Nisqually eats another boat

Discussion in 'Watercraft' started by Jon Borcherding, Jul 10, 2007.

  1. James Mello

    James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,787
    Media:
    8
    Likes Received:
    81
    Location:
    Tacoma
    Okay, so let's say you do get a local district judge to buy in. Next comes the appeal.... We could then get the next judge up the chain, but ultimately it terminates at judges we don't elect, but are appointed..... Also, where would this money come from? There isn't an organization with enough $$ or clout to pull this off....

    Finally, in order for this to happen, you'd also have to come up with a reasonable challenge to the ruling. Even judges that are bought can't ignore case precident or they will come under the scrutiny of their peers. Lots of challenges have been made, all of them have lost. You will then need to find a new angle that hasn't be judged yet... Impossible? No... Easy? No....

    -- Cheers
    -- James
     
  2. Salmo_g

    Salmo_g Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    7,801
    Media:
    6
    Likes Received:
    1,875
    Location:
    Your City ,State
    Unfortunately, a thread about some trees fallen in the Nisqually River has taken a turn to the issue of treaty Indian fishing and fishing rights. I think prior threads pretty well capture the issue. Some of the points of summary are:
    1. Treaty rights are the law of the land, upheld in Federal District Court, the 9th Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court. None of the judges or justices are elected. All are appointed by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
    2. Whether tribes had diesel boats, nylon nets, or any other technological devices at treaty times is irrelevant.
    3. The treaty law applies to fishing in usual & accustomed areas, which pretty much includes any and every water body in the case area, and does not exclude hatchery or introduced fish.
    4. Treaties can legally be modified by Congress without the tribes consent. Slade Gorton tried that in the U.S. Senate in the early 1980s and got no where.
    5. It turns out that it's a bit more complicated than buying off some judges and Congressmen, but with an infinite budget, it's hypothetically possible; otherwise it's a ranter's fantasy.
    6. As much as some people believe the demise and decline of various stocks of fish is due to Indian fishing, not one, repeat, NOT ONE instance has ever been verified. And just the opposite is verified, that is, white society has extirpated over a hundred salmon and steelhead stocks on the west coast.

    You don't have to like it, but the above, except #5, are the facts.

    Sincerely,

    Salmo g.
     
  3. Be Jofus G

    Be Jofus G Banned or Parked

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,051
    Media:
    10
    Likes Received:
    53
    Location:
    Washington
    Which means you'd need Haliburton Type money.
     
  4. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,616
    Media:
    19
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    by impacting the major source of income for current day native americans, casinos, perhaps a message can be sent. boycott their businesses and let'um know why.

    boldt is not going to be changed until or unless it goes back into court. my only issue with this situation is how anyone, native americans included, thinks that by decimating an ESA stock their short and long term best interests are being served. the useful, and in mind necessary change, is a simple one, anyone fishing must abide by the same set of rules, no matter your origin.
     
  5. Be Jofus G

    Be Jofus G Banned or Parked

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,051
    Media:
    10
    Likes Received:
    53
    Location:
    Washington
    SHOOSH, you're white which means you are responsable for the loss of over a hundred salmon and steelhead stocks on the west coast. :beathead:
     
  6. James Mello

    James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,787
    Media:
    8
    Likes Received:
    81
    Location:
    Tacoma
    Totally in agreement, but the unfortunate reality is that the opinion of decimated stocks isn't agreed upon. Great example. Take a look at the WDFW escape requirements for the Queets and compare it to the Quinault Tribe escapment for the Queets. The difference is like 1000 steelhead. The state is set higher than the tribes. You now have a situation where the opinion of one set of trained biologists are in disagreement with another... Who's right? I don't know, but my inclination would be to err on the side of caution. Other folks who have a financial/cerimonial vested interest have a different perspective...

    Regardless though, at some point tribes and WDFW are going to have to start to figure this shit out. It's also weird cause the Tulalips seem to have a pretty good relationship (for example) and the Quinaults seem to have a much worse one.... My opinion so don't imply anything by it! :)
     
  7. James Mello

    James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,787
    Media:
    8
    Likes Received:
    81
    Location:
    Tacoma
    Well, in some cases I'd take the netting over dams..... Neither are great, but the single biggest impediment to salmon (upstream and down stream) are the major dams on the Columbia. Are they an economic nessecity? Yes. Did the and will they provide the energy needed by the country? Yes. Did they *greatly* impact the salmon and steelhead on the Columbia? Yes.. Were the opposed by the tribes? Yes... Kinda weird how perspective can make somethings a lot more muddied and less black and white....

