Makahs have not-to-exceed quota this year

To me this was the important question regarding this fishery, and here is the response I received from WDFW:

*************************************

Michael:
Last year the winter treaty Indian troll fishery was managed as a season, October 1, 2004 - April 30, 2005, the catch assumption that was modeled was based on the most recent six-year average of 1,650 fish. This year the fishery is November 1, 2005 - February 28, 2006, 4 days per week, not to exceed a catch quota of 8,500 fish.

Phil Anderson
Intergovernmental Resource Management
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
*************************************

I personally am satisfied with this result and would like to suggest that maybe a boycott would not be productive as we have achieved about all that we could expect to achieve.

Any thoughts??

I will continue to boycott Neah Bay and would encourage others to do the same. I don't see this as much gain for the sportsman. We still got nailed for making up the overage they took from the threatened chinook this year. They were willing to give up nothing there. And as far as that guideline the Phil writes about, as far as I'm concerned it's not worth the paper it's written on. The real issue here is that when (not if) the Makah exceed their quota next year nothing will happen to them. It never does. They get their hand slapped and told to stop and then the next time it's the same old same old again. The only thing that will ever stop the tribes from doing as they please is when they truly have to answer to some entity. Right now they answer to no one. Some may think I'm negative, but after 30 year's of watching what the tribes have done since the Boldt decision I have nothing to influence me to think differently.

I agree with Hoghunter, we are basically powerless to stop them, about the only thing we can do is it them where it hurts, in the wallet. Send them a message, don't fish Neah Bay.

8,500 is a lot more than the 1,600 that WDFW expected. What gives there???? It's still B.S.

Boycott Neah Bay.Westport here I come.
Good luck,
STRIKE ZONE

Quotas only work if the numbers being caught are accurately reported.

Given the Makah’s honesty track record, I would like to see independent (non-tribal) observers, otherwise I wouldn't frankly trust the reported numbers.
:rolleyes:

With all due respect to SZ and others, I must disagree with any boycott of the community of Neah Bay. From my prespective, boycotting that community is basically boycotting the best sportfishing opportunity for small-boat anglers in Washington's saltwater.
Makah fisheries managers agreed to a model that was presented at the table last year. And their troll fleet exceeded that. Nothin' new, except that it made the media.
Now, there is a publicized guideline (8000-9000).
Fishinut pointed out, in another post, that salmon in our state are substantially commercially harvested by our neibors to the north. The Makah troll fleet numbers published in the paper are a drop in the bucket when compared. Ironic that some of the folks would rather spend their $ on that side of the border over a print in the paper when infact, that commercial fisherman to the north have a greater effect to our salmon return.
The Makah's are easy to blame. They wave a certain finger in everbody's face when they are captured in the media, and could care less what you and I think. They have an ideal location at a major intersection of salmon returns to this area. And those customers of the media are sensitive to that.
Some complain of the loss of two weeks in July in MA 9. It's a supposed coho fishery according to the previous regs. No doubt that there are more migrator chinook present at that time than migritory coho. Instead we get greater oppurtunity in MA 8-1/8-2 from Oct.-Apr., with a greater retention limit for unendangered chinook.
Everyone seems to generalize that the tribe is at fault. Do you think that the tribe wants the negative publicity that the '04 winter troll fishery has brought? No. Did the fisheries managers make a mistake there? Yes. And how are the being repremanded for it? 5 day a week sport season..?
Was the troll fleet given the opportunity and did they take it? Yes. Why did they take it? Because managers within and outside sat at that particular table and agreed on a season in 2004, not on a guidline/quota. Now that there is one, we can only guess as to the outcome.
Some good points were made in previous thread(s) concerning the winter Makah troll fishery. And the efforts of all who contributed words of disapproval did not go in vain. The [(F)Makahs] should not be generalized as a communtity of selfish pillagers. I have no problem if their fishery's managers are.
But again, they are a small drop in the bucket.

