Would you please explain to me why us (white sport fisherman) can not walk on indian side of the river (Skokomish river)? Also, why can they fish in closed areas. I find that very unfair.. I know that fair has nothing to do with it but still that is messed up....

Maybe it is that **** Geist and Jeff Koenig has no Balls to stand up to the Indians and just learn to say no. May be it is time that we start demanding more from our director other then to stand by and let crap like this happen. We need to write and let our state legislator know how we feel, let them know how bad of a job the management is doing in managing our fish and tell them to start listing to what we have to say. remember this a election year and we do have a say in it. Show them your disgust with the Dept. of Fish and Game. We need a new way to start managing and what we have right now does not work well.

[This message has been edited by Aerofly (edited 08-19-2000).]

Their hands are tied. they have no control over indians. Indians are federal. But I do agree Koeings is sell us off as the rest of the politicians.

dcrzfitter

I've got a solution but I'd probably get another one of those great e-cards from the natives if I actually posted it.

They want equal rights OK. They want more fish OK. They want settlement money for suffering OK. They want tax evasion OK. They want fed loans to open casinos OK. I think the feds need to say NO. The other two letter word thats OK with me. It seems that we are being dicriminated against now. I find it hard to believe they are allowed to harvest half of our hatchery fish we pay for. This isn't the old west sorry! They don't need to fish, if they want to pass on the old ways than DO IT THAT WAY. I want to see canoe's and hand retrive nets. YES people thats the old way. I don't even want to get started with whaling. J.C.B

Dudes need to relax!!! I'm neither Indian nor a "white sportfisherman" but I know that fishing in someone else's property/"nation" is wrong unless you get permission first. Geez this great country of ours, the proverbial "ethnic melting pot," has already pushed the Skokomish onto a small plot of land - a fraction of what they romped on prior to Euro-American settlement. Not only that, we stuck a dam on the river. We haven't done the Skoks any favors lately, why should they shoot us one.

Yes, I'm extremely upset at the number of chinook the Muckleshoots harvested. Needless to say, it falls well short of sharing in common. For me this hits home especially hard because in the past I have relied on the Seacrest pier for both spiritual and subsistence needs during the summer. But after reading the above passages I was saddened because I realized a solution is nowhere in sight. There's too much hatred and no leadership.

Hoh,
I went a little far there. But its like this, if they think I owe them a dam thing their wrong. The real people that owe them something are dead. These people have been gone for a long time. You speek as if they are animals locked in a cage. They have ten fingers and toes just like us. They need to quit the games, this bit about tradition is crap. As I said before CANOE AND CAST NETS. They never used motors back in the day. There may be a few out their doing the traditional art of fishing. Its just too bad most are greedy. The greedy are NOT indians their pillagers. And that label goes too all gill netting slaughtering pigs. These people are lazy, Why not grow them in pin nets? I'll gladly pay extra for a licence if it stops the walls of death. I would like my child to see fish in stream. Buy the ones who fish for the money out. I say exchange their right to fish for the real money maker NET PIN FISH. Let the wild fish thrive. J.C.B

I never could understand why folks have a problem understanding the notion of traditional ways. It really doesn't mean using traditional methods; nor should it.

When I was working in fisheries management,I had lots of opportunities to work with commercial fishermen. I've heard some of these folks talk of being 5 generations commercial fishermen and the traditions that it invokes in their families and lives; these people would do nothing else. But they don't launch 16 ft dingys with a handline and a stout pair of gloves and gut check halibut to their boats. Great grand dad may have done it that way, but not current generations. The tradition is in what they do for a living, not doing things in the old ways. Same goes for the Indians.

Every four years (or is it 2?) the whole world watches the Olympics. But is it the same few track and field events held in the amphitheaters of Greece with a handful of Roman Empire States participating? No, its baseball, basketball, skiing, etc--and the whole world enjoying an ancient tradition started in the Mediterranean. Everybody values traditions, but it doesn't mean going about it in some outdated obsolete way.

