Most of you are aware that starting today, Monday 1/9/01, that the Federal Endangered Species Act has listed N.W. native chinook salmon stocks as either threatened (all rivers) or endangered (Columbia R. stocks). This will impact most aspects of ours lives. Nothing that harms these native fish is to be allowed. That is the doctrine, but not going to be the reality. There will be big exceptions. Primarily for Treaty Indian Tribes (unfair allocations to gillnet native chinooks) and also big business that applies and pays for 'exceptions' to the rules. Under this scenario we are now in, the controlling NMFS is very aligned with the Treaty Indians in allowing them what they want in ESA impacts at the expense of the paying sportfishermen of the NW. This comes via those in power in Washington DC that are not sportfishers, and have a baseless edict from the U.S. Dept. of the Interior in the form of Secretarial Order No. 3206 which directs that under these new ESA protections that the Indians are to be the last to have fishing taken away. This is against signed Treaties and Federal Court interpretations of them for a 50/50 split. Yet, at least in the case of the Columbia Tribal Commission, the power to control fish allocations has now become theirs! How many of you wrote to your Congressmen to protest this unfairness? What are you doing Senator Smith to protect our fishing rights as you wrote to me/us that you would do? ...
In the ...CNN.COM... thread I was wrongly critisized as having an attitude against Native Americans (by Spooled). I will copy my response to that over here, and hope for some opinions in this thread about this profound situation. I got right down to what I feel is the nity gritty truth of the whole matter and why. We are about to get shafted big time! I hope you don't take it with a shrug, but rather a fight! ...
From the CNN.COM thread:
Spooled, your quote of "I find it remarkable the attitude against Native Americans that RT displays in this post". Hmmm. Let me quote what I 'displayed', "It [Fed. ESA native salmon protection] had better not be by allowing Indian gillnets to kill thousands of these endangered native springers while not allowing us sportfishers to selectively catch the non-endangered finclipped hatchery fish!" ... and "... my campaign to write our Congressmen to thwart unfair Indian native fish kill allocations. And to make sure the NMFS allows us a fair selective finclip hatchery fishery on this spring's huge Columbia hatchery run coming. You have been around long enough to read my anti-gillnet advocacy, primarily based on the indesriminate killing of native fish runs!". ...
As you can see Spooled, there is nothing against Native Americans. There is ONLY the rightful animosity toward the unfair NMFS rulings of allowing an 8.5% gillnet kill of native Col. springer stocks by Native Americans, while at the same time allowing for an 0.5% incidental mortality on native fish by sportfishers. And now there are rumblings that we may not even get that! I have no problem with Native Americans getting what they deserve by Treaty doctrines of splitting the fish 50/50. Sportfishers are paying for these fish and not getting them though! And the NMFS allocations aren't even in the ballpark of 50/50 or of any measure of fairness!!! How is that an "attitude against Native Americans". That's quite frankly rediculous reasoning on your part. ...
As for the mentality of some, both Indians and non-Indians, that we "owe" them beyond the Treaties is also rediculous, and I'm going to tell you why I believe this; again. ...
Before any Euros ever conquered a North American Indian Tribe, the Native American history was fraught with Indian vs Indian wars over land acquistions. It was the natural 'law of the land'. And the conquering tribes almost always killed off all the conquered tribe. They did not turn around and sign a Treaty to share the land, fish, and buffalo. When the surviving Tribes then got conquered by Euros by the same 'law of the land', they were given land and fishing and hunting rights via signed Treaties. While it may seem so unfair that they were conquered while occupying the land, that is what they did to other Tribes that occupied the land first before they did. I have a hunch that many of them were shocked that they weren't just killed off as they had done to their conquered. The Indians probably had it right for the times back then; that the world was one big land, regardless of some water separatation, and that it was the 'survival of the fittest' law that prevailed. At least at that time in history. ...
Not only were the Treaties signed to Indian suprise back then, they now are suprised at their new found power in this modern era that they have garnered thru baseless guilt of some in power that are overiding the signed Treaties and giving the Indians way more than the fair 50/50 split of fish! ...
Another reality that many Indians and overly sympathetic people don't take into account is that myself and many other's ancestors had not come to this country until after the Euro/Indian wars; and thus had nothing to do with the Treaty signings. None of my ancestors took part in building dams either! Yes, I use electricity. So have the Indians thru the last century; including now in large quanities to run their hugely profitable gambling casinos that were considered partly compensation for lost fishing income. They don't complain about the dams when they get cheap or free electricity; but they sure will when fish allocation issues arise. Because they know dummies are running this country! ...
Spooled, where is my "attitude against Native Americans". I don't have a negative attitude against any good individual person, whether they are causcasion or Indian or other ethnicity! I only have an "attitude" against stupid unfairness!!! - RT ...
What's right and what's not people?
Previous Topic
Index
