I just saw one of the sickest things that I have ever seen. Right here in my back yard. I went down to the locks the other day and I saw the indians completely net off the entire ocean side of the locks off. They had there nets 3 deap. What's up with that? I know that they have a right to there fish but shouldn't they be at the mouth of the rivers? I know we have an abundance of fish this year but that is just plain sickening!!! There is nothing uglier than see a opening or river choked off!

Brian,
That is a sick sight, but what do you think all of us fisherman are doing out there? Thousands of boats cutting off every fish possible. It has to go both ways i guess, too bad it cant be the right way = no nets!

Hey Brian,
Go back down to the locks around dark and watch how the indian nets are taken out by the tugs and barges as they leave the locks. This should be a great view with the good weekend coming up. Tugs and barges have the right of way and some of the Captains fish just like you and get distracted and accidents will happen.

Brian, what you've witnessed is a common site on rivers all over the state, not just the locks. It's a real bummer to have one hook in the water and compete with a net that chokes a river. What will really piss you off is when you see natives, or commercials bury their catch in the dirt to protest low selling prices. The dairy farmers did it last week on TV, pouring their product in the dirt. Who the F()CK does that help?

MAN WHATS UP WITH THIS STUFF??? IF THEY ARE NETTING THE LOCKS, WHY DO THEY GET TO NET THE LAKE TOO? AND CLOSE IT TO THE SPORTIES? FOUR DAYS NETTING THE LAKE IS GONNA CLEAN EM OUT. BUT WHAT AN AWESOME FISHERY SO FAR. YOU WAIT IN LINE LONGER THEN YOU FISH. THIS IS SOME FINE EATING FISH. TIME TO GET THE SMOKER GOING.

Ya know, it's almost funny. Every interview I've seen over here(Richland) since the season opened up is of a WDFW 'official' of some sort, stating that recovery methods really do work. In their next breath, they always say "the fisherman need to be careful in identifying their catch, with the presence of ESA listed chinook. If we see fisherman are killing ANY chinook at all, we'll shut it down."
Better yet, put a bunch of nets in the water. That makes sense?!?

Point well put Backlash2. Agreed

Anybody else seen them fishing with rods and reels since it opened waiting for the chance to string nets?

There was a net boat trolling around the madness at the 520 bridge Sunday morning but they sure didn't look like tribal members. Also didn't look like they knew what they were doing with their bananna weights...

Now lets step back here a moment. I remember the bolt decision was on native fishiers of the indian, i mean indian Nations. So why do they get to net these sockeye's which are not native to the lake and or locks.
Have we pushed the envelope too far here?
These fish as i have read on other threads were started way back in the 30's and 40's when the changed the flow of the green and other tributaries some into Lake Washington. But the other rivers still have their native run of fish and these fish were brought in from out of state at first and then from hatcheries off other river systems.

Iam i making any sense here? These fish are not part of their hertiage and should not be part of their fishiers. Sme thing goes for Herschel and his buddies; now i do say bring out the guns, or at least the dart rifles.

elmtree (woody)

Nice point elmtree! Never thought of it in that sense. I'm so torn on the Native American argument. Having grown up here I can sympathize their plight, trying to keep their Heritage and all. On the other hand I have seen some pretty sad stories around their casino's and the money they make off of them. Where does that money go? What does a smoky casino and gambling have to do with Native American Heritage? In my (be it very simple) mind, I say fish and hunt and keep the heritage, or join the future and work the casino to your advantage, not both. But what do I know, I was born white and privileged...... and fought my way out of the beautiful city of White Center with a couple of Yakima Natives friends in the 70's! Funny thing about my Yakima friends though, they have jobs and buy fishing license's to go fishing with me.
Things that make you go hmmmmm....Tight Lines