I don't think Federal policy regarding Treaty Fishing Rights is at all aligned with current efforts toward restoring depressed salmon stocks and ESA. I also don't think present allocations follow what is stipulated in the Boldt decision (50/50). Something needs to be done to curb excessive netting of depressed stocks and allow equitable partitioning of hatchery stocks.

But the Indians are really acting like any of us. We fish the seasons that are open, loggers log the forests that they are allowed too, developers build where ever they can get permits to build. No use getting pissed off at those making a living, or define "Usual and Accustomed Fishing Areas" by a definition that doesn't hold water.

We all would do best to target the Feds and their apparent inconsistent policies regarding Tribal fisheries, recreational fisheries, and stock restoration.



[This message has been edited by obsessed (edited 08-22-2000).]

The olympics is a total different thing. These are animals that can't be replaced. The olympics can.Yes your right the feds need more pressure.

It never ceases to amaze me that some people are truely demented. Get a permit and a gun? Shoot someone, because you want to trespass? You need to see a therapist. Our limited natural resources are extremely precious, but I have to say not worth killing over. Should I feel free to stomp across some farmers land and stick a gun in the owners face when he asks me to leave?

Sad, truely sad.

I agree somewhat with your post Obsessed. However, I have tried to target the Fed.s by pinning the NMFS down with questions that they are reluctant to or just won't answer, because they know things are really out of whack. Why? is the big Q! This is not an accusation, just a possible scenario: could the huge Indian Casino money have found it's way into politician election campaign coffers? So that now the Indians are constiuents to favor, for more contributions. How else can we explain the utter unfair allocations favoring the Indians over and outside of Fed. Court decisions defining the 50/50 split of fish deemed harvestable? Or can the D.C. non-fishing politicos be as stupid and unfair as they've been portrayed for so long? I'm still trying to find out the answers. - RT

RT,
Did you happen to see the article "States,The Tribes,And the Columbia in the last issue of STS magazine? I found it to be a very interesting article on allocation. Most interesting was a bit of speculation that the feds are giving the tribes a blank check in return for backing off breaching the lower snake river dams. This wouldn't surprise me at all.

I agree that the tribes have received the short end of the stick throughout history, but does it really seem right to say a white man can't fish on "their" side of the river, but they CAN fish on "our" side of the river? That's not a fair deal, that's BS. If they can freely fish and net from the south side, how come we can't fish from the north side?

I'm for treating all people fairly, and like JCB said, I'm not responsible for the past treatment of the treaty tribes, but yet here they are discriminating against me. This is the very kind of thing that breeds resentment and racism between groups of people.

Fish on.........

Personaly I feel sorry for the natives, 30 years ago an indian was a nature loving, mis understood, people. Now when I just hear the word indian, I think of casinos, cigatrettes, illegal fireworks, snagging, and gill netting.(the last two are native fish killers) Not exactly the legacy you would think they want to pass to thier children. Just my .02
PS, I don't condone any commercial fishing that kills off posibly endangered fish.

RT

I don't think policy makers at NMFS or the politicos are stupid, and fairness is not often an issue in politics. I think you and Neanderthal are on the right track--the Indians are playing the political game just like everyone else, using whatever leverage they can muster, whether it be money or influence. Problem is, sporties can't do the same, so WE are not playing the game.

I think the apparent re-interpretation of Treaty Fishing Rights has been drastically affected by ESA. As Cohoangler pointed out in a previous thread, the Indian allocation of hatchery fish is made PRIOR to any ESA considerations, the largest being incidental take of ESA fish. So if the allocation is made, and it is determined that the harvest of this allocation will take most or all of the incidental take of ESA fish, then all other users (sporties and commercials) do not receive allocations.

This seems to be the initial legal interpretation of Treaty Fishing Rights with ESA thrown in, but it is not necessarily the only interpretation or the correct one. I think justifiable arguements can be made that with hatchery fish raised by State or Federal monies, ESA incidental take considerations should apply equally to both sporties and tribes. In other words, we get half of incidental take (or a third if the commercials are involved). The justification could be that these fish were raised for commercial operations on the coast (if indeed so), and recreational opportunities in the rivers. Why would hatchery fish be raised solely for Tribal take? I don't know if this argument will cut through the Treaty language, but I think this is in line with what the States are thinking.

