Who can tell me if Indians have special fishing rights as guides? Can they act as a commercial fishing guide on reservation lands and take none Indians out on guided fishing trips? If so, does any of the fish that their clients catch or take come out of that 50% allotment?

It is my understanding that the tribes are entitled to 50% of the harvestable fish where they have established traditional fishing rights. If that is true, can they take none Indians people out to catch or harvest their 50% on their reservation water? I have been reading a few RCW's and I am a little confused about this issue.

I am looking forward to hearing what some of your answers may be!

Cowlitzfisherman

It seems to me that if a non-Tribal individual fishes with a Tribal guide and retains the fish, then it should count against the non-tribal allotment.

If the guide kept the fish, then it should count against the Tribal allotment.

4Salt
Don't they have special seasons on certain rivers when only the tribes are allowed to harvest?

Cowlitzfisherman

I believe that most, if not all rivers that do not flow through a reservation have fishing open to both sport and Tribal commercial at the same time, except where specific treaty issues come into play. In the Columbia river for example, the sport fishing as you know usually happens below Bonneville dam (springer season) and the Tribes net the river above. I don't think that any of the Columbia river treaty tribes offer guided sportfishing in areas where it's not legal for non-Tribals to fish anyway?

I'm not familiar with any situation where a river was closed to sport harvest completely, but was open to Tribal guiding. Except of course the Quinault, or maybe the Sooes, or any river where fisheries decisions for that river are made exclusively by a particular tribe, and the State has no jurisdiction.

I am confused about that too., but it seems to me that it should count towards there 50%
because you are paying them to for the fish you catch on there reservation. A non native guides catch for his clients count as part of the sport catch not commercial even though money is changing hands. I dont know

Here is where I am a bit confused! RCW 77.15.570 states; " Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, it is unlawful for a person who is not a treaty Indian fisherman to participate in the taking of fish or shellfish in a treaty Indian fishery, or to be on board a vessel, or associated equipment, operating in a treaty Indian fishery. A violation of this subsection is a gross misdemeanor." As you can read it goes on to say;". . . (c) "To participate" and its derivatives mean an effort to operate a vessel or fishing equipment, provide immediate supervision in the operation of a vessel or fishing equipment, or otherwise assist in the fishing operation, to claim possession of a share of the catch, or to represent that the catch was lawfully taken in an Indian fishery."

The last time I checked, "Rod and reels were considered to be "fishing equipment"! And then you add this; "to claim possession of a share of the catch, or to represent that the catch was lawfully taken in an Indian fishery" spells trouble for the client!

If any parts of these fish are coming from a tribal allotment, then the none-Indian who is paying an Indian would appear to be in big trouble according to this unknown or seldom read law!


RCW 77.15.570
Participation of non-Indians in Indian fishery forbidden -- Exceptions, definitions, penalty.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, it is unlawful for a person who is not a treaty Indian fisherman to participate in the taking of fish or shellfish in a treaty Indian fishery, or to be on board a vessel, or associated equipment, operating in a treaty Indian fishery. A violation of this subsection is a gross misdemeanor.
(2) A person who violates subsection (1) of this section with the intent of acting for commercial purposes, including any sale of catch, control of catch, profit from catch, or payment for fishing assistance, is guilty of a class C felony. Upon conviction, the department shall order revocation of any license and a one-year suspension of all commercial fishing privileges requiring a license under chapter 77.65 or 77.70 RCW.
(3)(a) The spouse, forebears, siblings, children, and grandchildren of a treaty Indian fisherman may assist the fisherman in exercising treaty Indian fishing rights when the treaty Indian fisherman is present at the fishing site.
(b) Other treaty Indian fishermen with off-reservation treaty fishing rights in the same usual and accustomed places, whether or not the fishermen are members of the same tribe or another treaty tribe, may assist a treaty Indian fisherman in exercising treaty Indian fishing rights when the treaty Indian fisherman is present at the fishing site.
(c) Biologists approved by the department may be on board a vessel operating in a treaty Indian fishery.
(4) For the purposes of this section:
(a) "Treaty Indian fisherman" means a person who may exercise treaty Indian fishing rights as determined under United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974), or Sohappy v. Smith, 302 F. Supp. 899 (D. Oregon 1969), and post-trial orders of those courts;
(b) "Treaty Indian fishery" means a fishery open to only treaty Indian fishermen by tribal or federal regulation;
(c) "To participate" and its derivatives mean an effort to operate a vessel or fishing equipment, provide immediate supervision in the operation of a vessel or fishing equipment, or otherwise assist in the fishing operation, to claim possession of a share of the catch, or to represent that the catch was lawfully taken in an Indian fishery.
(5) A violation of this section constitutes illegal fishing and is subject to the suspensions provided for commercial fishing violations

RE: RCW 77.15.570

I am not sure about the guides and guiding or who's alotment it comes out of, but the mentioned RCW is got to do with Commercial netting/Troll/Seine etc.... as I understand it.

I can't recall where this was talked about but thats what the RCW 77.15.570 was for, commercial fisheries.

Sport fishing in not considered commercial, for this RCW.

So the natives can not guide in this fisheries, it is for commercia lpurpose only.

So if you are Non-Native you can not do any of the mentioned in the RCW involving the commercial fisheries.

Drivers

If what you say is true, then RCW.15. 510 is in direct conflict! Since there is no legislative intent mention on this RCW, why apply that logic to this law.

Check out these and let me known what you think.

RCW 77.15.510
Commercial fish guiding or chartering without a license -- Penalty.
(1) A person is guilty of commercial fish guiding or chartering without a license if:
(a) The person operates a charter boat and does not hold the charter boat license required for the food fish taken;
(b) The person acts as a professional salmon guide and does not hold a professional salmon guide license; or
(c) The person acts as a game fish guide and does not hold a game fish guide license.
(2) Commercial fish guiding or chartering without a license is a gross misdemeanor.