Hey Cracker;Yea iam one of those privleged whites also, ecept iam from the sixties growing up when i first got to the Puyallup.
Both my Dad and Mom had to work to keep food on the table and a roof over head. Yeah we are the lucky ones. Never had to eat Mac and Cheese all week long till the house payment got made.
I understand that they need the fish and deer and elk for ceremonial reason's to keep their hertiage alive and in the minds of the young, but it is the young whom are out fishing and where does the money go that they reap. It is suppose to go to the tribe in whole and be divided out equally, of course the fishier man gets a slightly higher amount. I will bet that almost none of the proceeds go to the tribes funds. I say this because unless someone can tell me that netting fish to sell wholesale is making a lot of mony, i think not. It is not a viable method to follow for the Indian Nations.
Go ahead with the smoke shops, fireworks, casino's and alchol sales, that is where the tribes make or break it.
Come on and join the real world, become part of the soltion and not the blame for the problem that now exist.
Nativeson, letty, honestly, do your people make enough money from netting fish to persue it as a function of tribal economy support?
Lets look at this way, cost of boat, motor, nets gear, time on water. repair cost upkeep, gas truck trailer, ok, no liscense for the trailer, but still have to maintain it. Add these cost into the profit from the fish sold at wholesale per pound. I just can not see it adding up to be something the is a profit making venture. And in these times, profit is what everyone, including the Native American Indians are trying to make. I agree, they need to make money, BIA, does not coer much help. Just look at the proverty on tribal lands, the lack of medical and education on tribal lands. Yeah the Puyallups have now got a brand new school for native and non native students. I know some people whom work there and it is a good school. But fishing did not pay for it, in fact, i helped pay for it out of my money which goes into the federal funds.
So iam not bashing indian rights, only indiscretion that it is not cost effective anymore. Thank you all.
elmtree (woody)

[This message has been edited by elmtree (edited 07-10-2000).]

[This message has been edited by elmtree (edited 07-10-2000).]

The tribe has always netted the locks. When they stopped because of too few fish the sea lions moved in and every one wanted to kill the sea lions. Bet there are no sea lions in there while the nets are in. I never understood the media hype over the sea lions when you've witnessed first hand the tribal netting in that man made channel. There's no comparison.

I've wondered about this issue; a tribal fishery on a non-native run. I haven't looked into the legalities of it, but I presume its a 'Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds' issue. If they've always fished Lake WA, then they can continue to do so under the treaties, regardless of the species. This makes sense, particularly if fisheries were lost when the Cedar was re-routed, but I'm guessing here. Salmo G., care to comment here.

As for fisheries making money or not, the tribes can join that club with the commercials. Whether something is viable or not does not mean they can't pursue it. And like the commercials that still fish dwindling numbers of Puget Sound and WA coast fish, they do it part time, to supplement other income.

As far as the tribes vs marine mammals, well at least the tribes don't fish when escapement goals can't be met. The marine mammals, particularly with their protected status, can do some serious damage in down years. And there was nary a California sea lion in Puget Sound 20 years ago.

Elmtree, fishing net is feast or famine. Some, with good grounds make a lot of money. Others supplement their income by fishing. Last year 15,000 hatchery coho were caught on the Quinault by gill netters. At 8 pound average and .80 cents per pound this figures out to be 96,000 dollars for one species. That amount of money helps out the local economy. An execellent run can mean feast. A poor run famine.

Equipment costs are not all that high. Only a few trailers around and are shared. Two hemlock poles lashed to the bumper (Indian Trailer) will get the boat from the house to the river! Most boats are kept in the river. Many grounds don't even require a motor.

[This message has been edited by potter (edited 07-11-2000).]

If all it takes to cancel out a fishery treaty is enviromental chages then they all would be gone. I can not think of but a few streams or rivers that haven't been altered by the heavy hand of man. Dams dikes rechaneling all these are similar to the great change in Lake Washington area rivers. Maybe you should look elsewhere for your justification to shut down a legal sanctioned fishery.

