I,too, am pretty sick of hearing about the Boldt decision and the Refeedie decision and all the legal "black and white" stuff. The Makah's have a treaty right to harvest whales but folks like Greenpeace and government agencies have stopped them again. They just want to keep doing it to preserve their treaty rights and don't much care about the whale meat anymore. Perhaps the same scenario exists with tribal netting of our endangered fish.

I predict in the future that our shellfish will be endangered due to the Rafeedie decision allowing the tribes 50% of our shellfish. They are in high gear right now harvesting crab with abandon and go after the prized geoduck like crazy....mark my words it is coming.


I think education of the general "nonfishing" public is needed. Most folks who don't fish think that the poor indians need to be allowed to net fish for food. Poor things.

I agree with you on this one Grandpa, 100%. The folks that are going to go to the public and make a case, however, are going to need to know where the treaties came from, what their legal status is, numbers of fish being netted, documented abuses, info from scientists analyzing what's going on and what's going to happen, etc.

If we go off half-cocked like sportfishermen did 30 years ago, well...remember what happened 30 years ago?

We will lose if for a second we look like we're coming off as anti-Indian, and anti-treaty rights. We must come off as pro-resource, pro-ecosystem protection, and discuss the economics of the situation.

Fish on...

Todd

If I'm not mistaken fish traps and wheels were banned in the 1930's in Washington. The indians used mainly set gear types like fish traps (banned), wiers (banned) and reef nets (still legal) until they were prevented from doing so by the state and feds. The lummi's still use some reef nets in the san juans.

Allowing the use of permanent set gear like traps or weirs is a double edged sword. Granted they can be used to fish selectively, but they are also considerably more efficient--this could more easily lead to overharvests.

In my perfect world all hatchery fish would be clipped and both the tribes and sportfishers would be required to use selective gear and release all wild fish in any areas with threatened wild stocks.

Given the expense of set gear like traps, I think we'd have to subsidize the building of fish traps and weirs to make this work politically speaking

After following this issue for years my take on it is that the tribes will continue to net even if they are losing money in the process. Last year, an Indian was quoted with a statement to that effect.

Grandpa and I have discussed threatening the tribes with legalizing gambling statewide. If our gov't had the cajones to do that, I'll bet you'd be amazed with the concessions we would get.

Re: the boldt decision.

Most people make the mistake of assuming the law is about right and wrong. It has nothing to do with right and wrong in application it is about the process. The person that can make the best arguement with history wins the day.

So the interpretation of the treaties has gone one way basd on arguements of interpretation. Just need to come up with a Clarance Darrow for the pursuasive arguement to go the other way. Maybe the studies of Kenewick man will effect things. Who knows where it will come from and when. But it will come.

Yeah! Let's get OJ's legal "dream team" for our side!

I've got to agree with grandpa and his idea of legalizing statewide gambling,- no racism involved, and hitting them where it hurts- their wallets.

Possibly forcing the commercial and tribal fisheries to label their fish wild or farmed regardless od species. Kind of like the Dolphin safe label. Then organizing a protest then a boycott of any US Grocery chain selling wild fish period. Then trickle down the campaign to the local fish markets.

I doubt anyone buys Tuna now that is not Dolphin safe even though it is mostly not true.

To us the term "wild" means not hatchery and worthy of special treatment . To the general public "wild" simply means not farm raised and therefore the tribes can market their net caught fish as "wild" and the public jumps on it.
There will need to be lot of education ahead if the general public is to get on the wave the wild fish bandwagon.

Dave, when I was a young boy river traps were used in the Kalama. I watched one work and it was a marvel. the fisher could keep the kings and release the coho or chum alive. Then the commercial netters started a disinformation campaign to discredit anyone but them. Trollers, and fish traps were eleminated from the oceans and rivers. This was in 1968. I have always thought that the best way to selectively target fish for a commercial river harvest was with traps. They are selective, they keep all trapped fish alive, and fish can be sorted and returned without incidental catch kill.

