How can the Indian takem?

[bigshark]

Just what does the treaties say about how the native american can harvest NW fish? I have a problem with the means used and the materials that have enhanced the lethality of those means.
Can they dynamite a hole if they wish? Could they simply electrocute or stun the fish as they move up a fish ladder? The reason I ask is that it seems to me that what the treaties may have had as "intent" and what is now practiced might be two different things. Does anyone out there know if this has ever been challenged in court? A modern gillnet is a long way from what I would think the signers on both sides had in mind.

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

I have always advocated the requirement of traditional fishing methods for treaty fishermen. I believe they should be required to use the same materials that were available at the signing of the treaties. That would mean no synthetic nets, no powered boats, and no refrigeration. Let them peddle their dried fish in the same manner their forefathers did. I am all for upholding tradition and cultural icons but modern commercial harvest is not an Indian tradition.
I could think of nothing better than watching a tribe operate a traditional fish wheel made from traditional materials and made with traditional tools. It does not create a sense of community sending two guys out in a boat to pull in netted fish for the tribe’s get together. Having every member of the tribe help with a fish wheel or dip net harvest would create more traditional bonds and community awareness.

Allowing them to harvest using modern methods and then selling the fish along the hi-way only creates poverty level street venders. They will never improve the economic stature of their community until they realize the economic reality that…

“Sportfishing is big bucks”

$1.00 a pound salmon sold out of the back of a pick-up is not…

*** Clerk

[BUGLEMAN]

It is actually $2 bucks. But I stop buy every once in a while to give the Indians a little crap. Then laugh as the city slickers don't even realize they are over paying for the catfood grade salmon which will only rot if they offer $1 and walk away. It works with eggs too. :smile:

[Robert]

I feel they should at the minimum obey buy their laws of fishing. Yes they do have some. They are only allowed to sell fish certain times of the year. Most of the Indians I have known have sold fish out of season and straight faced lied to the buyer that it was illegal. Whenever you call inter tribal about the Indians selling fish illegal they said that its known of your business. If you ask about the Indian season they also say that it is none of your business. Like the time my dad called about a winter net season on the Columbia. The Indians are allowed to fish for steelhead in late February and March, with gillnets. Those who waste fish should get a big fine. It happens all the time, they dump the fish in the river, before you can call the cops, as if they would do anything they and the evidence is gone.They were targeting sturgeon.

[Robert]

I feel they should at the minimum obey buy their laws of fishing. Yes they do have some. They are only allowed to sell fish certain times of the year. Most of the Indians I have known have sold fish out of season and straight faced lied to the buyer that it was illegal. Whenever you call inter tribal about the Indians selling fish illegal they said that its known of your business. If you ask about the Indian season they also say that it is none of your business. Like the time my dad called about a winter net season on the Columbia. The Indians are allowed to fish for steelhead in late February and March, with gillnets. Those who waste fish should get a big fine. It happens all the time, they dump the fish in the river, before you can call the cops, as if they would do anything they and the evidence is gone.They were targeting sturgeon. I think it sucks that many Indians lie about the quality of the fish so they can get more money out of it.

[WaterDog]

Let them use a fish wheel? Good one ***, since they would catch exactly zero. Fish wheels require narrow channels and always worked best on the back side of the June floods. Neither of which no longer exist thanks to the dams. Maybe if we only allow them to use “traditional” methods we should do the same. No more fishfinders, high HP boats, spectra line, reels with drags, graphite rods, etc. Just a dugout canoe, a stick, some string, and a hook. Heck even just a handline.

[SlabQuest]

I think that Bigshark is onto the right tact when he talks about the "intent" of the treaties. Who could possibly claim that the fiasco we now have is what was envisioned by those who drafted and signed the treaties?

[Nuttinbutnet]

I think the "Intent" at the time was to give the Native all the fish they want as long as we can build our dams for power generation=MONEY!!!! Now, you and I (sportfisherman) don't share in that money, we pay that money. HMMMMMMM, seems there was no regard for the sportfisherman in there "Intent" either.

[SlabQuest]

I don't think hydroelectric plants were a big issue in the 19th century.

