Went up to Icicle on memorial day weekend and fished the mornings by the hatchery. We went over to talk to the fish and game to see what was happing and to view the amount of fish in the hatchery. We had asked the F&G about the latest report. She had said that their were only 102 fish in the pens. they released the other 300+ back out to the river because they did not want their quota of 1200 fish from the first school and wanted a mixed for the capture. Understood.
But what she had said was we can fish 400 feet below the hatchery, (no problem yet). Well all the indians were fishing in front of the ladder and had surrounded the hatchery opening from shore ramps and was hooking the fish left and right, I had asked other if they had any luck and few were cauught. Whats up with the indians being able to fish in front of the hatchery ladder while everyone else cant. They should make them fish below like everybody else.

I do believe that they should be equal. For the 18 years that I have been living my parents taught me that everyone is equal. Well, is everyone equal? That is my question to you.

Chris they get 50%!!! Equal has nothing to do with it!!

------------------
Tight Lines!!

This spring the NMFS and Col. Inter-Tribal Comm. decided to grant the Col. Tribal Indians rights to net & sell Col. mainstem springers for the first time in 23 years, all thru May, because there were so many excess hatchery fish. They did NOT consider giving even a small quota of finclipped hatchery Col. springers to us sportfishers, who paid much more than our share for. The Indian netters took hords of these fish along with killing a few of the Fed. ESA protected native springers! That's 100% of the "harvestable" salmon within the treaty's 50% of "harvestable" salmon & steelhead! And now I have to hear that they are getting a larger percent of tributary fish by special (UNFAIR)fishing area rights too??? Since unethical lamebrains seem to be determining this rediculous situation, do you suppose that the Tribal Commission is trying to start another Indian-Euro War??? I hope not, especially for their sake!! I also hope that some form of sanity returns to salmon allocation soon!!!!! Is anybody else getting more than pissed off? -- Edit Addendum: I won't erase what I said above in a moment of anger. That would be lame to dodge accountablility. But I will emphasize that the above only raised serious questions, and was not a proclamation. - RT

[This message has been edited by Reel Truth (edited 05-31-2000).]

We can't sue the indian tribes but we sure as hell can sue our government. We need a organization that will help us stick up for our rights. Anybody know the name of the group who sued Oregon State for clubbing salmon? Maybe they can sue the federal government.... so they will sue the tribes for our rights since we can't. The government should be held accountable for their inactions on our behalf.
Tight Lines


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

I'll try to pose this to the Mountain States Legal Foundation, headed by William Perry Pendley. They don't have any problem challenging the government.

IT'S QUITE CONFUSING TO ME WHY THEY'D EVEN RELEASE THESE FISH BACK IN THE RIVER. THE MOST EFFICIENT USE OF TIME AND MAN-POWER WOULD BE TO ALLOW THE NATIVES TO BACK THEIR TRUCKS UP TO THE HOLDING PENS AND CLEAN AND ICE DIRECTLY.
EVEN BETTER CUT A DEAL WITH IGA AND LET THEM PICK UP THE FISH AND JUST SENT THEM A CHECK IN THE MAIL!

What I don't understand is what in the hell the Indians are going to do with those dark-ass springers!? It's not like the Icicle fish are chromers or anything. You bonk 'em and they turn black, however, their meat quality is still good like the upriver brights. It was mentioned that they were "hooking fish" so I don't know if they were keeping them for subsistence or commercial purposes. If they were retaining any for commercial use they must smoke 'em or something but I just can't see these fish going to the market for sale. Do the Indians sell those(dark)upriver brights that they get too?? Sorry, but I can't imagine that dark fish are marketable.

On another note, the Icicle springers are a 100% hatchery run. If the state has enough in the pens for next years smolt production, or will soon enough, then I would rather see the Indians take 'em where un nontribies can't fish, i.e. like right in front of the hatchery and not at the mouth of the Icicle or in the Wenatchee where they can scoop the fish up in a gillnet all day long.

Life is short...fish hard!!


[This message has been edited by SAUKit2em (edited 05-31-2000).]

how about recycling the extra fish back downstream for us sportsters to get another chance at them. they do this on other rivers. as for the indians it seems like a nightmare you can't wake up from. they sure don't care about what we think of them or the about the situation so must not have any desire to heal relations with the reat of society. HOW can this be stopped????? as much as I dislike the actions of hardcores like greenpeace or who some call treehuggers that put spikes in trees to be cut, maybe their tactics will have to be used on Indian abusive unfairnesses?

Hey fishlips; why is alowing these people to harvest surplus hatchery fish an injustice! Sounds like your a little bit jealous to me. After all you did get get first crack at them and just let them swim by.

The only way I see to stop the tribal fishing is a constitutional challenge and claim discrimination on basis of race/cutural background. The Icicle makes me less mad than the Hump. At least both sides are fishing the Icicle. *Smack* *whack* just giving the dead horse a couple more blows.

Just another example of tribes "fishing in common" with the other citizens of this state; aided and abetted by the WDFW. What a crock! Oh well, soon we'll all be too busy putting up our unsafe and insane fireworks stands to worry about a "snag and bonk" fishery.

