amount of state legislation will affect treaty fishing in the slightest. Treaty Indian fishing is a matter of federal law. A bill from the state legislature with 100% unanimous approval doesn’t mean didly. You history buffs might like to know that the Washington State Supreme Court did rule against Indian fishing in a 1976 case. Guess what? Right on, no effect, because it was superceded by federal court decisions. State fishing laws have no meaning in regards to treaty fishing rights.

I said that I’m pro fish. And I understand that fish don’t need me to survive, even though I release wild fish, pinch my barbs down, and so on. Sticking a hook in a fish’s jaw and making it run and jump just to entertain myself hardly makes me a fish’s best friend. (Although I’ve got a spiel that I think is rational for that, but another time.) However, fish do need advocates. Effective advocates. There have been appeals here and elsewhere that we need to organize and do one or another good thing for the fish resource. Yet these attempts frequently do not succeed. Why? Ya’ ain’t gonna’ like this, but I believe it is because when we try to promote our cause, as a group, we fishermen don’t present a rational or very intelligent image to the overall public. We rant, we rave, and point fingers everywhere but at ourselves. Hardly credible in my opinion. For instance, I696 was mentioned. Why did it fail? In addition to commercial spending in opposition I believe it failed because the voting public could see plain as day that it wasn’t really a conservation initiative. It was designed to transfer a significant commercial catch into the recreational catch but was veiled as a conservation measure. Hence my subject line: let’s call this spade a shovel.

End of rant.

Nice post. Still can't help getting pissed about this net thing. Those treatys were made a long time ago before change occured. The point being this,, That was then, this is now.. Have you ever seen what they thought the inside of the human body looked like??? I hope to god nobody ever cuts me open with one of those old diagrams in his hand !!! It was an absolute fact that the earth was indeed FLAT !!! but guess what?? time when by and that fact was proved wrong. We can not manage fish with 19th century values.. If you think we can or should then the tribes should be quite willing to give up everything for some beads and a piece of red ribbon. This is the USA. Indians are a part of and benifit from that. The mis-use of fish should be criminal for them just like anyone else. I read and understand what you said. But I suppose that because this issue sort of upsets me then you will file me into the 80 % of people who you say give fishermen a bad name. Indians are only part of the problem. Damns, logging and over harvest out at sea also piss me off. I am active in ISSU and trout unlimited so its not like I just sit back and bitch. The people who made the dcisions a long time ago did not have any way of knowing how things would be today. Treatys are something that need work. Thats my opinion.

B-run,

Thanks for the reply. No, I'm not filing you into any catagory; it's not my place to do so.

As for the treaties needing work, many would agree. But here is what the courts have said: the mere passage of time does not invalidate the agreements made.

The upshot is simple. Treaties can be updated by the willing consent of the parties to the treaty. But consider this, the Indians had only Gov. Stevens and James Swan acting in their behalf when the original treaties were negotiated. If new negotiations were held, the tribes would show up with a bevy of lawyers just as capable as the U.S. gov't. lawyers. Do you really think the U.S. could strike a better deal with tribes now (with all the development on the land and so forth) than they did in 1855? I think not.

Many people make the mistake of thinking that a new or modified treaty would be whatever they would like to see put in it. That is not how treaties work. They are like willing buyer, willing seller negotiations. And nowadays tribes would be holding all the trump cards in a negotiation, unlike the first time around. That is the main reason why I think the treaties are likely to remain intake. Modifying them would be even more costly than the way it is now. Some tribes are upset that the courts allocate half of their fish to the non-treaty citizens. Not hard to understand that when you consider that the U.S. gov't. considered the tribes the legitimate owners of the land and resources, originally.

As for thinking the net fishing stinks, as long as you think net fishing by whites stinks also, then I'm fine with your opinion. But fishing is still fishing. Like, is fishing with a dry fly really on a higher moral plane than fishing with a wet fly? And if so, why? Clearly, the fish being caught certainly don't care. The difference that I see is that certain fishing methods allow management options that other methods, like gillnets or ocean trolling, don't.