[Backlash2]

A couple of points,

First, I believe the answer to everything on this issue is enforcment. The indian tribes have NO accountability. At the same time, enforcement for sport fisherman is not a whole lot better. But who do you think does greater damage to the runs of fish, indian gillnetters, or Buck Tooth Bob and his clan of white trash snaggers? The overall impact is probably staggering, but then again, no one keeps track with any accuracy. If big brother isn't standing over most peoples shoulder's, they will try to pleasure themselves with a warm apple pie in their kitchen. :shocked:

Secondly, the numbers are starting to appear that show just exactly how much money sportfishing generates. The number one thing I want to see in my lifetime is the political community to wake up and look at what is staring them right in the face. The economy is in a serious downturn now, so it is more important than ever to realize the two people who drive 2 hours to spend the day in their boat on the Columbia will probably spend somewhere in the neighborhood of $150 bucks in the process. It takes a hell of a lot of third rate condition fish sold on the side of the highway to match those numbers. The same goes for commercial gillnet fisheries. They didn't fish part of this fall because they would lose money hand over fist to go catch a bunch of fish that will only sell for .60 cents a pound. SUPPLY AND DEMAND, people. If your market disappears, your out of business...at least that's how it works just about everywhere else in this country, just not commercial fisherman...

[fishpatrol]

Some notes on the indian issue:

It is not tribal heritage or right to sell fish out of your pick-up.

It is not your right to commercially fish for crab a month before the season and flood the market.

It is not your right to set a monofliment gill net across the river and then harvest with your unlicensed jet sled, while shooting sea lions
with your 50 cal.

If you want to see the true difference ask somebody who fishes the Rogue with nice restaurants and good places to stay, or someone who braves the Klamath ands gets shot at.

[smilesforu]

Well...all the rights they have gained through court rulings on these different issues. They also are monitored by the federal fisheries agents (not the state)who in my area are focused on Geoducks/urchin type fisheries.

Each tribe is considered a seperate government and use their tribal law to set seasons to harvest their 50% of the catch. The tribal seasons usually open earlier and last longer than the non-tribal seasons.

Tribal treaties can be renegotiated but it has to have federal approval before that can happen. Presently this isn't possible and any clarifications are sent to court or the state bows to the tribes to get what it wants. State seems to loose every court battle, so they are reluctant to go to court. Its a real mess with all the court rulings and implications that tie it all together.
Hopefully some more progress will be made on the treaty issues in the near future. Will post as more information or support is needed. :smile:

Most of the stuff you see the tribe do is legal. It may not be sporting but is a agreed upon or legal under their soviegn national rules.

Tight Lines

[WaterDog]

It's though for me to understand how we can say they should use "traditional" methods as they did in the late 1800's when their "traditional" fishing grounds are under 40 feet of water. Guess that would be one heck of a dip net. :shocked: This is a very touchy subject with a lot of people. To be perfectly honest, I have no problem with them fishing by whatever methods that are allowed. It's their right. On the other hand it would be nice if they (the tribes) took it upon themselves to come to the table and be a part of the solution.

Back in the early 1900's when there were Canneries, fish wheels, plat forms, and dip nets Indians would sell there catch to the canneries. The harvest method was dip nets of course. Then one Indian bought a fishwheel scow, a boat with a fish wheel. Since Indians did not and were not allowed to fish this way the Indian had to go to court. In 1917 a US Federal Court Judge at the time ruled that the an Indian "had the same right to advance and become civilized as a white man, and it was unreasonable to hold an indian to fishing at all times by the same methods used by his forefathers at the time the treaty was signed". (Seufert,1980, Wheels of Fortune,pg. 50) This obviously opened the door for the Indians to use more progressive methods of harvesting the salmon. The United States Federal Courts made this decision. I'm sure no one thought of the ramifications. So here we are.

I don't know anything about the original 1855 treaty. Can it even be renegotiated? My guess is that they wouldn't want to change a thing. I can't say that I blame them. If I was in their shoes, I'd say forget it. But at some point everyone needs to take some responsibility for the resource and give something up to make it better. Does one group give a little even though they had no part on the original problem? Who has the most to lose and the most to gain? You throw in the Commercial piece of this equation and wow, what a quagmire. But we need to start somewhere. :smile:

[ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: WaterDog ]</p>

[Pete]

It's pretty interesting to read the treaties ... in part because they really don't say very much at all, which is why courts have had to interpret them and why the courts have had such a tough time of it. Link to the Four Treaties

The fishery rights are based on the sparse language "The exclusive right of taking fish in all the streams where running through or bordering said reservation is further secured to said Indians: as also the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places in common with citizens of the territory,....." When that was written, I doubt if anyone foresaw the development of hydroelectric dams, or the effects of forestry, vast expanses of wheat farms, highway construction, pesticides, herbicides, or any number of things which have directly impacted the fisheries.