Brian, Elmtree, and others,

Regarding net fishing downstream of the locks: You don't have to like it, so I'm not going to bother discussing the merits of treaty or commercial fishing. Seek, however, to understand the purpose of commercial fishing. The purpose of commercial fishing is to catch fish, lots of fish, as fast and efficiently as possible. It is not the purpose of commercial fishing to allow fish to swim on by. Conservation is achieved by having closed periods and closed areas. A fish run is projected at a certain run size, and a harvestable surplus is determined (we won't talk about accuracy here). Those fish that are deemed harvestable exist only to be caught in the minds of managers. So the job of the commercials, whether they are treaty or non-treaty, is to get in there and harvest their allocation. As long as the recreational fish allocation and the spawning escapement make it through, I have to ask you, why do you care how, when, or where, or why the treaty fishermen take their allocation. What is there to find sickening about it? Unless you have a quarrel with treaty fishing in general. And if you do, I'm not posting here to argue about it. You have your perogative. I think, however, it's beneficial for us all to be clear about our issues. So if the issue isn't treaty fishing, but is about nets at the locks, I have to ask what's the difference. The nets could be set or drifted out of Shilshole to the same end; i.e. the allocated treaty harvestable will be caught, somewhere. And actually, the closer the fishing occurs to the terminal area, the more precisely it can be managed by those empowered to do it. Consequently, I can make no case against netting at the locks.

Regarding the treaty fishery and non-native species: Elmtree, the treaty is silent on origin of fish, as there were no hatcheries or fish transplants in the 1850s. The treaties are clear about "usual and accustomed fishing areas," and Boldt clarified that to mean basically anywhere in the various treaty tribes marine waters or river drainages where any Indian may have fished at one time or another historically. That's the long way of saying damn near everywhere.

Regarding who gets the money from treaty fishing: The treaty fishing right is the property of the treaty tribe. A tribe is entitled to franchise an individual to exercise the right. It's comparable to the state fishing "privelege." The state issues/sells licenses to recreational and commercial fishermen, which is a franchise of sorts. Then we licensed anglers exercise our fishing privelege. Most treaty fishermen pay a landing tax to their tribe on their catch just as non-treaty fishermen pay a landing tax to the state.

This post was not intended to bash any of you who contributed to this thread. My intended contribution is that of clarity, and I'm sure you'll let me know if I've not succeeded. I do apologize if this post offends anyone.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

OK NOW I WONDER HOW MANY CHINOOK THOSE NETS ARE GETTING WHEN THE FISH ARE SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTED. OH YEAH THE TRIBES GET TO HUNT ELK THAT ARE NON NATIVE. THEY WEREN'T HERE WHEN THE TREATIES WERE SIGNED. OH WAIT IT'S THE USUAL AND ACCUSTOMED HUNTING GROUNDS LOOP HOLE AGAIN. DAMMIT

I am not posting on this thread to bash indian tribal fishing. I am still curious though, as to why the WDFW will very publicly let everyone know that the blade of the gillotene(?) is already raised in the air, waiting to drop at a moments notice on the recreational fishery if a chinook or two gets wacked accidentally. If these few fish are so god damned precious(which they are), why do we continue to allow indiscriminate net fisheries? You can only be as selective as your equipment allows, and we all know about nets.

KNOPHISH,glad to see that you're cap lock button works,but come on,natives have hunted Elk long before our ancestors arrived, now I do not agree with some of the wastefull tactics that I have read about and witnessed,I come upon more than 1 elk that was left for waste with a half assed butcher job with just the hind quarters and backstraps gone let alone the ones they decided not to chase after don't get me going especially on that Dosewallups herd or all the limping cows I've seen up on the Hamma Hamma RRRRRGGGGG...nuff said I beleive it's a small few that are giving the rest a bad name....I need a time outI knew this would happen

[This message has been edited by Osprey (edited 07-11-2000).]

I was under the impression that there is a north lake population of fish that needed protection hence the boundary of the 520 floating bridge. Maybe the state can tell when the north lake fish are in danger of the nets or have passed?......No chance of any mistakes? I am not convinced.
thank you ...sully

If nets were truly 'indiscriminant', then considering the amount of net fishing that goes on, the endangered stocks would be gone. The nets are regulated seasonally and by managing the acceptable take of ESA fish. Sporties typically get the short end of the stick regarding the acceptable take of ESA fish. The mainstem Columbia springer fishery is a prime example where all acceptable take was given to the tribes, hence no sport fishery.

I think publically, WDFW does not consider this controversial. The Tribes will always get first dibs and if there is no more margin for the take of protected species, than the recreational fisheries will be cut off. This is policy and it follows Federal ESA laws as well as the courts interpretations of the Treaties.

In the case of Lake WA sockeye and the protected chinook, its awful early in the season for the Cedar River summer chinooks. WDFW should, however, take care to monitor net catches since there has been a marked tendency for runs to be early this season.