Thanks for your interest.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo g--

Rocks in my head, huh? Well, there is also an old saying that says "the truth hurts". While not worried even if there was an IQ requirement to obtain a licence, I still wouldn't want to tarnish your 20%'s image. As for your history lesson, "[Bleeeeep!] happens". You say 'the government may have been right or may have been wrong, but that's how they felt at the time'. Exactly, AT THE TIME. The government also use to feel clearcutting was fine. The government use to think no hunting seasons on buffalo, or turkey were fine, too. Don't see much clear cutting or non-regulated hunting anymore, do ya? Most people learn from their mistakes, adjust, and move on. I don't believe there is a cement strong enough to hold something in place forever. You say everything on this board is just irrational venting, well you start digging thru your 'science' or 'facts' and show me one time the indians have truthfully stopped netting fish when they reached their 50%. Can't find it? It's not documented, that's why. Leave your car keys home with your 16 year old for a weekend that you're out of town, and tell them they can only drive a little(don't write down the mileage on the car). How much is your kid gonna drive with no one watching over them? Do you think the constitution was written with fully automatic weapons in mind, or career politicians? The constitution can be amended, that is what amendments are for. Yes, the white man has done more damage to fish runs than the indians. Commercial overharvest has destroyed most fish runs. But instead of the indians standing up and going after the commercial lobby, they thumb their noses at sportfisherman. They play the game 'well if you're gonna do that, then I'm gonna do this'. Commercial fisherman have greatly raped the resource. In return, the indians up their raping of the resource. The problem is the commercial gang rape happens on the high seas, far out of site of most people. The indians commit their crimes of nature right in front of us fisherman. Are you beginning to understand the frustration that gets vented on this BB? You write back to BTW that using wild steelhead for halibut bait is a matter of human value. You are 100% correct. They eat horse meat for dinner in Europe, that's unheard of here. I know you read this BB enough to know that pretty much everyone here doesn't club wild fish, contrary to what you say(I'm insulted, but I'll let that one go). It sounds to me that you feel the indians don't understand(or care about)the difference in value between a hatchery and a wild steelhead. It's all just meat to be sold for a price. THIS is a problem I have trouble dealing with. Rocks in my head? You say that was pointed at no one in particular, but since I'm the one that said we should get them back to harvesting the way they did when the treaties were written, I'll assume you meant me. Did the indians take as many fish per person then, compared to now? 'The courts found no instance where tribal fishing ever destroyed a salmon or steelhead run.' Well, it's called documentation, or the lack there of. The court won't be able to find how many times a day I take a piss, either. NO ONE KEEPS TRACK(not even me, get the point). I agree, we are one up on the indians when it comes to destroying fish populations. Do two wrongs make a right? The commercial fishing industry is a sham, and they ride the same coattails the indians do. "But, this is the only way I can make a living. I don't know anything else. It's the way I've always done things." Well, take a college class, or two. I hear the computer industry is pretty big these days. How many of LOOMISMAN'S buddies do something else now that Big Brother cracked down on the logging industry? It's called change. [Bleeeeep!] happens. You say I'm pointing my finger at everyone but myself, well I say B.S.. I abide by the rules set forth, and I don't do some things when I think the rules are too liberal. If you want to see change to the whole situation, the answer is enforcment, and better management. That means for everyone. Quit catching the hell out of fish in the ocean just because the forecast you've calculated using some 1967 formula says there will be plenty of fish. Quit using the same formula for forecasting river returns and setting those seasons. Hire a buttload of game wardens to enforce the rules that are in place for commercial and recreational fishing. And yes, do something about indian abuse. It's as pathetic as the people defending them. The spade is still a spade.

slamo g. for a guy bent on common sense it's funny you don't see dwindling fish counts a good reason to cut back on netting. I do agree eveyone needs to do their part. Thanks for letting me flame

Hmmmmm.........

