In the context of the Makah winter troll fishery this is absolutely accurate.

There is a little thing called fiduciary responsibility that you are overlooking. The bands of the PNW did not take up arms...why..? Because we were guaranteed in a treaty that our rights would be protected. So what happened between then and now...? Why can't people simply honour the treaties without bitc#ing or wanting to change the way it is interpreted. The people of the PNW (and I don’t mean the immigrants of the last 200 years). Have been literally taking it up their a$$ since the time of contact and it is about time they started getting the lions share of a resource guaranteed to them by the treaties. And thank goodness for the lawmakers of ur great land to uphold such rulings.

Enough said... I'm going fishing...

Ohh and sry the first runs of the year are american fish that pass by

These threads about tribal fishing crack me up. Spirit of the eagle hasnt read any of the original treaties, so shut the *uck up! The treaty doesnt give tribes 50 percent of anything, that was all Boldt's doing. As I keep saying, if the tribes want to do their cultural or subsistance fishing, go for it, but as previously stated, they are tax exempt commercial fisherman and nothing more. I say make a choice, fishing or casino, cant have both. Casinos arent treaty rights, and every tribe member gets like 3 or 4k a month from casinos. Plus what they get for fishing(selling) salmon and steelhead. Yet they pollute the rivers too, ever been on a reservation? Trash everywhere, including in the water. Bottom line is WE won, you Lost!

Eagle..Are you from one of the tribes that used to be raided by the Makahs of Washington? Is your tribe one of the ones they used to attack and capture slaves from? Were your women the ones the Makahs liked as sex slaves in the early 1800s?

By the way if it wasn't for us "immigrants" you wouldn't be using a computer right now. You would still be trying to communicate with grunts and hand jestures and drawing pictures on the cave walls with charcoal. Civilization is a bear cat...I can see why you have a problem embracing it.

What happend to the 4 words in the treaties, No alcohol, No gambling. Pretty straight foward, yet......................

Fishhead5

Who ever said that..? u perhaps aunty but not me.. I never said that was in the treaty.. the one we signed allows us to continue our fisheries as formally. It is your government that decided to tax you to pay for their bargin.

And yes they did come here to raid.. but we used to see them coming.. so we'd put all of our ugly women down on the beach..lmao

And yes I have read the original treaties.. they can be found here:

http://www.gov.bc.ca/tno/history/douglas.htm

When I speak of a treaty I speak of this treaty as it is the one that affects me.

Spirit of the Eagle - I read the info on the link you provided, and can find nothing that would lead any educated person to believe that fishing by a non-native is a privilege.

SOTE,

You are in for a butt whuppin now dude

I smell Canadian Bacon cooking

gv,

One quick point, then all of you can go back to talking apples and oranges for the rest of the day...

Non-tribal fishing is unequivocally, undeniably, and without question, a privilege, especially when contrasted with the treaty right.

It's in the Boldt decision, in no uncertain terms, and was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States.

If anyone is curious about it, do a search on this BB under "right or privilege", or something like that, and find the 38 or 39 times it has been re-hashed (not unlike the above arguments, I might add).

Carry on!

Fish on...

Todd

There's no point in me trying to change people's minds who are not supportive of the decisions made by the highest courts in both our countries. I didn't intend on writing in this particular topic just becuase I knew already what your responses would be. It was just a matter of who would say them. This is totally understandable given societies knowlegde of the actual situation. I am done with this topic.. for the second time and wish that I didn't have to deal with racism everywhere I try to practise free speech.

SOTE:

There are a few comments in this thread that are, IMHO, unwarranted, HOWEVER, please understand that we, as sportsfishers, have watched our fishing stocks dwindle, in mass, since the implimentation of the Boldt decision so many years ago.

That said, there are numerous factors in that "loss of returning fish" equation. Increased commercial fishing (non-native) is among them.

I believe what most all of us are upset about is not the "use" or "implimentation" of the rights granted to the tribes by the Boldt decision, but the blantant ABUSE of those rights by many of the tribes.

If the intended spirit of the Boldt decision was followed by the tribes, then the rest of the folks would not be so upset. Fact is, issues like what the Makah did with the troll fishery are a prime example.

Our own WDFW has no "teeth" to back up any enforcement with, so, the tribes do what they wish, and give the rest of us the finger when we see the resource being trashed.

Like I said, the loss of fish is due to a number of factors...MOST of which we (as a people, together) can change...BUT, the issue of the tribes over-fishing, killing (wasting!) thousands of good fish just for the eggs (which are generally sold overseas)...etc., and we (Sportsfishers) being totally without any options when it comes to making them stop.