I guess my bottom line is, people tend to think of this as an example of the grossest mis-management of the resources. I don't believe it to be mis-management, I do believe it to be a somewhat unfair allocation to sporties. I also believe that the treaties are correctly interpreted and administered and hence, the only way to reduce netting is to approach the Tribes with alternatives and incentives not to net.

Thank you everyone for venting with me along with some helpful information given from above. The thing that I don't understand is, who's counting the tribal counts? Who is to say that they have had there fair share? I can't even go out in Lake Washington fishing for a day with out some fish cop pulling up next to you and dam near breaking you poles off sitting in the downrigger, just to see if you are legal or not ( most of you have had this experience). You sure don't see pressure like that on the tribal members, right? While Steelheading on a few Peninsula rivers I've seen the whole dam thing choked off even when their suppose to already have there fish!!! I suppose there just going for a different species right, right! This doesn't just have to do with the sockeye, it's every specie whether it be fish or big game. White man pays, white man looses, where is the justice. Please do not be affendend the truth hurts! Nuff said.

Thank you everyone for venting with me along with some helpful information given from above. The thing that I don't understand is, who's counting the tribal counts? Who is to say that they have had there fair share? I can't even go out in Lake Washington fishing for a day with out some fish cop pulling up next to you and dam near breaking you poles off sitting in the downrigger, just to see if you are legal or not ( most of you have had this experience). You sure don't see pressure like that on the tribal members, right? While Steelheading on a few Peninsula rivers I've seen the whole dam thing choked off even when their suppose to already have there fish!!! I suppose there just going for a different species right, right! This doesn't just have to do with the sockeye, it's every specie whether it be fish or big game. White man pays, white man looses, where is the justice. Please do not be affendend the truth hurts! Nuff said.

Hmmm, what fish were the nets at West Point targeting? I understand this fishery has a maximum of 17 Chinook, afterward the chinook may only be retained if they are dead when the nets are pulled.?

Brian

The truth is, now it sounds like whining. The tribal nets are being monitored. The original netting schedule was devised to estimate the amount of fish the Tribes would take. Just as the recreational season was set to estimate the amount of sport take. All of this is in excess of whats necessary for escapement. Actually, I think the timing of the tribal nets are being limited more by chinook bycatch than sockeye catch. Given when the nets come out, there will be a lot of sockeye left for sporties.

They may even up the limit to 6 fish like they did in 96. If your being harrassed by the gamies, take it up with WDFW.

Obessed, you seem to understand what i was getting at. I do not condmen the tribal fishier for taking fish. I, even with with Potter's numbers still do not think that the limited way the fish, even blocking off the entire river bank to bank, which does piss me off, still does not for the man hours put in average out the same as the big commerial's.
See folks, if you spend 4-6 hours per day that can be out netting, added in cost of overhead, wear and tear, repair and maintence and replacement cost and divide into the gross $96,000.00 you don't get [Bleeeeep!] for an hourly pay and total income.
All these factors have to be looked at to make a honest estimate of value. Yes, hertiage is well above any dollor value and does not figure into this.
I have not had any problems in the last 5-6 years with native tribal fishierman, as they come thru most will ask for us to hold out for a 15-20 minute break. So i see what the ones on some of the inlamd rivers are catching. Potter, nowhere even near the amount of fish the coastals catch, we don't have the fish left to catch most of the time, this year is an exception.
But instead of famine, why not pursue a more steady source of income that will bennefit all the tribal nations, which some are doing very well at and others still floundering with; other means of good gross income.
Yes letty, you make good money selling us dumb white folks alot of fishing time in your boats, and guess what, you deserve it!
If you can take a boat full of po\eople out fishing 4-6 times a week and sometimes 2 times aday for hard cash, why not. This is the real world of ecomonic's 101.

