In addtion to Keta's post above, another occured on the ifish BB that went off the subject with misunderstanding. This is what I posted in reply; hoping to get the thread back on track (hoping it will here too):

Hey Beek, now I understand what you are trying to say. Not. I just can't make sense of some of the things you are trying to make a point about. And that's OK, miscommunication happens. However, one thing you said I did understand and it's undoubtedly incorrect. I know - you said it about me; essentially that I shouldn't hide behind the "past is the past" concept. I'm not hiding behind anything! And your contention of 'that statement is invalid' is incorrect by default alone, as well as in principle, because the past just happens to be the past. The only thing I see valid about the past as it concerns the present is what was learned from successes, learned from mistakes, and laws that are carried over as yet unchanged. The past is NOT an excuse to do wrong in the present (read this sentence a few times if you find that concept challenging - it's true and it's important). Furthermore, when will you and a few others get the concept that the complaints about Indian fishing aren't about their agreed upon rights. It's about the wrongs of the Gov., Tribal Comm.'s, and some lawless individual netters. Read "share the fish in common with" (signed Treaties), and "split the fish deemed harvestable equally" (Federal Court Treaty review mandate), and then read about the "Col. Tribes get 13% of the springers, everyone else combined gets 2%". There it is. What's so difficult to understand about this mistake? That may be correctable in the near future. ...


Back to the thread purpose for a minute ... if the Native American Tribes (particularly the members involved in fish netting negotiations) and the sportfishers can gain a better understanding of each other and learn to communicate better, chances would be better to come to more agreeable fishing allocation fairness; even if the chances aren't real high for a complete agreement. I have e-mail invited members of Columbia Tribes and NW Washington Tribes to access and read these posts here and on the Piscatorial BB. I explained that moderators will take out any inflamatory blatant racist posts. Several are already registered on Bob's site. But so far they have chosen not to reply, except one post on Bob's BB. I still hope they will. If they don't I'm sure most here will credibly figure they haven't because they won't be able to rightfully defend against the wrongs brought forth within this thread. And perhaps aren't interested in improving communication. If they were to invite me and/or some other members with varying views here to come up and visit with them about all this at their place, wouldn't we go and cummunicate; along with an unbiased rep of the media? I sure think so. ... I did finally come up with the e-mail address of Mr. Randy Settler, the high up Yakama official mentioned in the Tri-city Herald article by Mike Lee. He was the Tribal official that was involved in sending the Raindance bill to the BPA. I sent him an invitation to join our discussion, along with any pertinent Tribal members (sent 5/24/01). The Yakamas are members of the Columbia Inter-Tribal Fish Commission and one of the most involved Tribes in Col. fish netting allocation negotiations. Hopefully they won't also avoid communication. In case any of them ask me anything on here, I will be gone up to B.C. from early this Sunday to about late Wednesday or Thursday to fish for saltwater chinooks that will have no net marks on them. I hope when I get back to see Indian participation on here. And kept civil and productive by all. That would be great!

RT