Jaydee, your entitled to your opinion. In my opinion Neah Bay is the Makah so any support that I give anywhere in that community in one way or another ends up in their pocket. It's not just about the Makahs to me. It's about the way the tribes continually wave their finger at all of us, take more fish and shellfish than they're supposed to and get away with it. Then when they exceed quotas it's the sportsmen who have to suffer and make up for their misdeeds. You mention the opening of Area 8-1 and 8-2 from Oct to Apr for marked fish. Yes this gives opportunity for winter fishing that hasn't existed to us for years. However you notice we didn't get Area 9 which is where 70 to 80% of the winter blackmouth come from in the North Sound. I've fished the north sound for 35 years and yes 8-1 and 8-2 can be good at times but the consistent producer is are 9. Even the bulk of the Everett charter boats fish in Area 9 because that's where the fish are. Here again it's like we're thrown a bone to keep us quiet while the tribes continue to do what they want. Enough is enough. My motto is boycott anything and anywhere that the tribes do business and that includes all their Nevada casino's that nobody but them can have.

i believe that we were successful in our efforts because the "managed as an open season with guidlines" got changed to "manage as a quota with not-to-exceed limits".

I would assume that if these limits are exceeded, then arrests would be made.

Well I didn’t really want to get involved with this thread, however being a First Nations fishing guide I couldn't let uninformed people keep making comments about my brothers in Washington State. First of all it is a privilege that you can go fishing at all. Whereas, it is the born right of every Native to provide fish for his family and to make a moderate livelihood. For thousands of years the natives along the Pacific Coast have been fishing and managing the fish stocks. They took only what they needed for food and for barter with interior tribes who had more access to deer and other game. At the time of contact with Europeans the rivers and coastline were teaming with fish of all species. That was only 250 years or so ago. Since that time the Natives have watched all the fish stocks plummet from degradation of the ecosystems from pollution, logging, industry, and over fishing by commercial fisheries. Some of these stocks are now at serious risk of failing all together.

Now to understand the rational of the average native of today’s world... we have basically sat back for the last two hundred years or so and watched this happen to our fish stocks. I understand why some natives might be frustrated by watching people come into there traditional territory and continue on the legacy of fishing what they feel are their fish stocks. Now I don't and would never condone the tactics of slashing tires. I am after all a fisherman too and would hate to have tire issues on any fishing trip... I would give up my spare tire to anyone in need.

I started my career as a fishing guide when I was 18 yrs old. Even at that age I could easily see that I was catching too much fish for my own preference. So I wanted to spend time working on rehabilitating the stocks. I worked as a fisheries officer for 7 years stationed on a River that had a fish hatchery on it. I patrolled the river and helped to write management plans and harvest plans and I also enforced these plans, among other duties. I don't think that there is any doubt that the continuation of fish stocks is the most important agenda item for the First Nations of the coast. And for any fisherman for that matter.

Personally I think the wonders of the Pacific North West should be shared with people from all walks of life it is one of the most stunning places on earth. I certainly hope that my children will be able to experience everything that I have experienced with the Great Pacific Ocean as I am sure we all do. Instead of standing around pointing fingers and dishing out blame we all need to work together to not only find common ground but we need each other if we ever get serious about trying to rebuild these fish stocks.

Spirit of the Eagle - Welcome to this BB and thanks for the inspiring words.

However, you missed the point. Many of us who live in the PNW recognize the same problems that you have pointed out. Pollution, habitat loss, hydropower, etc have reeked havoc on Pacific salmon stocks over the past 200+ years. Many of us, including the tribes, have shouldered the burden of trying to reverse that trend. Sometimes with great sacrafice of time and resources ($$'s).

Given that the tribes have been the one who have pointed out these problems for years, many of us expect them to either help in our efforts to recover Pacific salmon (which they do) or at least not get in the way. That's why the Makah's large catch of Chinook salmon earlier this year hurts so much. Yes, there are other folks who share the blame (Alaska and BC) but two wrongs don't make a right.

It's unfortunate that some folks say nasty things about the Tribes when they disagree with the circumstances. You are right to defend your brothers in Neah Bay but let's face it, their actions have hurt some folks. I hope you can understand the reaction, although it's not always constructive.

If you want to boycott Neah bay, knock yourself out. Its your money to spend as you choose.

If you do this to make a statement against overharvest of endangered chinook and then go to canada to chinook fish, then in my book you are a hypocrite. Sure the makahs overharvested but so do the Canadians. Overall canadian impacts are much larger than Chinook impacts on PS fish. Boycotting one but supporting the other seems hypocritical to me.

