The necessity of Indian gillnetting.

[WildHawg]

It is clear that this topic is one that engenders strong feelings among many who post on this board. It is also very understandable. Faced with ESA quotas that are indeed unfair, indiscriminate kill of wild springers in the non selctive gillnets, the month long Sturgeon season (which happens to coincide with the seasonal climacteric of migration by these anadromous fish) and the largest Columbia River Springer return in many years, I too am frustrated. Emotion however, is not one of the gauges used by the Govt. when determining fishing rights based on treaty obligations.

I am inspired to write this due in part to a question RT posed at the end of the thread "Gillnets in my backyard." RT asked "Why does the government think we owe special netting rights to non Indian and Indian gillnetters?" First of all, I too despise gillnets and their indiscriminate kills. I don't think that any non native gillnet fisheries should be allowed ANYWHERE. When it comes to Native fisheries however, we are dealing with a completely different situation.

First of all,treaties are considered the "highest law of the land", equal in legal terms to our Constitution or Bill of Rights. They do not expire with time. The Stevens treaties of 1855 mandates that the Natives of the Columbia have the right to: "The exclusive right of taking fish in all streams, where running through or bordering said Reservation, is further secured to said Confederated Tribes and Bands of Indians, as also the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places, in common with the citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary buildings for curing them." These rights are called usufructary rights. Usufructary rights are defined as: "1:The legal rights of using and enjoying the fruits or profits belonging to another, or 2: The right to use or enjoy something. In this case it is similar to selling your property, but maintaining the mineral rights.

I want to preface my next point by stating that it was not the Indians who were responsible for the destruction of Columbia River Salmon--it was white men and their seine boats, gillnets, and fishwheels, followed by the "coups de grace", the dams.

Don't try and tell me that it wasn't your relatives either, as Columbia River Salmon were shipped nearly worldwide. Did your ancestors ever sit down to a Salmon Loaf? Chances are it was Columbia River Salmon.

Previous to the flooding of Celilo Falls, The Long Narrows, The Cascades, Priest Rapids, and Kettle Falls, there was almost no native gillnet fishery. With their flooding, 10,000 years of history and tradition were swept away for eternity, and the treaty was broken.

We all sit here (yes, even me at times), and lament our lack of access to fish runs. But just for a minute, put yourself in the shoes of Wy-am Chief Tommy Thompson, then (1957)102 years old, and imagine what he must have felt as he watched Celilo and the Long Narrows drown. There are no comparisons in our culture that I can think of that is analogous to that final blow to a way of life that had persisted for millenia. We get all fired up because we can't go fishing when and where we like--how would you feel if ALL of your traditional fishing spots were rendered innaccesible to you? Perhaps a bit miffed ay?

Back to the case in point, the native gillnet fishery was a response to the tribes treaty rights. The only practical way for them to catch fish now that their traditonal grounds had become a lake was with a gillnet, hence the fishery we have today.

Judge Belloni interpreted their take as 50% of the available fish--don't argue with me--it's a point of law. The only way they could even come close to this percentage is with the use of a gillnet, and its non-selective catch.

Perhaps someone like "Ifish Special Guest" could inform us why the fish ladders are off limits. Seems as though a limited fishery there could at least partially mitigate the loss to the dams, and allow some selective harvest, perhaps shortening the gillnet season, which could in theory increase the percentage of ESA take by sportfishermen--since there would be a shorter gillnet season due to take at the dams.

Anyway...whether we like it or not, the native fishery will continue, and no amount of complaining will change the fact they have a legal right to fish. We have forced their hand by taking away their "accustomed" fisheries, and now we are forced to live with the legacy of all those people who it seems are "unrelated" to any of us. O.K. RT, Osprey, Hey-Yall, and the rest of ya, take your best shot, I'm wearing my flak jacket.


[This message has been edited by WildHawg (edited 01-20-2001).]

[winterkill]

I believe what you said 100%. It wasn't the Indians who put the wild fish populations in such peril, it was us the white people. Why should their heritage be ruined because we think they should take responsibility for us. How about stop comercial fishing first, I am positive they kill more salmon then all the tribes put together. How about tearing down the damn at ceilo falls, then the indians could go back to dipnetting. I am trying to say WE SHOULD TAKE RESPONSBILITY FOR OUR ANCESTORS ACTIONS, AND NOT BLAME IT ON SOMEONE ELSE. And like it or not, the laws won't change because the Indians are their own nation, do you think they would ever vote to stop fishing?

[Mike Gilchrist]

To my knoweldge, the Oregon tribal fishing rights cases never made it to the US Supreme court, but the Washington ones did and that probably was the reason the Oregon rullings did not-it was clear how the court would rule.

The states have the power to do away with gill-nets, tribal and non-tribal. It is specificly stated that the states do not have the right to stop the tribal fishing, but the right to regulate time, place and gear is available to the states as long as it is for the purpose of conservation and it does not discriminate against the tribes.

