Quote:
Originally posted by AuntyM:
I think there is enough historical evidence that tribes were actively involved in trade and commerce with both whites and other tribes that we couldn't restrict them from doing so now. Also, sport fishers would have to revert back to what we would have used and I am NOT about to sell my sled. :p

There are, in my mind, more than enough reasons to ban gillnets throughout the US. They have been banned for overfishing, being navigational hazards etc. Can you say ghost net?

I think we'd fair better with a national campaign aimed at lawmakers using the RFA and their east coast base. Two birds with one stone.

I mean.... we really don't want these nets here regardless of who's using them, right?
Obviously my idea would need refining but I think my basic idea works. The argument the tribes make is "before the white man. . . .", "before our land . . ." I don't want to say it's ALWAYS used but everytime I hear it, they use the word "before". Well, obviously, they didn't trade with white people before white people were here. They obviously didn't trade with Japan. Based on the argument the tribes use, we could regulate that.

Sport fishers would not have to give anything up because we do not have a treaty that is based on a time period. It's obviously subjective, but I think it's accurate to say that when the treaties were written, no one could forsee the non-traditional technology the tribes would be using. To put it simply, if they want to abide by the treaties, they need to abide by them using the conditions of the time they were written. They want to fish and hunt at all of their "traditional" places, fine, but let them use their "traditional" means. Will this ever work? Probably not, but I think it's fair.