Well I admit I don't really understand the complete issue... I take it some people feel like the tribe over harvested a run of spring Salmon, which in turn affected sport fisherman’s ability to catch fish as well as possibly impacting the run itself. This is kind of what I gather, but I don't think I missed the point at all. People are trying to blame a group for practising their inherent right to harvest Salmon. The fact of the matter is these people should be able to harvest as much fish as they possibly need. Now whether that impacts other people or not it is their right.

You can't possibly blame the tribes for the pollution of the rivers, the loss of spawning beds due to urban development, mis-management by over harvesting by both the Canadian and US governments ect. Although they are the ones most greatly impacted by all of these things as they have watched their resources being depleted more and more by all user groups. But as soon as they go and fish it is all too easy to blame them for the decline in fish stocks. If I ever heard a case of a pot calling a kettle black this is it!!! You are totally correct in thinking that this isn’t a very constructive topic it may be already to late to save the wild salmon. More and more houses are being built inland... taking more and more away from the habitat. The habitat for salmon doesn't stop 50 yards on either side of the rivers. It takes a strong healthy forest to filter the rain water properly before it enters a stream which feeds a river. The rain isn't supposed to run off a farmer’s field laden with chemicals... or off of city highways and roads and into the streams. NVM the gautlet of commercial fishing gear they have to run along the coast from Alaska to Oregon.

The best story I've heard regarding a Natives place in the ecosystem of the PNW...there was an old Indian man fishing on a River... and a fisheries officer comes up to him and asks him to see his fishing licence. The old Native who had been fishing the same spot on the river since he was a little boy, before him his father, and his father before him, turned to the fisheries officer and asked him... Do you see that bear 200 feet downstream? (Up till now the fishery officer did not see the bear), but he says yes I do see it now. The old man says well my people have been here fishing alongside the bears since time began, perhaps you should go and ask him to see his fishing licence also...

"You can't blame a broken window on a little crack when someone has thrown a rock through it."

Your right Geoduck it is my right to spend my money as I choose. Knock yourself out at Neah Bay. I'm not boycotting them just for this issue. I've been boycotting them for years as they've been doing this for years.
Spirit of the Eagle, in this state the tribes are allocated 50% for all harvestable salmon and shellfish. They're not entitled to one iota over that amount, yet they regularly take more than that amount.

If that were true, you might have a legitimate argument.

50% !!! We don't get near that in Canada!! I'm curious are they selling these fish or fishing them for food?

A moment of enlightenment! Welcome to our world, SOTE.

Yes, treaty tribes get one half of all harvestable fish resources in this state. It is their legal and binding right to do so. A relative handful of folks are entitled to half the fish resources, while the masses are left to divvy up the other half. On a per capita basis, you can see the tremendous allocation disparity of a "common" resource. Now you can see why non-treaty users get all bent out of shape when the treaty allocation is exceeded.

EDIT: And yes, they sell most of that harvest.

200 years ago everything in the whole world was different...

All humans have depended upon the fruits of the Earth for sustainance, whether they huddled in a temporary shelter on the banks of a creek full of salmon, or worked the land raising crops, or trapped for furs to trade, or hired themselves out as guides, or toiled away building goods for other humans to trade......................all humans put their pants on one leg at a time, and the natives need to get off their high horse and just maybe get a real job/life.

If you want to play cowboys and indians, then I guess we could just put a little thing called a TAX on everything you have to trade with, and put a little thing called a price hike on everthing that you can't find on the beach.

Like I said before, IF the natives want to live the traditional lifestyle of their ancestors, in a camp on the creek with no modern B.S., then I could respect that, but trying to tell me that they can live a modern trailer trash lifestyle, and claim ancestrial rights to all the crap in the treaties is a farce at best !

If changing the treaties means that Uncle Sam lied, well then boo hoo, you don't think Uncle Sam has lied to everyone else a time or two ?