Or:
RCW 77.65.010
Commercial licenses and permits required -- Exemption.
(1) Except as otherwise provided by this title, a person may not engage in any of the following activities without a license or permit issued by the director:
(a) Commercially fish for or take food fish or shellfish;
(b) Deliver food fish or shellfish taken in offshore waters;
(c) Operate a charter boat or commercial fishing vessel engaged in a fishery;
(d) Engage in processing or wholesaling food fish or shellfish; or
(e) Act as a guide for salmon for personal use in freshwater rivers and streams, other than that part of the Columbia river below the bridge at Longview.
(2) No person may engage in the activities described in subsection (1) of this section unless the licenses or permits required by this title are in the person's possession, and the person is the named license holder or an alternate operator designated on the license and the person's license is not suspended.
(3) A valid Oregon license that is equivalent to a license under this title is valid in the concurrent waters of the Columbia river if the state of Oregon recognizes as valid the equivalent Washington license. The director may identify by rule what Oregon licenses are equivalent.
(4) No license or permit is required for the production or harvesting of private sector cultured aquatic products as defined in RCW 15.85.020 or for the delivery, processing, or wholesaling of such aquatic products. However, if a means of identifying such products is required by rules adopted under RCW 15.85.060, the exemption from licensing or permit requirements established by this subsection applies only if the aquatic products are identified in conformance with those rules.
[1998 c 190 § 93; 1997 c 58 § 883; 1993 c 340 § 2; 1991 c 362 § 1; 1985 c 457 § 18; 1983 1st ex.s. c 46 § 101; 1959 c 309 § 2; 1955 c 12 § 75.28.010. Prior: 1949 c 112 § 73; Rem. Supp. 1949 § 5780-511. Formerly RCW 75.28.010.]
NOTES:
Short title -- Part headings, captions, table of contents not law -- Exemptions and waivers from federal law -- Conflict with federal requirements -- Severability -- 1997 c 58: See RCW 74.08A.900 through 74.08A.904.
Effective dates -- Intent--1997 c 58: See notes following RCW 74.20A.320.
Finding -- Intent -- 1993 c 340: "The legislature finds that the laws governing commercial fishing licensing in this state are highly complex and increasingly difficult to administer and enforce. The current laws governing commercial fishing licenses have evolved slowly, one section at a time, over decades of contention and changing technology, without general consideration for how the totality fits together. The result has been confusion and litigation among commercial fishers. Much of the confusion has arisen because the license holder in most cases is a vessel, not a person. The legislature intends by this act to standardize licensing criteria, clarify licensing requirements, reduce complexity, and remove inequities in commercial fishing licensing. The legislature intends that the license fees stated in this act shall be equivalent to those in effect on January 1, 1993, as adjusted under section 19, chapter 316, Laws of 1989." [1993 c 340 § 1.]

So what do you think now?

Cowlitzfisherman

because the quinult river is on the res. wa. state law and rules do not govern.

I think you got it Larry. The state has little juristication on tribal land and the laws pertain to non-tribal state lands. The federal courts deal with tribal matters. It would make an interesting case if brought to court.

On the Rez there are no rules. Your tax money helps to pay for the fishery on the Quinault but you have no say in that fishery. If any one of you think the RCW stuff applies on the Rez you better smoke another bowl and chill out.

Also will all of you who think the tribes get 50% and it is strictly enforced please raise your pathetic, ignorant hands. Ask WDFW how many fish a certain tribe has taken in a given fishery sometime and see what you get.

Absolutely no one counts the fish taken by tribal guides on tribal lands. No license....no quotas...no ****

We know grandpa we know but what do we do about it? Everything from stripping eggs out of fish and leaving the carcasses Hoodsport, Puyallup, Mcallister,Nisqually ECT, to Indian kids Snagging fish on the Sko that the Indian tribal police say they don't do.
What do we do?
Ramprat

Even my friend Eddie says that the Boldt decision is the law of the land so we must just live with it. I do not agree. I agree that it is the law and I do agree that treaties are federal and therefore cannot be changed by anything a state does. I do not agree that we are stuck with this lopsided attempt at reparations. The politics of appeasement and "feel good" political correctness has gotten us in the fix we're in across the board. The state of Washington has far more power to control our fisheries than is being put to use at this time.

I must say that getting along is preferable to going along. In that I mean that we can probably work with the tribes without letting them have carte blanche to do whatever they please. Alaska is starting to feel the pinch of creeping "rights" being excercised by the tribes up there. Traditionally non-tribal fisheries like King crab and sea urchin harvest are now under the 50% umbrella. It starts small and is growing and growing and growing every year. Under the bleeding heart liberal lack of leadership in this state we have watched the tribes virtually take control of the WDFW and the North of Falcon season setting process.

What do we do? The hardest thing for sports fishermen to do in the world! Get involved. Step off the sidelines and join a club, write letters, express your opinion to politicians and for heaven's sake VOTE....Find out who your friends are in politics and vote for them. Find out who your enemies are and vote against them. Discover the facts about tribal excesses and document them and inform your elected officials.

Cowlitz,


Yes , I don't get it.
I think some one had this issue brought up during the Net ban initiative at a meeting here in seattle
I still have it in my head that RCW 77.15.510 rules were set for the commercial (troll,netting etc...).For non trinal members and tribal.

These rules don't really apply for the "sport "bussiness end of it done by the tribes. It has nothing to do with any rod/reel guiding or allocation..

It has something to do to keep other commercial or private individual from working ,
visiting or any other involvement while they are commercially harvesting with nets. In so many words.

Sorry Cowlitz, thats the best I can come up with for now. Let me ask around her and see if any one else knows a little more about this so lay people like me can fully understand it

.

This ones for commercial
------------------------------------------------------------
SENATE BILL 5163
_____________________________________________

State of Washington 58th Legislature 2003 Regular Session

By Senators Doumit, Swecker, Hargrove, Reardon, Regala, Jacobsen and
Franklin

Read first time 01/16/2003. Referred to Committee on Parks, Fish &
Wildlife.


AN ACT Relating to commercial fishing violations; amending RCW 77.15.700;
adding new sections to chapter 77.15 RCW; and creating a new section.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

{+ NEW SECTION. +} Sec. 1. (1)(a) The legislature finds that existing law
as it relates to the suspension of commercial fishing licenses does not take
into account the real-life circumstances faced by the state's commercial fishing
fleets. The nature of the commercial fishing industry, together with the
complexity of fisheries regulations, is such that honest mistakes can be made
by well-meaning and otherwise law-abiding fishers. Commercial fishing
violations that occur within an acceptable margin of error should not result in
the suspension of fishing privileges. Likewise, fishers facing the possibility
of license suspension or revocation deserve the opportunity to explain any
extenuating circumstances prior to having his or her professional privileges
suspended.
(b) The legislature intends, by creating the license suspension review
committee, to provide a fisher with the opportunity to explain any extenuating
circumstances that led to a commercial fishing violation. The legislature
intends for the license suspension review committee to give serious
considerations to the case-specific facts and scenarios leading up to a
violation, and for the license suspension review committee to only issue license
suspensions when the facts indicate a willful act that undermines the
conservation of fish stocks. Frivolous violations should not result in the
suspension of privileges, and should be punished only by the criminal sanctions
attached to the underlying crime.
(2)(a) The legislature further finds that gross abuses of fish stocks
should not be tolerated. Individuals convicted of even one violation that is
egregious in nature, causing serious detriment to a fishery or the competitive
disposition of other fishers, should have his or her license suspended and
revoked.
(b) The legislature intends for the license suspension review committee to
take egregious fisheries' violations seriously. When dealing with individuals
convicted of only one violation, the license suspension review committee should
only consider suspension for individuals that are convicted of violations that
are of a severe magnitude and show a wanton disregard for the public's resource.