In this sense, it seems fruitless to ask NMFS why. I think NMFS feels they have legally interpreted Treaty Fishing Rights with the ESA issue (or at least their bosses in DC think so). It now seems we have to provide alternative legal interpretations and send the matter to the courts.

The bottom line may be that sporties don't have any lawyers thinking about these things like the Indians and politicos.

Dan S

This is a jurisdictional issue, not discriminatory. If we want to fish the Columbia River, on the Oregon side, we need an Oregon license. If we want to fish some lakes and streams on Natl Park land, we can't use lead shot. If we want to fish the Quinault or upper Salmon, we need an Indian guide. The Skoks simply haven't pursued providing license or access fees, probably because they fish the river pretty hard themselves.

I will point out, however, that I have fished gravel bars on both sides of the river and the Skoks don't seem to care. They just don't want us on reservation property without permission. Given the sometimes unhealthy relationship between Indians and sporties, can't say I blame them. Although the Skoks can net both sides of the river, I heard that they were restricted to fishing between the bridges, leaving some pretty good tidal holes below the lower bridge. Although I think they can snag anywhere.

[This message has been edited by obsessed (edited 08-23-2000).]

Conquered nation!!!!!!!!!!!They shouldnt get any perks!!!!!!!!!!!!TM

Timberman, which western washington Indian nation was conquered?

TM - Geeeez! Japan was a "conquered nation" (remember the bomb thing) and we turned that country into one of the world economic machines (please don't say otherwise; I'm an army brat). We didn't do that out of guilt, but out of political necessity (they were the eastern commie fighters). Do we treat Germany like a conquered nation? And these folks were "conquered" a lot later than any Indian Tribes. And I'm sure Potter begs the question....what war did western Washington Indians ever fight with settlers?

Or I guess you think that the Skoks and Cherokee are the same; kind of like Germany and France.

Social scientists have shown through extensive studies and experimentation that anger and frustration are the by-products of showing favoritism to one group at the expense of another. Children and adults alike have responded so similarly in these blatantly unfair situations, that you could only conclude the responses were "human nature." When Indians were getting reamed, they didn't care much for it. Their anger, frustration, and rage were understandable. Today, the tables are reversed, and at every turn it appears the tribes are our government's "favored ones". Do I feel sorry for what happened to tribes and individual Indians in past centuries? Yes!!! Do I feel guilty? No!!! Either, I haven't hung out with the "missionaries" long enough to develop a guilt complex, or I realize that the "abused ones" and the "abusers" have been dead for many decades. Punishing non-tribal citizens today for the transgressions of yesteryear makes about as much sense as having a teacher keep this year's class in at recess because some students misbehaved years ago. If you don't think you are being punished, try netting a steelhead run and selling the fish, set up a roadside stand and sell some "explosives", don't pay income tax, try to build a non-tribal casino in Washington, jacklight some deer or elk for your next reception...the list is far too long for this forum. Hopefully, you'll be able to access Bob's bulletin board from prison. Next time you're checked on the river for licenses, punchcards, barbless hooks, bait, scent;size, species, and #'s of fish,plus a valid parking decal, try telling the fishcop you're tired of being culturally and racially profiled.

99.99% of us sport fisher people have the solution's and answer's to our SALMON/STEELHEAD problems but just can't seem to fix it. Because we are to busy fishin,*****in,and pointing finger's and can't give up one or two day's a year to protest and rally in our state capital's to be heard as a non violent group trying to save SALMON/STEELHEAD and keep thing's even and fairly as possible between sporties,native american's and gillnetter's. I don't agree with netting it should be banned because you can't target one species.How ever we as a group need to get off our butt's,couches,boat's and river bank's to do something and be heard.Imagine 10,000 or so sport fisher people at the front step's of Olympia and or Salem capitol's ralling for something we all love and enjoy. Well good luck, STRIKE ZONE

Obsessed, I was saving that next question

Cedar R, First, this is not a personal attack. Just some comments to your post.

