Hey, RT!?

[Deleted User]

Why so down on the Tribes? Don't you know the REAL enemy here is the big commercial interests BACKING your State DFW? Not to say the Tribes are lily-white, but c'mon- ever seen a tribe run one of those nasty 5-mile long nets in open water?

[Deleted User]

Previous to this year I hadn't been "down" on any Tribe. I have been vehemently opposed to the unfair allocation of harvestable fish that have not been visably the fault of the Tribes, until this summer. Previously, the reason for unfair allocations appeared to be the shortsightedness of some people's (not mine) Euro ancestor's Treaty mechanics signed in another time and world of the 1800's. Not the fault of Native Americans though. Then a quarter of a century ago those poorly thought out Treaties were wrongly interpreted by the infamous Judge Boldt, who took the phrase of "share fish in common with" as to mean that the small minority of Natvie Americans are to get 50% of all the harvestable salmon and steelhead and the vast majority made up of all the other races on Earth that have become one in this country should only get 50% of the harvestable fish. Again, not completely the fault of the Native Americans (although some of their leaders, lawyers, and perhaps even Judge Boldt's Native American wife likely influenced Boldt's wrongful decision). "In common with" certainly should have been interpreted as both get to fish for salmon and steelhead. Together, with the same rules, and for the sustainability of the native fish runs, which old fashioned nets of another lifetime of abundance allowed- but NOT now! That's still not enough for me to be "down" on N.A.'s. Now I do have good reason to be "down" on some N.A.'s! In particular the Columbia River Tribal Commission, who was at the forefront of pressuring the NMFS to exclude non-Indian fishermen from a much deserved quota of this years huge excessive hatchery springer run on the mainstem Col., that we paid for! Excessive because many of these hat's will wind up in catfood cans. Also wrong was that the Indian nets took some Fed. ESA listed native salmon, whereas the sportfishers can release the unclipped fish. That whole thing was no less than a rediculously unfair fiasco. Now the Col. Tribes are trying to strongarm the NMFS, thru more misinterpretation of Treaties and threats of Fed. lawsuits, into a rediculous allocation of the 9% of harvestable Col. Chinooks, giving the Indians 8.5% and non-Indian fishers 0.5%. This has caused the NMFS to try to also close down the long successful Col. fall chinook sportfishery. So unfair is the Tribal Comm. and their Treaty powered hold on the NMFS that the States of Oregon and Washington have said enough is enough!!! So they have filed suit in Fed. District Court to halt the "Unfair Pair"! When you combine this huge slap in our faces by the Col. Tribes with the wrongful and wittnessed unlawful abusive slaughter of declining wild native steelhead runs in NW Washington by Tribal nets, then yes, now I am "down" on the Native Americans that are perpetuating these wrongs! But I am not "down" on good and fair indiviual Native Americans or Tribes. - RT

[Fishslayer]

the Native Americans are not the ones who pay for salmon recovery and they still get their 50% of fish. The salmon recovery money comes from us tax payers.

[Deleted User]

I would humbly suggest to you that Boldt interpreted the treaties correctly for the first time since they were signed. I can see how easy it is to bellyache now that Natives get their historically fair share. Do you know anything about harvest OUTSIDE your beloved Columbia? Tribes are an easy scapegoat with their obvious harvesting, but what about the big commercial operations? And don't think for a second that your DFW is sticking up for you! What you're seeing is a temporary benefit coutesy of the Commercial interests' influence on your State Fisheries (mis)Management. As a Tribal member, and sportsfisherman, it pains me to see netting-period, but you ought to do more than knee-jerk the issue.

[Deleted User]

fishslayer - In the Col. and many other places they are getting more than 50%! By unfair interpretation and outright unlawful abuses!

[Deleted User]

Glenn - I am so glad to have a Tribal member to post and debate with so we can come to a better understanding of each other's positions. Really! For starters, I've heard specifically from Monica Elkpacker (from Oregon, now in Oklahoma, but to return in the future) in e-mail writing that most Native Americans don't mind at all being refered to as Indian. Is this proper as I think? Also, do you have means to find out for us what's with the Col. Tribal Comm. concerning the above? Would greatly appreciate some insight! -- As for commercial netting by non-Indians, read thru the latter replys under ******'s "Columbia Update" post thread for my debate with a comm. netting advocate. I am more opposed to their netting than Indians getting a fair share of the fish because their gillnets take too many native fish (especially the rare larger steelhead), which are supposed to be protected by the Fed. ESA, except for Tribal fishing apparently. And they also net below us when they can do it above us instead, when allowed to have a season. And they have no treaty, thus I don't understand how they can survive these times, thinking all the while they somehow deserve special netting privilages over the rest of us. How does that work anymore?? The Gov. has been trying to buy their lic. & boats so they can go get another job in this present good job market. - RT

[Deleted User]

It's my understanding that Indians (ok by me, just stay away from "Geronimo, Chief, Buck, Redman,etc.) are entitled to ALL of the fish, and actually granting everyone else the right to fish for 50%. I'm not sure on this, so check your own sources. That being the case, the Columbia Tribes would be entitled to over the usual 50% if they saw fit. At least that's what I hear. In the spirit of the topic I'll try to confirm or deny.
Treaty Rights will NEVER go away, and I fully support the Boldt decision,obviously. I am saddened in some of the applications of said decision. Sport caught fish are worth a lot more than commercially caught fish and I know our native runs can't sustain commercial harvest. Native guides could make a killing with Tribal fish allocations, and there'd still be plenty of fish making it to spawn.
The only thing keeping commercials in business is the Hatcheries, which our licenses pay for. You are probably supporting more commercial fishermen with your taxes and fees than Natives. Eliminating commmercial fishing, or at least nets, would go a long way in helping NW fish stocks recover. You saw where 696 got up here, right? Did you hear about the WDFW person who spoke out against 696? Who's back pocket is the WDFW (at least) in? If you guessed the commercial netters, you'd be right. I firmly believe that commercial fishermen and their nets are the #1 enemy of salmon.

Glenn