Click here to see a history of court cases affecting the treaties.

Read the US v. Oregon here and related links to a wealth of related documents.

One of the issues which sticks in my mind is the effect of the hydroelectic dams and the use of hatcheries to mitigate their effect. The dams reduced the number of fish returning up the river and completely blocked their passage above Grand Coulee Dam. The hatcheries were primarily located in the lower reaches of the river to improve their efficiency. The combined effect of these constructions is that fewer fish reach the usual and accustomed places guaranteed in the treaties.

These aren't easy issues.

[Robert]

Why are Indians allowed to kill fish on the endangered species list? I cant see how the state allowed the Indians to gillnet and sell spingers this year, yet there was no sport season for springers.

[STGRule]

My two cents on Supply and Demand: It is all well and good that we can sit here and say "If we don't buy it, there would be no demand". Your talking to a bunch of people who go out and CATCH fish (or try) for christmas sake. My elderly parents can't, a bunch of my friends just don't because it isn't a passion for them. There are "bazillions" of people that are incapable of fishing for a myriad of reasons. Under your suggestion, all those people should be deprived of eating fish because the only way they can get it is to buy it. While I would (maybe) prefer farmed fish (with a whole new set of problems), I am not going to deprive ANYONE of an opportunity to eat fish. Even if that means that they have to purchase (gasp) commercial harvested animals. I would like to have the perfect answer for everyone. It doesn't appear to be possible right now.

[bigshark]

Waterdog, you make a good point about the gear that has made the sportsman more productive. I'd like to ask your opinion on whether it would make sence to renegoiate the treaties. What if we were able to agree on the Indian taking some fish for use in their cultural ceremonies but compensate the tribes with revenue sharing instead of them trying to sell fish. Don't get me wrong I don't know what the answer is. I'm not advocating anything. What seems to be the problem is that we aren't happy and the Indian isn't happy. Is there a middle ground that would be more be more agreeable to all? If so, what is it and why can't we kick some politicl rump to get it done? I'm admit to my lack of knowledge as to how we got to this point but it seems to me there should be some way to settle our differences.

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

This topic never fails to produce profound reactions perhaps stemming from deep-seated emotions. Although many people feel a debt is still owed to the indigenous peoples of our area for all the terrible things European settlers brought, I for one do not feel that in this case two wrongs make a right. Netting indiscriminately and harming depressed wild fish in the name of low profit is not worthy of either treaty or non-treaty commercial fishermen.
It is a common mistake to lump all local tribes into the all-encompassing term “Indian Fishermen”. There are many different peoples and communities in the Pacific Northwest that have pre-European roots. Some I admire and some I don’t. The recent controversy regarding the Makaw (sp) Indians traditional whale hunt pointed to a tribe that seemed to have honest intentions regarding their resumption of whale harvest. They voluntarily stopped harvesting when the population was threatened and only resumed when the whales were de-listed. They use traditional methods (except for the 50-bmg used to dispatch the whale) and share their take with neighboring tribes. Tribal interests involved in the re-licensing of the Pelton dam (Billy Chinook) are considering the creation of an ocean going run of Sockeye from a landlocked group of kokanie. This could be the first time a run was created in this way, it will be difficult, but using these genetically pure fish is worth the work.

Waterdog

You are very correct regarding the habitat needed for fishwheel and dipnet operation. You display a predilection for linear thought, try thinking outside the box. We spend money today creating habitat for native fish, why can we not also spend some money creating habitat for the native fishermen. In Canada some dams use their fish ladders to separate the native fish from the hatchery fish. Why couldn’t we do the same at Bonneville and separate the hatchery fish into a separate channel or holding pens designed for fishwheel or dipnet use? If Bonneville submerged the falls were they once fished then why not allow them to dip net at the top of the dam after we separate out the non-finclipped fish?
Because it is EASIER to gill net.

It is important to remember that I just don’t pick on treaty gill-netters, I pick on All commercial gill-net harvesters on the Columbia.

STGRule

Your post was frought with false assumptions and inaccuracies, perhaps a symptom of your current employer. If all commercial gill-net harvest were halted on the Columbia it would be unlikely anyone would be lacking in protein from salmon or would the wholesale price of salmon increase.

