Gamefishin.com banner

1 - 20 of 101 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,990 Posts
Washington State tribes will be celebrating 40 years of Judge Boldt's gross misinterpretation of the words from the 1854 & 1855 treaties this year. In 1974 Judge Boldt mistakenly interpreted the words "... in common with all citizens of the territory" to mean the tribes are entitled to harvest 50% of the State's fishery resources.

I'm sure most have already seen this, but the following video is an example of the result of his mistake... the gross over harvest, waste and destruction of Washington State WILD salmon runs! These are NOT hatchery raised fish that were killed and wasted! These were wild salmon returning to the Skokomish river last November to the best of my understanding. The report doesn't really say. They could have been Chum returning to the Hoodsport Hatchery at Finch Creek. But either way, it was a horrendous waste!

http://m.kirotv.com/videos/online/video-tribal-members-defending-decision-to-dump/vCJ5X8/

The 1854 & 1855 treaties guaranteed to protect not only the tribe's hunting and fishing rights, but it was intended to protect everyone in Washington State's hunting and fishing rights. The treaties basically state that the tribes would not be restricted to only hunting and fishing on the land they agreed to exchange for. The tribes could continue to hunt and fishing anywhere in Washington where it was legal for any other citizen to hunt and fish... "in common with all citizens of the territory."

The treaties were real estate contracts in which the United States paid the tribes the equivalent of over one million dollars in today's currency for property that had zero monetary value at the time. Land was free in the Oregon Territory in 1854 & 1855. It would be like the Fed Gov coming to your door and saying, "We know your house only appraises for $150,000. But we would like to offer you $5 million for your property. Because we believe your property will be far more valuable some day."

In addition, the U.S. allowed the tribes to reserve large sections of land and guaranteed the tribes free agricultural and industrial schools and free medical care, a free blacksmith shop and a free carpenter shop for twenty years. Apparently the tribes decided that was not enough a few years after signing the treaties...

Now history had been rewritten and we are all supposed to believe that the tribe's land was unjustly taken from them and we are supposed to turn a blind eye when they grossly abuse our state's resources...

The 1854 & 1855 treaty words "in common with all citizens of the territory" were in direct reference to WHERE the tribes could hunt and fish. Those words had no connection, nor is there any mention in the treaties of how much of the resource the tribe is entitled to. The obvious intent of the treaties was to ensure that EVERYONE would have the equal opportunity to hunt and fish.

Many times the truth is not so P.C...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,770 Posts
As fishermen/ out doorsmen... when we see a link like Trents... All you can do it get angry!

Trust me other tribes are just as angry with the skokomish. It's too bad those tribes couldn't do some thing about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,384 Posts
So the treaty gave the tribe "rights" to those fish. IMO, if they abuse those rights, they should lose those rights. The laws that protect wildlife should apply to EVERYBODY.

And while we're at it EVERY business should pay taxes. Not just pay in to our crooked politicians' campaign funds....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,273 Posts
M BITE said:
As fishermen/ out doorsmen... when we see a link like Trents... All you can do it get angry!

Trust me other tribes are just as angry with the skokomish. It's too bad those tribes couldn't do some thing about it.
The Skokomish aren't the only tribe to take blame. I think this last Fall people got sick and tired of seeing it on rivers from the Forks area streams to Chambers Bay and that is why there were so many pictures of wasted rotting fish on the social media pages as well making it AGAIN on the local news stations. It has been a problem for years....disgusting!!!!!!!! sick:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,374 Posts
"They were all wild fish". Didn't you know the tribes have hatcheries that raise chum over there in Hoods Canal? And they've been accused of over planting chum, coho and kings. This year was a record chum run there.

Careful what you wish for because if the commercial and tribe fisheries shut down so will the hatcheries, which means no more hatchery fish or huge cut backs for us too.

If you think hatcheries will continue to plant salmon for just sporties, your dreaming, LOL. Not only do the tribes have their own hatcheries some of our hatcheries are partially funded by the tribes. I bet the NFS group who is trying to shut hatcheries down loves it when you guys make these posts.

I hate gill nets too, but I think it's better to use our energy to invent or figure out a better way for them to harvest their fish and push to make it happen. Making false statements like Trent saying these are all "wild fish" and bashing them only threatens our seasons and helps anti-hatchery groups like the NSF. :roll:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,384 Posts
ANYBODY that uses a GILLNET is a waste of DNA in my book. Use one to feed your family? Learn to do something else. Like something that doesn't indiscriminantly KILL everything that touches it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,273 Posts
Dimples said:
"They were all wild fish". Didn't you know the tribes have hatcheries that raise chum over there in Hoods Canal? And they've been accused of over planting chum, coho and kings. This year was a record chum run there.