This means that if the state wants to ban all gill nets, tribal and non-tribal, it can be done. The problem that comes up is does that leave the tribal fishers a method of mass harvest that can replace gill nets.
Washington state, back in the mid-seventies, tried to ban all nets when fishing for Steelhead on a certain river. It was for the purpose of conservation and it was applied equally to tribal and non-tribal interests so it should have been leagal right? Wrong, the US Supreme Court rulled that when a few hundred tribal members tried to directly compete with thousands of non-tribal anglers all fishing with rod and reel, there is no way possible that the tribal anglers could catch their 50%. The net ban was reversed.

[HOGTIDE]

We could probably all write a book about our feelings on this issue. My personal sophmoric arguement is that "I" am truly NATIVE AMERICAN. I was born on this soil within walking distance of the Columbia River, as were both of my parents. I know and claim no other region. I deserve all of the rights and access to resources of my native soil. By virtue of birthright, No man existing in this region, no man, has a greater claim than I. That said...

Onto the legal/ political world........... Historically looking at the treaty debate, I believe it is important to understand the intent and "CONDITIONS" of those covenants. The "Conquered Indian Nations", as so referred, were classified legally as "SOVEREIGN-DEPENDENT NATIONS" which appears to be a bit of an oxymoron at first look. But, the Sovereign-Dependent legal status was intentionally used to allow the U.S. Federal government to overrule and override Indian affairs, if done so in the best interest of the nation or a particular situation. Yes, Native American Nations are sovereign, self guiding, self directing, as long as operating within an acceptable sphere, as seen by the Federal Court system. But, yes, the "Dependent" staus infers that these nations are subject to the authority of the Federal Government, given a situation that merits it's intervention.

The status of northwest salmon runs and the current inequitable distribution of this resource between specific native populations, warrants a Federal decision of fairness.

This is both a sad and interesting topic. Perhaps the nation's most renowned expert on this topic lives in our own backyard. Dr. Stephen Dow-Beckham, author, historian and professor, is a Portland boy. He is most frequently 'the' premiere witness and expert used, when the federal courts make Indian Treaty decisions regarding salmon.

[Deleted User]

The angry face is because some guys, like you here Wildhawg, forget when defending Indian fishing rights THAT MYSELF AND OTHERS ARE NOT TRYING TO TAKE AWAY THEIR RIGHTS !!! We are trying to keep them to the Treaty and Federal Court interpreted 50/50 split! You are NOT listening when you read. I double quote you, "treaties are the highest law of the land" and "Judge Belloni interpreted their take as 50%". ... NOT 90%, as in the 8.5% impact for Indians to 0.5% impact for non-Indians of the Col. springers! ... And you are damn right I will tell you that my ancestors didn't build the dams! And I will again tell you that the Indians readily USE ELECTRICITY, including in their hugely profitable gambling casinos given to them for compensation of lost fishing income! And quit being such a racist by putting any blame on me because I am white http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/mad.gif ! Like so many U.S. citizens, my ancestors came over after the Indians Treaties and didn't vote to build dams. And like Hogtide, I am a native American, born in this country. ... The only thing I agree with in your post Wild' is that the Indians could have modern safe platforms built just below the ladders at Bonneville and John Day dams and dipnet more effectively than they ever did at Celio Falls. And be able to let the endangered native fish go; unlike the dead ones in their gillnets, that they never used when the Treaties were signed. ... Hope that got thru your thick flak jacket. And that you and a few others will read what is actually in mine and other's posts before you go and misrepresent them in your posts!!!!!!!! http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/mad.gif - RT

[This message has been edited by RT (edited 01-20-2001).]

[WildHawg]

My my RT; my intention was not to flame you, just post some facts. Conversely, I did not miss-represent you in any of my posts, and I resent your accusations.

I'm not sure where our opinions diverge. As I have posted more than once--I don't agree with the ESA mortality split. I guess the first question (and I have read and "interpreted" your posts thoroughly) is are you only ****** about the ESA 8.5 % allocation to the Indians (once again, I agree, it's not fair), or are you miss-interpreting ME when I point out the only viable option for them to procure a 50% allotment is to gillnet? Your posts seem to indicate that you don't approve of the gillnetting--once again for posterities sake, neither do I, but there is no other viable alternative.

As I proposed before (and you agree?), why not open the ladders occasionally to a dipnet fishery that, if timed right, might allow a selective harvest that could limit the time that the nets need to be in the river? If we do so, we at least impact the wild salmon less, while we fulfill OUR (yes yours too RT, just like it's your Constitution, and your Bill Of Rights) treaty obligations.

What other alternative do you propose to allow the court mandated 50% harvest allotment? There don't seem to be any others. That is the crux of the issue. Sucks, but it's the way it is.

As for our ancestors, they really have very little to do with the issue, do they? It's about the LAW of the land. I'm not big on high taxes. At the turn of the Twentieth Century, only the richest 1% were taxed. Now we're all hammered! My ancestors didn't vote for higher taxes--our legislators did! And it's the same story with the dams. BUT DAMNIT! I DON'T WANNA PAY!! Tis a bitter pill, but gotta pay for that BIG Government liberal Democrats are always creating now don't we?