    As for the griping, I totally understand. I don't like the way things are, but the sooner that you accept that Boldt isn't going away, the sooner that you can put your energies into things you *can* change....

    -- Cheers
    -- James
     
  8. Be Jofus G

    Be Jofus G Banned or Parked

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,051
    Media:
    10
    Likes Received:
    53
    Location:
    Washington
    I'm not kidding myself and I know that boldt isn't going anywhere. I was attempting to illistrate exacly how close to impossibe it would be to get it tossed out. The thing that really peves me is when someone throws up the fact that white men somehow hold the responsibility for the loss of the fish. I wasn't even born when the damns went up, hell my ancestors weren't even in this country when most of the damns went up. I'd never set foot in this state until 199something and have voted for environmentally friendly candidates since I tunred 18. Now how is that a reason to keep gill nets in water holding ESA listed fish. :confused: I'm going to shaddup now and go boil potatos until they're liquified. Everyone can agrue over what someones great grandfather did until they are blue in the face.
     
  9. nomlasder

    nomlasder Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,333
    Media:
    67
    Likes Received:
    118
    Location:
    Burien.
    It was this point I simply backed off. One man's reason is an others idiotcy. It just happens. This is what makes America great.

    James, thanks for taking up the debate. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer, only compromises balancing historical use and rights, vs current use, vs management of the resource.

    One needs to get down to the details. Does the person that set the net across the slough know they may be actually doing harm? If it's not legal, were the authorities notifed, photos taken and sent to the news agencys?

    Education and public opinion are powerfull tools.
     
  10. James Mello

    James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,787
    Media:
    8
    Likes Received:
    81
    Location:
    Tacoma
    It's one of those things that keep reoccuring, and frankly, it's fine that it does. My whole hope is that folks can stop worrying about it and focus on issues we *can* control. The idea of doing net cleanups, is a *good* thing. The idea of enhancing coarse woody debis on a river is a *good* thing. If we can get the energy focused on this, we'll be a lot better off...

    Personally speaking, I used to be a ranter until I was educated on the matter. Once I figured out that the law is only fair depending on your perspective, I stopped wasting my time on things that were out of my control. Plenty of other legislative/voting action can be taken rather than wasting time and resources on things that can't....
     
  11. Jon Borcherding

    Jon Borcherding New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    535
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    Boldt:confused:

    But:

    0 X 50% = 0

    JonB
     
  12. James Mello

    James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,787
    Media:
    8
    Likes Received:
    81
    Location:
    Tacoma
    No disagreement, but the Boldt decision is 50% decided by the NA nations, and 50% by us... We can do what we will with our fish, so at least that parts in our boat...
     
  13. Jon Borcherding

    Jon Borcherding New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    535
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    So you don't believe that the netting that takes place in the Nisqually, and the abandoned nets that remain there, have caused any decline in the steelhead or salmon stocks?

    Your attitude seems to be, "we can't prove it harms the fish and even if we could we can't do anything about it anyway, so let's not talk about it because everybody gets upset".

    Public awareness. First we have to be willing to discuss it. We have to at least agree that it's a problem. It is a problem isn't it? Apparently we have trouble reaching any kind of consensus here about that question. This leads me to believe that this is the wrong forum for me to be discussing this. I didn't start this thread with this discussion in mind. I was just so damn disgusted by what I saw that I couldn't keep it to myself.
    Today I decided to avoid being disgusted so I didn't fish the Nisqually. Instead I went to Pt Defiance with an 11' mooching rod and a knucklebuster. I caught a nice 15 lb. hatchery king and 2 unclipped kings. I bonked the hatchery fish and released the natives so they can head for the Nisqually.
    Bye bye fish.

    JonB
     
  14. James Mello

    James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,787
    Media:
    8
    Likes Received:
    81
    Location:
    Tacoma
    That's the crux of the matter. I consider some tribes to be problematic, and others to be assets. The Tulalups for instance have moved their fishery for hatchery fish to a time when most wilds aren't present. They operate their own hatchery and fin clip everything. There are still some people disgruntled at how they do things, and there will always be.

    Another perspective on this, the nets in the Nisqually. It *may* be a problem but without a reasonably accurate count or data model to use, anecdotal evidence of "I've seen fish in the net" doesn't hold any water in the scientific or legal community. It's an emotional answer to a largely logical problem. I don't refute the claim, as I trust you. But taken to another person who *doesn't*, you need to be able to back up your statement either with facts or a body of evidence that supports the claim.