Sec. 2. RCW 77.15.700 and 2001 c 253 s 46 are each amended to read as
follows:
The department shall impose revocation and suspension of privileges upon
conviction in the following circumstances:
(1) If directed by statute for an offense;
(2) If the department finds that actions of the defendant demonstrated a
willful or wanton disregard for conservation of fish or wildlife. Such
suspension of privileges may be permanent{+ . This subsection (2) does not
apply to violations involving commercial fishing +};
(3) If a person is convicted twice within ten years for a violation
involving unlawful hunting, killing, or possessing big game, the department
shall order revocation and suspension of all hunting privileges for two years.
RCW 77.12.722 or 77.16.050 as it existed before June 11, 1998, may comprise one
of the convictions constituting the basis for revocation and suspension under
this subsection;
(4) If a person is convicted three times in ten years of any violation of
recreational hunting or fishing laws or rules, the department shall order a
revocation and suspension of all recreational hunting and fishing privileges for
two years(({- ;
(5) If a person is convicted twice within five years of a gross misdemeanor
or felony involving unlawful commercial fish or shellfish harvesting, buying,
or selling, the department shall impose a revocation and suspension of the
person's commercial fishing privileges for one year. A commercial fishery
license revoked under this subsection may not be used by an alternate operator
or transferred during the period of suspension -})).

{+ NEW SECTION. +} Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 77.15 RCW
to read as follows:
(1) If a person is convicted of two or more qualifying commercial fishing
violations within a three-year period, the person's privileges to participate
in the commercial fishery to which the license suspension applied may be
suspended by the director for up to one year. A commercial fishery license that
is suspended under this section may not be transferred after the director issues
a notice of suspension, or used by an alternative operator or transferred during
the period of suspension.
(2) For the purposes of this section only, "qualifying commercial fishing
violation" means either:
(a) A conviction under RCW 77.15.500, 77.15.510, 77.15.520, 77.15.530,
77.15.550(1)(a), 77.15.570, 77.15.580, or 77.15.590;
(b) A gross misdemeanor or felony involving commercial fish harvesting,
buying, or selling that is unlawful under the terms of the license, this title,
or the rules issued pursuant to this title, if the quantity of unlawfully
harvested, possessed, bought, or sold fish either: (i) Totals greater than four
percent of the harvest available for inspection at the time of citation if the
harvest involves fifty or more individual fish; or (ii) are fish other than
groundfish valued at more than two hundred fifty dollars, or groundfish valued
at more than one hundred seventy-five dollars, at the time of citation if the
harvest involves less than fifty individual fish; or
(c) A gross misdemeanor or felony involving commercial shellfish
harvesting, buying, or selling that is unlawful under the terms of the license,
this title, or the rules issued pursuant to this title, if the quantity of
unlawfully harvested, possessed, bought, or sold shellfish: (i) Totals greater
than six percent of the harvest available for inspection at the time of
citation; and (ii) totals fifty or more individual shellfish.
(3)(a) The director may refer a person convicted of one qualifying
commercial fishing violation to the license suspension review committee if the
director feels that the qualifying commercial fishing violation was of a severe
enough magnitude to justify suspension of the individual's license renewal
privileges.
(b) The director may refer any person convicted of one egregious shellfish
violation to the license suspension review committee.
(c) For the purposes of this section only, "egregious shellfish violation"
means a gross misdemeanor or felony involving commercial shellfish harvesting,
buying, or selling that is unlawful under the terms of the license, this title,
or the rules issued pursuant to this title, if the quantity of unlawfully
harvested, possessed, bought, or sold shellfish: (i) Totals more than twenty
percent of the harvest available for inspection at the time of citation; (ii)
totals five hundred or more individual shellfish; and (iii) is valued at two
thousand five hundred dollars or more.
(4) A person who has a commercial fishing license suspended or revoked
under this section may file an appeal with the license suspension review
committee pursuant to section 4 of this act. An appeal must be filed within
thirty-one days of notice of license suspension or revocation. If an appeal is
filed, the suspension or revocation issued by the department does not take
effect until after the license suspension review committee has come to a final
conclusion. If no appeal is filed within thirty-one days of notice of license
suspension or revocation, the right to an appeal is considered waived. All
suspensions ordered under this section take effect either thirty- one days
following the conviction for the second qualifying commercial fishing violation,
or upon a final decision ordered by the license suspension review committee,
whichever is later.
(5) A fishing privilege suspended under this section is in addition to the
statutory penalties assigned to the underlying crime.
(6) For the purposes of this section only, the burden is on the state to
show the dollar amount or the percent of a harvest that is comprised of
unlawfully harvested, bought, or sold individual fish or shellfish.

{+ NEW SECTION. +} Sec. 4. A new section is added to chapter 77.15 RCW
to read as follows:
(1) The license suspension review committee is created. The license
suspension review committee may only hear appeals from commercial fishers who
have had a license revoked or suspended pursuant to section 3 of this act.
(2)(a) The license suspension review committee is composed of five voting
members and up to four alternates.
(b) Two of the members must be appointed by the director and may be
department employees.
(c) Three members, and up to four alternates, must be peer-group members,
who are individuals owning a commercial fishing license issued by the
department. If a peer-group member appears before the license suspension review
committee because of a qualifying commercial fishing violation, the member must
recuse himself or herself from the proceedings relating to that violation. No
two voting peer-group members may reside in the same county. All peer-group
members must be appointed by the commission, who may accept recommendations from
professional organizations that represent commercial fishing interests or from
the legislative authority of any Washington county.
(d) All license suspension review committee members serve a two- year
renewable term.
(e) The commission may develop minimum member standards for service on the
license suspension review committee, and standards for terminating a member
before the expiration of his or her term.
(3) The license suspension review committee must convene and make a final
decision on a license renewal suspension within three months of referral from
the department.
(4) The license suspension review committee shall collect the information
and hear the testimony that it feels necessary to decide on the proper length,
if any, of a suspension of a commercial license. The decisions may be based on
extenuating circumstances presented by the individual convicted of the
qualifying commercial fishing violation or considerations of the type and
magnitude of violations that have been committed by the individual. The maximum
length of any suspension may not exceed one year.
(5) All decisions of the license suspension review committee must be
decided by a majority vote of all voting members. Alternate committee members
may only vote when one of the voting members is unavailable, has been recused,
or has decided not to vote on the case before the committee. Nonvoting
alternates may be present and may participate at all license suspension review
committee meetings.
(6) All decisions of the license suspension review committee are final,
except for judicial review.
(7) Members of the license suspension review committee serve as volunteers,
and are not eligible for compensation other than travel expenses pursuant to RCW
43.03.050 and 43.03.060.
(8) Staff of the license suspension review committee must be provided by
the department.