My point on "the highest law of the land" has to do with their right to harvest 50% of the fish, not the ESA. Once again (lest you miss-represent me) we deserve more of the ESA mortality quota--but unless we can find a viable alternative to the gillnet (which is, after all, the point of my post), they must still be allowed their allotment, and it will naturally kill a larger amount of wild fish--hence the higher ESA. Like I said before, it sucks--but instead of ripping me why don't you come up with suggestions that are productive, rather than butt your head against the wall that is OUR treaty obligation to the Confederated Tribes. Gee, somebody threatened I Fish Special Guest cause he was interpreted as being "pro-gillnet". What awaits me? Death threats

Your serve.

[This message has been edited by WildHawg (edited 01-21-2001).]

[Pilar]

The reason we hate the Gill Nets is because they are indiscriminate killers. If you could make them target the specific fish for harvest, it would be better.

I believe it all comes down to people who own expensive boats and equipment putting pressure on the powers that be to provide a fishing season. After all you can't write off (for tax purposes) equipment that has no legal use.

The question is how can we allow the needs of the few to affect the future of the many? Those boats and nets will be rendered useless soon enough. When the fish are decimated, the arguments will be muted. What would the next go to fishery be? First it was Salmon and now it is Sturgeon. What's next? Tui chubs in Diamond lake?

Indians should be allowed traditional fishing rights, using traditional methods. Not jet sleds, gill nets and whatever other modern equipment. I'm picturing platforms and long handled nets as in the days of Celilo falls.

The bend is your friend!

[Deleted User]

Wildhawg, you wrote "Your [my] serve". That's enlightening. Explains where you are coming from a bit.

Alternatives? OK. In addition to the excellant one we share, to dip net fish by the dam ladders (releasing native fish), I have in the past suggested that both non-Indian and Indian gillnetters instead take their pick up the brightest foodgrade springers just as they enter the hatchery ponds. The best ones are still in great condition with redish meat (counter to what some guy said). And there isn't a native fish in site in those easy to harvest ponds. Another gillnet alternative that has undergone testing in B.C. is the new "tooth tangle" nets. If they are attended daily, in stead of left unattended for long periods, as often happens above Bonneville by all reports, a much higher % of the fish are tangled still alive and the natives can be released (if the Indians are watched for compliance, as are the non-Indians). The jury is still out on just how much more selctive these will ultimately be, but certainly they should be better than the "curtains of sure death" that the gillnets are.

[Deleted User]

Hawg... When all the fish are gone....What will the share be that the natives get? In the year 2001 we can't manage the resource like the agreement that was made 100 years plus ago....wish we could. Things are changed and we must change or we will loose the resource. We must find a better way than nets!

BWB

[4u2fish]

Good Ideas here; I especially like opening the hatcherys pens up to the would be gillneters. This idea has potential to realy prevent the issue that we are haveing. It also is a win win situation for everyone... We all go away happy...

------------------
AKC H2O-K9

[happybrew]

Thank you so much WildHawg for your use of reason, combined with compassion and understanding. It is refreshing to read something well thought out and written, without flaming and logical inconsistencies. I just had to break my self-imposed silence to say that. Never mind RT and his angry-faces. He's just the moderator. Keep up the good work.

happybrew

[Deleted User]

'Doh! It's HB. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/shocked.gif ... http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/mad.gif ... nah, just http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif ... nah, jk http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[WildHawg]

Just wanted to respond to a few of your posts. As mentioned before, I understand the frustration of dealing with this issue. Now to the posts:
1) Howdy Pilar. I appreciate your post and feel basically the same way. Native Americans fished Celilo Falls and many other places on the Columbia and its tributaries for many thousands of years, and were quite content in doing so. They fought very hard to attempt to retain their treaty rights to fish at their accustomed places. Unfortunately, since those spots have been flooded, there is no place left where the fish congregate in numbers high enough to appease treaty obligations. As far as the power boats go, they could effect an efficient gillnet fishery with oars if they were required to. My (maybe even your) ancestors were quite efficient using oar and sail powered boats well into the twentieth century. A quote from the National Research Council states: "Historically, the Columbia River runs were huge by any standard. Catches in the late 1800's reached 43 million pounds. Peak catches may have been 3-4 million fish of all species." All of it was done by oar or sail power. I'm with you in spirit, and so are most of the Indians, who would love nothing more than to give up gill nets and reclaim their traditional fisheries. There just aren't any easy answers.

2)Good Morning RT, I like your ideas about the hatchery ponds, although there are 2 problems. Hatcheries must insure they have an adequate stock of fish before they part with them, which would make it impossible to offer them when they first show up. Conversely, they DO give away fish when they have reached their quota to Indians. The rest? Sold to pet food companies for pennies. Don't believe me? Call the Dexter Hatchery on the Middle Fork of the Willamette and ask 'em. As for tooth tangle nets, kinda sounds like trading the devil you know for the devil you don't know. As I said, I am not a proponent of netting. Still, if it would save even a portion of the wild salmon, I would be in favor of it. Could you suggest where I might learn more about this option? I would like to research it more. Thanks.