Can STGRule say pen-raised? Can you say Aquaculture?
I think you can…

Supply and demand is a standard concept but what the commercial guys learned this year is that with less canneries to process the fish compared what we had in the 70’s large returns of fish means very low prices. Once the canneries reach maximum production any fish harvested above that level is nearly worthless. Because the Pen-raise guys have tied up the long term contracts for fresh fish the best they can do with all the extra fish is try to sell them out of the back of their pick-up. (something only the treaty guys are allowed to do)

[PRINCEMASTER]

This is a very sore subject with me. I came froma state where the indian treaties assure that the tribe get whatever fish they want when they want. I have even a few occurances where the owners of a gill net boat would rent the boat to indians just so they could net not only out of season,but in greater numbers than were allowed for the boat original intended owner. Second case in point...a tribe out of canada netted 500,000 lbs of walleye out of lake St Clair for the purpose of feeding a tribe of 500...most of the fish ened up getting sold to places in NY..Time to wake up or the fish will be gone and we will have only ourselves to blame.

[Robert]

Does any know the why Indians can break the endangered species act, and kill endangered species? If the sportfisherman hook a some of these endangered fish the state closes the season, but it is ok for Indians to use gill nets for all salmon, including endangered ones. The nets kill what they catch no matter if the Indians can sell them or not.

The law for sportfisherman changes if some poeple bend or break the rules. Since so many Indians break there own laws why doesnt the US goverment take away the gillnets? Many of the Indians waste salmon, steelhead and sturgeon. I am sure that some of these wasted fish are from an endangered run. Yes I have tried to report this to the copsm they say contact Inter Tribal and they say its none of my business. That's a bunch of hogwash. Many Indians sell fish illegally and they still have the right to kill endangered salmon.
I know many different types of fisherman break the rules, but only one group can LEGALLY KILL ANIMALS ON THE ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST. Someone needs to inforce the Indian fishing laws because inter tribal doesnt. There should at least be a law that Indians can be punished for wasting non hatchery raised salmon and steelhead.

[STGRule]

***:
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Can STGRule say pen-raised? Can you say Aquaculture?
I think you can… <hr></blockquote>
I did...
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr> While I would (maybe) prefer farmed fish (with a whole new set of problems)... <hr></blockquote>
I have absolutely no problem with removing all gillnetting (commercial and tribal) from the Columbia. And frankly I'm getting tired of being classified as some kind of a sheep because I work for the department. You don't have any idea how I feel about issues unless you read my posts without your own bias about ODFW. Case in point, your snide comment about my being able to say aquaculture when I had indeed said it in my post. Did you actually read it? The point I had been trying to make was telling a bunch of fishers to not buy gillnetted fish is preaching to the choir.

[ 12-09-2001: Message edited by: STGRule ]

[ 12-09-2001: Message edited by: STGRule ]</p>

[Seefood Man]

A bail of hay a day....Keeps the nets away
Even tho I would love to,,I would never take matters into my own hands and destroy others property. However, in time, everyone will have to come to the table and get this mess fixed. It can be done, but it will take a serious effort on EVERYONES part to make it work. Maybe it will take the near destruction of a species to bring everyone together. I hope not!!

[bigshark]

Thankyou for the enlightenment. I have more food for thought now but I'm not sure what I can do to be helpful in the solution. It is certainly more of a complex problem than I had thought. The idea that things could stay the way they are because its easy to leave it at that sits poorly. To leave things the way they are seems morally corrupt at best. What can be done to satisfy the
original intent of the treaty and bring an honorable solution? I don't have an answer. If new thoughts come to mind I hope you will share them. It is hard to believe that those who benefit
from the resourse would allow its distruction because they disagree on its management. Time does not appear to be on either side, and we all lose.

[WaterDog]

***,

I know you pick on everybody. It's no secret where you stand on these issues. Seems too me that wanting everything for the sportsmen is a bit narrow minded. And yes I know, its for the fish as well. I have no love for gillnets but this is reality. They are there and for now they are part of the equation. Let's agree to disagree and one of these nights we'll discuss it face to face. :grin: And by the way, it was The Dalles Dam that buried Celilo Falls. :smile:

Pete, thanks for the links.