    With all of that crap said, I do side with you for the most part that netting is part of the issue. The major problems for fish come down to the 4 h's. Harvest, habitat, hydro, hatcherys. Of those, the harvest aspect is the single most visible to fishermen, because we are usually on the water when we see it. BUT netting is not the biggest issue related to the decline of our native stocks of fish. All 4 H's have a cuplability in this, and the balance of it may be related to harvest and hydro.

    As for public education on the matter, what specifically is the aim? To overturn the Boldt decision? It's a 9th circuit court decision and is a federal level. Very little if anything can be done, unless a reasonble case can be brought forth on how this division is wrong. Simply stating it isn't fair, and having a large petition won't change the ruling.

    Here's my take on it: Frankly I don't like a lot of the netting, but using law, our ancestors tried to screw some people over, and the plan backfired in the 1970's. The upshot is, those folks are getting no more than what was promised by our Federal goverment as a right. This is the source of the 50% allocation. Overturning the decision will take more than public outcry, as the right to fish and hunt in the usual and accustomed places was a right that was paid for in full by the NA tribes in the past. It seems shitty right now, but let's face it, they were the ones forced onto the res, and we're the ones who did it.

    My general idea is to consider they tribes for what they are, equal partners in a comanaged fishery. If we don't like what is going on, the BEST we can do is influence their policy through any number of ways. Most of the NA folks I know *really don't* want the fish to go away, but also don't want to surrender their rights. Since we can only influence their decisions, we should focus on our side of the 50% and spend our energies their. If we have a tip top situation, then *MAYBE* we could say that the tribes aren't living up to their co-managed status and *MAYBE* there could be a reasonable case brought to court for the tribes to change their ways. As such, we've got a LONG way to go before that happens.

    Great! I've been hearing reports on the rezzie silvers being in town, but I didn't realize that 15lb kings were around. Most folks I know are hitting blackmouth in the 5lb range. Double nice for you though! :)
     
  15. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,616
    Media:
    19
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    i agree that boldt is not going to be revisited anytime soon. that said:

    - who is counting the 50%?
    - where is the catch publicly reported?
    - is the public aware of the 'kill everything' actions of the NA net fishery?
    - does the public understand that bank to bank nets destroy everything returning?
    - did you stop visiting your local casino once this thread started?
    - have you told anyone about this?


    and finally, just how can anyone justify the killing of ESA fish! i fail to understand how anyone thinks this taking is in the short or long range best interests of anyone. so, why aren't the tribal elders stepping up and doing something? afterall, the tribal PR machine wants all of us to believe they are the stewards of our environment and all things living. lets simply hold them to their own PR standard.

    anyone have some tribal email addresses we can address our concerns too??
     
  16. James Mello

    James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,787
    Media:
    8
    Likes Received:
    81
    Location:
    Tacoma
    Some of these should be addressed by Smalama or Salmo_g, but the idea that a net is a catch everything kinda of deal isn't quite right. There are net gap restrictions for various fisheries, and while they are effective at catching most everything, they do have some rules and restrictions on them.

    As for the tribal elders/tribal goverment, I wished that some representative could come on board and discuss this. Hopefully if something like this happened, they would be treated with respect rather than distain.... GT based on proximity, do you know of any tribal members in your area that could speak on the matter? Perspective would be good....
     
  17. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,616
    Media:
    19
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    sorry to say, my only conversation with the elwha co-manager was a total disappointment. he was only interested in hatchery fish for the taking by tribal members. the s'klallam group is currently into unsustainable harvest of dungness crab! they have floated the notion of a net pen in sequim bay and i have already started beating the drum for 'not here' and will continue to monitor that story.

    isn't there a representative for the WA tribes who typically does the public presentations on behalf of all of them? franks?????
     
  18. Jon Borcherding

    Jon Borcherding New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    535
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    Billy Frank
    Tribal fishing rights activist famous for poaching or activism, depending on your perspective.
    Good Luck.

    JonB
     
  19. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,616
    Media:
    19
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    thanks, billy franks is the person i was thinking about. here is an email address to get us started:

    lfarmer@psat.wa.gov

    apparently the contact person for the puget sound clean up group. i asked her to pass along the email to mr franks to see if he would care to respond to ALL of us. you may choose to express your own points of view via email as well.
     
  20. James Mello

    James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,787
    Media:
    8
    Likes Received:
    81
    Location:
    Tacoma

    Maybe the better way to go about this would be to set up a forum where questions can be submitted? We can then weed out the obviously inflammotory attacks/useless comments, and keep the ones that may be touchy but still need some answers....
     

Share This Page