3)Hi BackwaterBill, seems we agree. We MUST find alternatives. I would like to add however that it will not be the percentage of harvest allowed by Indians, or by sport fishermen that will (or is) killing Columbia River Salmon. The single biggest factor is passage both upstream and down at the dams. They are by far the most damaging component of the issue. I personally am afraid it may be to late to save the Columbia. God, I hope not.

4) 4U2fish, you're right. It is a good idea, but there's a few limitations that need to be addressed.

5) Thank you Happybrew, you were able to see that I am only trying to show folks what a complicated issue this really is, and unfortunately one that will not likely go away until there are plenty of fish to keep all of us happy, or no more left to squabble over. I do have to disagree with you on one point however, I probably did get a little worked up in responding to RT, even after pointing out that we need to remove emotion from the equation. But...I too am human.
Peace everybody, Hawg

[fish_on]

Damn the treaties; diffrent races, cultures, clans, and all other groups of humans have been conqured for thousands of years. To the victor go the spoils, and the winner gets to write the history. Those who were beaten should conform with the victor or go away. The world cannot afford to be nice to everyone somebody always has to loose the sooner the loosing party accepts this the better.

[Spooled]

Nice post WildHawg. It is all about honor, not fish.

[WildHawg]

If ignorance is bliss fish_on, you must be the happiest guy on earth. Oh yeah, it's lose, not loose.

[DanS]

It's about honor, not fish??

That's exactly what will end the existence of salmon altogether. I don't really give a damn if you use your heritage, or your stories about how your dad was a gillnetter, to justify netting these fish into extinction. It's still wrong.

BTW Wildhawg, it's misrepresent, NOT miss-represent. As long as you're in the spell-checker mood.

[Deleted User]

Wild', there was a knowledgable sounding person posting a few months ago about the tooth tangle nets, and I have heard elsewhere about them. Perhaps ISG will have information on them. This other person mentioned that some tests were done in the lower Columbia using these new nets, and that would take ODFW permission and likely observation records. I hope they are a viable alternative if they are the only way to get nate killing gillnets out of the rivers; although another ballot initiative to ban them would likely have a better chance at passing nowdays. However, if the tooth tangle nets are even a little less effective fish takers I would expect the gillnetters to balk at this better win win alternative (it could be a win for the netters because it just might save their money making hobby). ...

Fish_on, we have met and I perceived you as a really good guy, and I'm sure you are. I also understand and identify with your frstrations. However, I feel compelled to say that most of us, including me, want our neighbor Indians of the northwest to be among us; and share their culture within the constraints of today's conditions. Most of us, including me as I've stated, don't mind the Indians getting their 50% take of fish deemed harvestable as the Treaties and Fed. Ct. interpreted. But we do mind them getting way over that at our expense of both money and sportfishing opportunity lost! ...

Wild', yes, despite heated discussion over passionate issues - peace to you and all. - RT

[4u2fish]

In this thread and in a lot of other discusions we have on this forum the root of the issue is preservation of the fish. I have yet to read a post from someone who blatently says "screw the damn fish kill them all" this just doesn't happen... within our "save the fish for our childrens children mentality" WE ALL AGREE no one here wants to kill of the fish..

Well to my point---

we have people who all agree that a comon goal needs to be met but yet we bicker amoung ourselves. We talk down to eachother at times and we critisize eachother for misspellings (I would be the worst speller on the board if a vote was taken I am sure).. We can't agree on the finer details of what we agree on and our writen communications from time to time are taken out of context or missinturpreted. And yet we are the ones that ALL agree that the fisheries must be protected...NOW!!!! We have a situation where the people who represent the tribal treaties, the comercial fishermen, the sport fishermen, and others I probably did not mention all have to come to the table and configure a fair and impartial solution for everyone..What the heck makes us so good that we should b*tch about there inability to come up with rules that are agreeable to all of the factions when we ourselves one single group can't frigin agree among ourselves...

We can not hold others to a higher standard than we ourselves are willing to achieve and then complain about how they are not liveing up to these standards...

I am not trying to bash ANYONE and this is not dirrected at only this thread. I have seen the same type of issues arise all over this forum.. This just seemed like a good place to post it.. (maybee I should have reated a new thread)

As in any issue that you deal with it is necessary to stomp out the root cause and not the syntoms.. If We just keep beating on the symtoms the problem will NEVER go away..

Communication can be a verry useful tool but improper communication can also be the downfall of an Ideal...

------------------
AKC H2O-K9

[Deleted User]

RT....That was so buitiful I could cry....I agree with you 100%....We should all share and be respectful of each other and work together to get this thing turned around!!!