Non-tribal persons may think that the tribes are the "favored ones" but believe me the tribes do not share that feeling.

In a nut shell, tribal fishermen and non-tribal fishermen are to split the harvestable portion of the fish 50/50. If that system fails are the tribes at fault? Except for the Quinaults and Yakamas, WDFW decides who fishes and when. The tribes have a treaty right to catch their half with a net. Non-tribal fishers use nets and sport for salmon and sport for steelhead. Sure nets can't tell a wild from a hatchery but other management tools are used to target the right species such as web size, timing, and real-time catch sampling for hatchery composition. It is also true that with the large numbers of non-tribal fishermen that there is a significant mortality from sport fishermen. My point, neither method is perfect. Improved science and enforcement are the answer.

There are about 2000 Quinaults. I would say about 100 make some amount of money from fishing during the year. The rest pay income taxes. The fishermen do pay a tribal tax on their fish based income. There is a non-tribal casino in Aberdeen called Sydneys, it is not owned by the tribe or tribal members. Every game in the Quinault tribal casino is legal in Washington. Jacklighting is illegal for Quinaults both on and off the reservation. Unfortunately, both non-tribal and tribal fishers and hunters break the laws. Again, better enforcement is needed.

There is no punishment; there is only the legal document of the land deal (treaty) that was forced on the tribes. I wonder how much money the Government collects on property taxes in western Washington each year from land that was taken from the tribes?


[This message has been edited by potter (edited 08-23-2000).]

I think this is a good debate, and I can see it from both sides (no offense to tribal members who think my view cannot express how THEY feel). I understand the jurisdictional issues, and the attempts that SHOULD be made to compensate the tribes for land and resources taken from them. We paid european countries for land as part of the Louisiana Purchase, Alaska, and other land purchases, so why shouldn't we pay the tribes? Our government did the deal, and tht's how it is.

But tell me this. Why am I unwelcome on the north side of the Skok if I'm standing there fishing, but I am welcomed when I pull into the Quik-Stop there off Hwy. 101? I'd like to be welcomed on ALL the reservation, rather than only select pieces of it. You know how a river is; a great drift from one side, bogus from the other. It's the same water, just not fishable from one side of the river. THAT'S when I'm bothered by this whole policy. Although I wouldn't let this affect my view of the Skok tribe, I must say it bugs me.

See ya on the south side........


Fish on...........

On the east side of the state the Native Americans are very involved in the hatcheries and have been invaluable in helping restore some Salmon/Steelhead runs on many rivers.Before "we" go after the "Indians" lets clean up our own backyards (commercial fishing). lester

Obsessed, I find it hard to believe that the Indians are not supposed to net below the lower bridge. Where did you hear that? I see them down on the lower river netting all over. I have seen them come right out in front of me an net a tidal hole I was fishing. Also there was a huge wastage down on the lower river last year, Chrome bright kings, they just took the eggs from the hens, and left piles of rotting carcases. It sure stunk too.

Potter, maybe you can help straighten me out here.I've always understood that the Indian people are exempt from fed.income taxes. Also, when I go buy that $30,000 truck uncle sam atttaches another $2400 pesos onto to it that the indians are also exempt from. I would appreciate it if you could clarify for me just where are the indians paying these taxes that support the fed. gov'mt that turns around and hands them "welfare" checks. I've had friends work in construction with tribel people and they have said that their checks don't look the same at the end of the week as the American Citizen's...

if the state isn't going to do anything about it, we should do it our selves by destroying the tribal nets on the rivers and beating the hell out of the damn indians. i really hate those #ssholes.

Steelyhorn Hunter, Here is what I know. Tribal members who make a money fishing or working in a fish related field (i.e. hatchery worker) can choose to be tax exempt. All other tribal workers are not tax exempt. However, a Yakama tribal member working on the Quinault reservation does not get this choice, you must be Quinault. If you choose to go tax exempt you also lose social security and I believe unemployment benefits.