--- END ---


------------------------------------------------------------
THIS ONES FOR GUIDING
_______________________________________________

SENATE BILL 5439
_______________________________________________

State of Washington 57th Legislature 2001 Regular Session

By Senators Jacobsen and Morton; by request of Department of Fish and
Wildlife

Read first time 01/23/2001. Referred to Committee on Natural
Resources, Parks & Shorelines.
AN ACT Relating to fishing guides; and amending RCW 77.65.010,
77.65.150, 77.65.370, 77.65.440, and 77.65.480.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

Sec. 1. RCW 77.65.010 and 1998 c 190 s 93 are each amended to read
as follows:
(1) Except as otherwise provided by this title, a person may not
engage in any of the following activities without a license or permit
issued by the director:
(a) Commercially fish for or take food fish or shellfish;
(b) Deliver food fish or shellfish taken in offshore waters;
(c) Operate a charter boat or commercial fishing vessel engaged in
a fishery;
(d) Engage in processing or wholesaling food fish or shellfish; or
(e) Act as a {+ fishing +} guide (({- for salmon for personal use -
})) in freshwater rivers and streams, other than that part of the
Columbia river below the bridge at Longview.
(2) No person may engage in the activities described in subsection
(1) of this section unless the licenses or permits required by this
title are in the person's possession, and the person is the named
license holder or an alternate operator designated on the license and
the person's license is not suspended.
(3) A valid Oregon license that is equivalent to a license under
this title is valid in the concurrent waters of the Columbia river if
the state of Oregon recognizes as valid the equivalent Washington
license. The director may identify by rule what Oregon licenses are
equivalent.
(4) No license or permit is required for the production or
harvesting of private sector cultured aquatic products as defined in
RCW 15.85.020 or for the delivery, processing, or wholesaling of such
aquatic products. However, if a means of identifying such products is
required by rules adopted under RCW 15.85.060, the exemption from
licensing or permit requirements established by this subsection applies
only if the aquatic products are identified in conformance with those
rules.

Sec. 2. RCW 77.65.150 and 2000 c 107 s 36 are each amended to read
as follows:
(1) The director shall issue the charter licenses and angler
permits listed in this section according to the requirements of this
title. The licenses and permits and their annual fees and surcharges
are:

License or PermitAnnual FeeGoverning
(RCW 77.95.090 Surcharge)Section

ResidentNonresident

(a) Nonsalmon charter$225$375
(b) Salmon charter$380$685RCW 77.70.050
(plus $100)(plus $100)
(c) Salmon angler$ 0$ 0RCW 77.70.060
(d) Salmon roe$ 95 $ 95RCW 77.65.350

(2) A salmon charter license designating a vessel is required to
operate a charter boat to take salmon, other food fish, and shellfish.
The director may issue a salmon charter license only to a person who
meets the qualifications of RCW 77.70.050.
(3) A nonsalmon charter license designating a vessel is required to
operate a charter boat to take food fish other than salmon and
shellfish. As used in this subsection, "food fish" does not include
salmon.
(4) "Charter boat" means a vessel from which persons may, for a
fee, fish for food fish{+ , game fish, +} or shellfish for personal
use, and that brings food fish or shellfish into state ports or brings
food fish or shellfish taken from state waters into United States
ports. The director may specify by rule when a vessel is a "charter
boat" within this definition. "Charter boat" does not mean a vessel
used by a guide for clients fishing for food fish {+ or game fish +}
for personal use in freshwater rivers, streams, and lakes, other than
Lake Washington or that part of the Columbia River below the bridge at
Longview.
(5) A charter boat licensed in Oregon may fish without a Washington
charter license under the same rules as Washington charter boat
operators in ocean waters within the jurisdiction of Washington state
from the southern border of the state of Washington to Leadbetter
Point, as long as the Oregon vessel does not land at any Washington
port with the purpose of taking on or discharging passengers. The
provisions of this subsection shall be in effect as long as the state
of Oregon has reciprocal laws and regulations.
(6) A salmon charter license under subsection (1)(b) of this
section may be renewed if the license holder notifies the department by
May 1st of that year that he or she will not participate in the fishery
during that calendar year. The license holder must pay the one
hundred-dollar enhancement surcharge, plus a fifteen-dollar handling
charge, in order to be considered a valid renewal and eligible to renew
the license the following year.

Sec. 3. RCW 77.65.370 and 1998 c 190 s 98 are each amended to read
as follows:
(1) A {+ natural +} person shall not offer or perform the services
of a professional (({- salmon -})) {+ fishing +} guide in the taking of
(({- salmon -})) {+ game fish and food fish +} for personal use in
freshwater rivers and streams, other than in that part of the Columbia
river below the bridge at Longview, without a professional (({- salmon
-})) {+ fishing +} guide license.
(2) Only an individual at least sixteen years of age may hold a
professional (({- salmon -})) {+ fishing +} guide license. No
individual may hold more than one professional (({- salmon -})) {+
fishing +} guide license.
{+ (3) The director may specify by rule the requirements for
identifying boats engaged in guiding and other requirements considered
necessary for public safety. +}

Sec. 4. RCW 77.65.440 and 2000 c 107 s 55 are each amended to read
as follows:
The director shall issue the personal licenses listed in this
section according to the requirements of this title. The licenses and
their annual fees are:

Personal LicenseAnnual Fee Governing
(RCW 77.95.090 Surcharge)Section

ResidentNonresident

(1) Alternate Operator$ 35$ 35RCW 77.65.130
(2) Geoduck Diver$185$295RCW 77.65.410
(3) (({- Salmon Guide -}))(({- $130 -}))(({- $630 -}))RCW 77.65.370
{+ Fishing Guide +}{+ $175 +}{+ $620 +}
(plus $20)(plus $100)


Sec. 5. RCW 77.65.480 and 1991 sp.s. c 7 s 4 are each amended to
read as follows:
(1) A taxidermy license allows the holder to practice taxidermy for
profit. The fee for this license is one hundred eighty dollars.
(2) A fur dealer's license allows the holder to purchase, receive,
or resell raw furs for profit. The fee for this license is one hundred
eighty dollars.
(3) (({- A fishing guide license allows the holder to offer or
perform the services of a professional guide in the taking of game
fish. The fee for this license is one hundred eighty dollars for a
resident and six hundred dollars for a nonresident.
(4) -})) A game farm license allows the holder to operate a game
farm to acquire, breed, grow, keep, and sell wildlife under conditions
prescribed by the rules adopted pursuant to this title. The fee for
this license is seventy-two dollars for the first year and forty-eight
dollars for each following year.
(({- (5) -})) {+ (4) +} A game fish stocking permit allows the
holder to release game fish into the waters of the state as prescribed
by rule of the commission. The fee for this permit is twenty-four
dollars.
(({- (6) -})) {+ (5) +} A fishing or field trial permit allows the
holder to promote, conduct, hold, or sponsor a fishing or field trial
contest in accordance with rules of the commission. The fee for a
fishing contest permit is twenty-four dollars. The fee for a field
trial contest permit is twenty-four dollars.
(({- (7) -})) {+ (6) +} An anadromous game fish buyer's license
allows the holder to purchase or sell steelhead trout and other
anadromous game fish harvested by Indian (({- fishermen -})) {+ fishers
+} lawfully exercising fishing rights reserved by federal statute,
treaty, or executive order, under conditions prescribed by rule of the
director. The fee for this license is one hundred eighty dollars.

