Why do you all have nets in your rivers? This isn't meant to be a stupid question but now that I type it out it seems that way.

The only other Oregon river I know of other then the Columbia that has nets in it is the Klamath river.

I wasn't even aware of the nets in your rivers until 5 or 6 years ago and i am 42 and have fished and lived in the Portland area all my life.

We had Indians on almost every river system down here and at our coast also.

Anyway just another stupid question from a newb

"Judge Boldt finally held that the government's promise to secure the fisheries for the tribes was central to the treaty-making process and that the tribes had an original right to the fish, which they extended to white settlers. It was not up to the state to tell the tribes how to manage something that had always belonged to them. Judge Boldt ordered the state to take action to limit fishing by non-Indians"

OK got it. Not good

It's not because of Judge Boldt...the Indian nets were in our rivers for thousands of years before Judge Boldt was ever even born.

It is in part, however, due to the treaties that the United States entered into with area Indian Tribes in the mid-1850's.

http://www.ccrh.org/comm/river/legal/boldt.htm

Fish on...

Todd

Indians vs. Cowboys mentality, they do it so should we.

State's run by a bunch of frickin' democrats who give everything away.

Is that your age 7? If so, I forgive you. But if you are older than that perhaps you should read a history book.

We "give away" our salmon because we signed a treaty that said we would. That treaty was uipheld by Judge Boldt and subsequently by the supreme court.

BTW a similar treaty with the nez pers and Yakima's has also been similarly interpreted by federal judges.

Andy, you know better than that.

Fish on...

Todd

Steelhead Pioneer... Cleveland Indian.

If the State would demand that the "co-managers" in our fisheries share FACTUAL data on their catch we might be in a better situation.

If we actually has some politicians with some balls, instead of the parade of bend-over-backwards governors over the past 30+ years, things would certainly be better.

Yes Dave, I know Boldt, etc., but we seem to want to give everything away to every :"fill-in-the-blank -special cause-American" here in Washington, by taxing the hard working folks. I also know that the treaties are the supreme law of the land, and I support them, but the wanton waste and rape of the resource that continues every season is rather frustrating.

Have you been reading about how the legislature is trying to decipher the financial budget data that the WDFW gave them? That problem is what was been created and been allowed to breed by the political climate in Olympia.

Daily Zero Article

I love the state because of the riches here, but I get so sick and tired of the politics and bureaucracy.

I think I need to go fish.

I kinda like the "It's not my fault." lines that always appear whenever the Boldt Decision (aka "There ain't no fish around no more.") pops up.

Todd would have told you earlier that it was Slade Gorton's fault, so I'll include him.

It's not Slade Gorton's fault.
It's not Boldt's fault.
It's not the Supreme Court's fault.
It's not the Tribes' fault.
It's not the State's fault.

Is it the fault of those little pecker heads who drew up a treaty with the tribes? hmmmm.

I don't think it is entirely our great, great grandfather's fault either

I believe it is the modern day legal interpretation of wording that in no way was intended to guarantee a fixed percentage of anything. I didn't see 50% or "Half" or "Even Stephen Split" or "One for you, one for me" mentioned anywhere in the treaty.

I saw "in common with" and "usual and accustomed places and means" (paraphrased).

Most folks I think would interpret such verbiage as meaning just what it says......You can fish when we fish, where we fish.....no guarantee that you will catch more or less than anyone else.

So we are back to legalities....which means lawyers. Who, coincidentally, also interpret "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" as their version only.

As for me, I'm glad there are still people asking the question, "What's wrong with this picture?"

"I believe it is the modern day legal interpretation of wording that in no way was intended to guarantee a fixed percentage of anything. I didn't see 50% or "Half" or "Even Stephen Split" or "One for you, one for me" mentioned anywhere in the treaty."

While there is plenty of fault, blame, or reasons to go around, the above quote is directly attributable to the good Senator Slade Gorton, back when he was Washington State's Attorney General.