As far as buying a vehicle, tribal members who live on or near the reservation get their state taxes back after the vehicle is payed off. Hope this clears things up. Updated info on the vehicle taxes. I checked on this and things have changed since I bought my last rig. It's not true that you have to wait till it's payed off. sorry

[This message has been edited by potter (edited 08-23-2000).]

[This message has been edited by potter (edited 08-24-2000).]

Gonefishin we tried that in the 70's. It didn't work then, it won't work now...

Jake, I heard it last weekend from a tribal fisher. I guess we'll see. It would be nice since I do have a couple of tidal holes below the bridge and bright quality fish congregate in them. Yeah, last year I arrived at my favorite just before low tide, when the receding water packs em in, and just as I arrive a tribal fisher shows up and runs a drift net through a couple of times. Supposedly it will be different this year.

Gone Fishing, it's this same inbred mentality that has gotten us to this point,You stand back a throw these little stupid *ss comments when it pleases you,It's time for the sherriff to step in again.
This topic always ends the same way ...very negative
The only way we can change the polices being enforced in this state is for us as sportsman to make a stand and be heard.
Blaming the Native Americans for the way things are is a joke they are just playing the game with the rules our Government has set forth.
If you want things to be different organize and be heard .
Pick a day and I'll be on the steps of the capital standing with all my fishing brothers ...place the blame where it belongs
....VOTE!!!!!! make a change

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

Hang in there Osprey, there is hope! Gonefishin will get his! (not to be confused with Gone Fishing, a good guy).

------------------
Bob G.

Like my last reply,Everyone pointing finger's but just can't seem to get together and make something happen.I really don't have time to post complaint's about these issues,but rather spend my efforts focusing on doing something about it but can't do it myself.Nothing will change until we all as a group march to the capitol's front step's and be heard, until then I'll set back and just read the B.S. and shake my head. Good luck. STRIKE ZONE

Potter, Many of our differences have their basis in perceptions. These perceptions have evolved from experiences as uniquely individual as fingerprints or personality. The closest any of us are going to come to "walking a mile" in each others' shoes is to describe the journey we're taking and to listen as others do the same. The debate and discussion on this board can be helpful this way. Unfortunately, the open door encourages some to stick their head in and spew their self-consuming hatred. Gonefishin's post is way out of line! Your thoughtful and insightful posts are appreciated.

Native Americans need to become equal citizens. The people that took indian land are dead and gone. There is no land being taken from anyone who payed for it. By teaching native children that some dead white guy mis treated their ancesterors, and that the U.S. owes them a living is only hurting them. CedarR pointed out that preferential treatment to certain people just causes hatred from those who have to pay taxes,buy building permits, pay for medical insurance,ect.... It sounds harsh but we are only keeping them down. Again, casinos cigarettes, illegal fireworks,ect... is not much of a legacy.

Being of Irish and Scandinavian heritage I must have a potato field or lutefisk factory back in the old world, I can lay claim to 50% of...or at least the profits from those.
I have, as the good old boys from where I live would say " SUM BAD FEELINS" about how the native american alotment of natural resources is being handled. However, if you or I were in the same shoes as they are, would you try to get as much financial security out of the situation as you could (at least get a VISA/Mastercard machine for selling upriver brights out of you trunk)? I suppose it comes down to supporting what side of the ball you fall on.
In a perfect world everyone would say "OH, those fish stocks are fragile and we shouldn't touch them till they are healthy." But in reality the natives want those fish to support their lifestyles and the sportsmen want the same fish to support their recreation. Who has more rights morally? We know who has the political clout.

[This message has been edited by Chuckn'Duck (edited 08-24-2000).]

ChucknDuck, millions of years ago, when all the land on earth was one giant land mass, named Gonwanaland by the historians, they have calculated that the land in the Pacific NW used to be in the approximate position of Ireland/Scotland. I say claim your 50% now, your biological ancestry,predates the tribes by millions of years. [ by the way I am not making this up.]

