NFR: Squaxin Tribe Taking 1/2 My Clams

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Go Fish, Feb 9, 2013.

  1. It's a frustrating thing to deal with, no doubt, but creating a plan of action when you're pissed off doesn't really lead to a desirable outcome down the road. Is your focus mainly on preserving your population at this point, or getting back at the tribe? Which of those things benefits you the longest?

    Pain is no fun, but resistance to pain leads to suffering. Your clams will likely suffer (as well as your blood pressure) if you decide to take the spiteful approach.
     
    triploidjunkie likes this.
  2. Go fish -
    I don't mean to sound unsympathetic; I'd be pissed, too. The concern I expressed was for the clams. I hope for your sake and that of the clams that they don't come back next year and mark the other half for them to harvest and leave you with the one that was cleaned out this year.

    I don't have much idea about how fast clams will come back after harvest, or how completely they are able to harvest. I would hope that they have some idea about what is sustainable.

    D
     
  3. Somewhat unrelated, but make sure they know what 50% means... My friend told me last week that some time ago he sold about 50% of his oysters off his beach to a non-native commercial guy. They took more than that, but he had a meeting with the guy afterward and he did some receding and apologized. Said he would never do it again. They paid him an entire $.07 per oyster for harvesting his beach!!!!
     
  4. Richard, I don't think (I'll find out) that the
    tribe can come back next year and take the
    other half of clams. If totally harvested it takes 3
    to 5 years for the clams to come back. My
    neighbor had all her clams harvested. I will still have
    50+ feet of beach with clams that I can use after
    they take their share.

    Jdub, I can be spiteful and still be under control,
    centered, and thoughtful. I don't keep it in, I explore
    ideas from others and look for the best solution to
    what you and others would do if placed in the same
    situation. If you wouldn't be pissed about being
    told that what you have worked to own and pay taxes
    on can be taken with no recourse then you can't
    offer any words of wisdom.

    Dave
     
  5. If you're gonna stamp your feet on an open forum, I'll give my two cents. Sounds like you want a fight more than anything.
     
  6. I don't fight unless I can win.
     
  7. Cool, I don't fight unless my life depends on it.
     
  8. Did the notice provide the following:

    "The notice will include the quantity of shellfish that may be taken"

    I should hope that the quantity of shellfish that can be legally harvested, based on the survey done, would be a number determined to be sustainable, and not a number that will decimate the population (not half the entire population, but half the legal harvest, the allowable harvest determined as some sustainable fraction of the population) .

    but I'm still not clear on how it really works
     
  9. jwg, The sustainability is not considered.
    It is just the right they have to take 1/2
    of what there is. The paper work I was sent
    is simple and to the point. We have the right to
    take half of the clams on your beach. If it destroys
    the fishery ie clammery, so be it.
     
  10. Go Fish: I was kinda kidding when I suggested the BBQ and media invitation. I can sympathise with your situation, and my advice is when life gives you lemons....

    Oh, BTW, comments by others about going back to Europe if GoFish (or others) don't like it are not helpful.
     
  11. Go Fish doesn't need to go back to Europe since his ship didn't arrive yesterday. The property he lives on has been owned by his family for nearly 100 years.
     
  12. As a general statement, most tribes are aware and concerned about their public image. As long as their bad deeds can be done with little notoriety, they can and do operate with impunity. Depending on how upset you are, you may wish to consider providing some publicity for them that will adversely affect their public image, i.e. the truth...
     
  13. I sure feel your frustration. I would feel the same way. I too would ponder all kinds of intrusive things to interefere or defeat the harvest attempt, but I suspect most would be Federal crimes. Not becasue I'm some violent nutjob...but becasue I think interfereing in any way with tribal harvest is probably against the law. What you do before the harvest, might be another story.

    In any event, it's some bullshit for sure. The only way to avoide this kind of nonsense is to setup home on land nobody else would ever want to use. Otherwise, some jackass is bound to come along sooner or later and say they want what you have.
     
  14. Or the Bering Strait......

    By the way Dave, did you ever take care of that leaky septic tank? Better hurry before harvest time.
     
  15. Man, it's almost like you feel like you entered into some kind of agreement about your property that you feel should be binding...

    And yea, I know this is a pretty lame first post but some of the backlash about the tribes on here is starting to rub me the wrong way.
     
  16. Any suggestions? The local WA news and papers don't show much interest in touching anything involving the tribes and their use of the resource, derelict nets being ignored, tribal enforcement lacking, etc.
     
  17. Won’t tribal shellfish harvesting deplete the resource?

    No. Judge Rafeedie’s ruling allows the tribes to harvest up to 50 percent of the harvestable surplus of shellfish, that is up to half of the shellfish not needed to sustain the species. Sound fisheries management practices will safeguard overall shellfish populations by only harvesting what can be taken without jeopardizing any particular species. The tribes employ fisheries scientists, managers, technicians and enforcement officers who work together to ensure resource populations are managed to provide a long-term sustainable harvest.

    In reading the link jwg provided, the harvest is 50% the substainable harvest level. I would like to know more about the population assessement and WDFG review. What is considered a viable population density. For instance if the tribes assement is 10 clams per square meter (or yard) and biological evidence inticates 4 clams per meter is the minimum sustainable population then there are only 6 available and 50% of that is 3.

    Do your home work, I would also ask to have WDFG monitor the harvest to ensure only the quota is taken.
     
  18. Just in case, my comments are not specific to tribes. Pretty much applies to tribal, Federal, state and local agencies as well. Many properties have easements of one kind of another (utilities, access, etc.). Even if you benefit from one of these easements, it's still quite rational to be irritated by the execution of one of these easements. Sometimes they are a deal with the devil (in order to get some essential resource, you have to provide the easement). So even if it's useful, it does not mean that it goes down smooth.

    It was a tribe that sent the letter, so it cannot be shocking that the discussion focuses on what the tribe did. Choices (even the legal execution of treaty rights) have consequences. In this case, the consequence may be a clam harvest hoedown, letters to the editor extolling the "bullshit" nature of the harvest and some bitching on the internet.
     
  19. How about a bumper sticker?

    "The Squaxin Tribe took 1/2 the clams Off My Beach."
    "The Beach my Family Paid Taxes for 100 Years."
     
  20. Free advice being what you pay for it...if it were me, I'd have some signs up, on the road and on the beach, I'd write some letters to the editor that included date and time, and I would probably park my vehicle across the street from the tribal HQ with a sign or two on it...but I am a hard headed cranky old fart...
     

Share This Page