This just irritates the hell out of people.

The local poaching wild steelhead can get fined, jailed, lose all their equipment (truck, poles, etc.) while the tribal member kills 100 times more with a gill net and "it's OK", and "within their rights".

If there is ENOUGH FISH for them to net them, then why don't the WDFW biologists feel there is enough for someone to keep their catch for dinner?

That is why we are upset. It has NOTHING to do with racism, but rather a strong desire to see OUR (meaning all peoples) resources flourish instead of being destroyed by environmental, natural and cultural forces.

That's why we are angry. It is not you, personally, or your tribe, but the specific individuals within the tribal fishery groups that seem hell-bent on destroying a resouce that once provided the life-support for their people.

It's sad.

Respectfully,

Mike B

Todd..Every situaton can be looked at from more than one angle and doesn't always have to be looked at in legal black and white.

And The race card is always the fall back position for victims. You don't see me crying racism for all the Norwegian jokes I have to endure. My viking anscestors probably taught the tribes some of their rape and pillage techniques...I guess the sword never took off in indian country though. Maybe too heavy?

I believe all they found of the Viking invaders here were... bones. I don't imagine they expected people here to have arrows.

I know where some of you are coming from though... I know there are certain individuals out there that feel that the fish stocks are near collapse and that they'll be dambed if they will let non-native fishermen take the last fish. I certainly don't condone or practise this type of behaviour... they way I was taught... take only what u need nothing more and be sure to give back when you can. The individuals catching too many fish will have it come back to haunt them in 4 years from now when the returns are low. No matter whom you are conservation and survival of the species is the most important thing. The seals and sea lions take up to 46, Million pounds of fish every year. The commercial fisheries in Alaska took Five billion pounds of fish and shellfish that were harvested from Alaskan waters in 2002 alone. In the same time frame another 580 million pounds from BC. These are all pretty huge numbers compared to the take by both Natives and Sporty’s combined. No, I still believe the bigger problem isn’t the pressure form either the Natives or the Sporty’s but the overall pressure on the resources from everyone combined. I spent my time on the river ensuring the survival of that river system for the time I spent on it. It gave me great satisfaction putting something back into the resources that I enjoy like the rest of us.

When you mention the bazzillions of fish caught in Alaska you must realize that you are talking mostly about trawl caught stuff like hake.....right, you did know that ???

And you also know that you were including all the shrimp and crab too, right ???

The North Pacific ocean, and the Bering Sea combined can sustainably produce a mindboggling amout of "fish"...unlike the relative drop in the bucket of habitat that we were discussing prior. Got any more rhetoric handy, I love it...

I like what I heard someone else suggest. If the Makahs go over the "quota" again, close area 4 to all fishing. That might make our "co-managers" think twice. We can't control them any other way but that.

SOTE, Thanks for your input. It is nice to get the story from the other side.

One Tribe I bank has a Gary Larson cartoon in the Tribal headquarters. One native says to the other, "Didn't you think them saying "See you later!" had an ominous sound to it?", as the Nina, Pinta and the Santa Maria sail off in the distance.

Good old aunty.... making it up she goes again.

"That's Boldt's interpretation of what the Tribes thought they were going to be entitled to if they gave up land." Wrong on both counts. 1) The 50% language came from an interpretation of what the term "in common with" meant in 1855. 2) The Tribes did not think they were going to get 50% and would have been happy to get something less via settlement of the issue. Your friend Slade (from the Gorton Fisherman clan) decided not to settle because he thought the state had the stronger hand. Wonder what he thinks now???

"If he meant half, he would have said so." Wrong twice again. 1) It was a negotiation... Stevens does not simply put in what he means... others had some say as well. 2) The trade language that was used to communicate meaning at that time in history was thoroughly studies by the experts. "In common with" basically meant half.

"A liberal, touchy feely Judge took pity on treaty tribes and elevated their station in life to commercial fishermen." Another urban legend perpetuated by the uninformed. Boldt was about as conservative as they came. He was appointed by the Eisnehower administration for crying out loud. He was one of the reasons the Tribes wanted to settle... beacuse they never believed they would get a fair shake with him in the chair. He was also part of the resaon Slade felt confident the court would rule in favor of State's rights. Slade was in a position to settle the case and give the Tribes less than 50%. I wonder how he feels about that now???

How can you even put these two statements in the same post??? "The US of A has reneged on treaties before..." "The religious right..." I think you had better talk with your church groups again... they have been strong supporters of the tribes and protection of tribal rights.... from day one. I doubt things have changed too much.

Try again.

On the ADFG website they say they take about 100 mil.LBS of salmon a year on average