Salmo g,

I want to hear your spiel on how you justify playing a fish for recreation.
All this treaty talk is making my head hurt.

Hi Salmo G,

Thanks for the Reality Check!

Your arguments hold legal merit and I agree in part. But I think that, while legally treaties are not subject to “amendments”, there is a need to reevaluate agreements struck in a time (and ecological climate) far different than now exists.

It’s not just treaties – I believe that many aspects of the legal/political/Constitutional system need examination in an era where so much of our natural environment is threatened.

Each side has a lot of grudges against the others and use whatever tactics they have at their disposal to exact their revenge. Many of the native tribes are still angry at what the white man has done to their land, rivers, and lakes. And they’ve used whatever means were at their disposal to make their displeasure felt.

Are Washington’s commercial and sports fishermen much different? We’ve blamed the tribes for the same things they blame us for – rape and destruction of the resources. We (sports fishermen) can each say to ourselves, “Oh, but that’s in the past . . . I’m talking about preserving the dwindling salmon runs NOW!”. Unfortunately, the native americans look around us and laugh ‘cause they see plenty of evidence of how we continue to justify our abuse of the environment. If I were native american (I’m not), I can easily see why they say, “Why should we limit ourselves – these Washington State commercial and sport fishermen only want more for themselves. “

I’m saddened that it will probably take the extinction of some of our native salmon/steelhead runs before we’re (tribes, state/federal government agencies, and user groups) willing to let go of our righteous posturing and work with each other instead of fighting and bickering.

Salmo g,

Thanks for the persective, I agree with many points above. This and previous post of yours bring to light the fact that for a real chance at increasing the returns we should partner with the natives. The lawa without question will support the treaties. The waist and abuse of tribal netting will not be reduced directly in the courts.

Question, to the forum how many salmon and steelhead is a casino worth, or break it down to the slot and table level. Over and above, I speculate the commercials have a much greater impact on the returns than the natives.

Salmo hope to see you on the Skagit again.

thick

Well guys, what Salmo G. just laid out is the real deal. He has stated facts, many others have stated opinions. The treaty rights granted to the tribes are rock solid and have withstood numerous legal challenges. The whole argument that we once clearcut, hunted buffalo....yada yada, doesn't hold any water 'cause guess what? Those activities were NEVER guaranteed by treaty rights. Our courts have ruled those treaty rights as virtually unassailable. Unless someone figures out a new legal challenge (and that's not likely) the treaty rights will remain.
So what else can be done? Maybe the tribes could be negotiated into something different if the "price" was right. But who knows what the price might be. Maybe avoiding tribal-operated businesses (casinos, smoke shops) until they change their practices and letting them know that the reason you won't shop there is because of their fishing practices. Will it work? Maybe. But blowing smoke won't accomplish anything.
Rant if it makes you feel better. But, don't think the treaties will be overturned or renegotiated in the near future. If the ESA can't stop tribal fishing, then nothing will. Except economic pressures. The pocketbook is where everyone makes their decisions from.

No flames here, but you can't argue that Salmo G's post isn't accurate. Painfully so, in fact. It ain't pretty, but that's the way it is................


Fish on.......

Salmo- Thanks for taking away some of my naievity concerning Treaties. What an unfortunate result our ancestors have spun for us. In so many ways more than just with Treaties. Slaves? Rediculous! But remember this is not just about challenging Treaties- it is about stopping abusive cheating for both Indians & all user groups. BTW, I agree that U are probably cynically near the ballpark with your 80%/20% (maybe closer to 50/50?). However, is that your "vicseral opinion" or just the "facts" as U understand it. Thanks again for the valuable insight.-- Backlash2, as I've mentioned, I agree about coming up with ways to creat verifiable watchdog group control of abuses.-- Brian, NICE TAKE! - Steve

I think Salmo has great points. But if you think about the Constitution(sp) those were rights too! How many people have changed them or want to change them? I have said before and will say again, every one must make choices that may hurt. Also, for Thickline, I say 25 cents a pound or 25 cents a pull? What is going to make more. I think all outdoorspeople should start saying my HERITAGE is hunting and fishing. Then we could get more RIGHTS. Some states have laws saying that fishing, hunting, and trapping are RIGHTS!