--- END ---

Cowlitz, my earlier post really had nothing to do with this question, my mistake.

On this question, it seems they can...
like everybody has mentioned the Quinalt tribes do it. I'm guessing that the allotment comes from the tribes ......

Maybe we can call the Quinalt tribe and ask or talk to NOAA.

Okay, since Grandpa brought me up, I feel I must respond. The Boldt decision is the law of the land and like any law it can be changed. However, because the underlying foundation of the Boldt decision is the treaties, it becomes very difficult to change. When both parties to a treaty have standing before American courts, it requires both parties agreement to change it. My guess is that the tribes will not agree to changes that will be to their disadvantage.

In regards to CFM's original question - I would ask another question. When a non-tribal guide takes a client out and catches 2 fish are those fish counted against the commercial take or the sports take? My guess is that it counts against the sports take because the instrument of recording the catch is the punchcard - not a fish landing ticket. I think this is another interesting question and a good arguement could be made that these fish should count against the commercial allocation. Of course, that would only apply to salmon. When you fish the Quinault or the Salmon with an Indian guide you are not required to record the catch on your punchcard and therefore I believe the fish do not count against anyones allocation. BTW, I always record anyway because if I'm checked off reservation, it might be a very interesting conversation with the enforcement officer about why I have non-punched fish!! To each their own.

Interesting thread. I would be even more interested in finding out the qty. of fish that we are talking about - both Indian guides and non-tribal guides. And my esteemed colleague Grandpa is correct, GET INVOLVED. With organizations, political parties, etc. Even if it is just voting (so many don't). If you care, you can't sit on the sidelines. That is why even though I may disagree with Grandpa and CFM from time to time, they have earned my respect because they walk the talk.

At the risk of starting a flamefest......

The "minorities" that get treated differently than the "majority" and get special priviledge (i.e., 3% of population getting 50% of game) is due to nothing more than the Demasculation of America...... We left our "balls" at the counter a long time ago.
A lot of this may be law, but it still is BS, and should have been stopped in its tracks a long time ago.
Equality is not just for minorities, it should be for everyone..... What makes it right for a group (minority) to receive special rights/priviledges when another group does not? Racial inequality is wrong period. We are ALL Americans, we should all be EQUAL!!!!
We can't fish, the indians cant fish.... Period!
BTW, I noticed that crabbing in 8.1 and 8.2 is over in mid-August??? May to August...... But commercial and tribes still crabbed.... Stupid.

MC

MC, there are a lot of things that I wish for. I should be better looking, taller, skinnier, etc, etc, etc. I agree that it would be nice to have equal rights for all. Guess what, the Indians do have special rights, guaranteed by treaty and upheld by the courts. Live with it, work with the Tribes, but if you take the attitude that is expressed in your post - well it reminds me of the old saying - "Wish in one hand and s**t in the other, see which one fills up first"

Eddie

Here's one for you!

You say that there is nothing we can do to stop the tribes from having special fishing privileges. You also said;" I agree that it would be nice to have equal rights for all. Guess what, the Indians do have special rights, guaranteed by treaty and upheld by the courts."

Well, it would appear that you were right until you read what is stated in RCW 77.110.040 Declaration -- Denial of rights based on race, sex, origin, or cultural heritage.

"The people of the state of Washington declare that under the Indians Citizens Act of 1924, all Indians became citizens of the United States and subject to the Constitution and laws of the United States and state in which they reside. The people further declare that any special off-reservation legal rights or privileges of Indians established through treaties that are denied to other citizens were terminated by that 1924 enactment, and any denial of rights to any citizen based upon race, sex, origin, cultural heritage, or by and through any treaty based upon the same is unconstitutional.
No rights, privileges, or immunities shall be denied to any citizen upon the basis of race, sex, origin, cultural heritage, or by and through any treaty based upon the same."
====================================

So one would then think that the state was on the right track, right?

Wrong!

Then you go on to find out that the "state" itself has also created "special laws" that actually gives the Wanapun Indians "special privileges'" that you or I cant not have!

RCW 77.12.453
Salmon fishing by Wanapum (Sokulk) Indians.
"The director may issue permits to members of the Wanapum band of Indians to take salmon for ceremonial and subsistence purposes. The department shall establish the areas in which the permits are valid and shall regulate the times for and manner of taking the salmon. This section does not create a right to fish commercially.
[1983 1st ex.s. c 46 § 27; 1981 c 251 § 2. Formerly RCW 75.08.265, 75.12.310.]
NOTES:
Legislative findings -- 1981 c 251: "The legislature finds that the Sokulk Indians, otherwise known as the Wanapum band of Indians, have made a significant effort to maintain their traditional tribal culture, including the activity of taking salmon for ceremonial and subsistence purposes. The legislature further finds that previously the state has encouraged ceremonial and subsistence fishing by the Wanapums by chapter 210, Laws of 1939 and other permission. Therefore, the intent of the legislature in enacting RCW 75.08.265 is to recognize the cultural importance of salmon fishing to only the Wanapum Indians by authorizing these people a ceremonial and subsistence fishery, while also preserving the state's ability to conserve and manage the salmon resource." [1983 1st ex.s. c 46 § 62; 1981 c 251 § 1. Formerly RCW 75.12.300.]"
==========================================================

So the next time you hear our WDFW saying that there is nothing that they can do because the Federal law gives the Indians special fishing rights, just look them in the eyes and say Bull $hit! Does the word "hypocrisy" fit?

Cowlitzfisherman

Aunty

The point is this:

We need to change our laws if we want to continue to have a productive fishery for sport fishermen. It's the "double standards" that are on our state books that are guiding the down fall of our states fishery!

Nothing, I repeat nothing will ever change until we change the rules that are guiding our rule makers and framing their decisions. I am not against the tribes, nor am I against the people who guide for a living! That's what I did and I have no regrets. Some of my questions were about "quotas", and some are about contradicting laws and rules that are guiding our decision makers.

I have no problem with the Indians guiding, but I do a problem with how our law is written! The way it reads to me now, it’s a double standard! Don't forget that I worked on a special committee when the WDF &WDG made the switch over to WDFW. For months we all went to meeting along with a group of state attorneys and tried to combine the RCW together to correct many of the problems that we are now seeing. Apparently we didn't achieve what we originally had set out to do.

