Warning and disclaimer: there's something in this post to offend nearly anyone. If you don't want to be offended, don't read it.

I'd like to thank Chucknduck for his intelligent post regarding overt racism even though it was followed by more ignorance than I've witnessed on this BB in a long time. Valid opinions, sure, but woefully ignorant of relevant facts nonetheless. The thread could almost as accurately be titled "hypocrites R us." If there was a treaty Indian fishing bulletin board, I would expect it to have a counter-thread titled something like: "fisheries biology and management for missing toothed redneck tarheel sport fishermen who pinch hollow-core lead on their line with their remaining teeth, eventually contracting lead poisoning."

KSR takes issue with Chuck's comments about baitfishing restrictions as elitism, but apparently doesn't see any parallel elitism in favoring hook and line fishing as acceptable, yet net fishing by Indians isn't? From whose perspective? Clearly KSR's, not the treaty Indian or probably the non-Indian gillnetter. Some will never get it. It ain't the fishing method or person that is either right or wrong; it's whether the fishery is sustainable. That is, are necessary spawning escapement goals being achieved? If so, the method used to harvest fish is pretty much biologically irrelevant. The harvest method is primarily a social management issue.

Bardo says whining is racist? Can't figure that one. Bardo, a racist opinion is just as racist as a racist action; only the outcomes are different, although the racist opinion may beget a racist action. Were you really thinking before you posted that? Yes, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. But here I observe mile-wide gaps between opinion and facts.

Slabquest attributes fisheries mismanagement to the "idiotic Boldt decision." We may not like the Boldt decision and disagree about many of its effects. But if the decision is so idiotic, why do most legal scholars who have reviewed it consider it an excellent piece of judicial work? And why has it never been overturned? Seems like an idiotic decision wouldn't be so likely to be upheld by appeals courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. I do agree with you, however, that adequate implementation of the decision lies somewhere between difficult and impossible.

Papafish is correct that there are already laws that "should" limit treaty and commericial netfishing, but enforcement - and I might add, management - are lacking. WDFW check barbed hooks and catch limits because those are things they actually can do. Enforcing most things related to treaty fishing are things they cannot do. Ought to spend their time doing that which they can, rather than that which they cannot. Law enforcement is not about writing tickets that get thrown out of court.

And why is it that "Only the lowest, mouth-beathing, knuckle-draggin' scum, would string a net across the mouth of a river?" A gillnet is a very efficient fishing tool, and sufficiently regulated so that spawning escapements are achieved, no more detrimental to a fish population than hook and line fishing. The primary difference is that gillnetting is more sensitive to precise management than hook and line fishing. Talk about elitism! Touting fly fishing elitism above bait fishing couldn't begin to compare to this. But thank you for this excellent example of a common ignorance about fishing method being at the core of fishery management.

This would make joke of the month among the commercial gillnetters and treaty fishermen who think the state is irresponsible in letting all us sport fishermen run up and down all the rivers, fishing where we cannot be seen and monitored and our catches cannot be accurately tracked, possibly over-harvesting depressed runs. BTW, I'm not saying a net cannot catch as many fish in a day as I catch in a year. And let us be clear that it wasn't Indians who wiped out the buffalo, or the passenger pigeon, or any other species that have become extinct. None of the extinctions of salmon and steelhead stocks on the west coast are attributed to Indians. You captured it well by saying ". . . it's simply a matter of being the A-hole de-jouir'."

Timberman sees things as simply as, ". . . the tribal fisheries takes 50% and sportsfisherman take 50%!! Talk about a blind ass!!" Uhm, what about the non-treaty commercial fishery? The non-treaty share is split between commercial and recreational fisheries. Were you wearing a blinder yourself, TM?

Dan S., thanks for including the link to WDFW's steelhead catch record. Not that it matters much when our self-styled fisheries experts are "sure" (like Fishnbrad's post that followed yours) that the treaty harvest is much greater than reported. Should we assume that sport catches are recorded with perfect accuracy? BTW, I'm not saying anybody's catch records are competely accurate. But they are the "official" records, so when something goes to court, that's what counts.

Tyler calls those who disagree ". . . retarted . . ." indicating he either cannot spell or type or both. Nice to have that intellectual horsepower on board. Fortunately, he's still got some schooling ahead of him, and there is hope.

Carl C. is sure that ". . . a certain group of people (is) taking more than they need and wasting it?" I don't understand how he can know how much they need. How much does a treaty Indian fisherman need? According to the U.S. Supreme Court, it's a " . . . moderate living." I don't know of any treaty fishermen who are even making a living by fishing these days. So while Carl knows that they catch more than they need, I think that if you ask the treaty fisherman who isn't making a living at it his opinion, it would be rather different than Carl's. What make's Carl's knowledge correct and the treaty fisherman's wrong?

Waste is a different issue. The state has a wastage law. It doesn't apply to treaty fishing. Some tribes have wastage regulations; some don't. Treaty Indians sometimes harvest salmon just for their roe when the market price for roe is high and the price for the fish is very low. Roe fisheries are nothing new. Non-treaty fisherman harvest herring specifially for their roe in Alaska, formerly in north Puget Sound, and in San Francisco Bay. So treaty Indians didn't invent roe fishing. Personally, I don't favor roe fisheries, but they are legal, and it is possible to have such fisheries without imperiling the fish population so long as the necessary spawning escapements are achieved - back to that management sufficiency issue.

Rockfish "bet(s) the amount of fish taken taken by tribal fisheries is astronomical considering they just cut open the carcasses and dump them straight into the bay or river." This is an ignorant allegation since cutting open carcasses and dumping them has nothing to do with the amount of fish taken being astronomical. Pardon my sarcasm, but I don't want that kind of logic in charge of managing my fisheries. Next he offers, "This has to stop, since the gulf states, california, quit netting. and here where there is some real sport fishing opportunity with out the netting longer sport fishing seasons." Aha, honesty at last. It often appears that the primary reason to restrict treaty net fishing, and non-treaty net fishing, is to transfer the fish harvest allocation from net fisheries to sport fisheries. I can't argue that it wouldn't be good for sport fishing. However, there are more just and logical arguements for doing this, at least in the case of non-treaty net fishing. Again, from Rockfish, "this state is way behind other states in rebuilding fisheries with this so called boldt decision." There is nothing "so called" about the Boldt decision. It's as real as they get, and it has been described as being up there with major civil rights court cases.

This post may be flame bait, but I have a point. It is not to defend treaty Indian fishing, although I could see it appearing that way. Most of the treaty Indian fishing bashing that I read on this BB seems to come from emotion based far more in ignorance than on facts. There's nothing I can do about your emotional reactions, but I'm willing to try to help all of us substitute facts for ignorance. I don't know all the facts, but I have studied the Boldt Decision and many of the subsequent decisions. (An aside - I was furious about the decision when it was issued, until I read it.) I've talked to lawyers and biologists, and none have ever indicated that there are any problems, legally or biologically, with the decision. Maybe that is why it hasn't been overturned. That is not to say there aren't a lot of problems associated with its implementation, chief among them being the perception of unfairness. The upshot is that this BB is an excellent forum for learning and intellectual discourse. Separating facts from opinions and emotions is an important step in furthering that cause.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.