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

WaterDog

I do not feel that wanting to give a majority of this resource to sportsfishing interests is narrow-minded. Sports fishing may be the only way all of the people of the Great Northwest can enjoy this natural resource. Our indigenous salmon runs add to the quality of life in our region and make living here unique. Allowing very few individuals to commercially net and sell us our fish seems contrary to logic.

The current situation regarding how allocations are determined has been a long and arduous process steeped in history and legal findings. It is not difficult to become frustrated at the legal complexities surrounding treaty fishermen’s current right to fish and to just give in to complacency. I believe it is possible for we fishermen to have a positive impact on changing the attitudes of the commercial treaty fishermen. It is unlikely we can convince each side to renegotiate centuries old treaties or persuade ODFW to blow it’s entire war chest on legal efforts that are more than likely to fail, but clever, “quasi-political” maneuvers may be just the trick.

Who does the commercial fishermen on the Columbia sell too?
“Us”

If we stopped?
“they would sell to some other state”

Because ODFW controls the harvest, sale, AND transportation of all harvested fish in Oregon could we ask for laws that would only allow the sale or transportation of salmon within Oregon that have been “harvested in a manner likely to protect wild salmon runs”?

I think yes, courts have upheld the rights of the state to regulate harvest when reasonable and necessary for conservation as long as they do not discriminate against treaty fishermen.

Could we ask for rules that would restrict fish processors from accepting all salmon that was not “harvested in a manner likely to protect wild salmon runs”?

Perhaps yes, it would take considerable political effort to get the legislature to restrict business enterprise but it could be done if the moral high ground was maintained.

There are always alternatives


STGRule

With regards to your employment, that genie is out of the bottle. Hindsight being 20/20 perhaps disclosing your current employer was not wise and may put you at a strategic disadvantage while debating. Perhaps that may be the reason why so many people who have the same employer as you who also post to this board chose not to divulge that information. I cannot conveniently forget who you work for but I will promise not to bring it up again.

As to your feelings, it is nice to have feelings one way or another but what I would be most interested in is what have you done or said to try to make things better? With your unique insight (see I did not mention where you worked) have you written or expressed concerns to the Game Commission?
When?
Ever?

You have such an advantage over the public with regards to information. It would be such a shame for you to not to share your insights with the people on this board or the people who make the decisions at the Game Commission.

As to my bias toward ODFW you are correct. I do my best to differentiate between the good people who work there and the stupid things ODFW does but it is not easy. If you could read my last letter to the Commission you might understand better, not that anyone there will read it but at least I spoke out. I urge you to speak out as well.


Pete

Those are great links

*** Clerk

[Todd]

Good day, everyone. Here are a few "things" to add to the mix.

1. The treaties are only open for modification by an act of Congress. It has nothing to do with the state's willingness to do so. They are federal law that preempts all state law.

2. The federal court cases unequivocally state that modern fishing equipment is perfectly fine for tribal fishing, and likens it to not restricting us to the same gear we were using in the 1850's.

3. It has not been litigated, yet, as to how and to what extent the ESA would apply to tribal fisheries. One answer may be that it doesn't at all, another may be that it totally applies. Neither side is willing to take the chance that one or the other will completely lose out, so they continually negotiate an "in between" number to avoid it.

4. The treaties were not interpreted so as to allow the Indian fishermen to pay us back for our ancestors' rough treatment of them. They were interpreted to mean that at the time of the treaty, it was intended that the tribes would harvest half the fish, in almost any manner they would like, within the areas delineated in the court decisions, as a trade for land and peaceful settlement.

None of the above are necessarily my opinions, nor do I like them all. However, they are the facts that we have to live with regarding treaty harvest.

Fish on...

Todd.

[STGRule]

***:
First let me make it perfectly clear to you that there is nothing about my employment that I am ashamed of. I work for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife! I am proud of what I do and how I do it. As to what I have done to improve fisheries? I have lunched with commissioners and expressed my opinion in person (by the way, the "Game" commission hasn't existed for a couple of decades now). I participate in active data exchanges with other states and agencies to make sure the best information is in the hands of the people that do make the decisions. I talk to anglers every day that I'm in the field, answering questions and passing on information and resources. My current project is collecting ground-breaking information on green sturgeon that never existed before to pass onto NMFS as an accurate, up-to-date data base to assist in the decision to list green sturgeon under the endangered species act. I do something for the resource every single day. That's what I "do". I'm sorry you have trouble separating the message from the messenger. That's your loss.