In another post, Reel Truth threw out several good questions regarding the Federal position on ESA and the Tribes and how this might conflict with the Boldt/Belloni decisions. Rather than continuing on that somewhat unfortunate thread (dissing Salmo G), I will post some thoughts on the issue.

The Federal policy on ESA and Tribes is set at the national level and is applied to each Federal agency. The position and the reasoning behind it is simple. The Tribes had nothing to do with fish and wildlife species going extinct since there are too few Tribal folks with too little authority to make a difference. Therefore, if restrictions on natural resource use must be made to protect the resources, all reasonable restrictions must be applied to the non-Tribal folks before restrictions are applied to the Tribes. This policy is consistent from the Quinault Tribe in northwest Washington to the Penobscot Tribe in northeastern Maine and everywhere in between. NMFS is carrying out that policy to the letter. That's their job.

This policy is based on the Federal tribal trust responsibilities and the treaties on which that trust originates. Therefore, this predates the current Administration and will outlast the next one, regardless of whether it's R or D.

The Boldt/Belloni decision did NOT state that the Tribes and the State get to split whatever fish are out there. The decision was that the spawning needs of the fish come first, Tribal subsistence/cerimonial harvest is second, Tribal commerical is third (they get 50%), and non-Tribal commercial is fourth (they get the other 50%). The non-Tribal folks can take their 50% but only if they are not constrained by other factors, such as ESA.

The first part of my previous paragraph has been tested and verified in court. But the last statement is policy and has not been tested yet. So, the question being debated is - "What is the legal justification for restricting the non-Tribal folks before restricting the Tribes?" As we have seen on the Columbia River, that is not a trivial question. Someday, the State of Oregon or Washington may challenge that policy position in court but not this year. So I encourage continuing discussion and debate on this issue.

Meanwhile, I'll be headed for the Kalama River. Maybe I'll get me a summer-run before summer is over......




------------------
MSB

Now that's about as clear an explaination of the allocation of salmon between treaty and non-treaty user groups as I have ever seen. I wonder why it is so darn hard to get this information from the respective government agencys. Some other information that is like pulling teeth to get in a form that makes sense is stats on salmon run size and catch by the various user groups. I know the Lake Washington sockeye fishery is probably as eazy as it gets to track, but I would like to see all our runs stats made public like that fishery was. They gave an estimated run size, catch rates of the user groups and escapement all within days of the run going through. This would give a much better sense of accountability for the co-managers, and accountability is what is lacking. One other part of the mentioned policy I question is that spawning needs are always first. I have seen examples where escapement goals are not expected to be reached, but harvest is still allowed. That doesn't instill confidence in the managers when the policy is spawning needs first.

Cohoangler,

This is nothing against you. But the Belloni treaty rulings were legally amended in federal court in 1974, giving Indian and non-Indian fishermen an even split, according to the The ODFW Director's post letter. So the NMFS and whoever is pulling their strings are out of line. They are actually stealing fish that were legally given to us and we also paid for them. Like a lot of guys have said on here the Indians were conquered and still given a share of the fish instead of killing them all off like they did to other tribes they conquered. So now the Fed.s want to break the law and fairness to give the Indians most of the fish because they didn't have anything to do with the declines? Listen well here now, the VAST majority of us present day fishermen did not build any dams either. But we use the electricity they make and so do the Indians. When the treatys were signed the Indians didn't have modern mass killing nets and outboard motorboats. So it's all hogwash. Or complete stupidity in D.C., where most of them lie and take money and don't fish. With that kind of stupid thinking why don't they just give most of the resources in this entire land to the very few remaining ancestors of the true original inhabitants of this land that were mostly killed off by ancestors of Indian tribes that are here now. Because that would be even more stupid. But the same principal. Both are outside of treaty intent and later court decree. Speaking of decree , did the Canadians give them land and fish and game animals and casinos and freedom to use the rest of this land like the majority of us do, like the stupid people in power here have? ,,,,, Hey I just went and again read Rt's good questions and your post above didn't answer most of them either!



[This message has been edited by Fishtick (edited 08-10-2000).]

Fishtick - I'm not taking your comments personally. In fact, I'm glad you took the time to comment.

My intent was to provide a simple, clear explanation of a topic that can be complex and frustrating to many. I was not trying to support or undermine the policy positions of the Federal govt. Rather, my intent was to provide good information and let the reader decide whether to agree or disagree.

Apparently you disagree with government policy on this issue. That's okay. You are probably not alone. However, the only way this issue will be decided is by the courts. That's the system. It's possible government policy could change in the future, but then it'll be the Tribes that take this issue to court. Given the legal history on these issues, they probably won't hesitate to do so. But I can't speak for the Tribes (or anyone else for that matter).

You are correct in stating that I did not answer all the questions posed by Reel Truth. That's because I do not have all the answers. Perhaps someone else has more information and can contribute their views. However, if I start sounding like a know-it-all, I'm sure there will be plenty of BB veterans that will let me know, in no uncertain terms either.

------------------
MSB

Coho angler, were you a graduate of Humboldt nicknamed Mcslabslayer?

Native son - I will say honesty that I have never set foot in the state of California in my life.

For better or for worse......

------------------
MSB

cohoangler
your profile mentions homebrew and as afellow fisherman i would like to hear more sometime.as far as esa issues and the tribes the courts are the only venue that offers any lasting result

I fully understand the issues addressed in these replies.The native americans need to use more discriminate means to catch their fish,but they are not "the" problem.We need to buy back commercial fishing licenses and tear down some Dams. Buzz Ramsey wrote an excellant article in STS magazine that showed shocking numbers of fish killed by the Dams and everything they entail.Seems like the numbers killed by Dams was around 80% and fisherman both tribal and non-tribal was only taking around 7% while the rest was commercial fishermen.Don't quote me on the figures,but I think they are close.When we can't even get the Gov to remove non-native terns from Rice Island I don't think we stand a chance getting them to do anything else unfortunately.Just my thoughts,lester