Just a question, and I have no idea of how this would run.
Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that in view of the short runs of winter run steelhead this season, an individual (or group) wanted to curtail tribal fishing.
Or if someone witnessed a clear violation (or abuse) of tribal fishing and wanted it stopped.
Or even if we were certain beyond reasonable doubt that tribals were harvesting fish in excess of the quantities granted in the treaties and Boldt decision.
Who would you talk to? WDFW? US Marshal? Tribal cops?
Who gets involved? Is it the feds, or is it up to only the State to file the complaint / get an injunction, or whatever.
Has it ever been attempted? Are there any legal precedents?
I don't like the idea of getting any enforcement agency involved, but maybe collectively we need help, before the fish are gone forever.
Everyone is talking about energy shortages and looming crises, tied to the shortage of rainfall, etc... There hasn't been any mention about the damage the same conditions are doing to the runs. This coupled with tribal netting, and the writing on the wall is getting clearer.
The sport fishery,I dont believe, harvests enough fish to significantly affect the return, but tribal commercial fisheries do. And I dont believe any of it is used for tribal subsistence.
I'm not a lawyer, and I truly dont know, but it seems there must be some means available to get the nets out of the rivers on at least a temporary basis, so we can get enough fish into the spawning grounds(or whatever) to sustain the fishery.
I dont even know if this is a legitimate question or if I'm just snivelling cause I'm not catching the fish I think I should.

Another question to pose, an afterthought perhaps.
Since gillnets arent selective, and completely lethal, an alternative may exist.
I remember seeing an article about an experimental non-lethal net being tried by a tribal fisherman last fall. I cant remember which tribe or where it was.
It seems that under present circumstances it's more preferable to have tribals marketing hatchery fish, even if the sport fishery is subsidizing them, than killing native fish. Since they wont quit fishing, mayber there's some relief available from the federal government under the National Marine Fisheries Protection Act. (I hope I got enough of that correct). Perhaps subsidize the fishery by replacing gillnets with the non-lethal option. It could be a peaceful solution, with less erosion of sportfishing privileges.
Or have I missed the mark again???


[This message has been edited by 'Head hunter (edited 01-16-2001).]

Tribal fishing cops? That's the best oxymoron I've heard. It doesn't seem like enforcement exists.

A longtime buddy of mine grew up on a well known local river often abused by netting. As kids, they would often throw hay bales in the rivers. Hay bales submerge, but will not sink, and absorb about 300 lbs of water with neutral bouyancy. He says this can take out every net in the river. I don't condone this, but it sure made a great story.

What can you do? Nothing. The tribes police themselves. If tribes are catching more than 50%, they will claim sportsmen are catching just as much, but not reporting their numbers. They let the makahs hunt whales for godsakes. You think if politicians didn't step in for that, they are ever going to step in for overharvesting runs. Let's just hope that there isn't a few years of low water....yikes. Only thing you can do is protest, catch illegal activities on film, boycott net caught fish, try to get less lethal terminal fisheries accepted(fish wheels)
With monies generated from casinos, tribes are becoming very powerful, with campaign contributions etc. Sportsman have no collective, no excess money to contribute.
After the harvests this year, I wouldn't be upset, if say, a feed truck over-turned and lost their entire load of hay, during a "ceremonial" fishery. enough is enough

Can you imagine the fishing, if gill-netting was stopped? With the extra fish, and fishermen. The excess monies generated for hotels, gas stations, restaurants, sporting good stores,......and yes probably even casinos. Way more than the $1 or so a pound the tribes are getting for steelhead. One can only dream.




[This message has been edited by KORE (edited 01-16-2001).]

I think the new fed law enableing a third party (us) to sue the goverment for endangering the steelhead runs (letting the tribes net) may be one way to stop the madness. Also, if someone were to get a ticket for messing with the nets they could take it all the way to the top. (time and $ that most of us don't have). Just for the fun of it, I had a thought. If the Makah tribe says that they have a right to kill a whale just like their ancestors did, well don't we have the right to kill them ? My ancestors did!!!

Tight lines all.

This is the point that always slays me. 50% of WHAT???????????????????

For me there is no correlation between Makah whale hunting and the "apparent" overfishing of hatchery and early-returning wild steelhead by tribal gillnetters. In fact, most comments I've read opposing the Makahs wreaks with ignorance and racism. I'd hate to turn this into a long-a$$ rebuttal b!tch post; so nuff said...

Comparing whale hunting to gill netting was never done. Just the example of the political apathy towards tribal actions. I never said I was against the makah or tribe in general. I am against their netting policy.
For example the HOKO has been netted 5 days a week(by the makahs), day and night, since December 3. And due to low water, where do you think all the fish are ending up. And what of the early nates, in this little river? This is just one river.
But of course being against netting, is being anti-indian. I don't feel I am a racist because I am anti-netting. It is the fear of being called a racist, that most people don't speak up against netting. I am sick of the "race" card being played, when it comes to the topic of gill-netting.
The tribes are connected to netting because they are the only ones who do it, in the rivers for steelhead. But you are right, this probably will just turn into a B!tching post. But B!tching is probably the only alternative available to fishermen, upset with the "apparent" overharvest.

[This message has been edited by KORE (edited 01-16-2001).]

I have a freind that i work with that told me him and his hippie buddies used to throw hay bail over bridges. he told me they would travel to bridges throughout the olympic penninsula and dump the bails over, from what he told me it worked.he said they would hit the nets and take them to the beach. so basically sounds good to me, remove the nets.

I was told by a reliable source that the Tulaylip tribe net as much as the feel like. There is little to no enforcement. The fines that they may get are of no consequence, so they pretty much net at will. Is there a way to stop this or will steelhead have to go on the endangered list and fishing for them as well?