If enough people can see the hypocrisy that remains, it just might be possible to get some of these stupid laws changed. Change is what is now needed to correct our fishing problems and I will continue to do my best to inform the people of what I believe needs to be changed. It's mainly because of these stupid laws that our recovery efforts and sport fishing opportunities continued to be misdirected.

I hope this answers your question! There are no surprises laying in the dark. . . well, maybe just one or two!


Cowlitzfisherman

Not to add fuel to the fire here
That's just my opinion.

Ken

There need to be tighter restrictions on the Indians. That 50% rule was made back when 50% would still leave thousands of fish.

DO THE INDIANS REALLY NEED TO CATCH SALMON WHEN THE MAKE MILLIONS OF DOLLORS IN THE CASINOS?!?!?!?!?!?!

Things need to change. If only one of us would become Mister WDFW.........

Aunty


Cowlitzfisherman

I'm sure it's ALL due to the liberal leadership in this state.

Let's keep to the subject at hand please.

I just couldn't help myself!

I just had to post these last couple of hypocrisy's!


RCW 77.12.760
Steelhead trout fishery.
Steelhead trout shall be managed solely as a recreational fishery for non-Indian fishermen under the rule-setting authority of the fish and wildlife commission.

Does that mean that only 50% will be managed that way?
========================================================


RCW 77.110.030
Management of natural resources -- State policy.
The people of the state of Washington declare that conservation, enhancement, and proper utilization of the state's natural resources, including but not limited to lands, waters, timber, fish, and game are responsibilities of the state of Washington and shall remain within the express domain of the state of Washington.

While fully respecting private property rights, all resources in the state's domain shall be managed by the state alone such that conservation, enhancement, and proper utilization are the primary considerations. No citizen shall be denied equal access to and use of any resource on the basis of race, sex, origin, cultural heritage, or by and through any treaty based upon the same.
Does this also mean only 50% too?

Without doing any bashing, there are a lot questions that need to be answered before any change can be made. Anybody have any good answers?

Cowlitzfisherman

Just call the Supreme Court and tell them that you want the RCW's of this state to override federal law.

Simple.

CFM,

Answers to your questions:

No, Indians do not have special rights under Washington State or federal law as fishing guides.

Washington State law does not apply to fishing on Indian reservations, except under the most extreme conservation situation; i.e. treaty Indians may not harvest the last spawning salmon or steelhead.

Indians may act as fishing guides on a reservation with a permit or license from the Tribe that governs that reservation. Indians may act as fishing guides on off-reservation waters with a license from the state. The catch by a non-Indian angler is allocated to the non-treaty share if it is recorded on a punch card issued by the state. The catch is allocated to the treaty share if it is recorded by the guide or tribe as such.

Yes, Indian guides may take non-Indians fishing on reservation waters to harvest part of the treaty Indian share. They cannot do the same on off-reservation waters.

You cite several RCWs. I think your confusion can be attributed to thinking that state fishing laws might apply on Indian reservations. They don't.

It appears Washington State made an exceptional law in favor of the Wanapum Indians. Please note that it is limited to ceremonial and subsistance fishing, which is what the Tribe requested. At first glance, you might think the state was disregarding the interests of state citizens overall, in favor of one tribe. But there is more to the story. Washington State did not have to grant the tribal request for this special fishery. But it was probably wise to do so. The reason is that there is a track record of federal case law going back to 1895 regarding treaty Indian fishing. The tribes have won overwhelmingly. If the state hadn't granted the Wanapum fishery, the tribe could likely have adjudicated their right to such a fishery in federal court. They most likely would have won. And the fishing right would be unrestricted. That is, it could have included ceremonial, subsistence, and commercial fishing, which in this case, happened to be more than the tribe actually was after.

Several of the state laws you cite were written with commercial fishing in mind, and they only apply on off-reservation waters. So I'm not so sure that they include unintended conflicts. If they do, the legislature would likely be amenable to revising them, assuming WDFW supported the revisions.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Dan
You're missing the point!
Why have rules and laws that governed our fishery and it direction, when those same laws are not even enforceable? These laws are "the laws" that currently guide our fishery management and its policies. They are also the same laws that our legislators must abide by when they are making all of these decisions that affect our sport fishing futures. If they are not enforceable, then we need to get ride of them!
I can not understand why you would not want to do that too . . . or do you?


Salmo

You say "Indians may act as fishing guides on off-reservation waters with a license from the state." Well that fine, but then they should also be paying those high none- resident guiding fees for doing so! Since they are also getting separate nation fishing rights!

You say; "Yes, Indian guides may take non-Indians fishing on reservation waters to harvest part of the treaty Indian share"

Salmo, do you really think that they report their catch records any better then our own state fishing guides do? I will bet you the biggest steak dinner in town that over 99% of the current Washington guides to not fill out or report what they catch on their boats each day...do you want bet?

Our fishermen must punch there cards when they catch fish on none indian guided trip. But they are not required to do so when that are on reservational lands. So how many fish get taken that are not accounted for in the tribes 50% take?

You said;" You cite several RCWs. I think your confusion can be attributed to thinking that state fishing laws might apply on Indian reservations. They don't."

I am not the one that was confused about where the state laws apply, but it sure appears that the state was!

You also say;"It appears Washington State made an exceptional law in favor of the Wanapum Indians"

No, it does not appear to be, it is an "exceptional law " in favor of the Wanapum Indians!

Finally you said; "The reason is that there is a track record of federal case law going back to 1895 regarding treaty Indian fishing. The tribes have won overwhelmingly. If the state hadn't granted the Wanapum fishery, the tribe could likely have adjudicated their right to such a fishery in federal court. They most likely would have won. And the fishing right would be unrestricted. That is, it could have included ceremonial, subsistence, and commercial fishing, which in this case, happened to be more than the tribe actually was after."

Well, what makes you think that they will not go back to court and get their way now?

If we stopped paying the tribes from our own pockets to fight us in the courts, how long do you think that they would keep winning those court battles? What treaty gave the tribes the right to use "our own money" to fight us in the courts?

Cut the federal money, and the court games come to an end quickly!

Cowlitzfisherman

Oh, I see your point, cowfish. Just not sure that anything is going to get done.........it's just not something that is high on the list of priorities for our lawmakers.

Your right Dan!

But if we don't put it up there, who will?

It will just fall back to business as usual and nothing will change except the lost of our sport fishery.

Cowlitzfisherman

Aunty

I will ask you the same question!

Why shouldn't a resident of Washington State be able to guide on tribal land? Why shouldn't a Washington State guide be able to guide on reservation lands if the tribes can guide on Washington states land?

I don't see why they both can't guide on each others land …do you?