50 % seems fairly reasonable. If the Canadian Government would offer the tribes here 50% of the TAC I think a lot of tribes would be quite happy with that. It would bring in some extra income to mostly low-income families

I think the biggest mistaken conception is still that this is “common” fisheries that were talking about. At least here in Canada and I don't know if it is true in the US also that the access to Salmon has been set out by the Supreme Court of Canada (the highest court in our land) that the access to fish stocks are as follows:
1 Conservation
2 Native Food, Social, and Cerimonial fisheries.
3 Sporty's
4 Commercial

Here in Canada it is still up to debate how the treaty tribes are to be dealt with. I have a feeling that my cousins across the strait signed the same treaty as my own tribe, in which it states we are free to carry on our fisheries as formally. This means unlimited access to the resources second only to conservation. We here have never signed any agreements to diminish these rights, yet virtually no one practises these rights for fear of being subjected to prosecution. There has to be some common ground found for everyone’s sake and especially for the sake of our fish stocks. And that actually brings up a bigger question..?

Time for a brief editorial...lol
There is obviously a growing demand for fish as all of our population grows. So the obvious thing to me would be why not make more fish. With the technology available today it would be no problem for us to pump up production of almost all species of shellfish and finfish. However, I feel it is actually the Commercial industry that is somewhat responsible... here is my theory... If we had say 1 million fish returning to every river and creek... I mean wall to wall fish... and commercial fisherman were called in to catch them because there were just too many fish...What do you think that would do to the price of fish on the open market. A backlog of fish would definitely mean lower market prices. I feel that the management of our fish stocks is based a large part on market driven morals. And both the natives and the Sporty’s are caught somewhere in the midst.

Let me just end my discussion on this topic. There is no easy solution to the problems we all face with our stocks. Maybe eventually we will all find a way to work together to find solutions to the many complex issues that surround our fisheries, but I hope it doesn’t take the total collapse of fish stocks to do it.

“I bet it’s a tough life being a fish”

LMAO...Is this even worth a reply...I mean really what ru like 12?
Time to grow up and take on some resposibliity for being part of the major cause of the problem.

In the context of the Makah winter troll fishery this is absolutely accurate.

There is a little thing called fiduciary responsibility that you are overlooking. The bands of the PNW did not take up arms...why..? Because we were guaranteed in a treaty that our rights would be protected. So what happened between then and now...? Why can't people simply honour the treaties without bitc#ing or wanting to change the way it is interpreted. The people of the PNW (and I don’t mean the immigrants of the last 200 years). Have been literally taking it up their a$$ since the time of contact and it is about time they started getting the lions share of a resource guaranteed to them by the treaties. And thank goodness for the lawmakers of ur great land to uphold such rulings.

Enough said... I'm going fishing...

Ohh and sry the first runs of the year are american fish that pass by

These threads about tribal fishing crack me up. Spirit of the eagle hasnt read any of the original treaties, so shut the *uck up! The treaty doesnt give tribes 50 percent of anything, that was all Boldt's doing. As I keep saying, if the tribes want to do their cultural or subsistance fishing, go for it, but as previously stated, they are tax exempt commercial fisherman and nothing more. I say make a choice, fishing or casino, cant have both. Casinos arent treaty rights, and every tribe member gets like 3 or 4k a month from casinos. Plus what they get for fishing(selling) salmon and steelhead. Yet they pollute the rivers too, ever been on a reservation? Trash everywhere, including in the water. Bottom line is WE won, you Lost!

Eagle..Are you from one of the tribes that used to be raided by the Makahs of Washington? Is your tribe one of the ones they used to attack and capture slaves from? Were your women the ones the Makahs liked as sex slaves in the early 1800s?

By the way if it wasn't for us "immigrants" you wouldn't be using a computer right now. You would still be trying to communicate with grunts and hand jestures and drawing pictures on the cave walls with charcoal. Civilization is a bear cat...I can see why you have a problem embracing it.

What happend to the 4 words in the treaties, No alcohol, No gambling. Pretty straight foward, yet......................

Fishhead5

Who ever said that..? u perhaps aunty but not me.. I never said that was in the treaty.. the one we signed allows us to continue our fisheries as formally. It is your government that decided to tax you to pay for their bargin.

And yes they did come here to raid.. but we used to see them coming.. so we'd put all of our ugly women down on the beach..lmao

And yes I have read the original treaties.. they can be found here:

http://www.gov.bc.ca/tno/history/douglas.htm

When I speak of a treaty I speak of this treaty as it is the one that affects me.

