There is alot of tribal issues going on in the past few posts and I have been thinking a little bit about this subject. Now correct me if I am wrong but years ago when the natives ruled the land and we came and kicked them off they didn't have hatchery fish now did they? My guess is no. So now that us sportfishermen pay for all of the hatchery fish, now this excludes the Quinalts, why do the natives still get 50% of our hatchery fish? This to me doesn't make any sence. So why can we not get some type enforcement passed that says there is a warden or official that is at the docks when the natives come in with fish they get charged X amount for each hatchery fish they have aboard. Now the only problem would be that they would just start tossing over all of the hatchery fish when they brought their nets inland. But think about it, they would get tired of paying 150.00 for each hatchery fish. I sure as hell would, and eventually they would say to hell with it...

just another thought...

Andy Matthews

I would go for that, but do you think the Indians are? The only thing that bugs me is indians nowadays get mono gill nets, gas boats, and sell their catch. If its a part of their culture why dont they do it like grampa did. With hand woven nets and a self powered boat. I'm sure grandpa would be pissed to know his boys sell fish for beer$ rather than NOT WASTING A THING.

Andy,

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you need to review the history. The federal court found that hatchery fish are stocked by and large to offset losses of wild stocks. The treaty tribes have the right to fish. They may catch whatever is in the water. If that includes hatchery fish, regardless of who paid for them, that is a part of exercising the fishing right. Sorry.

We are first a nation of laws. Laws work better for some interests than others, but that's how it is, unless and until laws are modified.

However, there is no requirement that the state stock hatchery fish. It might be appropriate to evaluate various hatchery programs in terms of who reaps the benefits, and modify hatchery production to steer the benefits toward those who finance them, if possible. If it really bothers non-treaty citizens to have treaty fishermen catching hatchery fish, we could elect to forego hatchery fish entirely. Would you really wish to do that?

BK,

Sorry you dislike the fishing methods employed by treaty Indians. However, think through your logic path. Although the treaty is dated 1855, neither party intended to limit itself to then-current technology. Treaty Indians should no more give up power boats and nylon nets than you should give up your nylon fishing line, graphite rods, drift boats, jet sleds, waders, etc., etc. Technology works for all, and nothing in the treaties or the intentions of the treaties was intended to deny anyone from enjoying the benefits of progress. Do you actually think either party would have limited itself like that? No, I don't think so either.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

there is always someone there to shoot a good idea down. Good thinking andy.

Salmo,
I appreciate your response regarding the federal court decisions that have set the rules as far as when, where, and how the Indians can fish for steelhead and salmon in our state. As usual, you're right on the money.

While I also appreciate the comments that people are making referring to the treaty fishing rights, I am continually dismayed by the ignorance that is shown by people I talk to every day about how those rights are exercised. I'm absolutely and positively not ripping on anyone on this board or anywhere else about this ignorance. Before it became my job to know about this stuff, I, too, was under a lot of false impressions about how it all worked.

The two best references that I have ever run across that describe the facts, with some opinions, and certainly with legal conclusions, are:

1. Salmon Without Rivers, A History of the Pacific Salmon Crisis, by Jim Lichatowich. Read this book!! It gives both a factual rundown, with supporting authority for giving those facts, and a fairly good rundown of the federal law that now controls exactly how the fishing is done. No one is free from blame in this book, and no one is left out of the credit for doing the right thing. Fantastic book, and accurate as far as my own personal knowledge goes.

2. U.S. v. Washington (The "BOLDT DECISION). This is where it all begins, and eventually where it all ends (not that it didn't begin long before and will likely never end, but that this is the document that sets it all out). I will post the citation for it and quick instructions for how to find it for those who are interested in visiting their local law school library or local county law library. I will also post direct quotes that pertain to:
a. what "usual and accustomed" means
b. how escapement is measured and how the remaining fish are apportioned
c. the treatment of hatchery fish in the apportionment
d. what types of gear can be used

If any or all of us want to be forces for constructive change, then we need the tools to do it, and factual knowledge is the first and most important tool we can have. With that, we then know who to talk to about our problems, and what those people can or cannot do to address them.

Enough for now, I'll probably have more to say with my next post including the above. I'll be camping and fishing for the next week or so, and unless I do it tonight or tomorrow morning, then I'll do it when I return. Good fishing to everyone, enjoy the slight rise in the rivers with that rain!!

Fish on...

Todd.

salmo - To compare gillnets with mono fishing line seems incredulous. One method of fishing is almost totally selective while the other is almost totally unselective. Furthermore I personally don't think those that signed the treaty in the 1800's had any idea that we could overharvest Salmon & Steelhead to the point we have. Is your opinion shared by many of your co-workers at NMFS?