Iam have just tried to say in around about way, that there are more ways to make a good sound income for the tribal memebers other than netting fish that are falling of the face of the earth as fast as the ozone is depleting the atomsphere.
Thanks for letting me speak my peace, long and dry as it may be, but i feel that we all need to come up and start to live in the new world, which requires new idea's along with the memories of old.

elmtree (woody)

The sea lions have been here longer than people think. They were en mass in the Everett area in the late 70's and 80's.
Like I said the tribes have always netted the locks. Yes it's easy pickings and not too ancestorial but also it's a hazard to boat traffic. Why not just drape a net right over the fish ladder and get your share that way? Is that any less spiritual or ancestorial?
As for the Tribal elk hunting before our ancestors...the Roosevelt Elk, if I remember my history correctly, were named after Teddy Roosevelt. I believe it was under his administration or there after that they were introduced to the Olympic Penninsula.

i thought this page was to share hot tips to fishing and the best info the net could provide,i get on here and see a bunch of cry bags not getting there fair cut, i bet the skipper on the charter boat out of westport was a saint also, what a black for the ocean fisherman, as always one bad apple.....
if you watched the news this morning you would see how good things are be watched, they shut down the sockeye net fishery due to low numbers, but the sport fishery is still a go, thats fair right???? i think so and no one had to march down to the capital to get it done, you people blow everything out of whack and make a stink bigger than it really is, give it a rest, melow out, go fishing, its not that bad, really, cant we all just get along!!!!!things will work out all we have to do is work together, not start a fight before have heard both sides and thing we are both right, anyway!!!!!!!!

Well fret about this subject no more. It looks like it's getting shut down for everyone. it was good while it lasted.Take a look! http://www.msnbc.com/local/king/704.asp what happened to the 600,000+ fish. This is the reason they should have waited another week before opening up the fishery.I belive in the past it has'nt opened until mid july,

------------------

Elmtree, I think we are SLOWLY seeing a shift away from fishing and into other types of employment on the rez. Right now the economy is robust. Many of the jobs are seasonal though.

p.s. I've never taken any dumb white men fishing. A few crazy ones though!

Potter, What about a hairball type??

Sorry, Stlhd but you're dead wrong on that one. The Olympic subspecies of elk (or wapiti) is native to the Olympic Peninsula as well as Vancouver Island. It also happens to be the largest of all the elk subspecies. The association with Teddy Roosevelt came about when he established the Olympic National Monument (which later became the Olympic National Park) to halt the destruction of the elk herds by market hunters who were primarily interested in obtaining the teeth which were an absolutely necessary adornment for the watch chains of Elks Club members of the day. The teeth were frequently the only thing that was taken.

stlhead, correct me if I'm wrong but here on the eastside we have Rocky Mtn Elk, as in Rocky Mountains! I believe these Mtns around here are called the Cascades! Our elk were imported... Yet there still is that so called ancesterial right. Go figure....

I was under the impression there were the orginal Olympic elk and imported Roosevelt elk in our area.

I can't find the reference I want, but try this: "Elk or Wapiti (Cervus elaphus)Vancouver Island, much of central and western Washington, western Oregon to northwestern California; central Manitoba to south central Colorado; central Saskatchewan to Manitoba; isolated populations in California, Utah, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Nevada, South Dakota, and Michigan; very small numbers in several eastern states, notably Virginia and Pennsylvania. Great numbers in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana and Washington." Elk once ranged over most of what is now the United States and southern Canada. The Rocky Mountain subspecies, Cervus elaphus nelsoni, is found in (surprise) the Rockies as well as central Washington. The Olympic subspecies (C.e. rooseveltii) is found on the Olympic Peninsula and in the Willapa hills as well as Vancouver Island. A small group of Roosevelt elk from the Willapa hills apparently swam the Cowlitz River and established themselves on the western slopes of Mount St. Helens before the eruption. I don't know if anyone has determined whether the elk currently inhabiting that area are nelsoni or rooseveltii.

