W. Wash. tribes say tribal fishing rights at risk

SEATTLE — More than 150 years ago, American Indian tribes in western Washington ceded much of the state to the federal government in return for guarantees of salmon and other fishing rights.

Now, those tribes say their treaty rights with the U.S. are at risk because the region is losing habitat that salmon need to survive. They say their treaty rights won't mean much if there's no salmon to harvest, and they're warning the federal government that they could resort to court action if more isn't done.

"The tribes' treaty rights, the basis of their economy, culture and way of life are at stake," said Mike Grayum, executive director of Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, an organization of 20 treaty tribes including the Hoh, Upper Skagit, Puyallup, Tulalip, Nooksack and Nisqually.

"Their very being is dependent on these natural resources. They don't exist without them. From the tribes' perspective, everything is at stake here. Their backs are against the wall."

Frustrated by the lack progress .... http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57464778/w-wash-tribes-say-tribal-fishing-rights-at-risk/

Good. Cutting hatchery production without addressing habitat loss via rampant development and poor logging and ag practice doesn't make sense.

Fixing the problems is good for everyone, not just Indians.

I think they are dependent on casino's, They don't exist without them. Let everyone in the state have slots and cards, And from my perspective, thier backs will be against the wall, and netting will no longer be thier main concern. Let all have an opertunity for equal gaming, or do some bartering with the tribes to have sole exclusive rights to the slots. If they don't want to barter, then open it up to all and tax it like anything else. State revenue source in the waiting..... You can't have your cake and at it to.

Meh, nets aren't going to disapear... but pressure on the feds **might** mean a little more $$ for habitat restoration/preservation... I'd be for that.

Maybe the Cowboy, non treaty, netting will be reduced to nothing....just like it was 150 years ago.....that would be a positive move in Washington State.

Well after reading the article my impression is that the tribes are starting the process of laying out their position that will end up in court seeking reparations. The simple fact is the $$$$$$$$$ available or much more can not reverse the impacts to the natural ecosystems that existed 150 years ago. Some things can be done to help and stabilize things for the future but it is a real reach to think you can undo 150 years of modern society and it's impacts.

One thing to remember to the tribes it matters little if the fish is taken in AK, BC, OR, or WA and harvested by sport or commercial. A dead fish is a dead fish so trying to separate non treaty impacts as to sport / commercial or state to state and those governed by international agreements made by the Feds, will matter little in assigning guilt as to who is the offender.

Apparently there is a blog site about this the tribes have set up:

http://blogs.nwifc.org/treatyrightsatrisk/2012/05/22/treaty-rights-risk-seattle-times/

It allows comments to be posted

YES! We are in this together! Puget Sound is getting polluted beyond belief and development is still unmanaged. We need to do this together.

I still believe its a moot point to constantly yell habitat when you are netting as aggressively as some of these tribes. Fish aren't going to rebound if they can never make it upstream to the spawning habitat. I talked to a netter last year on the Puyallup, he said they had less than 5 chinook into their hatchery yet there they were netting like no tomorrow. Another netter was bragging how is boat was top boat for salmon for consecutive weeks.

As you guys say its a group effort. I'm all for shutting a system down for a while and seeing how streams rebound, but laying nets across the lower Duwamish and then acting like its habitat that is holding back wild chinook numbers is border line retarded. If we are going t give I think they should give the source a chance to recover or reestablish itself in combination with habitat recovery.

agreed

The tribes don't give a rip about fish, habitat or rights, all they want to do is set the stage to get a huge settlement from the Federal Government.
It is not their right, just because a dim witted judge named Bolt made a tearable decision is not a reason for a "right"
Our federal government sold out to the Indians.
Our federal government has blown whole countries up for little reason, all they had to do back in the 60's is tell the indians "times have changed" get over it and not allow netting rivers for any reason!
There was even a chance back then to pay them off but the government let a couple old time indians cry on TV and change it all for ever because the average american had no idea the ramifications of allowing 1/10th of a population to control something that belongs to every american equally.
The population polutes and the indians gill net, what's the difference when the fish are killed they are dead.