Corkey, I hear what you are saying. I feel that Indians have more rights then American Citizens do. There should come a time that Indians step up to bat and take what life has pitched them as we all do. This may be off base but if they are a sovegn? nation they should take care of things like a seperate nation. This is not the case.

This is comment carries no weight because they are a sovergn nation and they have a treaty on there side. ---------No hard feelings on the subject just wanted to add my 2 cents.---------Fish on !!!

I've read a lot of sensible credible takes on this issue within this thread here. From Letty Potter's wisdom, to Cedar, Corky, C&D, Os, SZ, Dan S.,etc., we can begin to see the complexities and differing views of this situation. And with nothing personal against any individual Native American, AT ALL, I do think they should see the credibility in what some of us are saying about the unfair allocations accorded the Indians, based on a non-existant past. In particularly, Dan O.'s post really puts that into proper perspective; the limited importance of who occupied land, and even where that land was, before all of us present surviving human beings existed! - A couple other clarifications may be needed here? Ob., wasn't it a war of power position negotiations that the West. WA Tribes apparently had lost before we all existed? Now, weak minded rep.s of the U.S. gov. are losing a negotiating war over fish with the present day Tribes. And most of us sportfishers don't agree with it, but aren't allowed a fair voice in it. And here's another often mentioned item that simply seems so non-sensicle to me that I guess I need clarification! Hohwaiian, you stated that "we" (whoever that is) have pushed the Skoks onto a small patch of land. To my understanding they aren't being held prisoners there. Correct? I think that they are allowed the same freedoms that all the rest of us multi-ethnic Americans have; to go anywhere away from that "patch" that they have the courage and fortitude to go. And to work and live anywhere they want with the same rights as the rest of us! Correct? But do they afford us the same rights and fairnesses on their land, and with our fish? Very obvioiusly not! - RT

[This message has been edited by Reel Truth (edited 08-25-2000).]

Obsessed, I didn't know you meant this was supposed to be a new thing. That would be really cool if they stick to that. Come to think of it, I don't think I have seen em down there this year, although I don't think I have been down there on net days. Thanks for the info!

Come on guys, you all have been beating a dead horse since I have been on this board.

Take it from a retired bureaucrat, you will NEVER make a change until you show united political muscle. Everything you have put to a vote has lost at the polls. Politicians who thumb their noises at you are re-elected. ***** all you want, but until the polls are afraid of you, YOU WILL GET NOTHING. "Fairness" is not an operative word in politics, "Expediency" is.

Get it together or learn to live with it.

John

RT

Can't argue with you there, but still I think you are equating the Treaties with this issue of past wrongs, kind of like affirmative action, which States are rejecting left, right, and center. That this 'unfair' situation has been allowed to linger into the 21th century because of what happened in the past. I don't agree with this.

What we have is a treaty, which is the law. It doesn't matter how old it is. I'm sure we have treaties on the books with other nations that are older, with every expectation that their tenents will be upheld by both countries.

What I believe is that the Treaties are now being incorrectly interpreted because of ESA listings. And this is where the sporty fight should be.

If you believe that the 50/50 thing is also unfair (which I can't disagree with given the pop'n of Indians), I also think that unilaterally overturning the law would be unconstitutional and not what we are about as Americans.

With that said, I can't help but think that both the salmonid resource and Indians would be better off with a settlement offer, kind of like what was offered to the Colvilles for the Grand Coulee Dam, in exchange of course for no more 50/50. Ultimately, I think this would provide more incentive for the Indian Nations to assimilate into the rest of America, which has substantially more of an economic base to support people. But assimilation as a goal may not be what the Indians want, and although we may disagree with them, ultimately I think we have to respect their wishes. Actually, the Treaties force us to respect them, because as I said, its the law.

I guess my point is, no one likes to be forced into decisions. Modifying the treaties for the good of the resource will take large scale negotiations with our leadership and the leadership of multiple tribes, and what should be negotiated is not salmon, but whats best for Indian Nations as a whole. Because even if the Boldt Decision gave tribes all the fish, it would not raise Tribal economies such that they could provide for all in the tribe.