Careful what you wish for because if the commercial and tribe fisheries shut down so will the hatcheries, which means no more hatchery fish or huge cut backs for us too.

If you think hatcheries will continue to plant salmon for just sporties, your dreaming, LOL. Not only do the tribes have their own hatcheries some of our hatcheries are partially funded by the tribes. I bet the NFS group who is trying to shut hatcheries down loves it when you guys make these posts.

I hate gill nets too, but I think it's better to use our energy to invent or figure out a better way for them to harvest their fish and push to make it happen. Making false statements like Trent saying these are all "wild fish" and bashing them only threatens our seasons and helps anti-hatchery groups like the NSF. :roll:
Soooo, let us pretend the nets are gone...do you think we need hatcheries?

Personally I hate nets but I dislike the blatant waste and over harvest worse. They go hand and hand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,613 Posts
The 1854 & 1855 treaties guaranteed to protect not only the tribe's hunting and fishing rights, but it was intended to protect everyone in Washington State's hunting and fishing rights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,273 Posts
SeaRanger21 said:
The 1854 & 1855 treaties guaranteed to protect not only the tribe's hunting and fishing rights, but it was intended to protect everyone in Washington State's hunting and fishing rights.
Doesn't really look to be working like designed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,899 Posts
As if migratory fisheries management isn't difficult enough, "co-management" certainly compounds the task. IMO, aside from the reality of adding another commercial user group, overall co-management has been beneficial to our fisheries. Obviously there's room for improvement. It'd be naive not to consider the contributions tribal managers have made to date. A "check and balance" mechanism for our incapable and inept WDFW is worth the extra effort, IMO.


As to "why the tribes don't embrace transition to selective harvest method$"....well.... they're no different than any commercial fisher in respect to profit and the bottom line. Billy Franks statement (while true) sounded defensive, or in defense of a losing opinion (gilnetting with high incidental mortality).

This could be, and will be if not rectified, a big open sore for tribal interests. I don't get it. Why not be proactive, take the lead as they have in other endeavors like advocating for improved hatchery practices? What have they to gain by sticking to the status-quo?


I think it would be better for us to address reality, as it is now than bashing our fellow Americans. Glass house and all....

Anything else, like banking that US vs WA will be rescinded or modified is a pipe dream. Not "Salmon for all" not the NMFTA, not even the Gorton's themselves have that kind of coin.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,374 Posts
MYSTICAL LEGENDS said:
Soooo, let us pretend the nets are gone...do you think we need hatcheries?

Personally I hate nets but I dislike the blatant waste and over harvest worse. They go hand and hand.
Yes, I think we would still need some hatcheries because there are habitat issues. I'm not a supporter of trucking fish back and forth around the dams.

I dislike blatant waste and gillnets and over harvest too. Guess I just don't see this particular harvest of heavily planted chum on a record run for eggs as a waste. Seems more of a waste to let the them stack up at the closed hatchery gate, although I'm sure the "sportsmen" standing at the hatchery hole "fishing" with them packed in like little black sardines would be happy happy, LOL ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
This is actually a subject I have been learning about. In 1855 the Natives were the only ones fishing. When "immigrants" arrived here the Natives were busy fishing, as they had for 15 thousand years. Each tribe had a spot on different rivers and they would catch the fish when they were their fattest and ready for harvest. They didn't fish on top of each other and respected each others spot. In 1855 we were eager for the land. We made a deal with them and then took their homeland they had occupied for 15k yrs. The deal was a bad one for the tribes, but they had to take it or face elimination. They didn't want it, but had to take it. After the treaty was signed, they had a year to clear out. Instead settlers swarmed their lands the next day.

We made the deal, now we have to sleep with it. The treaty wasn't made for anybody who wasn't a Native. It didn't give fishing and hunting rights to settlers, just natives. They were the only ones who even cared about fishing at the time. The settlers were happy to let the natives fish for them, they wanted to log, and trap, and make dams. For a few years this worked out ok for the Natives, but then the new arrivals got greedy, and wanted this resource too. The natives were abused, arrested, and harassed up until the Boldt decision. We tried to make them assimilate three times so we could take their fishing rights too.