Spirit of the Eagle - I read the info on the link you provided, and can find nothing that would lead any educated person to believe that fishing by a non-native is a privilege.

SOTE,

You are in for a butt whuppin now dude

I smell Canadian Bacon cooking

gv,

One quick point, then all of you can go back to talking apples and oranges for the rest of the day...

Non-tribal fishing is unequivocally, undeniably, and without question, a privilege, especially when contrasted with the treaty right.

It's in the Boldt decision, in no uncertain terms, and was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States.

If anyone is curious about it, do a search on this BB under "right or privilege", or something like that, and find the 38 or 39 times it has been re-hashed (not unlike the above arguments, I might add).

Carry on!

Fish on...

Todd

There's no point in me trying to change people's minds who are not supportive of the decisions made by the highest courts in both our countries. I didn't intend on writing in this particular topic just becuase I knew already what your responses would be. It was just a matter of who would say them. This is totally understandable given societies knowlegde of the actual situation. I am done with this topic.. for the second time and wish that I didn't have to deal with racism everywhere I try to practise free speech.

SOTE:

There are a few comments in this thread that are, IMHO, unwarranted, HOWEVER, please understand that we, as sportsfishers, have watched our fishing stocks dwindle, in mass, since the implimentation of the Boldt decision so many years ago.

That said, there are numerous factors in that "loss of returning fish" equation. Increased commercial fishing (non-native) is among them.

I believe what most all of us are upset about is not the "use" or "implimentation" of the rights granted to the tribes by the Boldt decision, but the blantant ABUSE of those rights by many of the tribes.

If the intended spirit of the Boldt decision was followed by the tribes, then the rest of the folks would not be so upset. Fact is, issues like what the Makah did with the troll fishery are a prime example.

Our own WDFW has no "teeth" to back up any enforcement with, so, the tribes do what they wish, and give the rest of us the finger when we see the resource being trashed.

Like I said, the loss of fish is due to a number of factors...MOST of which we (as a people, together) can change...BUT, the issue of the tribes over-fishing, killing (wasting!) thousands of good fish just for the eggs (which are generally sold overseas)...etc., and we (Sportsfishers) being totally without any options when it comes to making them stop.

This just irritates the hell out of people.

The local poaching wild steelhead can get fined, jailed, lose all their equipment (truck, poles, etc.) while the tribal member kills 100 times more with a gill net and "it's OK", and "within their rights".

If there is ENOUGH FISH for them to net them, then why don't the WDFW biologists feel there is enough for someone to keep their catch for dinner?

That is why we are upset. It has NOTHING to do with racism, but rather a strong desire to see OUR (meaning all peoples) resources flourish instead of being destroyed by environmental, natural and cultural forces.

That's why we are angry. It is not you, personally, or your tribe, but the specific individuals within the tribal fishery groups that seem hell-bent on destroying a resouce that once provided the life-support for their people.

It's sad.

Respectfully,

Mike B

Todd..Every situaton can be looked at from more than one angle and doesn't always have to be looked at in legal black and white.

And The race card is always the fall back position for victims. You don't see me crying racism for all the Norwegian jokes I have to endure. My viking anscestors probably taught the tribes some of their rape and pillage techniques...I guess the sword never took off in indian country though. Maybe too heavy?

I believe all they found of the Viking invaders here were... bones. I don't imagine they expected people here to have arrows.

I know where some of you are coming from though... I know there are certain individuals out there that feel that the fish stocks are near collapse and that they'll be dambed if they will let non-native fishermen take the last fish. I certainly don't condone or practise this type of behaviour... they way I was taught... take only what u need nothing more and be sure to give back when you can. The individuals catching too many fish will have it come back to haunt them in 4 years from now when the returns are low. No matter whom you are conservation and survival of the species is the most important thing. The seals and sea lions take up to 46, Million pounds of fish every year. The commercial fisheries in Alaska took Five billion pounds of fish and shellfish that were harvested from Alaskan waters in 2002 alone. In the same time frame another 580 million pounds from BC. These are all pretty huge numbers compared to the take by both Natives and Sporty’s combined. No, I still believe the bigger problem isn’t the pressure form either the Natives or the Sporty’s but the overall pressure on the resources from everyone combined. I spent my time on the river ensuring the survival of that river system for the time I spent on it. It gave me great satisfaction putting something back into the resources that I enjoy like the rest of us.

When you mention the bazzillions of fish caught in Alaska you must realize that you are talking mostly about trawl caught stuff like hake.....right, you did know that ???

And you also know that you were including all the shrimp and crab too, right ???

The North Pacific ocean, and the Bering Sea combined can sustainably produce a mindboggling amout of "fish"...unlike the relative drop in the bucket of habitat that we were discussing prior. Got any more rhetoric handy, I love it...

I like what I heard someone else suggest. If the Makahs go over the "quota" again, close area 4 to all fishing. That might make our "co-managers" think twice. We can't control them any other way but that.

SOTE, Thanks for your input. It is nice to get the story from the other side.

One Tribe I bank has a Gary Larson cartoon in the Tribal headquarters. One native says to the other, "Didn't you think them saying "See you later!" had an ominous sound to it?", as the Nina, Pinta and the Santa Maria sail off in the distance.

Good old aunty.... making it up she goes again.

"That's Boldt's interpretation of what the Tribes thought they were going to be entitled to if they gave up land." Wrong on both counts. 1) The 50% language came from an interpretation of what the term "in common with" meant in 1855. 2) The Tribes did not think they were going to get 50% and would have been happy to get something less via settlement of the issue. Your friend Slade (from the Gorton Fisherman clan) decided not to settle because he thought the state had the stronger hand. Wonder what he thinks now???

"If he meant half, he would have said so." Wrong twice again. 1) It was a negotiation... Stevens does not simply put in what he means... others had some say as well. 2) The trade language that was used to communicate meaning at that time in history was thoroughly studies by the experts. "In common with" basically meant half.

"A liberal, touchy feely Judge took pity on treaty tribes and elevated their station in life to commercial fishermen." Another urban legend perpetuated by the uninformed. Boldt was about as conservative as they came. He was appointed by the Eisnehower administration for crying out loud. He was one of the reasons the Tribes wanted to settle... beacuse they never believed they would get a fair shake with him in the chair. He was also part of the resaon Slade felt confident the court would rule in favor of State's rights. Slade was in a position to settle the case and give the Tribes less than 50%. I wonder how he feels about that now???

How can you even put these two statements in the same post??? "The US of A has reneged on treaties before..." "The religious right..." I think you had better talk with your church groups again... they have been strong supporters of the tribes and protection of tribal rights.... from day one. I doubt things have changed too much.

Try again.

On the ADFG website they say they take about 100 mil.LBS of salmon a year on average

"""1) The 50% language came from an interpretation of what the term "in common with" meant in 1855."""


Do you know what interpretation means ?

Do you know who's interpretation you are talking about ?

"""On the ADFG website they say they take about 100 mil.LBS of salmon a year on average"""


Tell us how much of that is yucky ol' humpies (crab bait/cat food), and how much is actually fit for human consumption...i.e. King, Sockeye, and I guess Coho...which is really best used for halibut bait...

How much wild steelhead do you think Alaska puts on the market ?

Aunty - Yada, yada, yada...

I was not there and you were not there and Boldt was not there and no one alive in the early 1970's was THERE in 1855. Happy now?

But were you there during the U.S. vs. WA court proceedings? If you were, let us all in on what transpired, please.

Did you hear first hand what the court based many of it's findings on? They were not "interpretations of a liberal judge." The basis of equal shares coming from "in common with" was a result of the testimony by expert witnesses who testified as to what the trade language used at treaty times meant and what concepts the U.S. government was attempting to communicate.

BTW, your views on what I offer or don't offer on this board are just that... your views. I could tell you what stock I put in them but why be so obvious?

For the last 30 years I have worked with many of the attorneys and the witnesses who were active in the case.... on both sides of the argument.

I could go on attempting to eductae you, but why bother... you have it all figured out and the facts are not in the equation.

At the time Department of Game and Department of Fisheries were two seperate Departments and WDFW had not been established. During the proceedings Department of Fisheries made the statement that "we could live with 50%", Boldt took that to mean that there had been a negotiated settlement, which there hadn't been, and started looking for something in the treaty language that could justify a 50/50 split. That's how "in common" came to be "we'll split it down the middle".

The 1855 treaties in question are here...
http://www.ccrh.org/comm/river/treaties.htm

The Boldt decision including footnotes is here...
http://www.ccrh.org/comm/river/legal/boldt.htm

Actually Aunty you probably won't belive this but it's true. The attorney for the tribe's was from Chehalis. Just down the road from my home town. He and his wife were close friends of my parents.

I can tell you that he was just about ridden out of town on a rail after the trial. He did in fact tell the tribal chieftens to ask for everything but expect less than half of what they wanted.

He was even surprised at what happened, after all judge Bolt, at first thought this whole thing was a bunch on nonsence. In a way it is too bad but this guy was one heck of an attorney.

And I am not using his name on purpose. This should all be water under the bridge by now.

It's obvious to me that a person would have to be well educated indeed, a person truly capable of the highest order of mental gymnastics to be able to arrive at the conclusion that "in common with" means 50%, only perhaps an attorney or a judge could accomplish such a feat.

If many believe, as I do, that Boldt incorrectly interpreted the words "in common" why hasnt it been challenged and orveturned? Plenty of time has passed for that to happen.

The precident has been set, and the supreme ccourt upheld the decision.

The activist judicuary must support itself.

It,s nearly impossible to get the genie back in the bottle.

Is that the same religious right that took the children from the reserves to rape and torture them in residential schools? Nope... If I were them I would try to get as far away from the native issue after the persecutions they put these children through.

Sprit of the Eagle, I take exception to your comments about the persecution of the Indian culture. I agree that forced indoctrination of the Indian children was wrong. It was with the best intentions (by the federal government) that it was tried to atempt an assimilation.

I work closely with some of the tribes in my area. They'd be the first to tell you that Indian culture itself is less than perfect, and always has been. Just like the rest of the population.

Are the tribes going to hold a grudge against whites until the end of time for any social problems that are in existence today? I gave a presentation recently at the request of a local tribe against substance abuse. It was well received and they really seemed to have an interest in change. You can only blame the breakdown of the culture for so long before people have to take responsibiity for themselves.

Things change dude...and we all need to work towards a common solution, like having stronger fish stocks. That is what I also heard in your previous posts that I do agree with.

It is fine if you take exception to the truth, but there is no denying it. Personally I have had no problem adapting to the white society. I have a huge house that isn't on a reserve, I drive a new f-350 diesel, and I have a brand new $150,000 charter boat that is already paid off. I have had no problem adapting to this type of lifestyle. And I didn't need to be taken away from my parents to achieve this. I don't know how you could think that taking children away from their parents, family, and their culture was done with the best intentions when what they were trying to do was totally destroy our culture and our way of life.

Quote “Are the tribes going to hold a grudge against whites until the end of time for any social problems that are in existence today?”

Well… when I went to school I had to look forward to fighting 8-10 white kids every recess and lunch hour (I have never lived on a reserve, only in white dominated neighbourhoods, and only gained my full Native Status in 1984 due to changes in the Canadian Constitution)…how could the teachers have not known what was going on..? Do you think I should carry a grudge with me…? This is exactly what I mean about knowing what my brothers In Washington State have to go through on a daily basis. Do I hold a grudge with whites? Probably not, my wife is white, my best friend is also white, whom has somewhat different opinions about the native issue than I do, but u know what? I don’t hold it against him. I still fish beside him, (when he’s allowed to fish) I realize that we are all in this together but there has to be a realization that this is OUR resource and once that is established I’m sure we will be more than happy to share it.

The animals and fish are on this planet for the use by all people, not just the decendants of some people who camped by the same creek forever, because others moved around does not make them any less of people. If you think you natives should have special rights, then you should be proud enough to stay away from the whites modern technology...not the least of which would be your automobiles, housing, electricity, grocery stores, and clothing..........either go back to your ancestors life style, or deal with assimilating into the real world sans any special treatment. No wonder you have your stuff paid for...how hard could it be with all the benefits your people have sponged off of the U.S. govt, and the fish and game of the region.

They can't go back to there native lifestyle Oregonian--- the land, animals and fish have been pillaged.
I'm closing this one also.