I just read and interesting article concerning the indians taking the state to court over various environmental issues concerning salmon habitat

here is a link to the article: http://www.msnbc.com/local/pisea/m8507.asp

What a freaking crock of political Bull$hit,
Sauk you are sooo right EGGS,EGGS,EGGS
I guess they don't have to report all the carcases left on the bank,
when is someone gonna sue the Tribes because of the damage they've done to Salmon runs ARRGGGG....%$$#@*^&(*)(*&) ...Os

------------------
Row Quietly and fish a Cataraft
Release all Wild Fish----<'))>>{
"Just Say No To Sovereign Nations!"

[This message has been edited by Osprey (edited 01-17-2001).]

Sorry, Osprey, but I deleted my previous post after further review. Not that I don't believe in what I wrote whole-heartedly, but there is a time and place for that, such as presenting the forementioned facts and pictures of mass-waste to the media. I just think that this is an excuse for the tribes to have a hand out as their "input" is going to cost us each time a culvert is built or restored. What a crock or sheeeit!? They make themselves out to be so gracious towarda the environment which in turn attracts media attention and backing by celebrities just like the whole U.S. vs. Washington (Boldt) case did.

I will, however, throw this into the mix:

SOMEDAY WHEN I SEE JUDGE BOLDT IN HELL, I'M KICKIN' HIS LILLY ASS!!