------------------
Just because I look big, dumb, and ugly, doesn't mean I am. It means I can stomp you for calling me it!

Salmo g , great post and informative . I'm not a indian advocate, but I agree with everything you posted. It's good to know that someone on the board knows what they're talking about. My hats off to you for being so knowledgeable. With respect Jim Marquis

Well Salmo i felt like flamin you on your post, but I happened to read the thread below first. I think that sometimes in a complex issue there lots of grey areas, IMO there are some black and white areas in this issue...
1. Nets in a river are an archaic way of fishing.
2. Unregulated fishing of an unknown quantity is a bad idea.
3.Far more damage has been done to fish runs by white men then will ever be done by indians.
4.We must honor treaties signed by our forefathers.
5.If fish runs continue to slide there will be none left. C

I have always maintained that treaties are upheld by federal law. Also that the decline in fish runs is not do solely on the fishing practices of native-americans. Environmental factors, overfishing by commercial and recreational fisherman, dams, inferior hatchery clones spawning with wild stock...are several reasons. My beef with the native-american fisheries is (though it is their right) that the tribes, that don't need to exercise their rights (do to monies generated from other sources), exercise their rights on rivers that (in my opinion) cannot take the pressure of gillnet fisheries. If these tribes are stewards of the land then, step away from the net fishing when it is not monetarily necessary. I am not saying that native-americans are the only reason for declines, and I feel everyone has to do their part.
But frankly I would like to see everyone do their part or at least make a gesture.-m

salmo,
first of all the government did not sign the treaties to recognise that the tribes were the "real" owners of the land and resources. the indians barely understood the language and they were forced on them to make them feel like they had a say and to ease the guilty conscience of the government. on the subject of court challenges. the court said that non treaty persons get 51% of the harvestable fish and thetreaty persons get 49% of the harvestable fish. the court also stated that the tribes do not have the right to harvest the last fish in the river. the court also said that the state can prevent off reservation tribal fisheries in the name of conservation as long as the closure is equally applied to tribal and non tribal persons/fisheries. thus the rub my friend. example 1: winter of 1998 wdfw closes peninsula rivers to the non tribal harvest of wild steelhead due to extremely low returns but yet the tribes continue to net! example 2: early fall 1999 non tribal sports do not get to fish elliot bay for surplus green river wild/hatchery chinook due to not enough fish for escapement/spawner requirements but yet the tribe continues to net. total unequivocal B.S. on the states part bust most definately FACT! the treaties use the verbage "in commom with all citizens". again B.S.. thats what drives me nuts. in the interest of fairness if we can't fish because there are not enough fish then nobody should fish. the rules should apply to everyone-equally! you are correct that we can't do anything on the state level and i696 stated that. you are also correct that the tribes are not the biggest problem but some are part of the problem. the same applies to sport and commercials.

I agree with the statements made by salmo stating the native rights and court decisions. I also agree with many of his statements about our failings as a "group".

The "group" needs federal leadership willing to provide the power to make the decisions.

Our fisheries are not regulated by one political entity. Each entity (sport, commercial, tribal,lobbyist, state, federal,)has their own political agenda based on their own greed or beliefs. Presently the only entity (Federal)that has the power to make a decision of importance doesn't pay attention to good intelligent resource management decisions. I use the Elwha dam as a example....The majority of lower powered entities (State, Diashowa, fishermen, Elwha indians) want the dams removed. One dam comes out, but the upper dam's fate, solely controlled by the federal government is played as a political pawn. This occurs even when the Elwha tribe wants both dams removed.

I believe there is another politcal entity that has the power to negotiate with the natives other than the federals. It is the Private conservation groups. Conservation groups have the organization and resources to negotiate a deal but lack the capital or power.

