Now they want to increase license fees...

060316 wild_future_factsheets_fishing_license_fee_proposal.pdf

NOAA (Federal) is not WDFW (State).

This link works better http://wdfw.wa.gov/wildfuture/proposals/...ee_proposal.pdf

but whoa! A roughly ~17% increase across the board!! Plus we have to pay for the very 1st catch card for each species?!?

thanks rojo, didnt work from the phone, kept popping the PDF automatically and wouldnt give me a link...

so yea, 34 bucks, plus 17 for the salmon crc, and 17 for the other steelhead crc, then 10 for the CR Endorsement, and we lose opportunities... and thats just freshwater alone....

Yes and salmon...

Why would WDFW need to be petitioned from sportsfishers to protect the warmwater fisheries that have ZERO practical impact on ESA salmon? Why wouldn't they call BS on tribal demands that those fisheries be sacrificed? Have any of you caught or heard caught a Chinook by bass or perch fisherman in lake WA? Even if used as a bargaining chip it doesn't seem like it would be a valuable one.

I say take the negotiation out of the equation and split everything everywhere in half - allowable harvest, allowable impacts, etc. Just the math! If the tribes hit their allowable impacts and have to stop fishing before they get their allowable harvest then maybe they'll start looking at their fishing methods.

Just wish we could redefine "in common with" to mean common methods, common regulations, etc. No distinction at all between a tribal or non-tribal fisherman whether sport or commercial. I just can't believe that the treaty writers meant "in common with" to mean that a small percent of the fishermen take fifty percent of the fish. There's absolutely nothing in common about completely different rules for a native fisherman. I'm all for fish wars!! but this time instead of fighting with blockades, boats, fists and guns fight with political pressure and demands that the treaties be abandoned as the tribes have abandoned their sovereignty by accepting benefits of american citizens or demand that the treaties be interpreted correctly.

Remember that when the treaties were written the non-Indians were the tiny fraction.

You got a damn good deal out of the treaties; most of the state of WA land free and clear to develop as desired.

OceanSun - Be careful what you asked for..... The Treaties did NOT provide the Tribes with anything. The Tribes agreed to turn over lots of their land in exchange for peace between the Tribes and the settlers; and continued access to fish and hunt in their usual and accustomed places in common with the settlers.

What that means is that the right to fish and hunt is a reserved right. That is, the Tribal right to fish and hunt was already there before the Treaties were signed. They were rights that have existed since time immemorial, and the Treaties specifically recognized that right. The Treaties did not grant them that right. They were already there, and are still there to this day. Said another way, those rights would exist even if the Treaties were terminated.

The phrase that has been the source of controversy for decades is "in common with". In 1974, Judge Boldt determined that it means the Tribes have the right to 50% of the available harvest. That decision was affirmed all the way to the Supreme Court in Washington, DC. Lots of folks disagree with that interpretation, but they ain't Supreme Court justices. In our system of governance under the Constitution, the judiciary makes the final interpretation of the law, including Treaties. So that's what the phrase means, like it or not. And that's what we have to live with.

I would note that the Boldt decision said the Tribes get 50% of the available harvest. But the ruling did NOT say the State has the right to the other 50%. That's why the State is in a difficult negotiating position. Legally, the Tribes are first in line for fish. Everyone else is behind them. But practically, it is just the opposite. In the real world, everyone else gets a shot at the fish before the Tribes (ocean, Puget Sound, in-river harvest, etc). So the State has to manage harvest from multiple user groups (some of whom are beyond their control) such that the Tribes get what they are entitled to (I used the word 'entitled" just as it is defined).

I hope folks understand the difficult position the WDFW is in. While it may be too much to ask for us to agree with WDFW, at least we should try to understand their situation.

A couple of points.

1. Not all treaty tribes are the last in line. Remember the Makah troll fishermen taking something like 20K fish in their fall/winter fishery when the anticipated take was 2-3 thousand?

2. There was language in the Supreme Court decision indicating that the allocation issue could be adjusted as tribal economies improved. While not a treaty tribe I just read that the Cowlitz tribe is moving forward on a casino with a cost in excess of $500 million. Hmmm, things must be getting better for them.....

Time for the state to get into the casino biz. Chambers Creek Casino, Soos Creek Casino, Palmer Slough Slots, blah, blah blah...

From article 4 of the Medicine creek treaty. "In consideration of the above session, the United States agree to pay to the said tribes and bands the sum of thirty-two thousand five hundred dollars"

Coho Angler, you say that the Tribes had the right to fish and hunt "since time immemorial" Just what do you mean? Did they have the right that you speak of by their very existence or was the right granted to them? It would seem to me that the right as you call it was tenuous at best. Did they not exist in a time and place where another group or Tribe could do as they pleased with or to them if they were strong enough and had the will to do so? So the treaty also provided the Tribes with an amount of certainty and security in and of their current situation and in the future.


If the Treaties were abrogated the Tribes would have the same rights that they had before the treaty, which in reality is any right that is defendable by them.

As far as the Courts interpretation of "The right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations, is further secured to said Indians in common with all citizens of the Territory" Consider that the courts history is replete with bad interpretations and decisions, and they can and have been changed, consider Dread Scott.

Thanks Black.

My post was not my interpretation of the Treaties. It is the interpretation rendered by the various courts of the United States. I just paraphrased what they determined. A cursory review of Indian law would provide more background and detail than I have time to provide here. But you are welcome to see for yourself.

A quick internet search on the 'Boldt decision' and the 'Steven's Treaties' would give you the information and interpretations you seek.

Coho Angler, frankly I do not seek any more information and interpretations on the matter at this time as I already have a belly full of it. Most of what is available on the matter is a regurgitation of opinion offered up as fodder by liberal sources for the consumers of such drivel.

Blackmouth, the thing about opinions is that they aren't all equal. When SCOTUS pens an opinion, that opinion is the law of the land.

S.G.
You are absolutely right it is currently the law of the land, as was slavery as was prohibition etc. See for yourself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions
It appears to me that SCOTUS is always right until the are not right and change the law, and then as if by magic they are right again.

And just who is going to take that case through the courts? Washington, with the politicians owned by the Tribes? The sporties, who can't seem to get together for anything except to bitch?

didnt the Cowlitz tribe sell their netting rights?

We are indeed in a bad situation, but when the Tribes took us to the cleaners they did not have monetary recources that they have now. The Tribes used civil disobediance to draw media attention to their "plight" and the general public felt, oh so sorry, the new public opinion and pressure on government forces influenced (judicial reasoning) and we ended up in our current situation.

One thing is certain and that is that the co-management concept is fatally flawed, for as long as one party essentially has the power to overrule the other there is no necessity for them to act in good faith dooming the very concept.

Bingo. The Tribes control WA anadromous fisheries. If you to change that you will need a complete housecleaning in the Leg and Governor's Office for starters.

I've known that we need to get some control over our states government for years, but our states electorate does not seem capable of reason.