The Departments of Wildlife and Fisheries, at his insistence, denied the treaty tribes the right to fish at all, much less "in common with" the citizens...their intransigence is what eventually lead to the Boldt Decision.

The Boldt Decision, of course, was based on interpreting the language of the original Stevens Treaties, written and signed by Governor Stevens in 1855 at the insistence of the President, who made writing and signing those treaties a very high priority so that development and settlement could proceed here poste haste, and with the least amount of tribal interference possible.

The 50/50 split interpretation, though, was based not just on the words of the treaty, but the context in which they were being interpreted...and unfortunately for us, they were being interpreted in the context of Slade Gorton being an a$$hole, and the height of the Civil Rights Movement.

It's understandable why he was being that way...after all, Gorton's Seafood doesn't share the same name with him by coincidence...it's the family business, and tribal fishing ran directly counter to his personal financial interests.

For all the various reasons and causes of our current 50/50 split, that single one is most responsible.

I know that there are plenty of Republican partisans who still love the guy, but what I just wrote above is the unadulterated truth, and if you want to love the guy, at least admit to loving him in spite of that truth, rather than ignoring or denying it.

Fish on...

Todd

Well said, Todd! It always does good to get that Slade story out. I'm not being a smart ass here. It's one of those "whole truth" deals. Personally, I don't know the man, don't care to know the man, and have no reason to disbelieve a thing you say about him. If you say he is an ugly little butt sniffer, I'm good with that.

Still the whole scenario begs the question, if Slade hadn't started the F.U.'d mess, don't you think someone else would have? And wouldn't we be today at the same point?

I doubt that the Supreme Court cared whether or not Slade started it.

Maybe the real fault belongs with Hollywood, for romanticizing our nations Tribes. hmmmmm

It's hard to say...but my gut feeling is that if we had an Attorney General who wasn't a commercial fisherman, too, he would have tried to figure out some sort of cooperative agreement with the tribes.

This whole mess started with the Puyallup and Nisqually Tribes netting for steelhead on or near their reservations...in the grand scheme of things they, and the other tribes, were taking a very, very small percentage of the fish.

A combination of racist rednecks and a commercial fisherman as Attorney General going to bat for them, starting in 1969, finally ended in 1974 with full implementation of the Boldt Decision, and real tribal harvest started the next day...and that is where we are now.

The fact that it was happening near the tail end of the Civil Rights Movement is what got the Hollywood celebs here for the 'fish ins'...they wouldn't have ever had any reason to be here if it wasn't for the Gorton's Fisherman.



Isn't he just the cutest?

Fish on...

Todd

I already think it's archaic...there are many ways to fish and be more selective about it...gillnets are damned effective at catching fish, and that's what they do.

Fish on...

Todd

Remember, the folks that Gorton was fighting for were using nets, too...they just weren't Indians...he couldn't give a flying phukk for us recreational users.

Fish on...

Todd

"40 years ago, few people were EVER charged with drunk driving. It was OK for men to smack their wives around. Perverts could get away with all sorts of things and never be charged with a crime. In fact, if a 15 year old girl dated a 19 year old boy, the idea of Statutory rape rarely crossed anyone's mind."

Ah the good old days. I remember when the "fish wars" were going on and if something didn't happen soon people were going to start getting killed over it. So, partly it is our fault or I should say the "white" commercial fishermen who were pulling guns on tribal members, threatening to sink boats, etc. It was nasty business and something had to be done because, as is the case still today, the sides couldn't agree.

BTW A.M, I'm real jealous of my ancestors. When they wanted a woman they went out and clubbed one. What's the world come to?

His last hooray in office was a hard push for a cyanide leach mine in the Okanogan near a Columbia tributary.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/32649_gold25.shtml

the 50% came later, from the Canadian/American Pacific Salmon treaty, which includes Canadian fishers', American Fishers', and Native Americans' catch allotments.