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, 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

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"