My letter here was sent to Mr. Monroe and Jennie in response to the ifish thread called "Bill Monroe speaks". He is the outdoor writer for the Oregonian - the highest subscription newspaper in the NW. Within that thread he states his case for being a netting advocate and for alerting the public of where to buy Indian netted salmon; in response to criticism on the fishing websites for doing so.
----------------

To: Bill Monroe (Oregonian outdoor writer) - April 27, 2002

Re: Media balance for Columbia salmon and steelhead allocation issues.

Hi Bill.

I wanted to send you some feedback and other information after reading Jennie's post of your Sunday column and other comments on the ifish BB.
In regards to your comments and your column, what I most want to communicate to you is that not all of us "complainers" are against Indian fishing rights. For me and many others it's to the contrary - we want them to get exactly their rightful and lawful share of these Columbia fish (as with other NW river fisheries). What we don't want is for them to get way more than that - which is the status quo! Having been one of the most publicly outspoken people on this issue the last couple years, I want to let you in on what I have learned via investigative efforts. If you are not already aware of what I will reveal to you here, please consider it for future balance within powerful media coverage. I see it as lacking in your column for tomorrow (Sunday 4/28/02).

To quote you: "And as to educating those who selfishly believe these fish are theirs alone. ..... From my view, anyone who considers this their personal fishery or the sole realm of sportfishing has their head in the sand." I have not seen this belief posted on the NW fishing websites concerning Indian netting, but have to a degree concerning commercial netters - with the exception of a few 'mentally challenged' guys that display overt Native American racism; who you took proper exception to in addressing their poor message (thank you). Most of these seeming 'selfish' fishers are people who feel they chronically come up with the smallest piece of the pie, while contributing the largest amount of money to producing these hatchery fish - in the form of immense contribution to the NW economy (see NSIA Newsletters), taxes, and license fees. And they are correct in their plaintiveness.

Since the most powerful controlling influences to the split of Columbia fish are the Col. Inter-tribal Fish Commission, the NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service), and the U.S. Department of the Interior, allow me to state what much of the basis for plaintiveness toward Indian netting is; and what I have found out in my investigations.

First, as I mentioned above, most of us 'complainers' are NOT against Indian fishing rights. We want them to have exactly what has been deemed rightful and lawful. The Treaties signed in the century before last called for "sharing the fish in common". Some interpreted that to mean the Indians get a share of the fish in per capita equal amounts. Others interpreted that to mean split the fish equally - 50% to American Treaty Indian Tribes and 50% to non-Indian Americans. In the infamous 1970's Federal Court decisions by Judge Belloni and Judge Boldt (Belloni's jurisdiction on the Columbia, Boldt's jurisdiction in western Washington state), they ruled descisively a mandate to split salmon and steelhead runs deemed harvestable equally - 50/50 between Indians and non-Indians. They also ruled that in any year that one party harvested more fish, the other party would receive more the following year to compensate. It hasn't been lived up to by the Indian Tribes. And anyone, please don't bring up that someone else's Euro ancestors didn't live up to agreements either. That was then, this is now - and two wrongs don't make a right. And they do not have legal effect on the law today!

Now it has evolved to these present situations. As you know, the Federal Endangered Species Act has had an over-riding impact on the amount of available harvestable fish. This is the ESA impact on native fish factor. It has been the driving force in setting fish quotas for all user groups in recent years - commercial netting, Indian netting, and sportfishing. But there are unpublicized factors that have illegally circumvented the Treaties and Federal Court mandates of equal sharing! As well as over-riding the Mitchell act for commercial fishing interests. However .....

..... what has turned the tables on fairness and Federal Court mandates in all this scenario has been the political influenced Secretarial Order No. 3206 by the U.S. Department of the Interior that states the Indian Tribes will be the last to lose fishing opportunity due to ESA driven quota cutbacks. It was publicly stated that at it's foundation the Order was based on the damage the Columbia River dams have done to the fish runs. What they did not address is the fact that NW Indians have used electricity as long as non-Indians. And they use a LOT of electricity from the dams to light up their many lucrative gambling casinos, which were allowed and licensed as part compenstation for fish lost to dams. Dams that my ancestors, and many sportfishers ancestors, did not build either! It is unfair, and likely ultimately illegal. It's why the states of Oregon and Washington filed a lawsuit opposing efforts by the Col. Tribal Commission to stop all further sportfishing in the Columbia River. The Tribes also have threatened Federal lawsuits to get all the Columbia system dams taken down, for negotiation ammunition. While their influence may have lent help toward getting funding of these hatcheries out of our money, it was mostly done to get further unfair power of allocation of Columbia fish. The Tribes and states used these factors in a long and tough negotiation process to keep it out of the courts. This did help keep sportfishing seasons for Columbia fall Chinook and steelhead intact, and allowed for a quota of the unusually high numbers of returning spring Chinook, last year and this year. But .....