BWB

[THE REEL HEY_YALL]

I've got the sunglasses on in this reply just because I am the Mr. Cool Mystery. WildHawg, you must be a retired philosophy professor or an anthropologist to post statements like the 'said' above. Fish_on made a good statement and if it were ignorant, then I would really hate to see what "we todd edd" is. Then to take a shot below the belt, you insult his spelling?? That cracked me up. I'm sure you didn't realize that most of us type at least 60 words a minute, especially when are minds are working double-time where we could mess a word up here and there. Now with that said:

OK, "Mr. Anthro" what handful of Indians have you been speaking to that would like to go back to paddling a canoe and sweat to get paid? I would like first and last names. It's not all about the money and the heritage, they do what they do to really **** us off. That's a fact. I read an interesting article the other day where a group in Oregon offered the Indians $5 mil a year if they would stop netting. Of course, heritage was a big factor. Yeah right, it was about sticking it to da man. Ya know winterkill, I found several of your "at school" posts funny and they brought back memories...well, fuzzy memories. I laugh at college corrupting your mind for you to state that we take responsibility for our ancestors' actions. You can all you want, but I take responsibility for my OWN actions, and if I had children, would be partial to take some responsibility for their actions as well. I liked several alternative methods mentioned above, and I'm sure the Indians hate them because it involves more work. Oooh that was racist, so I apologize to an extent. Since the majority of the hens' eggs seem to be sold to Japan, why couldn't we remove the gillnets out of the water and let them take the eggs from hatchery pens? Now if meat were the issue as well in the argument, then why can't the nets be even more limited?? The tooth net is a great alternative, but that would mean more work to check the fish daily. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/shocked.gif All of these methods might work if the state would take volunteers to watch over actions of the Indians. From my experience, they get away with anything and everything as far as fish and game go. Hey, but it's their sovereign right I keep forgetting. I wonder how many 'ghost nets' in the Chehalis have killed more fish and other wildlife?? I know of one new ghost net as of 3 days ago as my brother and I secretly monitor the activities of a group of Indians. Their nets were in the river for a total of 3 days before checking with their high-powered jetsleds. 4 men and one fat female. 2 of the men held onto their bottles while whissing away on shore. They checked the nets, and so happily they fire their rifles in the air and proceed to hoot and "holler" while kicking back with Jim Beam. Oops, wait, a net gets hung. Tug, tug, tear, oh well F8ck it, just leave it, we have many more nets, and they whisk away. Now that's pride, that's a beautiful story, and that's heritage at it's finest. Oh don't worry, I am keeping a log and will have pictures soon so don't think that I'm making this up. I've ran off a group of Indians 3 times in one day from a private hatchery. Luckily, the last time, he had quick feet and didn't mind his clothes and flesh being torn on 4ft high barbwire. I would have really have liked to present my argument to him that they are not entitled to half of the fish on a private hatchery even though it's on tribal lands. That guy gets arrested by the tribal cops a day later or so. Talking to the cop, he has been arrested for the same crime 2 previous times on other hatcheries, plus a criminal record longer than Osprey's. I love a slap on the wrist, but if it were one of us doing it, they could shoot us, and get away with it if the roles were reversed. I bank on it. Well since they are so sovereign, what keeps them from getting attacked by an outside force such as Japan,etc.? I don't think they break out the tomahawks,etc. It's the U.S. gov't protecting them. I don't say take away their fishing rights, but if heritage is the issue, then I for one will start a collection to buy them a fleet of canoes and other 'traditional' methods. Since it's a 50/50 split, why are they always guaranteed their 50% and we have to suck it up as a loss? Do you think if we ban the use of monofilament and other clear twines in gillnets, this will make them check their nets more often? Do you think that would give the fish a more fighting chance? Why argue with the inevitable WildHawg when you know the fishing is lost, but hey, your buddies will be compensated just the same because we sportfishers caused the extinction. Hope you like tax increases.

Of course you have to read it several times to see any points made, but the underlying point is that we are all ****** off at exceptions, and we are tired of paying for it. Hell, I don't really like the taste of fish, but I like to fish. The fish beached are fish eaten, not piled to rot. Keep that in mind heritage boy.

[This message has been edited by hey_yall (edited 01-22-2001).]

[Penn]

Ok, lets see if I have this right. "exclusive right of taking fish in all streams where running through or bordering said reservation. HMMMM I kind of don't think that means all of the Columbia River where ever they feel like it.
http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/mad.gif And as for their right, OK, I can bite that one but... when is enough going to be enough and is it their right to be able to fish runs in to ruin because it's their right and then sell those said "right" fish bloating in the sun out of the back of their trucks. Hmmm oops, did I say that out loud?
I don't have a proble with being fair, so long as it is fair for everyone! A lot of people over time have had things done to their relatives and cultures, and most if not all have survived just fine without screaming about rights and treaties. I'm just tired of paying for something that was not my fault!
Last year there was an incredible run of Sockeye for the fist time in I don't know when. It was printed in the paper that we could fish for them. I told my wife to watch the next 48 hours and you will see the indians screaming about rights. Wow, I hit it perfect. They got to once again scream treaty and fish. The run should have been left alone from all to see if this was a one time fluke or a new start. But turning it over to a bunch of net happy fishermen is a way to never find out.. OK, I'm done. Sorry if I stepped on any toes but someday I hope before it's too late someone will wake up and smell the coffee. Since there won't be a reason to fish...

