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).]