Now do I agree with nets, no. I think Dimples is correct. We need to find a better more efficient way of catching salmon than nets, period. Until that happens they will use the easiest most effective means to get their fish. But until then, we made the deal, we took their land, we broke their way of life, we broke the land. Blaming the Natives is not the answer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,384 Posts
You know when you read about the settlers that moved west killing all the bison that roamed the plains? Or when you see pictures of these guys that cut down the last 300 year old redwood tree? When I read about these kind of things, I always think, "how could these people be so stupid?", but I guess they were just more ignorant than stupid.
Today's use of gillnets gives me the same feeling, except the people that use them SHOULD realize that they're permanently damaging runs of fish. That wild steelhead that dies in a net in the Green River... that wild Chinook that expires in the Columbia.... So, I wonder are these people STUPID or IGNORANT, or BOTH?
Bottom line is I'm embarrassed to be part of the same gene pool as these gillnetters. One day, our future generations will ask, "Why did they do that? Didn't they care that they were destroying the fish?" There will probably be no good answer. No better answer than why the settlers wiped out the bison...or cut down the last stand of old growth redwoods....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,770 Posts
Audball0770 said:
You know when you read about the settlers that moved west killing all the bison that roamed the plains? Or when you see pictures of these guys that cut down the last 300 year old redwood tree? When I read about these kind of things, I always think, "how could these people be so stupid?", but I guess they were just more ignorant than stupid.
Today's use of gillnets gives me the same feeling, except the people that use them SHOULD realize that they're permanently damaging runs of fish. That wild steelhead that dies in a net in the Green River... that wild Chinook that expires in the Columbia.... So, I wonder are these people STUPID or IGNORANT, or BOTH?
Bottom line is I'm embarrassed to be part of the same gene pool as these gillnetters. One day, our future generations will ask, "Why did they do that? Didn't they care that they were destroying the fish?" There will probably be no good answer. No better answer than why the settlers wiped out the bison...or cut down the last stand of old growth redwoods....
Audball Tup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
174 Posts
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science- ... try-n28176

"The new study adds to archaeological evidence that Native Americans are descendants of humans that migrated from Asia through Siberia, and thrived across North America 13,000 years ago."

I have known that for a while now, but some people (that i know) refuse to acknowledge it.. So, the question is, if they did the EXACT same thing we did (white man migration), how do they get special privileges than other people? I get sick of hearing "we were here first", sure, you might have landed on this rock first, BUT, we were all on this EARTH the same time, so how can you go and take over a country, yet when someone else does it to the land you are on, its bad and unfair?

It's time that Native Americans are treated just like any other migratory settlers on this continent... same rights, same laws, same punishments...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,990 Posts
Dimples said:
"They were all wild fish". Didn't you know the tribes have hatcheries that raise chum over there in Hoods Canal? And they've been accused of over planting chum, coho and kings. This year was a record chum run there.

Careful what you wish for because if the commercial and tribe fisheries shut down so will the hatcheries, which means no more hatchery fish or huge cut backs for us too.

If you think hatcheries will continue to plant salmon for just sporties, your dreaming, LOL. Not only do the tribes have their own hatcheries some of our hatcheries are partially funded by the tribes. I bet the NFS group who is trying to shut hatcheries down loves it when you guys make these posts.

I hate gill nets too, but I think it's better to use our energy to invent or figure out a better way for them to harvest their fish and push to make it happen. Making false statements like Trent saying these are all "wild fish" and bashing them only threatens our seasons and helps anti-hatchery groups like the NSF. :roll:
Dimples said:
I dislike blatant waste and gillnets and over harvest too. Guess I just don't see this particular harvest of heavily planted chum on a record run for eggs as a waste. Seems more of a waste to let the them stack up at the closed hatchery gate...
Dimples, I am well aware that the tribes raise chum at the Hoodsport hatchery and release those fish into Finch Creek. Do you have any documentation that any hatchery chum are released into the Skokomish? The Skokomish hatchery only raises Chinook to my knowledge. All of the chum returning to the Skokomish are wild, unless there are a few Finch Creek strays.

But I guess we're both making assumptions... You're assuming all these fish were harvested in front of the Hoodsport hatchery with their beach seine nets, and I'm assuming these fish were caught in their gillnets in the Skokomish River. In all reality the dumped Chum probably came from both places. I went back and changed my OP after I realized they didn't say specifically where the salmon were caught.

Also, do you have any documentation that the tribes "partially fund" any of the hatcheries on the Hood Canal? The hatchery on the Nisqually was purchased and built by Tacoma Power then given to the tribe. It is currently still fully funded by Tacoma Power as far as I know. I believe the tribal members are even paid by Tacoma Power to work at the hatchery. Then the tribe harvests the lion's share of the hatchery Chinook that return to the Nisqually that didn't cost them a dime to raise. :?

http://www.mytpu.org/tacomapower/fi...lly-river-project/nisqually-fish-programs.htm

Tacoma Power is currently footing the bill to design "two new hatcheries as part of the Cushman Hydro Project license and has formed a team to help guide the design. The team includes representatives of:

Tacoma Power
Skokomish Tribe
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife"