Hey MickeyMouse,

How in the hell could you mix up justice with jealousy? You ask how is this situation an injustice? I'll try to explain this to you but I'm not confidant that you will have the intelligence to understand it. The non-indian sportfishermen of the Northwest have paid more than our share to propegate these hatchery springers by purchasing fishing licences and paying fishing tackle surcharges that you probably aren't even aware of, as well as pay taxes and higher power rates. Yet the Indians are given extra opportunity to get more special rights beyond the 50% of harvestable fish treaty provisions, which is grossly outdated and unfair by any measure of intellect (despite Judge Boldt's rediculous misinterpretation of "sharing the fish in common with" so that he wouldn't get cut off by his Indian wife), here at Icicle Creek after already getting special rights to net springers earlier out in the Columbia this year where sportfishermen weren't allowed to fish for them at all! These are a 100% hatchery run. Were there even springers in this creek waaaaayyyyy back in another lifetime when Indian treaties were signed? You don't see any injustice here Mickey? And spare us the ludicrous argument that the "Indians were here first" [Bleeeeep!]! Just because they hiked across the Bering Sea landbridge after the last iceage and split into different tribes before our ancestors boated over the Atlantic doesn't mean they owned the N. American continent anymore than the U.S. owns the moon! The natural laws of the world at that time were survival of the fittest! Anywhere on Earth. Evolving people or animanls alike. Some of the survivors differed in how they dealt with their conquered. The Indian tribes that conquered other Indian tribes primarily for land and resourse aquisition didn't share the spoils of land and fish with the conquered tribes, they just simply killed them all off! Then when these conquering tribes got conquered by the dudes that boated over to the other side of the continent, they were given land and half the fish. Unlike what they were willing to allow the Indian tribes that they had conquered earlier! Right or wrong, that was the primative law of the world at that time and it was one earth. Those treaties which lacked forsight should have expired along with the times, just as did public street hangings and stagecoach robberies. Now how in the hell is it that unlike every other ethnic race on this continent in today's world the Indians should get rediculous special rights to take fish we paid for to sell for more money than they are already getting over and above welfare and other special interest money they are getting? The answer is that they shouldn't! Do you see any injustice there Mickey? Probably not, you're just a mouse so you can drop out of the discussion. For any others without natural logic that still think that today's Indians have some kind of intrinsic rights over others because their tribe raiding ancestors walked around here before Euro ancestors did, do you then think that since Anglo-Euros got here before Asian, African, Korean, Russian, and South American ancestors that today's Euros should get special rights over them? NO. And they DON'T! Neither should present day Indians that sit back and live off all other present day people's taxes!! They should have long ago been allowed to work and play by the rules the rest of us do. Actually forced to do as the rest of us have.

Be thankful that God even still lets us enjoy the fruits of a land that we so savegely have STOLEN from the Indians in the first place!

"CHEROKEE NATION WILL RETURN!"

[This message has been edited by wubee (edited 06-02-2000).]

Wow! What opposite takes! Interesting opportunity for some opinions and questions for sure. Fishtick's take is harsh but does have some credible valid points. There is history of Native American tribes taking land away from other tribes. Was that "stollen" land, or was it the primative "law" of the land at the time? If Euro settlers stole land, so did the Indians before that. Neither was right, but I agree that's how the history of the world was and had been up to that time; and even beyond. Importantly, all of our ancestors were more primative and did wrongs. But that should not determine what happens now. Fairness based on present conditions should prevail now! Wubee, I am glad you believe in God, because it's very obvious that He intended that all races occupy this continent and all continents. (Is that you Mark Lindsey? I'm a fan.) - RT


[This message has been edited by Reel Truth (edited 06-02-2000).]

The reason it happened was inevitable...the way it happened was inconceivable...my family has enough native blood to get some of these freebees but a long time my grandfather decided that were Americans and should have no special rights over one another.This is such a joke,I grew up on the Nisqually during the hostile times of the Bolt decision,I was young and could not understand why they were fighting over fish?...I'm 40 and I thinks this is such [Bleeeeep!],I could ramble on about this allday...what a waste of time,the amount of money generated my sportsman in this state and the fact that some of us VOTE we could make a difference...what's it going to take when are we going to say enough is enough

------------------
Row Quietly and fish a Catarft ----<'))>>{
Release all Wild Fish

[This message has been edited by Osprey (edited 06-02-2000).]

I was just curious if the same tribe fishing at the Leavenworth hatchery also fished the lower Columbia with the nets? Anyone?

Geeez fishlips take a chillpill.

Just trying to make a little humor here. Back the truck up to the tanks...Cut a deal with IGA... come on lighten up.

when was the last time you got laid??
prozak maybe.I think you need a day off. Go fishin and reeeelax

Had your intellect level figured Mickey. Thanks for the affirming it. My long response was an obvious answer to your question and dis post to me on 6/1. Very obvioulsy not to your 5/31 post that you chose to quote from in your 6/2 lame avoidance post above. I think it is you that needs a review of the meds you're on. WHen you get that accomplished try to repost something intelligable here to do with this very serious important subject.

Fishtick, The flaw in your reasoning as I see it is that western Washington tribes were never conquered by "the dudes that boated over to the other side of the continent..."
Instead the goverment intered into a treaty, nation to nation, in order to own the land. If you have a problem with the treaty (and you do) don't blame the Indians. They didn't write it or interpet it, non-Indians did.

[This message has been edited by potter (edited 06-02-2000).]