[Osprey]

I welcome you to come stand next to me and watch all the wild Steelhead being pulled from nets and sold for $1.00 a pound http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
Fish we can't keep ,yet they just killem and say oops didn't mean to catch that one either http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/frown.gif$1.00 a freaking dollar a pound....thats all their tradition is worth and the futher of these precious fish are worth obviously http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif.....at this rate we won't have to worry about tradition any longer...Os

------------------
Row quietly and fish a Cataraft
Release all Wild Fish!!-----<'))>><

"Just Say No To Sovereign Nations!"

Ban All Nets!!!

[Penn]

One more thing. "Running through or bordering said reservation" someone needs to explain how a map works and where the borders are for these reservations. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/mad.gif

[Hoosier Daddy]

HOLY CRAP!!!!!!

Didn't Miss Represent win the Miss America Pageant last year. Or did she loose?

Lighten up guys, we're all in this together, including the Indians. The fastest way to shut down a conversation is to imply an issue is black-and-white. WildHawg, good points, same to the rest of you. Good conversation topic, just try not to kill each other.

Wanna argue about smallies some more? http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Oh yeah. I actually believe that some kinds of fishing gear can be selective. This includes gill nets. There are some that are highly selective based on size, etc. It all depends on where, when, how, and what they are used for. I also agree that often they are fished in non-selective ways. We should specify that's what we are talking about when we say non-selective. It's not necessarily just the gear, but also how its fished.


[This message has been edited by chnookie (edited 01-22-2001).]

[superfly]

In the words of the once famous Rodney King
"can't we all just get along"? I hate this issue as much as R.T I am not an Indian, but I am a red blooded native of the USA and of Wash. State, where I have played 2nd fiddle to the gillnets all my life, it sucks. I truly feel sorry for those Indians that lost there way of life in the century before last, but this is 2001 , lets get over it. All of our ancestors have ****** [goofed] up, lets move on and figure out how to fairly distribute the fish between sportsman and natives, the non-Indian gillnetter does not need to be involved. He should trade his nets and boat for a ****** [stickin] fish farm, since most commercially sold fish now days are farmed. Anyways, I love the platform idea at the fish ladders, it would be an effective way for the Indians to fish like they used to and would provide biologists a great place to count hatchery fish numbers and compare to wild numbers, someone could count the Indian's fish, since some have a problem doing this on most rivers they fish. And it could be done a lot safer than ever before, off of nice platforms built by union carpenters with saftey lines and covered and the whole nine yards. It would actually be somewhat of a tourist attraction as well. They could advertise the absolute freshest fish availible to you! People could go down there and have a guy dip net them a fish, whack it, bleed it, gut it, and wrap it and away they go with there Columbia river hatchery spring chinook. Sounds good to me, now just try and convince a politician that it is a good idea.
Peace Superfly

------------------
If you want to run with the big dawgs then get your butt off of the couch!!

[This message has been edited by RT (edited 01-22-2001).]

[WildHawg]

Hey-Yall, I don't have the time to respond to all your "opinions" (they certainly aren't fact based), but I gotta take a crack at some of 'em.

You want names of Indians willing to go back to traditional methods? Almost all of them would gladly quit gillnetting, and go back to a sweat equity dipnet, weir, spear economy. All we have to do is return their traditional fishing grounds. Lower the waters behind the dams and all those places would reappear.

Unforunately, with the dams in place, it would likely create an even bigger problem for the Salmon as there would be no water reserve to flush the smolt downstream in the spring, creating an ESA crisis. It's what I call a vicious circle.

Despite your claim to be the "resident expert", you fail to recognize that they CANNOT go back to traditional methods, and even have a chance at their allotment. Heritage, culture, and tradition have a very high value in Native American Culture. They did not choose to trade it so they could "stick it to the white man", it was taken away forcibly from them, and they are merely asking that the promises made them be kept. They are not getting any "exceptions" to the law as you wrote, they are asking for their share.

As for taking responsibility for ones own actions, you an American? Read the post and you'll see that it's indeed about integrity, sovereignty (both ours and theirs, as we recognized it when we made the treaty), and our perpetual obligation to uphold the law of the land. We all "pay" for our ancestors mistakes every day. I would love to fish the Columbia when 9 to 16 million Salmon and Steelhead ascended upstream every year. Sucks, but they are gone now; not by the Indians actions, but by those of our (Americans) ancestors. If you consider our ancestors decision to make a treaty with a group they viewed as a sovereign nation a mistake, learn to live with it. So, are you an American, or are you seceding again Rebel Boy?