The tribe is only "helping to guide the design." Not helping in any way to pay for the design and construction.
These hatcheries will raise Kokanee, Chinook, Coho, and Steelhead... no Chum.

http://www.mytpu.org/tacomapower/fish-wildlife-environment/cushman-hydro-project/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,990 Posts
Re: Must Read! Boldt Decision Artic

Larrdog said:
This is actually a subject I have been learning about. In 1855 the Natives were the only ones fishing. When "immigrants" arrived here the Natives were busy fishing, as they had for 15 thousand years. Each tribe had a spot on different rivers and they would catch the fish when they were their fattest and ready for harvest. They didn't fish on top of each other and respected each others spot. In 1855 we were eager for the land. We made a deal with them and then took their homeland they had occupied for 15k yrs. The deal was a bad one for the tribes, but they had to take it or face elimination. They didn't want it, but had to take it. After the treaty was signed, they had a year to clear out. Instead settlers swarmed their lands the next day.

We made the deal, now we have to sleep with it. The treaty wasn't made for anybody who wasn't a Native. It didn't give fishing and hunting rights to settlers, just natives. They were the only ones who even cared about fishing at the time. The settlers were happy to let the natives fish for them, they wanted to log, and trap, and make dams. For a few years this worked out ok for the Natives, but then the new arrivals got greedy, and wanted this resource too. The natives were abused, arrested, and harassed up until the Boldt decision. We tried to make them assimilate three times so we could take their fishing rights too.

Now do I agree with nets, no. I think Dimples is correct. We need to find a better more efficient way of catching salmon than nets, period. Until that happens they will use the easiest most effective means to get their fish. But until then, we made the deal, we took their land, we broke their way of life, we broke the land. Blaming the Natives is not the answer.
Larrdog, you drank the kool-aid! "They didn't fish on top of each other and respected each others spot." Are you serious??? Where did you get that from??? The tribes were fighting and killing each other and even making slaves of members from other tribes for years long before "Euro-man" arrived!

And all the Hollywood BS about the "natives" being one with Mother Earth and respecting the land and it's resources... the fact is that most tribes would occupy an area until they had depleted it's resources, then they would move on to another area, no different than what every other hunter and gatherer has done throughout history. The only exceptions were the tribes that farmed their food. And they had to continually protect their crops from the nomadic tribes.

And the BS about the tribes signing the treaty or facing annihilation??? Annihilation from who? By the time it came to settling the Oregon Territory, the Fed Gov was trying to protect the tribe's rights. The Northwest ordinance of 1787 stated, "The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians, their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and in their property, rights and liberty, they never shall be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress." Are you suggesting that Congress was considering authorizing a war with the tribes here in Washington State if they refused to sign the treaty??? That's quite the unfounded conspiracy theory... :roll: If President Franklin Pierce would have allowed Congress to declare war on the tribes in Washington State for refusing to sign the treaties, he would have been our most corrupt democrat President this country has ever had!

And the words "in common with all citizens of the territory" did and still does include, "all citizens of the territory." That means EVERYONE's hunting and fishing rights! Not only the "natives."

And the early settlers weren't interested in fishing??? They only all but decimated the salmon runs with their fish wheels at the turn of the century! The salmon fishing industry was a huge draw for many of the settlers!

And what were these mysterious three attempts to assimilate the tribes in order to get their fishing rights? When and how did this supposedly happen?

And you keep saying "We" did this and "We" did that... I had nothing to do with any of this, nor did anyone else currently alive. I refuse to accept any of this undeserved guilt that you obviously carry.

I agree that the tribes were abused, arrested, and harassed before the Boldt decision, primarily by what is now known as the WDFW. WDFW wanted all the hatchery fish being produced to be primarily reserved for the non-tribal commercial fishermen, and WDFW refused to honor the original treaties, which lead to the Boldt decision. When the Fed Gov confronted WDFW with this issue, WDFW's response was basically that they refused to honor the treaty because they didn't recognize the tribes as being human, or having any more rights than forest animals. The WDFW's response to the Fed Gov was, "Indians are less than human and their relationship to their land is not the human relation of ownership, but rather something similar to the relation that animals bare to areas in which they may be temporarily confined."

Now we continue to pay for the horrendous decisions made by the commercially biased WDFW and their past prejudices. But two wrongs don't make a right!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,770 Posts
MYSTICAL LEGENDS said:
Soooo, let us pretend the nets are gone...do you think we need hatcheries?

Personally I hate nets but I dislike the blatant waste and over harvest worse. They go hand and hand.
That's a great question Phil.
Actually I'd bet to say yes! We would still need hatcheries if all the nets were gone.
 
1 - 20 of 101 Posts
Top