Yea Edie, that’s like the women who went to the doctors and finds out that she's pregnant and comes home and tells her husband not to worry because she's just gained a couple pounds! Why not accept it, and say that my facts were right. You just didn't like the facts!

Aunty
Your reply still does not answer the question; why should a group of people who have "special nation" status not pay more when they are operating a business (like guiding) off of their nations reservations land? I know what the "federal law" says, but once a member leaves his reservation lands, shouldn't he have to pay the same price as none resident does to hunt or fish? The boldt decision, as far as I know, does not say that tribal members can do both under the treaty. It only says that they are entitled to 50% of the states harvestable fish. As far as I am aware of, it does not say that the tribes are also entitled to harvest the other 50% of harvestable fish too.

Remember, in this state fishing is a said to be a "privilege" and not a "right"! So once they leave the reservation land, they too can loose their fishing "privileges" just like you and me. If a tribe member violates a fishing rule off his treaty lands then he can also loose is rights to fish in "state" waters…. right? Or do you believe that the tribe members can fish anywhere they want to, and break as many state laws as they want to without paying a penalty for doing so?

Am I wrong?

Aunty
Just because one tribal member claims that "he" reports his fish really means noting in this issue! The facts are; the tribes do not report their numbers and the state and the federal don't enforce the issue either. Since the tribes have hatcheries, and they do release fish into the "states" waters, they should be required to follow the same rules that the feds apply to our state hatcheries. Why the double standards? The fish belong to state until they return the tribes reservations waters.

We as fishermen must make our state records available to the tribes. The tribes can, and do request all state fish related data and records through the states public discloser act. We are not allowed to review the tribe's records or data on fish. That is not right, nor is it fair! The boldt decision was never intended to keep the tribes fishery information "secret information"! So yes, I do have a problem in general with how the tribes and their guides do their reporting!

First, all parties must lay there cards on the table; that means all data on both sides must be made available for review to both parties. Remember what Regan said; trust but verify!! Personally Aunty, I don't think the guides will have anymore to say then any other tribal member does. Most of the tribes that I know of, have all of it's members vote and approved such major issues . . . not just a few who fish! There are already plenty of "hard feelings", and it's going to take total open honesty between both parties to heal those old open wounds.

I wish that the tribes could have their representative answer my questions instead of you. I know that you are very sincere, and do the best that you can to answer my questions, but so far you really have not done so. Personally, I believe that the issues that I have brought up MUST BE ANSWERED before this conflict will ever be put to rest. I have no real beef with the tribes, but I do have some questions on the fairness of the treaty and how it has been interrupted.

I could say more, but neither one of us is likely to win this debate! So unless you can prove that what I had posted is incorrect or wrong, I am done with this thread. So it's up to you if you want to keep this issue going any further.

Let's try to work together instead of against each other and continue to keep this board informed of the facts even those we both may have our own interpolation of what are the facts!

Maybe its time for both of us to call it "time out"

Cowlitzfisherman