Preston, you are correct, the Roosevelt are a sub species, they were not planted ,the only elk that were planted were done so on a few islands in Alaska,these were taken from Olymic Natl. park.The other sub species is called the tule elk these are found in Calif. These are smaler in size and such ,the differencs between the species is because of habitat the Roosevelt have larger bodies and horn m*** ( weight) because of the abondant food source available and brushy terrain ,the Rocky Mount Elk were considered a plains animal ,therefor their body size is slighty smaller with taller horns not the m*** or weight of the Roosevelts .On a genetic level they are all the same animal, the changes in bodies and horn m*** is due to their adaptation to their different geograghical ares of the country.
Olympic national park was originaly called Olympic natl monument,Roosevelt wanted it changed to Elk natl. monument,all to preserve this large herd of Elk.This entire area ( it has been reduced over the years) was set a side by people who had foresite...for some reason they had this notion to try and preserve a natural resource for futher generations to hunt and enjoy...go figure WOW what a concept

------------------
Row Quietly and fish a Cataraft }<<(('>----<'))>>{
Release all Wild Fish

[This message has been edited by Osprey (edited 07-13-2000).]

Preston, I have attended numurous wildlife meetings over the years. I have never heard anyone argue conclusive evidence that elk existed here in eastern wash. prior to the plants from Yellowstone in the early 1900's. They have found some evidence of the indians using elk parts in the early days but they have not proven that they came from eastern wash. I personally think they traded other indians from outside the area to obtain these elk "parts". A logical guess would be they traded with indians from either Idaho/western Montana or from some coastal tribes.. In attending many of these meetings, I have never heard any of the Yakamas talk of their ancestors hunting elk. I feel that if they ever did it would have been brought forward along time ago.. So in your description of where the elk roamed I can agree with you for the most part but when you say wash. it should be western wash.

Horn hunter , you have a point . Oregon`s native elk were almost extinct by the 1800s. The only herds remaing were on the coast . In 1912 there were 15 elk transplanted from Jackson Hole Wyoming to somewhere around Joesph Or. There were 2 mature bulls in the herd , the larger nick named " Roosevelt " and the other bull named "taft" . All the elk that we have today on the east side are descendants of these 15 elk ...

If the montlake cut from shilshole to lk. union, and from lk. union to lk. washington, and the locks themselves were all constructed by the U.S. army corps of engineers, how can that translate into"usual and accustomed fishing areas in Boldt treaty?

Dano, it does not make sense here and now as when i posted the same on another thread.
Most of these fish did not live before the 30's and 40's in these water's. Yes, there was a sockeye run in the cedar before it was diverted into Lk Washington. But these fish do nto if any amde it through the revised system.
So as i said then i say again, how can these fish be taken as native fish, when almost the whole fishier is from hatcheries put up by the feds and the state. The whole fishier?
Unbelieveable as it sounds, these fish do not belong to the Boldt decision which covers: NORMAL AND ACCUSTOMED PLACES AND NORMAL AND ACCUSTOMEd WAY'S, by a big long shot. That is the letter of the boldt decision, which no matter i feel or think will not change, but this is outside that scope of possiblities and availabilites.

elmtree (woody)

elmtree you say that the sockeye mainily come from hatchery stock correct me if i'm wrong but it was my understanding sockeye mainly spon in lakes

Doug,
No, sockeye don't normally spawn in lakes. Sockeye can spawn on gravelly lake beaches, but only in areas where a constant source of fresh (surface or spring) water percolates through that gravel, and you can imagine how rare that circumstance is. That said, there are a couple of Lake Washington beaches where sockeye do successfully spawn. The vast majority of sockeye spawn in rivers and streams (as most of the Lake Washington sockeye spawn in the Cedar River). Large runs of sockeye only occur in river systems that have lakes in them, though many rivers have small populations of so-called "creek sockeye". The lakes are necessary because the typical life cycle of the sockeye seems to require that the newly-hatched fry swim up or down to, and live in the lake for one to two years before migrating to the ocean.

Elm Tree, My understanding, is that the original outlet stream for lk. wash., was the Black River, that used to flow out of the lake near MLK Way. Also that the montlake cut/ballard locks outlet is man-engineered. Again how can that be usual and accustomed fishing grounds???

Dano, listen to me.
We agree on the state of origin of these fish.
They are not native to these waters and have not been part of the hertiage of the indain nations.
These fish should not have a net season by american native's.
That is what is stated in the Boldt Decision.
That is what should be cancelled by the fed's and the state.

elmtree (woody)

I've been away fishing. I was wrong on that one. The Penninsula is the normal range of Elk who were nearly hunted to extinction which was one of the reasons for the Park and of course the "roosevelt" designation. maybe a better term would have been re-introduced.