"""1) The 50% language came from an interpretation of what the term "in common with" meant in 1855."""


Do you know what interpretation means ?

Do you know who's interpretation you are talking about ?

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


Tell us how much of that is yucky ol' humpies (crab bait/cat food), and how much is actually fit for human consumption...i.e. King, Sockeye, and I guess Coho...which is really best used for halibut bait...

How much wild steelhead do you think Alaska puts on the market ?

Aunty - Yada, yada, yada...

I was not there and you were not there and Boldt was not there and no one alive in the early 1970's was THERE in 1855. Happy now?

But were you there during the U.S. vs. WA court proceedings? If you were, let us all in on what transpired, please.

Did you hear first hand what the court based many of it's findings on? They were not "interpretations of a liberal judge." The basis of equal shares coming from "in common with" was a result of the testimony by expert witnesses who testified as to what the trade language used at treaty times meant and what concepts the U.S. government was attempting to communicate.

BTW, your views on what I offer or don't offer on this board are just that... your views. I could tell you what stock I put in them but why be so obvious?

For the last 30 years I have worked with many of the attorneys and the witnesses who were active in the case.... on both sides of the argument.

I could go on attempting to eductae you, but why bother... you have it all figured out and the facts are not in the equation.

At the time Department of Game and Department of Fisheries were two seperate Departments and WDFW had not been established. During the proceedings Department of Fisheries made the statement that "we could live with 50%", Boldt took that to mean that there had been a negotiated settlement, which there hadn't been, and started looking for something in the treaty language that could justify a 50/50 split. That's how "in common" came to be "we'll split it down the middle".

The 1855 treaties in question are here...
http://www.ccrh.org/comm/river/treaties.htm

The Boldt decision including footnotes is here...
http://www.ccrh.org/comm/river/legal/boldt.htm

Actually Aunty you probably won't belive this but it's true. The attorney for the tribe's was from Chehalis. Just down the road from my home town. He and his wife were close friends of my parents.

I can tell you that he was just about ridden out of town on a rail after the trial. He did in fact tell the tribal chieftens to ask for everything but expect less than half of what they wanted.

He was even surprised at what happened, after all judge Bolt, at first thought this whole thing was a bunch on nonsence. In a way it is too bad but this guy was one heck of an attorney.

And I am not using his name on purpose. This should all be water under the bridge by now.

It's obvious to me that a person would have to be well educated indeed, a person truly capable of the highest order of mental gymnastics to be able to arrive at the conclusion that "in common with" means 50%, only perhaps an attorney or a judge could accomplish such a feat.

If many believe, as I do, that Boldt incorrectly interpreted the words "in common" why hasnt it been challenged and orveturned? Plenty of time has passed for that to happen.

The precident has been set, and the supreme ccourt upheld the decision.

The activist judicuary must support itself.

It,s nearly impossible to get the genie back in the bottle.

Is that the same religious right that took the children from the reserves to rape and torture them in residential schools? Nope... If I were them I would try to get as far away from the native issue after the persecutions they put these children through.

Sprit of the Eagle, I take exception to your comments about the persecution of the Indian culture. I agree that forced indoctrination of the Indian children was wrong. It was with the best intentions (by the federal government) that it was tried to atempt an assimilation.

I work closely with some of the tribes in my area. They'd be the first to tell you that Indian culture itself is less than perfect, and always has been. Just like the rest of the population.

Are the tribes going to hold a grudge against whites until the end of time for any social problems that are in existence today? I gave a presentation recently at the request of a local tribe against substance abuse. It was well received and they really seemed to have an interest in change. You can only blame the breakdown of the culture for so long before people have to take responsibiity for themselves.

Things change dude...and we all need to work towards a common solution, like having stronger fish stocks. That is what I also heard in your previous posts that I do agree with.

It is fine if you take exception to the truth, but there is no denying it. Personally I have had no problem adapting to the white society. I have a huge house that isn't on a reserve, I drive a new f-350 diesel, and I have a brand new $150,000 charter boat that is already paid off. I have had no problem adapting to this type of lifestyle. And I didn't need to be taken away from my parents to achieve this. I don't know how you could think that taking children away from their parents, family, and their culture was done with the best intentions when what they were trying to do was totally destroy our culture and our way of life.

Quote “Are the tribes going to hold a grudge against whites until the end of time for any social problems that are in existence today?”

Well… when I went to school I had to look forward to fighting 8-10 white kids every recess and lunch hour (I have never lived on a reserve, only in white dominated neighbourhoods, and only gained my full Native Status in 1984 due to changes in the Canadian Constitution)…how could the teachers have not known what was going on..? Do you think I should carry a grudge with me…? This is exactly what I mean about knowing what my brothers In Washington State have to go through on a daily basis. Do I hold a grudge with whites? Probably not, my wife is white, my best friend is also white, whom has somewhat different opinions about the native issue than I do, but u know what? I don’t hold it against him. I still fish beside him, (when he’s allowed to fish) I realize that we are all in this together but there has to be a realization that this is OUR resource and once that is established I’m sure we will be more than happy to share it.

The animals and fish are on this planet for the use by all people, not just the decendants of some people who camped by the same creek forever, because others moved around does not make them any less of people. If you think you natives should have special rights, then you should be proud enough to stay away from the whites modern technology...not the least of which would be your automobiles, housing, electricity, grocery stores, and clothing..........either go back to your ancestors life style, or deal with assimilating into the real world sans any special treatment. No wonder you have your stuff paid for...how hard could it be with all the benefits your people have sponged off of the U.S. govt, and the fish and game of the region.

They can't go back to there native lifestyle Oregonian--- the land, animals and fish have been pillaged.
I'm closing this one also.