It sure seems that each year, the returning numbers of wild fish keep on dwindling, and if we are not keeping accurate records and numbers of who are responsible for their taking, how in the devil can we ever correct it?

You say; " I don't want to see you build concensus against some of the very folks who would be willing to sit down and talk with us."

I don't either, but when and if we come to that point, it will only be fair that every issue is on the table. It really doesn't matter if you or I don't like what's being laid out, it only matters that it is being laid out so that every single player can see what is up for grabs!

Finally, you said;" As far as poor reporting practices, guess what? They can say the same about non indian sport fishers can't they? We aren't all perfect either."

Aunty, that's exactly what I had said! I am not bashing the tribes! Take a little more time and read what I had said.

Well, why must we punch our records cards on state waters and not on reservation land? How else will the state or the feds known how many endangered species or wild fish are being taken or harvested in each system, each year?

Cowlitzfisherman

Aunty, you are right on with this. CFM (or Don Quixote) is technically correct in his arguement but he really is tilting at windmills with this one. So many more important issues to deal with than this one.

But I haave to agree with CFM's point here, that we have to record our catch AS IT IS TAKEN, or face fines etc.
It should be no different for the Tribes. Maybe on reservation land it is a different story, but when the are exercising their "right" to fish in non-reservation waters they should have to follow the same rules as non-indians........

Equal rights is not special rights.......


MC

Yea Edie, that’s like the women who went to the doctors and finds out that she's pregnant and comes home and tells her husband not to worry because she's just gained a couple pounds! Why not accept it, and say that my facts were right. You just didn't like the facts!

Aunty
Your reply still does not answer the question; why should a group of people who have "special nation" status not pay more when they are operating a business (like guiding) off of their nations reservations land? I know what the "federal law" says, but once a member leaves his reservation lands, shouldn't he have to pay the same price as none resident does to hunt or fish? The boldt decision, as far as I know, does not say that tribal members can do both under the treaty. It only says that they are entitled to 50% of the states harvestable fish. As far as I am aware of, it does not say that the tribes are also entitled to harvest the other 50% of harvestable fish too.

Remember, in this state fishing is a said to be a "privilege" and not a "right"! So once they leave the reservation land, they too can loose their fishing "privileges" just like you and me. If a tribe member violates a fishing rule off his treaty lands then he can also loose is rights to fish in "state" waters…. right? Or do you believe that the tribe members can fish anywhere they want to, and break as many state laws as they want to without paying a penalty for doing so?

Am I wrong?

Aunty
Just because one tribal member claims that "he" reports his fish really means noting in this issue! The facts are; the tribes do not report their numbers and the state and the federal don't enforce the issue either. Since the tribes have hatcheries, and they do release fish into the "states" waters, they should be required to follow the same rules that the feds apply to our state hatcheries. Why the double standards? The fish belong to state until they return the tribes reservations waters.

We as fishermen must make our state records available to the tribes. The tribes can, and do request all state fish related data and records through the states public discloser act. We are not allowed to review the tribe's records or data on fish. That is not right, nor is it fair! The boldt decision was never intended to keep the tribes fishery information "secret information"! So yes, I do have a problem in general with how the tribes and their guides do their reporting!

First, all parties must lay there cards on the table; that means all data on both sides must be made available for review to both parties. Remember what Regan said; trust but verify!! Personally Aunty, I don't think the guides will have anymore to say then any other tribal member does. Most of the tribes that I know of, have all of it's members vote and approved such major issues . . . not just a few who fish! There are already plenty of "hard feelings", and it's going to take total open honesty between both parties to heal those old open wounds.

I wish that the tribes could have their representative answer my questions instead of you. I know that you are very sincere, and do the best that you can to answer my questions, but so far you really have not done so. Personally, I believe that the issues that I have brought up MUST BE ANSWERED before this conflict will ever be put to rest. I have no real beef with the tribes, but I do have some questions on the fairness of the treaty and how it has been interrupted.

I could say more, but neither one of us is likely to win this debate! So unless you can prove that what I had posted is incorrect or wrong, I am done with this thread. So it's up to you if you want to keep this issue going any further.

Let's try to work together instead of against each other and continue to keep this board informed of the facts even those we both may have our own interpolation of what are the facts!

Maybe its time for both of us to call it "time out"

Cowlitzfisherman

Aunty M,
 

That’s kind of funny when you said "Guides who love to fish and get others into fish should NOT be taken to task in a fishing forum. And coming from you it is especially ludicrous to me"

I just read CFM's profile. Isn't the Cowlitzfisherman a retired fishing guide of over ten years? Who else would know as much as him on this subject? What better place could there be than this board to discuss guide related issues? He has informed the board of some double standards that most of us were not even aware of. I for one, am very thankful for his input about tribal fishing, because he really doesn't appear to be attacking the Indians. Instead he has just made many of us aware of some very unbalanced laws that I was not even aware of.

I did not think that he was attempting to bash anyone, nor did any of his posts suggest that. If the Indian guides are not counting there catch, how will or state fisheries ever know if they had harvested their share of the allotted fish? Maybe they aren't getting enough, or maybe there getting to much. How would we ever know?

It would appear that you may me be just a little bias in favor of the tribes, whereas CFM is just stating the facts about some double standards. I really enjoy both of your guys post, but I have to tell you that this time CFM is in the right. It appears that you are the only one who has questioned and opposed what CFM has posted about the double standards that he has uncovered. I for one like to hear facts and then I will decide who is the most knowledgeable about the issue at hand.

You do know how to put up a good fight for what you believe in! When you and CFM get together on the same issues, this board better watch out!!!!

   Hairlip

I have fished with Indian guides and have enjoyed most of the experiences. I have heard that the guides on the rez have a "limit" but will rarely release any fish whether you want to or not. They don't register any fish on any kind of tally sheet either. I agree that they have far less impact than the gill netters on the same rivers. The guides usually are at odds with the gill netters and they believe , as I do, that the tribe would be far better off supporting the guides and not the netters. If anyone out there can find and post the current catch records (2002) for the tribes on a given river please post the data here. I won't be holding my breath long.

Sometimes all this negetive bull is just that ,cant we all just get along. it is with no real facts people like to stir the pot with, kind of like politics, oh yeah right on Aunty I am with you all the way nothing I hate more than prejudice attitudes!!!PEACE

Aunty

Let's not get into the good guide bad guide thing on this thread. The issue at hand is about some "double standards" and not reporting your catch, and its not about "fishing guides"! What is at the debate is how the tribes are reporting there catch. If you are getting email from an Indian guide, he must be reading this thread. So why doesn't he register and make his own reply? Maybe that may be you FASTWATER! Who really knows?
Aunty that a bunch of bull and you know it! That's like saying I sold the 12 year the gun, but I am not responsible for what he is going to do with it! That tells us ("In fact this year each guide was issued a catch book for reporting") that up until just now, that there was no catch records being kept at all!