What would be necessary is to negotiate a comfortable assimilation into America, which means they can retain cultural things like any other ethnic group, but be restricted under the same laws. I'm not advocating any type of social welfare, thats already a big problem on reservations, but a series of economic incentives, and inexchange, no more treaties.

Thats one hell of a big task, and evidently, not something the Tribes or non-Tribal politicos are willing to do.

Sorry to ramble, but this issue just gets the brain cells going....

I really respect the knowledge base put forth in your posts Jim (Ob.). And I can't disagree with most of what you said either. However, you do bring up one very important factor here; the law. The Fed.s via the NMFS, and at least the Col. Tribal Comm., are breaking the letter of the law (both the original Treaties and the most recent Fed. court interpreted decisions)! And breaking it's intent, or any reasonable interpretation of fairness. That's why the states (WDFW & ODFW) have sued the Fed.s over these outrages. So when you state that it's the law you are correct; you just didn't bring up the factor that it is being broken, against the paying sportfishers. Also, fishing laws are being blatantly broken by both Tribal members and sportfishers! So I very much agree with the above suggestion that we really need more observation and law enforcement. - Steve (RT)

What's really sad here, is that right now we have a really great window of opportunity to exploite, and our politicians are ignoring it. Granted, the tribes and their lawyers have the wdfw by the short hairs, and they are not even holloring ouch! Also saving salmon has become very politically correct these days, and the vast majority of the general public are in favor of doing what it takes to save these fish. Politicians, especially in an election year are usually in favor of what the majority wants. The ESA has given us the federal clout we have been lacking. What I'm working up to here is, now is a great time to take the tribes and their lawyers to court. WE need the wdfw to start allowing large escapement goals to reach the spawning grounds, and to challenge in court the tribes and their lawyers' "we fish first, cause we were here first" concept. Politicians should jump on board, because they want the public vote, and the ESA has given us, and any judge federal clout to vote against the tribes, and not be labeled a racist. The massacre of the Green River stocks this month, would have been an excellent test case. Is there anyone in wdfw or our state government, who is willing to step up to the plate and do the right thing for the salmon?, or will it continue to be tiptoe around the tribes/lawyers, for fear of being sued.

wow. that's all I can say about this hot topic.

Gov. Steven's gun boat diplomacy left us this legacy of having to cut a deal between the tribes and the state for the allocation of fish.

Too bad. So so sad. It is a legal contract unless overturned by the law.

In the mean time, fish stocks have declined severely. Do you actually think that the tribes wanted this?

What about the Cedar River sockeye program...what about the keta river hatchery....what about the Quinalt steelhead and salmon hatchery......what about the tualip bubble fishery....

I think the tribes as a whole get it. There may be some that don't....but I think they do get it. It is the state that needs to get a clue.

If the Indians in this state werent conquered then why do they get there own resevation,casino,special fishing rights,tax exempt and so on and so on and so on and so on?answer that potter you seem to have all the answers.MAD AS HELL!! TM

Timberman, I don't have all the answers. The situation is complex. Even the fisheries science changes. Not too long ago it told us to clear the streams, and we did. Now it tell us to cable debris back in.

I also don't want to turn this into a ping-pong match. I know your frustration stems from a concern for the resource.

Western Washington Indians were considered by the government to be the legal owners of the land in the mid 1800's. To gain that land from the tribes the government entered into a treaty with them. The tribes had to sign or get squat for the land they held. The reservations are a fraction of that land. The treaty also reserved hunting and fishing rights on the land taken.

Indians are not the only ones with casinos in Washington. Only those working in fish related fields are tax exempt. They lose social security benefits if they are.

I have a simple 3 part plan to try and make the situation we are in work, cause I don't think the Bolt decision will be reversed.

1-Accurate data/info to anyone interested. (This board has a ton of info)

2-More enforcement that gets the job done on all sides. (Just need $$)

3-Continue to improve and test the science. (Bob talked about in-river accoustic counters in Alaska)


[This message has been edited by potter (edited 08-26-2000).]

[This message has been edited by potter (edited 08-26-2000).]