There is tons of diffrent opinions on the tribel netting issue. Buth the abuse and rape of the 50/50 netting continues. For instance the skagit river was netted 30 hours a week last year and guess what? Fishing went to hell! Dave up at rockport store said it was the worst fishing he could remember and he's been there for 20 years I believe. We the sportsfisherman have the power to be heard. For god sakes if it wasent for us buying licenses these people would not have jobs. My grandfather who caught an ungodly amount of steelhead when he was alive would vomit in his hip waiters if he saw the rape that was taking place today. I am open to any suggestions on this there has got to be something we can do. Its time the native were held accountable for what they are doing. This is your fishery also we have got to act before it is to Late!
Ed

Hi Ed,

Me again. I'm here to say maybe you've got a point. Then again . . . Well let's just see. OK, you say, let's unite. Sounds like a fine idea to me. Now what? We favor steelhead conservation? Sounds good to me. What next? We favor getting the damn Indian nets out of "our" rivers (cuz they certainly couldn't belong to the Indians too, could they? I mean, we must have stole them fair and square, and just cuz we haven't a single legal document anywhere supporting our claim to the rivers doesn't mean, well damn, thread drift here) so you and I can bag more steelhead.

Well, for arguement's sake, I'll go along with you on this. So how shall we go about making this happen? We could get this in federal court. Oh, except it's been in federal court. Numerous times, beginning in 1905, and the Indians have won every damn time. Know why? Because of the law. I said in another thread that we are a nation of laws.

The law says the treaties are the supreme law of the land. The treaties say the Indians can fish. The treaties do not impose the various restrictions that the many rants on the BB would have imposed. Oh, and by the way, the treaties don't say you and I have to fish the way we would have in 1855 either. So neoprene waders and graphite rods are legit. Whew! Good thing too. I'm not as tough as my Viking forefathers.

So treaty Indian fishing rights have been before the U.S. Supreme Court numerous times over the last 100 years. And the Indians win every time (even in conservative and Republican appointed courts). Ed, do you notice a pattern here? It seems to me that taking this back to court is about as useful as spitting into a strong headwind.

OK, what else? If we are a nation of laws, how about changing the damn law and getting the nets out of our rivers? Former Senator Slade Gorton had just that idea when he was first elected state senator in 1980. (Gorton was the state Attorney General who argued the state's case in U.S. v Washington before the Supreme Court - the Boldt Decision - and lost) Guess what? The rest of the Congress thought Slade was a modern version of General Custer, and they would have none of it. Slade's anti-Indian bill couldn't even make it to the floor of Congress. That attitude is apparently very out of touch with where the majority of Americans are with respect to the U.S. government living up to the treaties made with Indian tribes.

OK, so changing the law has been tried, and it failed. Any more ideas? The only ones I can think of are not legal, so I won't go into it here.

Ed, I just want you to know that I'm not against you. My opinions about treaty Indian fishing are based on a pretty thorough reading of the facts and history about this subject. I am not an expert, but I'm pretty well informed about how things got to be the way they are. And, in trying to live my life to the fullest, as advised by CnF in another thread, I won't waste my time on uninformed tirades against treaty fishing. But if you have a constructive idea, I'm all ears.

And if Dave at Rockport really thinks there was much direct correlation between the tribal netting last year and the Skagit steelhead run, then Dave still has a thing or two he could learn about arithmetic, and possibly other things. If you add last year's tribal steelhead catch to the sport steelhead catch to the spawning escapement it still didn't add up to jack s%&t. But then, it's probably a lot easier to be angry without having the facts in hand.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Eliminate the market for buying and selling steelhead. This will take time, but with much effort can be done. The native Americans would not net much if they could not sell the fish, at least they woul have to develop other markets. As it is now, we make it easy, and who is the real bad culprit, Pacific seafood, Pike Market fish dealers etc... They make much more per pound than the indians and we do not complain about them.
Think about it a little.

The point is they are victims, we victimized them. Now all we can do is give them whatever the hell they want, pat ourselves on the back as they junk the houses we buy for them and sell eggs to the Japanese, make them "comanagers" then watch as they do whatever they want. Salmo is right we are at fault. C

Its about abuse of the law. 50/50 my a--!
We all know they abuse it to the full extent.
All I know is that if the trend keeps up the way it is going whitefish will be the future
big catch of the day.Legal rape is taking place in our river on a daily basis and I guess we will all watch our sport fisheries go to hell in a handbasket because of it.
Ed

Fava sees the light here. The marketplace affects the outcome more than any other factor. In 1979 fish buyers paid treaty fishermen $2.50 per pound ex-vessel for gillnet caught steelhead. Over the last couple years the price received has dropped to $0.65 to $0.75 per pound. As you might expect, the cost of fishing commercially has not decreased over the last 20 years for boats, nets, and fuel. If it becomes unprofitable to fish, few will do it for spite, but they may net some for personal use, and I'm perfectly fine with that. If the price continues to drop, or stay where it is, we may yet see some tribes take an interest in a deal where we, through the state, pay them to leave the fish in the river.