Let's not forget that the owner of this site is also a guide. He also knows that there are some double standards in this state, and I would bet that he would like to see the same fish reporting standards for all!

To say more is senseless at this time.

Cowlitzfisherman

Right on! That is the largest point here! But many will just beleive their own BS and say "you guys are just prejudice"....... I guided for 6 years in Eastern Oregon/Washington and was always amazed how people from the midwest and east viewed the whole indian thing...... Things are a lot different back on those reservations..... Third world country would better describe most of their reservations. They could not believe how many salmon/steelhead would be taken by a few people (tribe members), then when they asked me if we could catch "one of those big d\salmon" I would have to tell them that we were not allowed to fish for them "because there are too few of them". They would shake their heads and say "I had no idea this went on".. So many do not realize just that.
I spent many days watching the tribes net the hell out of salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon when the "Sport" fishery was closed due to low stocks.... They tried to close the tribal fishery, but the tribes would say "No way" and put in the nets.. Then, the whimpy GOv't would say "okay" and that would be that. Now what would happen to us if we decided we were going to crab 8.2 into Sept, even though they say they need to close it in Mid-August? We would go to jail, perod... Plus loose our "Priviledge".
On the reservation, as CFM said, they should be allowed to set their own rules. Off res, they follow the same rules (to qoute THEIR treaty) "in kind with the citizens of the territory"..... Las time I checked, "in kind" meant "the same"... Aunty states that the guides (and all tribal fishers) are supposed to record their catch and report it... This is true, but believe me, when they know it is the tribes doing the enforcing, they have no fear. If the state did the enforcing and punished the same as they would anyone else, there would be very few cases like the ones you read about. Do a search... Look up David SoHappy and read about the years of abuse to the rules his family practiced. Everytime he went to court, he would wave the treaty and get off, even when the tribes themselves were angry with him..... Oh well, just adding more to this already too-long thread..

MC

"Equal Rights are not Special Rights"

Just what I was talking about in previous thread...... Can you say "Ostrich"?


MC

Let's form a new cavalry and ride out in search of the red man. We can round them all up and send them to new reservations in Florida .. Then we will have all the fish to ourselves.

Did some one forget to look at page 13 of your fishin regs? Theres catch record codes for the lower Quimalt, Lake Quinalt, Cook Creek and every other friggen place you might kill a fish.
No guides tribal or nontribal are required by law to report catch.....you the sportfishers are the ones who by law must do so....what a bunch of rascist crap we have been exposed to.....and sorry but thats the "real truth!"

For hells sakes, why don't you "everyone is good but white people" crowd give it a rest! Non-indian guides do not have an allotment (You know, like 50% of all fish)...... They do have the legal responsibility to make sure that people have valid licenses/punch cards and that they are filled out properly. I was a guide for 6 years, and I could have/would have gotten a ticket if any of my clients had failed to punch a card or have a license, just as I was responsible my clients did not keep any illegal fish. I would have lost my guide license otherwise.
Why when minorities speak of inequality, they are hailed for their courage to speak out against that inequality...... Caucasions speak out against the same type of thing (hiring quotas, fishing rules, etc.) and they are at the least called "whiners" or most of the time "racists" or "predjudice". Although it still occurs, the majority of Americans are outright against special priviledge based on the color of skin or ethnicity, but when it happens to anyone of non-minority status then it is perfectly acceptable. Why is it okay for one group but not another...... I had to explain to my daughter one day years ago (when we inadvertantly picked huckleberries in a "non-whites picking area") why daddy had almost been shot by the angry indian.... That is no exxageration either. He had a rifle and told me if I did not leave I would be shot. This happened near Mt. Adams in a part of the national forest and not on any reservation. When I reported it to the sherrif, they told me that the area we had stopped at had indeed been declared an indian picking area and non-indians had to go several miles further down the road where (big surprise) we searched for hours to find a handful of berries. The area where I had stopped, and been chased off of, had bushes everywhere loaded with berries (that was why I stopped....) Try explaining (customs, heretage, etc.) to a little 8 year old why the man was waving a gun and shouting obscenities..... Same thing happens on the river when they are netting. Just try to go near one of their nets, even just to have a look. If you dont get shot at, you will at the very least learn something.....
I love diversity, I love culture.... But I hate feeling like I have something to be ashamed of because of what my skin looks like (sound familiar?). It wasnt right way back when, and it isnt right now.... Two wrongs do not make it right... Listen up bleeding hearts, cause your kids and grandkids have to live in the world you are creating for them. Hopefully you will not have assisted in them hating who they are.

*Deep Breath*

Thanks for the ear.....

MC :p

Check with a guide on the Quinault and they will tell you that you do not need a license or a punch card to fish with them. And there are no limits....go ahead and check. All you need is $150 a head.

Can anyone tell me what the devil this means? How is it applied to keeping records on tribal caught fish?

The first part makes sense, but at the end it says; "This rule does not apply to treaty Indians nor to fish purchased from a fish buyer licensed by the Department of Fish and Wildlife."

Buying treaty Indian Caught Fish:
"In order to buy, sell or process STEELHEAD, Sea Run, cutthroat, or Dolly Varden/bull trout lawfully taken by a treaty Indian, a person must meet the following requirements; The fish must be accompanied by a written statement showing takers name, address, tribal affiliation, and treat identification card number, number of fish, date and location taken. This rule does not apply to treaty Indians nor to fish purchased from a fish buyer licensed by the Department of Fish and Wildlife."

And what about Salmon, why don't they need to record salmon on there catch or sales records?

Is anybody else getting confused?

Cowlitzfisherman

All those laws are essentially window dressing and unenforceable. Haven't you ever seen the tribes selling fish out of their pickup trucks? Never ever a letter or tally sheet. I suspect that a majority of the harvested salmon and steelhead are unrecorded. This leads , of course, to a much much higher than 50% share of the harvestable fish. The term "harvestable" is interesting too in that the tribes harvest all the time whether runs are harvestable to the rest of us or not. Enforcement of anything on the rez is rare.

Well folks..... We can close this thread because Grandpa rolled it all up in a pretty package and did it all in 5 lines! Bravo Grandpa! That is EXACTLY what has been going on for years and will continue to as long as Bone-head bleeding hearts keep making statements like What a bunch of idiots WE are exposed to!
But lets not forget Grandpa that it does not happen only on the res.. Enforcement is nil in nearly all areas. We wouldnt want society thinking that law enforcement is being racist and picking on the tribes, now would we?
MC

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you the sportfishers are the ones who by law must do so....what a bunch of rascist crap we have been exposed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What a bunch of idiots WE are exposed to!"




Way to sugar-coat it. My thoughts were not printable.