Scott Strickland

Quote: "I've got to agree with grandpa and his idea of legalizing statewide gambling,- no racism involved, and hitting them where it hurts- their wallets. "

I disagree with using the "casino factor" as way of hurting the Tribes. If the Indian Casino's start losing money and laying off Tribal members, many of those Tribal members, who are ex-net fishermen, will return to their formal jobs of netting fish, do you really want this?

I've worked for NMFS as an observer on Tribal and non-tribal net boats during the San Juan sockeye fishery many years ago. The number one thing these fishers were paranoid about was the observer bringing a camera on their boats. Cameras were outright band and they would check your gear before you got on the boat. They knew that photos of birds, seals, and other sea life caught dead in their nets, and if those photos/videos made it to the evening news would be the beginning of the end.

We all saw what the bootleg "Dolphin Video" did to the Tuna industry ten years ago.

Public education on what nets really do to the sea life in Puget Sound and our rivers may be the place to start.

BD

I doubt there are many tribal members who have given up lucrative commercial fishing for a $12 / hour casino job.

Every man, woman & child in the Puyallup Tribe receives a check for $2K / month from Emerald Queen proceeds. Threaten that....

Trust me slabquest the Tulalip net fishermen are not making any "lucrative" profits from their local net fisheries. However, they can make a decent buck netting sockeye in the San Juans but very few of the fishermen have boats big enough to handle the fishery.

I have a feeling the tribal dealers make more than $12 per hour.

Really I don't know why are we whining about the casinos. Ten to twenty years ago we were wishing Tribal members would get jobs, lay of of alchohol, and stop sponging off of welfare. So now that the tribes appear to have turned the corner, we whine that they've become too self-independent and wealthy, meanwhile providing jobs to many tribal members?

I don't get it?

BD

Bobber down is correct. Since the price for fish plummeted several years ago and the casinos opened and offered jobs, netting pressure on Puget Sound rivers especially has declined dramatically.

No doubt some of the tribal fishing operations are not "lucrative" -- but I would say most are. Particulary the shellfish operations. Hundreds of millions of dollars are realized from tribal geoduck, crab & shrimp fishing.

And hundreds of millions of additional dollars could potentially be in the state's coffers if all gambling operations were properly taxed.

While casino jobs are available to ALL tribal members (for tribes that have a casino) many if not most choose not to work....

Really I don't know why are we whining about the casinos. Ten to twenty years ago we were wishing Tribal members would get jobs, lay of of alchohol, and stop sponging off of welfare. So now that the tribes appear to have turned the corner, we whine that they've become too self-independent and wealthy, meanwhile providing jobs to many tribal members?


WOW is that ever off the mark!

The casinos on the rez is run by white , professional managers/operators and are not populated by masses of tribal workers. On the contrary, the tribes still find it tough to get their members to work. The heirarchy of the tribes have the money and the masses are still poor, on welfare, have high alcoholism numbers, and unemployment. Look at the statistics on the rez and you see the same poor performance that indians have been plagued with for decades. The casino money being handed out by the Muckleshoots for example will absolutely not raise these folks out of their cycle of failure. The money will be handled like lottery winnings and cannot take the place of gainful employment and the pride that can go with it.

The heirarchy of the tribes would lose the most without the gambling monopoly. Members of the rich tribes like the Muckleshoots will still shoot elk out of season and scoop up our natural resources with reckless abandon no matter how many hand outs they get. Don't kid your self.

While netting pressure may have declined, the resource has also declined. Yes, casinos provide the opportunities for tribal members to become self sufficient, making for fewer welfare recipients, but none of this matters when netting continues to go unchecked. The ones who habitually refuse to work will continue to do so, regardless of what opportunities are offered them, while the ones who choose to keep netting will continue to net, untill such a time that there are no more fish to catch, then it's either work at their casinos, or go on welfare. The netting must stop! For all of our sakes. Selective fishing methods such as traps or weirs are the only acceptable and viable alternatives.