I truly believe capital can be raised to compensate for commercial harvest reductions once a deal is reached.
What about the power to make a deal? Who are the Deal makers?
First you need the tribes to make a deal. But can you make a deal with the tribes that can hold up in court? Yes but it won't be easy. Example: The JKT made a deal with the Clalam County to pay a percentage of their gross at the casino to pay for services( fire, police). They refused to pay the county for the services saying they were running in the red.
The deal was on the GROSS not the net yet they still refuse to meet the original agreement.
So this deal was made with a very strong government entity yet couldn't be enforced. Only the federal government has the power to actually hold the tribes to a deal.
Conservation Groups have the political power to sway the federal government into giving the power to make a deal stick.

Are there any conservation groups that are willing to lead? Many people on this board belong to conservation groups. Plant the seeds of change with your groups.

Salmo states that if the tribes came to the table this time they would have a bevy of lawyers with them (agreed).......But who makes the final decision after the lawyers make their recommendations?....The tribes Do!!
Let the talks begin....Without discussion there can be no agreement.

Ok there are surely holes in my theory...Let me see the holes so I can fix them.

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

Salmo g,thanks for taking the time for a very informative post.
I have a few vicerally formed opinions.
1. Gillnets should never be used in rivers, but theoretically if you are going to catch salmon of mixed runs the river is the best place as the weak runs are separated from the strong runs. I would like to see the tribes return to the use of fish traps as these were used in the past and can be a very selective form of harvest.
2.Steelhead should be designated a game fish. I understand what you say about being their fish and this is just my opinion of how the steelhead should be used, but damn ,I don't like it.
I am also frustrated by the trbes fishing when there are conservation closures for everyone else. My only relief is to try to see things from their veiw. They blame the non indians for the decline of salmon,and if you have done any research or history study, they are right. They feel they have already been drastically cut back,not to mention being denied treaty fishing rights for years, and don't give a hoot if there is are any fish left for the non indians to harvest. I am not trying to speak for the indians, this is just my thought and I am open to correction.
The friction between the groups has it's roots in the special status of rights one group has that the other dosn't. It is hard for me to reconcile this sovereign nation concept with the ideals this nation is founded on.
Smilesforu(spelling?) If you are talking about paying the tribes not to fish, they have made it very clear that this is not an option.

Friends (if I’m not being presumptuous),

and I’m proud to call you that, altho I’ve never met you, because these responses were much more thought out than the usual venting that’s been going on here. I decided to risk offending you at the prospect of making some of you better informed. Few things are so discouraging to me as hearing a sportsman’s argument that won’t hold water, let alone legal or biological substance. So I thought I’d share some of what I’ve learned from bird-dogging fishing and treaty issues over the last 30 years.

Backlash2, I apologize if my rant seemed aimed at you. I intended no personal attacks; rather I attempted to aim at specific issues. If it appeared personal, I need to edit my stream of consciousness writing style more carefully. Some points to consider: unregulated hunting and clear cutting are not protecting by any laws. Treaty fishing is, and the court has held that the passage of time does not undermine the validity of the agreement. You want to change the treaty, you must negotiate with the Indians. Be reminded, however, that the tribes are much better informed today and in a much better bargaining position; i.e. will you give Seattle back to the tribes if they forego netting the Green/Duwamish? Imagine what they could do with the rental income! Automatic weapons and the constitution is an excellent example you mention. But for the 2nd amendment, the U.S. would probably have some of the world’s most restrictive gun laws, but congress and the courts haven’t been able to crack the 2nd amendment. Refer to that Seattle Times article about the U.S. being a nation of laws. I agree with you completely about accountability through enforcement. Yet the courts have indicated that lack of enforcement or enforcability doesn’t justify infringing on treaty rights. And . . . about your handle, are you still spinning an old knuckle buster Pfluger Supreme?