TO REINVIGORATE THE case, the tribes focused narrowly on the state's admittedly faulty construction and maintenance of culverts, pipes that carry water under streets and railroad tracks and through embankments. Improperly built or maintained culverts block salmon from reaching more than 3,000 miles of streams valuable for salmon reproduction, according to state estimates.
The filing by the tribes comes in a long-running case and ostensibly deals only with culverts, but the document carries much broader implications. It seeks to establish that the state has an obligation, based on treaties dating to the 1800s, to practice environmental protection sufficient to allow the tribes "to earn a moderate living from the fishery."
While refraining from predicting success in this new filing, an attorney for the tribes acknowledged that it could boost the Indians' ability to affect public policy.
"If the tribes are successful, they will try to use this in other arenas to protect habitat," said Seattle lawyer Phil Katzen. "What the impact will be down the road is impossible to say."
Scientists say manifold efforts are required to restore the plummeting salmon runs. Environmentalists are pushing for more water to be left in streams by farmers, local governments and others. They also have pursued lawsuits aimed at stopping timber cuts, which can allow unshaded streams to grow too warm for salmon to thrive. Also at issue is construction of buildings, seawalls and docks alongside streams, bays and other waters.
"We've got work to do on all areas of the landscape," said Terry Williams, commissioner of fisheries and natural resources for the Tulalip tribe. "What we need to see is the ability (for tribes) to affect the decision-making."
Although the state is enjoying record prosperity, many Indians are out of work because salmon runs have plunged. Much of the decline is traceable to degradation of spawning streams, they said.
"The tribes have cut their harvest by approximately 90 percent since the mid-'80s in an effort to restore the salmon, and obviously that is not what happened," Katzen said.
The tribes want to launch a new chapter in a long-running legal battle that began in the 1970s, when the federal government sued on behalf of Indian tribes to establish the Indians' right to fish under treaties signed in 1854 and 1855.
U.S. District Judge George Boldt declared in 1974 that Indians are entitled to half the catch, but left hanging an important issue: Does the state have a duty to protect fish stocks from environmental degradation?
After Boldt retired, Judge William Orrick Jr., declared in 1984 that the state was in fact on the hook to protect the fish. The next year, however, a higher court said Orrick had gone too far. Until a specific example of how the state was falling down on the job could be examined, the question could not be settled, the appellate judges said.
And there the question sat for 15 years. On Friday, the tribes returned to court, focusing on culverts to jump-start the legal battle.
"We are disappointed that the tribes feel litigation is necessary to bring about the improvements that we all strive for," Gov. Gary Locke and Attorney General Christine Gregoire said in a joint press release yesterday. "Litigation will serve to siphon valuable time, money and energy away from the vital task of saving salmon."
Curt Smitch, Locke's adviser on the salmon issue, said the state is willing to fix the culverts. He said that in negotiations with the tribes, he and others offered to round up more money and take other steps to keep the Indians happy.
"If this was simply about culverts, no one's arguing about that," Smitch said. But he said the tribes want something the state can't give: joint control of important decisions about development, water withdrawals from streams and other "habitat modifications."
Locke has included tribal representatives in his salmon-recovery team and in a group that guides natural resources policy, he said. Yet, tribes complain that state officials listen, but then do what they want.
"The state has basically said, 'no, we're the boss,' " said John Hallowed, director of habitat services for the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, which manages fisheries for the tribes.
Bolstering the tribes' case against the culverts are two state reports issued in 1997 and 1999 that detail damage faulty culverts do to salmon runs. By the state's own estimate, the economic return in fisheries from fixing the culverts would far outpace the cost of the work.
An estimated 200,000 additional adult salmon would return each year if the work were done, the state estimates. And no one wants the culverts to stay in bad shape.
"This is not a situation where there are any tradeoffs with industry or homeowners," said Katzen, the tribes' lawyer. "The state's own reports indicate that the benefits of (fixing culverts) far outweigh the costs."
Although the state told the tribes it could get the culvert work done in 20 or 30 years -- assuming the Legislature fully funds the work that is needed in budget sessions every two years -- officials also held out the possibility the work could take a century, tribal representatives said.
Sandi Snell, a Locke spokeswoman, said $40 million of the governor's proposed $212 million salmon-recovery budget for the next two years is targeted at culvert upgrades. But it's difficult to get the work done, she said. Work must stop during spawning season, and there is a limited number of people with expertise to do the projects, she said. The Legislature can be another big impediment. In the last two-year budget, lawmakers approved only half the governor's salmon-recovery request, she said.
Everyone acknowledges that a lot of work beyond the culverts will be required for the salmon to return.
The tribes went from catching one-50th of the salmon before Boldt's 1974 decision to being entitled to half the catch. Now, though, because the number of salmon has dropped precipitously, Indians are again catching roughly what they did in the early '70s, tribal representatives said.
In the past, other court decisions have favored tribes and said, for example, that governments should not take so much water out of streams that it harms salmon. Those decisions, though, were not based on the Western Washington treaties that produced Boldt's decision.
Ron Whitener, director of the Indian Law Clinic at the University of Washington School of Law, said the current filing will sketch out the degree to which the right of the tribes to have a fish-friendly environment is safeguarded by those treaties.
"The tribes had been waiting to have a case they could use to figure out the legal scope of that legal right . . .," Whitener said. "The culvert issue is the tool to get to the scope of the right and force the state to bring the tribes into environmental planning for salmon."
Whitener, a former Squaxin Island tribal lawyer, recalls seeking meetings with state officials for six months. They wouldn't agree on an agenda or meeting date, he said.
He predicted that if the tribes succeed, it will lead only to incremental changes, not a situation in which Indians can dictate public policy. They would have to prove that environmental degradation is leading directly to declines in salmon, probably on a stream-by-stream or watershed-by-watershed basis, he said.
"In those instances when the state does something stupid, which they sometimes do, it would give the tribes some way to head it off before it ever occurred," Whitener said.
Battle over fishing rights
· 1854-1855: Six federal treaties concluded by Washington Territorial Gov. Isaac Stevens take away much of the Indian lands, but assures them they can fish in their "usual and accustomed grounds and stations."
· 1889: In one of its first acts, the new Washington Legislature closes six rivers to salmon fishing, all on Indian fishing grounds. The move is said to be a conservation effort. In subsequent decades, the non-Indian commercial fishing industry mushrooms, regarding tribes as competitors. Indians are blamed for declining fish runs by failing to heed regulations. Later research shows dam building, logging and commercial fishing are to blame for declines, and tribes are only getting what is left over.
· 1954: Bob Satiacum, a Puyallup, begins the "fish wars" when he is arrested for fishing, a precursor to the "fish-in" demonstrations of civil disobedience of the 1960s.
· 1962-1964: Fish-ins led by Satiacum and Billy Frank Jr., a Nisqually, grow in popularity, drawing national attention as well as Marlon Brando, Jane Fonda and other celebrities. State authorities crack down, complete with surveillance planes and speed boats.
· 1970: U.S. vs. Washington is filed on behalf of tribes and integrity of federal treaties by U.S. Attorney for Western Washington Stan Pitkin, a Nixon administration appointee. Then-state Attorney General Slade Gorton defends the state, which is supported by commercial and sport fishing interests. Confrontations at fish-ins grow heated; 60 people are arrested in Tacoma.
· Aug. 27, 1973: Trial in U.S. vs. Washington begins before U.S. District Court Judge George Boldt in Tacoma. Boldt divides the case into two phases, the second one later to decide whether the state has a duty to disallow the destruction of salmon habitats.
· Feb. 12, 1974: Boldt decision rules that tribes are entitled to half the region's salmon harvest. Boldt says the right to fish was extended by non-Indian settlers, and that the federal government must live up up to its promises to maintain the integrity of the treaty process.
· 1979: U.S. Supreme Court upholds the Boldt decision.
· 1985: Tribes and state seek an 18-month stay of the second phase of the Boldt decision to negotiate agreements regarding timber and water resources and effects on salmon, seeking more cooperative ways to manage fish than through litigation.
· 1993: Based on recommendations from all parties, U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Rothstein dismisses without prejudice phase II.
· 1994: U.S. District Court for Western Washington extends the 50-50 formula to harvesting shellfish on private lands.
· 1997: Tribes and the state differ on strategies to protect and recover salmon, which continues to present day.
· 1998: Private-property owners appeal the 1994 shellfish ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case is pending.
reporter Michael Barber contributed to this report.
P-I reporter Robert McClure can be reached at 206-448-8092 or robertmcclure@seattle-pi.com

Wonder how hard it would be to yank all the federal dallors that go to the tribes. no more 1% loans with fed backing em. no more welfare. just plain cut em off ---if they want to be a independent nation let em--but without our moneys---if they want to work fine--but will pay all the taxes aplicabale ---i believe that all netting within 2 miles of the mouth of the straits should ceese. -if they want the salmon just as bad as us get some hatcherys goin ----get all the unemployed welfare peaple to run em ------hell im on a role-------that would provide them with some self assurance and help out the salmon and steelhead fishereys -------damn it just pisses me off to no end - it seems so damn simple---just how to go about it is the ? -- hell lets just close all fishing down for about 5 yrs --no one gets anything----now that would bring things back but no way in hell the gov is goin to lose that gas and gear taxes --

damn hard not to get all fired up---but somethin has to be done---by both sides our boats and theres at least put a cushion on where a net may fall

Ok i feel better

for the time being


Will

The State wants 20 years to fix the problem culverts?Is that reasonable? Hell no!!
Let alone 20-100 years as the Tribes claim the Stae told them.Go indians.
For those of you who still believe that there's a real difference between the Republicans and Democrats when it comes to the environment and Salmon,may I present you with Mr.Governor Gary Locke.Fix the culverts Mr.Evironmental Party Leader or admit you don't give a rats a$$ about the environment and fish.
By the way,are the so called environmental groups attacking Locke on this example of his (DNSRP) "Do Nothing Salmon Recovery Program"?Or are they being low profile? LMAO.Perhaps they feel a 20 year solution is just fine.

If the tribes win maybe the sportsman and fish will no longer be the only ones trully concerned or effected by comercial harvest,environmental degradation and unregulated tribal netting.
Let the rest of the State feel the impact of Tribal excess and habitat destruction and let them become concerned.

PS.I am not trying to get anything going between the Republicans and Democrats on this board.I just wanted to make the point that this is a nonpartisan problem that will not be solved by partisan rhetoric.

If the tribes ran the show instead of the state there would be a heck of a lot more fish.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.


If you think you can, or think you can't your right!


Untill this idea of me me me stops for everyone, welcome to "your" world.

Steelheadude:
I've started to research the treaties and decisions for my own information, but it looks as though you're way ahead of me. The timeline and chron youve indicated looks real good, but there are a couple of items you may have overlooked. One item dated 1865 is a report from the superintendent of Indian affairs, which states in general that 10 years after the treaties were signed and ratified, the government had funded only about 15 percent of the improvements which were to have been provided in the treaties, and the tribal members were starving. They were encouraged by the (BIA) to fish for their own sustenance, and sell any surpluses commercially for cash.
This appears to be where it all began.
I havent received a copy of the Boldt decision yet to study in its entirity, but it's coming. from what I understand it only upholds the language and the intent of the original treaties. Subsequent decisions and liberal interpretations by later courts nave actually done more damage.
I'm still trying to get up to speed on all this, I'm glad someone is on a similar track, maybe if more people are better informed, we will be able to bring more effective pressure on the real culprit in the whole issue, that being the United States government.
From what I've discovered so far, at one time there was a treaty pact, with an international organization which loosely and voluntarily regulated the offshore high seas fishery. The Tribal Fishing Council attempted to insert themselves into that forum, which ultimately caused the dissolution of the organization. As I see it, that ultimately caused the degradation of the entire fishery.
Herein lies the crux of the whole deal.
The tribes can raise all the smoke they want by suing the State for culvert replacement, and insert themselves into the process if they wish. It appears they already have. All they will ultimately achieve is to raise the price of the culverts. The State's plan is already to replace / rebuild the culverts, all the tribes are pressing for is an escalated time table. By litigating, they will have stalled the process.
The culvert program is a 2-stage process. First you replace the culverts, then the fish must be restocked. The fisheries program is already underfunded, and I wonder if they have the resources to fulfil the program.
The cost is an issue. As a construction guy, I've already replaced some culverts. The price per culvert ranges from $250,000 for a small one, th $800,000 and up for a big'un. Some can go more, depending on where they are. With over 400 to go, at an average $1/2 million each, it looks like $200 million or more for just the construction budget. and so far the federal govt hasnt ponied up a dime.
With an anticipated return of 200,000 additional fish, that's a cost of $1,000 per fish in the first succesful run.
Well, thats about what I've spent so far, so I'm keeping up with the State.
I havent heard the WDFW 's spin on all of this yet, but their rhetorical response is "offshore mortality".
The truth or the matter "according to me" is the offshore fishery. Until an international treaty is ratified which restricts the harvests and methods, all we will achieve is to ranch more fish for the high seas nets. That will require Federal Government action, and frankly I dont believe they have the balls for it. First they would have to send a tough delegation to the bargaining table, then spend hard $$$ for enforcement. The US doesnt have the spine for either action.
All we're doing with habitat improvement is feelgood stuff to keep the lay public happy when they take their Sunday drive out of the city.
Get used to it, folks.
Sorry, that's only 2 cups of coffee worth. Wait till later in the day.

Headhunter, can you send me a breakdown of the costs associated with the culvert replacements. I realize that as a private contractor you have to make a profit, but $250k to $800K to replace a corrugated steel pipe! I am somewhat familiar with the process involved but wow!

My email is:chumkiller@yahoo.com

Thanks ahead of time

Chumkiller:
The most simple culvert is a Corrugated Steel or aluminum pipe, or arch culvert. Yes, they are significantly less expensive, but no-one will allow their use in anything but the smallest of streams. And typically the culvert itself is the least expensive element of the improvement.
The culvert of choice for the present is a precast concrete box culvert, which allows natural streambed gravel to be placed in the bottom. For a 60 to 70 foot box culvert, the price is about $80K.including wingwalls and footings, and normally a 2 to 3 month lead time for production.
The bulk of the money is spent on excavation, backfill, streambed remediation and enhancement, traffic control and re-paving the worksite, and other cost elements. The driving factor comes from the prevailing wage rates which are mandated by US & State labor standards, and other direct labor costs. By the time a contractor has sold labor on a project the cost exceeds $50.00 per hour, before Profit.
Welcome to the real world.

It's kinda interesting how pre-Boldt decision the indians were harvesting 2% of the fish. Then, post-Boldt(1974), they went to harvesting 50%(yeah, right) of the fish. Now, their 50% equals what their 2% did, pre-Boldt, because of low returns. DOES ANYONE ELSE SEE A DIRECT CORRELATION HERE??????

Nahh, there is no correlation......it is all those pesky culverts.

Granted environmental factors are at play, years of indiscriminate harvesting, at 50% of estimated amount, and then selling the wild flesh for profit, is also a major-major factor. What gets me is the main reason for the lawsuit is that the tribes want more fish in the rivers, not for altruistic reasons....They want more profit.....MONEY__________very sick


[This message has been edited by KORE (edited 01-18-2001).]

I have a hard time defending the tribes but on this one I feel it's a good thing. If anyone thinks the state has done a good job raise their hands. How long has the endangered species act been looming? What has been done? Nothing except more rampant development alot of which was speeded through to get in before the act took effect. This is only an in for the tribes not really about culverts but an in would mean more decisions based upon fish returns not politics and money.

Head hunter,
Things may be different here in Snohomish County. I haven't heard of the concrete box culvert. All the culverts replaced around here either by the county or Adopt-A-Stream have all been corrugated steel/aluminum round pipes in 8' or 12' diameter size. These have gravel to a depth of 3' in the center. Culverts are used on small stream and the larger ones all have bridges over them because of the width. Is it WDFW that won't let you use them, the county, another state entity, the feds? What rules, regs, ordinances are they using to direct the use of this type strcture? Just curious and trying to educate myself some. I do realize the wage thing. All designed to protect union jobs and such.

Thanks much.

Chumkiller:
The size of the culverts are pretty much determined by stream flow, to satisfy 100 year storm capacities. Then the structure is selected based on backfill weight surcharges and traffic loading.
WSDOT construction spec's are generally applied by all agencies(City, County, State), but WDFW initially approves the design.
Then the whole project is sent to DC for environmental board review, which has taken up to a year. Once that's completed, the project is bid.
Then the successful culvert vendor is required to submit structural calc's for the culvert, which must be approved before fabrication begins. Typically the agencies bid these projects in April, and WDFW allows a window for construction opening in June and closing in October. With turn-around for submittal review and materials procurement, a contractor is hard-pressed to make the completion deadline before the fish start to move.
It's really fun, sometimes.