I've mentioned this concept several times over the last few years. I hope I was just ahead of my time. I like to believe it will actually get serious consideration in the near future.

Imagine. Tribes make more money leaving steelhead in the river than by netting and selling them. We continue to acknowledge tribal treaty fishing rights. They take what they wish for personal use. We attain our goal regarding year around, statewide wild steelhead release. The supply of hatchery fish in the rivers increases as a result of the deal with treaty tribes. You're allowed to bonk hatchery fish to prevent them from breeding in the natural environment.

Imagine, a very Merry Christmas, everybody!

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo G., Thanks for the informed replies. I personally I have given up a long time ago getting emotional about the tribal netting, I remember when the Boldt decision came down and the nets rolled out, in reality it is managed better now than at first.

The fact is you have to get over it because it's a federal law. I believe Salmo G. is correct, it could become economically undesirable for the tribes to commercially net steelhead. I talked with a tribal member who was netting the Queets and said he made more money guiding anglers on the Salmon River than netting steelhead. And angler's wouldn't have a fishery on the Salmon if it wasn't for the tribes.

Maybe the solution is to focus your emotion towards the other things you can be affect change. Practice C&R on wild, help restore habitat, etc. Join the Wild Steelhead Coalition and have a voice with other consevation minded anglers. Work hard to hold our state accountable for our failing fisheries, but the important thing is take some time and action to get involved. I've met too many anglers over the years who will complain about all the problems, but won't take any action to do something about it.

This thread has gone in many directions and has had many good ideas thrown out, both from "liberal" & "conservative" veiwpoints. I agree with 454 and others that the sportfisherman does not in general get the 50% split that is intiteled to them by "law". I would guess from personal observations and reading, that at best, we (sport fishermen) are getting around 25% on steelhead and much lower on salmon returns, which I assume most of you love to fish for just as much as steelhead. As for Indians being victimized by "us" speak for yourself. Last time I looked at a calander we are heading into 2001, And I refuse to feel guilt for events that I had zero control of, and occured hunderds of years before my birth. So save it, it's falling on deaf ears. We live in a country of many vast ethnical backgrounds; and people with far worse hands dealt to them survive and even prosper side by side with fellow Americans without treaties. Yes, treaty fishing and the treaties themselves are law, But just because something is law does not make it right! Oh yea this is a fishing forum, We are "all" responsible for the state in which we now find our fishery; Comercial, Indian, dept. of mis management, sport fishermen, loggers, developers, industrial, everyone. I am convinced that there are no easy, if any answers that will bring back the returns to "our" rivers in numbers that "our" fore fathers saw, but that doesn't mean people should stop trying and tuck there hands under their rear end and lay around complacently until the day that no more fish return, and don't fool yourself, that day will come if things continue as they are now.
In my opinion ALL nets, indian and non need to go away, Just as when we run out of trees logging stops, Coal pollutes mining stops, Fish boarder extinction.....Commercial/Indian net fishing stops.
The waters of this state belong to us all, Red/Yellow/Black/White. We are all responsible for them, therefor, We should all be governed by the same "laws" in respect to there use, and health.

Question Authority

United as one!..
Sounds good, but you need alot more than just sportsfishers. To truly conserve our wild resources, and make a statement, we need to have parties involved. That includes all factions of sports fishing be they flyfishers, boaters or bankies, and right now most of them can't get along.

You need the support of the hunters, who are even more divided then fishermen. How many fishermen voted for I-713 banning trapping? Bet alot of ya did, as did hunters. Now we have lost a valuable management tool and all those trappers have nothing to do but fish in the winter..

We need to respect the rights of our fellow outdoorsmen, even if we don't partake in that certain activity.
We need to look beyond our own selfish agendas and help keep all sporting traditions alive. Until then we will never truly be united.

------------------
"Just Say No To Sovereign Nations!"

Fishwacker, You bring up some interesting points. I agree tribal gill netting is a big factor in the decline of our steelhead & salmon, but I didn't read any ideas how to control or eliminate it in your thread. If you have some ideas I would like to read them. Both ban the nets initives (which didn't affect the tribes) failed, so what's another solution. I apologize if I sound flipant, but I'm interested in hearing some ideas. Anybody have any ideas how to turn over a federal law or a treaty right?