Corky, please re-read. I hope I didn’t make a pitch for over-fishing. If fish counts are dwindling (and I’m aware that they are) then it is appropriate to reduce human induced mortality by all causes. And case law has already spelled out how that’s done. Fish in excess of the escapement goal are deemed harvestable, with the harvest being split between treaty and non-treaty. In the extreme end, non-treaty fishing ends before treaty fishing because the courts have held that treaty fishing is a right which supercedes non-treaty fishing, which is a privilege. Ouch! That hurts, doesn’t it?

Thickline, it may seem hard to believe, but according to harvest data (which may not be completely accurate) non-treaty commercial fishing has been so reduced in Washington that it is no longer the major adverse impact to “most” Washington salmon populations. And those who think high seas netting is the big threat really have their heads in the ozone. Federal law and Coast Guard enforcement have reduced that to a few pirates, which are a tiny fraction of the fishing that was going on 10 years ago.

Backbouncer1, good eye. The 80/20% is indeed my cynical visceral opinion, totally unsubstantiated by any facts. But since it’s a visceral opinion, it’s not subject to any rational debate (grins).

Big Jim, altho some states define fishing and hunting as rights, it is meaningless at the federal court level, where non-treaty citizen fishing has been defined as a privilege. Hope you won’t stomp me for that; I’m just the messenger.

Chuck, I agree with your points 2 - 5. Net fishing in rivers is a good way to fish, compared to mix stock fishing with any type of gear in the Sound, Harbor, or ocean. The reason is that harvest rates and numbers can be more precisely monitored and controlled. It doesn’t mean that it will be, but it can be. Also, nets are not as good as river fish wheels and traps, but don’t underestimate their value as a means of harvesting true surpluses of fish. At the risk of inciting riot, I’d venture that it is more efficient to carefully and properly regulate a river gillnet fishery than a hook and line recreational fishery, the biological difference being that the hook and line fishery can sort and discriminate, releasing unharmed those fish not intended for harvest.

Oscar, where’d you read your history? If the treaties were forced on the tribes, can you explain why the Chehalis, Shoalwater, and Cowlitz tribes, to name three, never signed? And why treaty negotiations that failed in 1854 were undertaken again in 1855 by Gov. Stevens? It seems to me that if the tribes were forced into the treaties, Stevens would have gotten all the tribes, and gotten them in the first go round. And Sealth, of the Suquamish agreed to sign the treaty only because his tribe was dwindling from disease (thanks for smallpox, whitey!), and he didn’t think his people would be around much longer, so he decided to take the deal Stevens offered. It is true that the Indians didn’t understand the language (English) that the treaties were written in, which is why Steven had interpreters, and why the federal courts have ruled that where there is uncertainty in the treaty language, it must be legally interpreted as the tribal representatives would have understood and agreed to. Ergo, the treaties cannot be interpreted to the tribes’ disadvantage. I also beg to differ that no federal court ever said 51/49% split. The U.S. Supreme Court in its 1979 ruling of U.S. v Washington explicitly allocated “50%, or a moderate living standard” as the treaty share. That was the supreme’s major modification to Boldt’s allocation in his district court decision, which exempted the tribes’ on-reservation and ceremonial and subsistence harvest from their 50%. You are right about the conservation restriction and the tribes’ not being allowed to harvest the last fish in the river. Of course, that is referring to the “last” fish, as in what should be the spawning escapement. Of those fish in excess of the escapement goal, you can be pretty certain that it will be the tribe, not you or me, that is allowed to catch it. I’m not sure if that is the principle relating to your 2 examples or not. I’m not familiar with them.

Smilesforu, government is the last place I look for leadership. I believe that true leadership emerges at the grassroots level, and when quality leadership emerges, government invariably follows. There are exceptions, but Jefferson, Madison, etc. are long dead. As for Elwha, Rome was not built in a day, and the fat lady hasn’t sung yet. Patience. This one will happen.

Yawn. Ho hum. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Very insightful Steve. Do you work for Washington Fish & Game????