As for arguing the inevitable, you're right. Unless policies change, dams are removed, irrigation slowed, and habitat is restored--the Columbia and the vestige of her huge runs of salmon and steelhead(largest anywhere in the world in pre-contact times; even with the indigenous fishery) will most likely be lost.

Call me whatever you like...I'm no retired "Anthro" or Philosophy Prof, I am someone who believe we as Americans have a responsibility to honor our own "heritage", which includes such precedent setting documents as The Constitution, The Bill Of Rights, and yes, even our treaty with the Confederacy. We (us Yankees) did kick your ancestors A$$ after all. Why should we have given it back to you Rebs? One word, honor.

I was born and raised in Oregon, as were the last 7 generations of my family. I am no liberal democrat, in fact I am closer to a redneck. The difference is I respect peoples rights to assert what is legally theirs. That would include your right to free speech (even though you are patently wrong).

One last thing, if we ever meet in person, restrain yourself from that "heritage boy" comment. You'll be doing yourself a favor.

[Deleted User]

Wildhawg, I understand your emotional based feelings about this issue to a degree. But you are a bit naive about what is actually occuring when you say that all the Indians are asking for is their rightful treaty share of the fish. Contrary! The Columbia Tribal Commission is not just asking, they a putting al the pressures at their disposal and more on the Federal Government to get way over their rightful share of the salmon! That's a documented fact. Why do you think the states were forced to sue the Tribes and the NMFS over the astonishingly unfair allocatoin of an 8.5% ESA impact to the Col. Tribes and an 0.5% ESA impact to the non-Indians? Furthermore, there is no shortage of evidence to bring Indian herritage and fish run stewardship into question; even with the native portion of the fish runs! The latest word to come out of the negotiations is the the states said they would remove their pending lawsuit if the Col. Tribal Comm. would agree to up the non-Indian ESA impact on wild fish to 2% instead of the paltry 0.5%, leaving the Indians still well over their Treaty agreed 50 % share at a 7% impact. If they had any interest or respect for sportfishers or the native fish runs, they would have gone along with that more than reasonable settlement. But NO! The Tribes came back and said they would go along with us getting 2% if their ESA impact on killing ESA endangered native spring chinook salmon were the upped to 13%! They are aware that biologists have said 9% is at the upper end of viability of not over harming the native run, yet they were willing to up it all to a joint 15% impact! Hmmmm! ... And I ask you guys not to use name calling on the BB please; such as "Rebel Boy" and "Herritage Boy". Thanks guys. - RT

[This message has been edited by RT (edited 01-24-2001).]

[WildHawg]

RT,

You're right. I am not up on all the political wrangling that has been going on behind the scenes. I too think it is outrageous that the discrepancy should be so great (0.5 to 8.5).

I suspect the logic of it (as the government sees it) is that the Indians will naturally kill a far higher percentage of wild salmon due to the use of gillnets, therefore they "pad" their ESA mortality quota to allow them to fish longer. In other words it is, in fact, a component of the treaty obligation. I do not agree with the 0.5 vs. 8.5 split, but I would be willing to bet that would be the governments reasoning for it.

Once again we are faced with finding alternatives to the gillnets. You posted a couple of good ideas RT (hatchery ponds, and tooth tangle nets), and I like my idea of opening up the ladders on a specific schedule. At Celilo Falls, all fishing was tightly regulated. There was no fishing after dark (which allowed large numbers to pass by unmolested) and fishing sites were controlled by family groups. Opening up the ladders during daylight hours to the retention of hatchery fish only would be as close as we could come to offering them a "traditional" opportunity to fish. Perhaps the right to fish at the ladders could be negotiated with the tribes in a way that would remove at least some of the nets from the river. Some is better than none, and as I see it, would be a good place to start.

I wrote both Gordon Smith and Peter Defazio letters pointing out the gross indiscrepancy a month ago or so, and have yet to recieve a reply.

I think I'll try again with a letter offering solutions that could help them in their arguments for an increase in ESA mortality allocation, rather than another complaining about it.

Anyhow...I would love nothing more than to see a March/April Lower Columbia River fishery that allowed all of us to have the time of our lives. To do that though, we are going to have to get a bit more of the ESA pie. I'll do my best to accomplish the objective Captain!

As for the name calling, you are right. It's just so damn hard to sit behind a computer and take being insulted, knowing the only tool you have to defend yourself is your fingers. I am not politically correct (despite what y'all think). It's kinda like I tell my boys. If you get punched, don't go running to a teacher, HIT 'EM BACK!! I aint raisin' no sissy's. We'll live with the consequences.

Thanks for your patience RT. We really are on the same side. I'm just trying to do my part by letting people know some of the facts and reasons behind this mess.

Now I'll go write a Senator/Congressman or two.
Peace, Hawg

[Osprey]

http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif"Just Say No To Sovereign Nations!" http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/frown.gifBan All Nets!!! http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/frown.gif



[This message has been edited by Osprey (edited 01-25-2001).]