Boldt didn't make anything up, he just reaffirmed the rights that were already put in place long ago.

I just can't stand it. Why do some think we will have " habitat recovery"? Restoration? At the risk of being rude, for crying out loud pull your head out of your a$$. 50 years from now if habitat, on average state wide, is the same as it is today it will be a major victory. This state or the Feds do not have the billions ( yes with a B ) it would cost attempting major natural production restoration. Nor do we have the political will to impose mandatory growth management on urban areas ( PS ) or land scape management on tree farms and normal agriculture. To restrict chemical and .................. good god the list goes on.

The productivity of some streams is shot and some not but in all cases diminished from 150 years ago. With reduced productivity you reduce harvest to match up watershed by watershed. In this state we cook the books and keep on truck-in. Be nice to blame the tribes but before them we had non Indian netters and MARINE FISHERIES sport & commercial of the same magnitude depending your location.

Living in Puget Sound Basin and bitching about the Tribes nets is to completely blind yourself to the impacts of the last 40 years of growth as our population exploded with the influx of those from other states. The tribes fault? Christ what planet you all been living on?

Not disagreeing AM. It does make one wonder why when we harvest the food chain at almost all levels that we then moan about the decline of the predator species at the top and middle of the food chain.

A lot of shortsighted indian bashing in this thread prompted me to register. Us sporties LOVE to moan about judge Boldt, how he stole OUR fish and gave them to the tribes, when the reality is that he defended the rights the treaty tribes agreed to when the treaties were signed. Boldt didnt steal OUR fish, we had been stealing the tribes.
Claiming sportfishing doesnt have an impact on a run is complete horseshit. It may not be as large an impact as a commercial fishery, but if you're going to point fingers and wail, you'd best be accountable for the impact you are causing. We are all guilty of having great days on the water where we have caught and released many more fish than we kept. Our catch records may only show the 2 fish we punched, but not all the fish we release survive, so all of us are guilty of fish wastage, not just the tribes.
The tribal fisheries occur for the most part in rivers and are therefore much more visible than say an ocean troll fishery or San Juan purse siener. Ignorant men will assume this means that THEY are getting way more fish than WE are. They are getting more fish out of the river, but probably not more overall.
In my opinion, sportsmen should be working much more closely with the tribes on salmon recovery. The indian treaties and the guarantee's therein are probably our best bet at preventing the extirpation of salmon and steelhead from our rivers.

this is crazy, the changes that need to happen(decrease ALL commercial fishing and selective seasons for sport for a period of time and habitat restoration) to rebound the salmon wont happen.......would lighten too many peoples wallets. Its a shame and I agree that it is not just the tribes having an impact, I however think that the impact from the majority of sportfishing is microscopic in comparison to that brought on by all commercial fishing and due to habitat loss/destruction, and I know that most of the salmon that I have released back into the river HAVE died(hopefully after they spawn)......they all do, but at least they are in the river to restore nutrients into the system, and I would be willing to bet that if a comparison study were to be done that the numbers of c/r survival are a little less than that of a net stretching the entire length of a river. I wish that everyone involved could and would do what is necessary to improve the runs and habitat.....just don't think that the good 'ole dollar will allow it to happen

I think the interesting thing about the habitat / harvest arguments in regard to recovery is that all areas of the state are seeing declines. This includes areas that have protected habitat (such as Olympic National Park, which is as good as habitat is going to get here in Washington). Harvest does have an impact.

We also have cases where the tribes are just plain wrong in their management such as Tarboo Creek in Hood Canal.

This doesn't negate treaty fishing rights, but the tribes need to look in the mirror. We all play a role in the decline of salmon. When all you do is point the finger at everyone else all you do is piss off your allies in the salmon restoration world.