..... the states were no less than bullied into an unfair agreement for sportfishers in the process! I personally communicated with the lead state's negotiator, ODWF's Guy Norman, about the negotiations that went on unpublisized. Last year the Indians got an 8% ESA impact quota, while the non-Indian commercial netters and sportfishers got a combined 1% ESA impact quota. This year the process 'netted' a bullied agreement in which the non-Indians (commercial and sport combined) got a 2% ESA impact quota of springers while the Indians rustled a whopping 13% ESA impact quota! Thirteen times what the sportfishers got. Where is their care about the native fish or fairness in that? Then .....

..... when this year's run forecast was recently lowered from 334,000 fish to 'only' a quarter of a million springers - 250,000 - the sportfishers were cut off an assured season thru May in the mainstem Columbia. Did pressure from the Columbia Tribal Commission influence that decision? Do bears .... well, you know. I have heard various predictions on what will happen to the Indian quota, but if last season and historical occurances are indicitive, they will get their 13% ESA impact quota or close to it; or raise the dam removal Federal suit hammer again to get more of their much bigger unfair quota than the sportfishers got of their comparatively small 1% quota. And this is despite the fact that sportfishers are required to release non-clipped fish to a better than 93% survival rate (for verification of this contact ODFW's Steve King in the Clackamas office, and/or former ODFW head Jim Martin, and/or Steve Fransen of the Olympia office of the NMFS). As you are aware, your friend Bob Toman was among those that were involved in the two year catch and release study done on Willamette hatchery springers that provided those statistics, which was part of the factor in the allocation quotas on the Columbia. Furthermore, with knowledge of the kill everything effectiveness of gillnets on native fish, the Col. Tribal Commission refused pleas by the states to switch to the new more selective tooth tangle nets to save more native fish! The commercial netters have been ruled to use only those new type of nets. So ....

.... do you see more clearly why so many of us have become what you refer to as 'complainers'? Will you consider being more balanced in your coverage of these issues on behalf of the sportfishers of the Northwest? As for sportsmen getting together and doing something about this, I have run more than one letter writing campaign as a long time moderator of the ifish NW Discussion Board, and also as a moderator of the Piscatorial Pursuits website NW fishing Discussion Board. Many letters have been sent. Jennie has done a fine job of putting up a page of Congressmen and other influential people's addresses to write to about these issues. One of mine was answered personally by Oregon Senator Gordon Smith. I posted his letter to me on the ifish BB, in which he promised to look into these negotiations and see that the sportfishers get a fair deal. Hmmm. Didn't happen though. Many more letters will help.

As for the commercial fishing industry, that you also support, they have become an outdated form of fish havesting method in light of the plight of endangered native salmon and steelhead. Why? Because they aren't necessary to provide these fish for market. There is an abundance of farm salmon, and even steelhead, as well as Alaskan and Canadian commercial fisheries for this country's markets. And the Columbia netting industry has demonstrated a lack of care or compliance in saving native fish, as well as by-catch fish. They have been offered fair buyout compensation. However, if it can be demonstrated that they can fish effectively selectively with the use of these new tooth tangle nets, and comply with native fish revival, then why can't they net their target Willamette springers below the Oregon City falls, instead of below all the sportfishing effort? And net in the Columbia Gorge for fall salmon, instead of below all the sportfishing effort. As for the "Spring chinook from hatcheries [that] belong to everyone in the nation", most of us don't mind them buying these from sources that fish within fair and legally mandated quotas, and fish ethically within proper attempts to minimize damage to endangered irreplacable native fish stocks.

These are some of the things sportfishers would like influential media members, such as yourself Bill, to consider before their public influencing writing goes to press. Thanks much for your time and consideration. -- Steve Hanson (STS magazine)
---------------

You can read Mr. Monroe's column in the Sunday Oregonian (4/28/02), and communicate via his invite to billmonroe@news.oregonian.com