[THE REEL HEY_YALL]

Ya know "hippy", I love how you gathered that I am the what did you say, "Despite your claim to be the "resident expert"...." Well I guess one day when you get off the rocking chair, and get in the trenches, you can see the impact(s). Both from a fishing standpoint, and from an economical standpoint. What you keep dodging is the fact that it's all about the money, not the heritage. A wise man told me yesterday, note that I use the term "wise" very lightly http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif but "Yeah we see their heritage going at a $1.25 a pound for native steelies." Hey, but that's our fault right? We are the ones "forcing" them to sell their heritage since the monthly check isn't enough. Hey, but you're right, I keep forgetting. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif And since it's all about the money, then I think that justifies what I said about "Sticking it to da man." I still love how you dodged the first and last names of those that want to go back to the canoe paddling and sweaty labor. Because you are almost as full of ***** as you are full of yourself. The only reason you reply so much in this thread is because you like to hear yourself talk no matter how much you nauseate the rest of us b*tching about even more rights. Hey, if you want to actually get into a debate about "wanting what was promised to them" then don't even call me a rebel boy because you don't even want to hear facts about the Civil War, buckaroo. Yeah I had family members fight in that war, so now does that mean as a Southerner I can sue the U.S. for some sort of compensation since jayhawkers took advantage of southern people like we did to the Indians? And since you are so right and all, RT brought up such a wonderful point, how come they didn't except our proposal to withdraw our lawsuit? Yeah, exactly. What you also fail to either admit or realize: when the gillnets eradicate all of the fishing, they will still be compensated for "many moons" since their heritage is gone, and sportfishermen will be high and dry. Like I said, it's not about heritage because they would make money off of their heritage while keeping it intact if they followed other sovereign nations like the Cherokee and Seminole. They still have their heritage (somewhat) and they make money off of it as well such as the tourism factor. It's not that we need the politicians to like the alternative ideas to gillnetting, it's that 'group' on the other side of the line that's making the money from them. Hey, at least you don't want to raise any sissies though. Now dance for me...

[This message has been edited by hey_yall (edited 01-25-2001).]

[WildHawg]

Dear hey_yall,
In the words of the Lakota Souix: HUNTA YO!!

[Artwo]

Hey,
Maybe the state of Oregon can trade them the permission to build a casino in Hood River/The Dalles for netting in the Columbia.

I'm against all netting in the Columbia, indian or otherwise.

JK

[Osprey]

Hey Yall you twelve sandwich eatin,possum grillin,skoal dippin,silver tongue devil....no you still can't date my daughter,but maybe we'll have you over for dinner http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif.....Os.......Who's you're Daddy

------------------
Row quietly and fish a Cataraft
Release all Wild Fish!!-----<'))>><

"Just Say No To Sovereign Nations!"

Ban All Nets!!!

[BUGLEMAN]

Why can't the indians use saining nets? They are very selective. And how can all those nets I see in the Columbia only be taking 1/2 of the fish. There must be hundreds. That is just wrong!!!!!!!!!!

[Deleted User]

Hey Mike 'Y., I share some of your passions about this issue, and since we communicated about the conflicts and recorded lawbreaking by some of them near your family I understand where some of your anger comes from. Just please try to tone down your wording choices; again especially with the unnecessary, ineffective, and inflaming name calling! Or I'll turn this car right around this minute! http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/mad.gif ... http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif - RT

[THE REEL HEY_YALL]

Sure Sure dad, like you're gonna pull over and come back here. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif I'd kick ya in da nutz. http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Yeah I get heated when it comes to gillnets because they are the cancer of the oceans and the rivers. Just sucks that there is a cure for this type of cancer, but too bad the medicine men don't want to help ya know.

Wildhawg, look, 2 sides to every coin. Just like I always say when flipping a coin, "Heads I win, and tails you lose." Just too bad the tribes are doing the coin toss http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

Look you have your opinions and I have mine, but I get really heated when you can sit there and tell everyone that it is necessary to gillnet.

No hard feelings, but if you have some, oh well.

At least we agree that we won't raise sissies. :P

"Save a fish, eat a beaver"

[Osprey]

When ever this topis comes up it is met with very much emotion,we will never agree.
We need to realize it's about the fish,and weather or not our children and theirs will be able to experience what we have.Unless things change we will all be saying "remember when".....thats sooo sad http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/frown.gif

I'm sure some will be offended by some of my comments,but they are the truth.

Only together can we make a difference....Os

------------------
Row quietly and fish a Cataraft
Release all Wild Fish!!-----<'))>><

"Just Say No To Sovereign Nations!"

Ban All Nets!!!

[superfly]

Hey Osprey, What's your daughter look like http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
I know R.T will like reading that line.
Peace Superfly

------------------
If you want to run with the big dawgs then get your ass off of the porch!!

[THE REEL HEY_YALL]

Hey Joe, she's spoken for, he just doesn't know it yet http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif