Quick update on crabbing...

Good: Looks as though it will open this Friday

Bad: Last night took a drive out to Tulalip. Stopped to grab a coke and native pulls up with SIX 55 gallon drums stuffed full of crab. So not only have they shortened crabbing to four days a week (FRI through MON) now you are going to have to work you a$$ off for your limit

UGLY: A new welfare state? Tribes call Puyallups' plan a gamble

By Lynda V. Mapes
Seattle Times staff reporter

As Puyallup tribal members receive the first of their $2,000 checks in a monthly bonanza of casino payouts, leaders of other Washington tribes question the wisdom of those payments — and wonder if their tribes may be forced to follow suit.
Clearly, the Puyallups' success — totaling some $5.6 million a month — has hit a nerve in Indian country. While some tribal leaders worry the easy money may create a new kind of Indian welfare, others say they fear such payments would undermine efforts to build an economic base independent of casino revenue.

And many are concerned that Puyallup tribal members — flush with cash — will be preyed upon.

Saturday, the Tulalip Tribes will vote on whether to approve a one-time, $10,000 casino payment for every tribal member — $21 million in all. And debate over the per-capita system adopted by the Puyallups is all but expected.

Nationally, only 47 of 201 gaming tribes make per-capita payments to members.

The Puyallup Tribe sees the payments as a way to foster independence and share the benefits of its casino equally, says John Weymer, a tribal spokesman. Programs to help tribal members manage their money already are up and running, and a full-time investment counselor may be hired, he said.

The Puyallup tribal council, in a unanimous vote April 14, boosted the monthly per-capita payments to $2,000 from $300 for every man, woman and child in the tribe. For a family of four, that adds up to $96,000 a year. Children's casino checks will be held in trust until they turn 18, except for $300 per child paid monthly to their parents for expenses.

The casino checks are on top of a $20,000 lump-sum payment every tribal member receives at age 21 as his share of a landmark, $162 million land-claim settlement in 1990.

The first batch of big casino checks went out Friday, less than a month before tribal elections in June. News of the payments is still reverberating among tribes statewide.

John McCoy, director of governmental affairs for the Tulalip Tribes, said for years the tribes have felt pressure to adopt so-called per-capita payments, but the idea was always voted down. Like the Puyallups, the Tulalips operate a gambling casino.

The Tulalip debate about per-capita payments may take on a new urgency Saturday because of the precedent set by the Puyallups, McCoy said. Calling money the root of all evil, he said per-capita payments are a bad idea: "I am afraid of the repercussion. Why go to work? Why go to school?

"We don't know how long gaming will be around, so we need to diversify our economic base. We pride ourselves about looking out for the future of our tribal members. We need to leave a legacy."

The tribe has plowed its casino proceeds into a major shopping-center development along Interstate 5, road construction, water and sewer lines, traffic signals, family services, a medical clinic and other necessities.

The Puyallups, on the other hand, are an urban tribe and don't have some of those basic infrastructure needs. They do operate one of the largest tribal medical centers in the region. The tribe also is small, with only about 2,700 members, but the gambling operation is one of the most lucrative of any operated by the state's 14 gaming tribes.

Darrel Hillaire, chairman of the Lummi Nation, which opened the Silver Reef Casino last month, said even if the casino turns a profit, per-capita payments aren't planned. "We feel that we don't want to create another welfare state. ... There is real value in people earning their pay."

Some tribes fear the per-capita payments may also stoke momentum within the state Legislature to expand gambling rights for nontribal cardrooms and minicasinos.

"The sheer volume of revenue is going to tell the powers that be that tribes are well on their way of taking care of their own. There is a success story that others could take advantage of," said Jerry Meninick, tribal-council member for the Yakima Nation.

The Yakima use all their casino revenues for service programs, which would be undercut by per-capita payments because the tribe is so large, with about 10,000 members, said Meninick, who predicted interest in per-capita payments among the Yakima will build nonetheless.

But Meninick wondered about the social effects of a per-capita jackpot. "A lot of people would probably quit school, quit working. There is nothing that would approach that payment except maybe an executive salary."

Meninick says the tribe sees gambling as an uncertain revenue source it hopes to phase out within 20 years. "It is inevitable that the state will allow the same type of gambling we have outside the reservation, and that competition will decrease that revenue. So we are looking at other possibilities to diversify our economy."

Doreen Maloney, member of the Upper Skagit tribal council, echoed that concern. The tribe will break ground on a new golf course in July to complement its hotel and conference center, all attempts to diversify its economic base. "Speaking personally, I do think people will be preyed on; that is a likelihood. Another concern I have is once you set something like this up, do you know that it will continue?"

Not to worry, says Frank Wright, a Puyallup tribal member and general manager of the tribe's cash cow, the Emerald Queen Casino.

The casino, which opened in December 1996, set revenue records nearly each of the last 16 months, including September, Wright said. Gambling-industry experts estimate the Emerald Queen's net profits at $7 million a month.

The Puyallups plan to open a new, $200 million casino in September 2004, with projected net profits of $150 million to $200 million a year. It will be a 360,000-square-foot facility — nearly 10 acres of gambling halls with more than 1,000 video gaming machines and 52 tables; a 250-room hotel, 3,000-square-foot conference space, shopping, and restaurants, including a seafood restaurant encased in an aquarium.

An interim gambling hall, approved by the Washington Gambling Commission last week, will open on the site of the new casino, just east of I-5 in Tacoma, in July. Estimated net revenues: $20 million to $25 million a year.

If anything, the per-capita payments to the tribe's approximately 2,600 members are expected to go up, not down, spokesman Weymer said.

"This is a good thing, not a bad thing. This is a group of people that are trying to be self-sufficient, and they are capitalizing on an entertainment need that the average person goes out of state for. Why not keep that money at home?"

The success of the casino helps not only the Puyallups, but other tribes that lease machines to them, Weymer said. The tribe also has made at least $3.6 million in charitable contributions since the casino opened, he said.

Don't ya just love it? Work your butt off to get by and these people get all this just handed to them.... Time for all the non-indian to stay away from the casinos.

You may enjoy this also.. I love the part where they want the Federal Government to develop a foreign market for wild Salmon for them to make more $$$...Off course with our tax dollars.

http://www.heraldnet.com/Stories/02/5/19/15490664.cfm

Thank God there are still Native American's alive today. Why is it that we non Indians feel that we know what's best for Indians? I think we should cut them some slack and take a look at what we choose to do with our on lives. What about Social Security and the elderly? Seems to me that It could be more useful for the Elderly and the Youth(College)than Social Security and especially Welfare. In todays political and economic climate, I don't see how any of us can try to look down on others that are trying to come up with solutions to some serious problems. But it is always easy to gang up on those Indians
when one needs to feel special. I would love to win a lottery and not have to kill myself
to scrap out a living. I wish all Indians were rich if it was possible. What's wrong with each and every Indian getting and Executive's salary? I think that they probably deserve it for serviving the genocidal treatment they have endured. Lets not forget that there are plenty of other issues that directly effect all of us that can be discuss here without trying to stir the pot with Indian bashing or just plain Racism.
That stuff is not very useful here. To
encourage other's not to go to the Casino because
Indian's could get rich is hateful. People go to Las Vagas every day to make non Indians richer. The Cowboy and Indian war is over. We are not fighting to take their land anymore. I think that we should think about what it would be like to walk a mile in someones elses shoes. Try to look at life from another perspective. It could help us to grow and heal ourselves of useless bitterness. Well that my 2 cents worth. Only trying to make a difference in a complicated World. :p

JohnLee, You think a lot like I do. Excellent reply. Jim Marquis

I am not being hateful and definitely not a racist. Just don't see why some should get everything handed to them while we have Vet's in the streets going without food or shelter. Our older generation can barely make it on our Medicare system and our public schools are crap!!! I have been in three conflicts supporting this country and it's way of life while I did my time in the Army...Whoooa! (Saudi, Somalia, Haiti..and the People of Miami after Hurricane Andrew). I think that I am just as much of a NATIVE AMERICAN as anyone!

Now you can take the article anyway you see fit. But I think that our tax dollars should be going to the people that need it the most. I agree there should be some sort of compensation for the Native Americans but last time I checked if you were born here doesn't that make you native???

I didn't put this post up to get you all pissed. It was mainly for the fact that even though OUR NATIVE salmon species are dwindling and because of the farm raised fish that the local tribes are "loosing money". And they want the Federal Government to develop a foreign market for the wild fish with our tax dollars. How's about using some of the money they are making and try to develop a market themselves?

Maybe they can slow down on the netting and keep up with the times? If they (commercial and tribal) don't come up with something else there will be no fish left! With the population growing we WILL need to find more ways to keep feeding people!

Keep your head in the sand and think that I am just bashing the Indians. Things that happened in the past are just that...The past. We can learn from them and move on and we will all be better people.

Now go fishin'

Thank you for your edification Pmartin. And remember many of us non-Indian peoples are not "palefaces." Yes I have served my country. I am also concerned about where my tax dollars go. Nonetheless, my a$$ may be pale, but definitely not my face.

Gotcha Ho. I put that up there not meaning to offend. Hope I didn't. Anyway, it's gone now.

you want to talk about racism, "natives get to net, white man dont, natives in idaho have there own fish hatchery, white man cant even keep "there" fish that "my" tax dollars paid for, if i did catch one othe the "tribes" fish, i would keep it, i dont really care.. they dint invent the fish, and they get to hunt all year round, get free housing, thats so blatanly racist.. using nets that werent available back in 1800's and sumthing when it all went down..im about 1/4 cherokee but that dont mean crap..where my money eh' who cares, atleast i work and make a living and am not to lazy to work for it, and that im thankful for.. **berkley boy**

Interesting article, and good for the Puyallup Tribe and their business success. That is great. However, I agree that there must come a time when the hard-earned money of the general public no longer goes to Native American people.

The treatment that they endured has long since passed, yet they still get special treatment regarding fishing, hunting, taxes, business opportunities, jobs (affirmative action), etc.. There is a lot of racist feelings toward these people which is sad, yet they seem to propagate many of these feelings by constantly pursuing more "hand-outs" as payment for what the white man has done in the past. Then they segregate themselves in tribal schools, or go whaling as a way to preserve their heritage.

When is enough going to be enough? Times have changed. The "Native American" people need to start acting like "American" people and take responsibility for themselves. Instead of crying foul and profiting on the treatment of their ancestors, they need to be treated and behave like any other citizen of this great country.

Hell, I'm Polish. Remember 1938? Maybe I will go to Germany and get to hunt and fish whenever and however I want, and get thousands of dollars each year, as repayment for the way the Nazi's treated my people.

Sounds silly doesn't it?

Folks, I read this thread and it sounds like jealousy. Do the Indians have "special rights"? Yes, they do - they are called treaty rights. For better or for worse, the courts have consistently ruled that treaty rights are the most powerful rights of all, even more powerful than birth rights. I don't know whether the government intended to honor the treaties when they signed, but sign they did. Because those papers survived, the Indians of today have those special treaty rights. We all know what that means in regards to fishing and hunting. It also gives them the opportunity to put Casinos on tribal land. The Puyallups' payment is from the Emerald Queen. They made the money, it is there's to do with what they will. I may not like it, but I've got to suck it up. My forefathers signed a treaty and I am required to uphold it. Kind of makes you wonder - don't it? We may want to enter into agreements with Tribes to buy back fishing rights, etc. We need to think long and hard about this bearing in mind the law of unintended consequences. Remember, in our society, treaty rights reign supreme.

I dont speak up very often on this BB, Usually someone else says it for me, and before I can get it out... I guess I dont type fast enough.
I'm really happy for the Puyallup people. The Casino is finally doing what it was intended to do. I'm guessing that they are not even disbursing the principal, only interest on their deposits. And for just a moment take the time to think about how much money is really going to an individual tribal member... It amounts to only about $24,000 per year. For a household with only one tribal member, that's not a lot. Two or more in a household, however, the amount begins to get a little nicer.
The Puyallup have cut off tribal enrollment of new members, based on a blood quota of (I think) 1/8 or so, maybe 1/16. So unless both parents of a newborn are from the tribe, their kid wont be eligible for enrollment, or benefits, if I have it right. SO the disbursement is probably a finite matter, and wont continue too far into the future.
It may serve to reduce the tribal commercial fishery, in all but the most plentiful of seasons. Hopefully they will continue to fish for subsistence, I'd hate to see them forget how to fish to feed their families. It's a heritage thing... But if anyone thinks this will solve the problem of reduced runs, well, you're living in a vacuum.
The United States government did not honor the treaties of 1854, and that's precisely why there is a tribal commercial fishery at the present. By 1865 the tribes were living in complete squalor as the result of shifted government spending priorities, due to the Civil War. The (then) Superintendent of the territorial Bureau of Indian Affairs advised the tribes to begin commercial fishing, as the only apparent viable way to support themselves. When Boldt made his decision in 1974(?) he also had to consider that the tribes had traditionally potlatched fish in the ancient world, and that evolved to become a commercial harvest in the modern world.
Enough said on the topic for now, I dont want to see another round of Indian bashing begin on this BB.

As far as what the tribe does with their money, it’s theirs to do with as they please they earned it and if they wish to burn it so be it. An old saying I once heard “Word is bond” meaning we promised the Indians those rights through a treaty and we must stick to our word. Were things different back then, yes, do I think the treaty is helping to destroy our fisheries, yes. Should we honor the treaty, yes, otherwise our word as citizens of the US means nothing. Should we work with the tribes to revise the treaty in a manner that is good for the tribes, and the fisheries, yes.

I am just waiting for the day when the casinos hire tribal members at a great wage. I mean wages that would make the people stringing the nets across the river want to flock to the casino for a job.

If Ive got this right, you alll see a correlation between tribal casinos, tribal members casino cash disbursements, and tribal commercial fishing.
Could be right, maybe.
If all it took to suspend tribal commercial fishing, was the almighty $buck, it could only cost about $4.8 billion per year. In the scheme of all things federal, thats not a lot, but the federal fish guys would rather spend that money in a manner more self-perpetuating and benefical. Besides, federal $$ is a simple matter of power brokerage, and the Pacific Northwest doesnt have that much influence or clout.
And with the onset of commercial fish ranching, commercial "wild" fishing may become all but extinct, before the runs do. So what's the problem?
The problem is that the most harmful tribal fishery is not the tribal indians themselves, but non-indians, somehow connected to the tribes by marriage or whatever, fishing because that's the only way they know to make a living, or at least the easiest. They dont qualify for federal $$ or casino $$, so they'll continue to fish, and regardless of the price per lb.. If the price is down, they'll simply harvest more to make up the $difference.
Then there's the international fishery on the high seas. You aint seen a war like the one we could start by shutting them down. There are simply too many mouths to feed on the western rim of the pacific, dependent upon "our" salmon, who dont care about our petty little domestic problems.
Another day I'll get into the matter of predation by protected marine mammals, but right now Ive got writers cramp.
I wasnt gonna post this, but this morning's coffe got the best of me. So, so much for one man's point of view...

Don't get me wrong, I am very happy for the Puyallup Tribe and the opportunity that they have built into a great business. Hopefully other tribes will follow suit. But as I said earlier, times have changed.

In most cases, the treaties that give Native Americans the special hunting the fishing rights were written and signed over 100 years ago. Don't you think that our natual resources have significantly changed since then?

I am not blaming the native people for these changes. In fact, it has been the careless treatment of our resources (over-fishing, dams, and development in the name of progress) by all of us that has resulted in the predicament that we are facing. We can blame all of this on ourselves.

My point is that the treaties are out-dated in our current environment. The United States has historically backed out of treaties when they no longer have merit in this ever-changing world. In fact, we are about to back out of a weapons-ban treaty in order to develop a national missile defense system (and pissing off a lot of countries by doing so).

Now that we are finally getting strict on commercial and sport fishermen to help protect this resource, don't you think that it is time to take a hard look at these treaty rights?

Certainly there must be a balance. What the Puyallup Tribe is doing is a great example. Maybe help the tribes develop other businesses and opportunities in trade for tighter restrictions on their fishing and hunting rights.

I don't have the answers. But I do think that there needs to be some changes made.

1. It's their money...they can do whatever they want with it. It is not "our" tax money, and it has absolutely no connections to any rights or privileges that tribal members have through federal treaty rights.

2. There is only one provision in the U.S. v. Washington case (the "Boldt" decision) that talks about ending the 50/50 split of harvestable fish, and that is when treaty right holders are making a moderate level of income. That hasn't been defined in any court case, yet, but $96,000 a year for a family of four sounds like more than moderate to me.

Remember, there are two reasons why treaty fishermen fish, one minor and one major. The minor one is the one that gets all the lip service, and that's to preserve tribal identity and heritage. The major one is money.

If they don't need the money from fishing, which doesn't make all that much anyway, then they'll fish less. Why would anyone on this board complain about that possibility?

Most everyone has some sort of privilege that others don't have, and most everyone takes advantage of it. That folks like someone else's privilege better than their own doesn't change that.

Go fishing!

Fish on...

Todd.

"2. There is only one provision in the U.S. v. Washington case (the "Boldt" decision) that talks about ending the 50/50 split of harvestable fish, and that is when treaty right holders are making a moderate level of income. That hasn't been defined in any court case, yet, but $96,000 a year for a family of four sounds like more than moderate to me."

Horse Pucky!!!

There is nothing in any of the Stevens' Treaties signed with Western Washington tribes that says a single thing about MODERATE INCOME. Neither is there any mention of that in the Boldt decision. While there has always been a commercial aspect to indian fishing (trading with eastern washington and plains indians) no one has ever attempted to but a monetary value on the treaty right, because its priceless.

There also is no trap door to the Boldt Decision, no way for the 50/50 split to come to an end.

Quinault Treaty http://www.nwifc.org/tribes/treaties/tquinault.asp

Treaty of Medicine Creek http://www.nwifc.org/tribes/treaties/tmedcreek.asp

Treaty of Neah Bay http://www.nwifc.org/tribes/treaties/tneahbay.asp

Treaty of Point Elliott http://www.nwifc.org/tribes/treaties/tpointell.asp

Treaty of Point No Point http://www.nwifc.org/tribes/treaties/tpnp.asp

Boldt Decision http://www.ccrh.org/comm/river/legal/boldt.htm

Diego - Welcome! Way to jump right on in there!

All I ask of them is that I'm allowed to win more often (with larger jackpots, preferrably) in their casinos.

7 mill a month profit? Man, this state has got to get some of these babies goin for ourselves! Minimum, we got to allow prostitution on the rezies, think of the denero they could be makin then! Drugs too, may as well make um legal on the Rez. Think of it, indians sellin gambling, drugs, sex to whities, ultimate revenge, I say. God, they could payout 10 grand a month to each, then they could hire mexicans to do their lawns! Oh but, no Indians could work as prostitutes, only little oriental gals. And the drugs, only smack and crack. We got to have some regs in there somewhere.

Chill, Diego!!

It's in the post-trial orders from the entire body of cases referred to as the "Boldt Decision". It has nothing to do with the value of treaty fishing, which, as you stated, has no price...

I'm out of town for a week or so, but I'll post it up here for you when I get back...

I have only one question for the folks who are sending out the money for casino profits to its members. The same folks who are fixing street lights, roads, medical facilities,etc,etc, How many millions of dollars in profits are going to your fish programs. Remember the same fish that you will go to battle to preserve your right to harvest even in the bleakest of times. The same fish that you claim to be the back bone of your heritage. The salmon are the driving force of your existance I hear this statement every time the salmon harvest issue comes up. IDEA!!!!! How about taking all your profits and dumping them into your fisheries and then bring back your heritage where you can support your family and the tribe with the abundance of this important resource? Your kids could grow up learning the ways of their ancestors and continue on with that tradition.Hows this sound every member gets a check from the profits of your abundant fishery programs. maybe even sell sportfishing rights for the surplus of harvest. The muckelshoot tribe gives less than 1% to the fishery program. This vital historic tradition is worth only 1% something is wrong here...
en in the bleakest times