In my opinion it will come down to economics and maybe some respect for the resource that will change the commerical element of tribal netting for steelhead. Do you believe the tribes would honestly like to see no more fish left in the river, isn't part of their culture and our passion defined by that? This statement is not intended to be sympathetic, but if we view it from all sides it might provide a new idea for a solution.

You say "question authority", you bet, that's what America's about, but isn't getting your message and the facts to our fisheries managers, Governor, State Reps, and holding them accountable, questioning authority too?

Your are right, there are no easy solutions. I just challenge all the anglers who complain and don't take any action to affect change to get off their hands.

[This message has been edited by Rich (edited 12-23-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Rich (edited 12-24-2000).]

Touche', Your absolutely correct in the fact that I offered no solutions as to a Cure. I did however elude to the fact there may be no winable solution to what I see as the biggest culprit....Nets.

You are correct, Ban the nets initiatives failed. Why? A strong mis-information TV ad campaign, a public that didn't/doesn't understand most of these nets are run by fisherman who are not making their living from fishing, but merely suplementing it. Did not understand the true state of the fishery.

Where does Mrs. Cantwell stand on this issue? I know where Gorton did (Yes I will be writing to find out.)

Taking on the Bolt decision? While not educated enough to even know where to start on that one, someone out there is and probably will, Why not? If you feel strongly enough that something is unjust it must be challanged. While not me; When that person/group comes forth they will have my full support and any help I can offer.

Fishing is a strong part of the coastal native American culture, And I believe them to be a very proud race as a whole. So, no, I do not beleive they would like to see our rivers/waters emptied of these mighty fish.
But sometimes I am left scratching my head as too what the heck they think will occur, going ahead business as usual neting the peak of runs 5 days a week, when not even minimum hatchery return has yet to be achieved?

It looks like I'm skirting the solution issue
again.

Make it illegal to sell wild steelhead.

State reimbursment not to fish.

Statewide Native Steelhead C&R law.

Continued pressure on State reps.

Properly presented and backed net initiatives

Steelhead/salmon org.

Most of these I'm sure will/are being addressed by the WSC, and yes I will give them my full support, whatever it be, signature gathering, watershed monitoring or ? we will see. May they/we succeed where others failed.


I hope not to have bent anyone, at least for a few days!

Merry Christmas.....Everyone,
Whacker

A bail of hay works wonders to plug up a gill net! LOL Seriously, a midnight run to the river with a sharp knife will make it less profitable real quick. I wonder how much a gill net cost? I'm sure I'll get some crap for this but oh well. Nobody else is doing a damn thing to stop netting. When will it end. TREAT EVERYBODY EQUAL, ITS THE YEAR 2000. I could go on forever but that doesn't do any good to help slamon and steelhead. Scince the begging of time nations have been screwed out of land or even freedom. Native Americans LET IT GO. I'm part Jew, I dont feel the germans owe me [Bleeeeep!]. Out of all the ethnic diversity in the US the native americans are the ONLY one with special privliges to rap our rivers and wildlife. They all came here from Mongolia or something anyways! Its got to end one way or another.

Sweet maybe we could go have a few drinks at the riverside casino first, leave and not pay the bill.....then go screw up a few nets. I know the nets on the lower green are easy prey, ya got 16th and 1st ave bridges to huck hay off of. The other dude can fight of the indians with my 357. LOL, sorry I've had quite a few rum and cokes.

I hope you all know I'm jokin'/dreamin! LOL

Did you read that there going to spend millions to restore the greens estuarine habitat? I wonder how many millions their going to spend before they realize that good habitat is worthless unless the fish can get there.
Last year the tribes netted 6500 kings from Elliot bay. The egg take from 6500 kings is about 12 million. Think about that a little.

Thats the saddest thing dead fish don't spawn. And another thing that REALLY kills me is the escapement goal. or allowable harvest. Why not let "surplus" fish spawn and the smolts can battle it out......hence creating tougher smolts. I also think we still know far to little about our fish runs.

Those king stats if correct from hairball is exactly why I keep on scratching my head in amazement. Did anyone see the return at soos last year....I did pretty weak at best.

The tribe also caught about 6500 in 1999 too.Escapement that year soos,10000,green river 11000.Year 2000 soos creek 6200,green river 6500.May be a little off but not much.Guess who was a big player in getting those millions thats right your good neighbors the muckleshoots.Fishwhacker was just wondering did you fish the river,Because it was closed all year.must have been the creek.Just one more thing the river or hatchery has,nt missed escapement in at least 10 years.