Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

Tribal netting

15K views 195 replies 39 participants last post by  Leopardbow 
#1 ·
Anyone know when they net the forks area rivers? Is there somewhere i can look to see when they do it?
 
#8 ·
Actually, we've all got it wrong.

The Indians have been driving the fish to extinction for thousands of years, a few fish at a time. We European-Americans increased the population and introduced technology to hasten the process.

With any luck, we'll have those native fish gone in another generation or two and we can quit arguing about who gets the credit, because in about fifty years no one will remember or care, and we'll have virtual reality streams flowing through our living rooms and we can stock them from a menu of extinct species.
 
#11 ·
Actually, we've all got it wrong.

The Indians have been driving the fish to extinction for thousands of years, a few fish at a time. We European-Americans increased the population and introduced technology to hasten the process.

With any luck, we'll have those native fish gone in another generation or two and we can quit arguing about who gets the credit, because in about fifty years no one will remember or care, and we'll have virtual reality streams flowing through our living rooms and we can stock them from a menu of extinct species.
iagree Do like the idea of virtual fishing, I'll program mine so that the fish bite anything.
 
#9 ·
There is netting going on in the Puyallup right now. I suspect also in the Duwamish, but can't confirm. I believe tribes are constrained to what they agree to be constrained to.

The tribes refer to themselves as the "fish people" and don't like hearing that they are thought of as damaging the resource. If there is a way to compel them to a conservation stance, it will be through public awareness and pressure.

My $.02
 
#15 ·
Mike,

Your're dead wrong. The tribes had been fishing the runs sutainably for thousands of years. If they had been fishing them to extinction they wouldn't have been able to use the resource for over 9,000 years. It wasn't really until the europeans got here that the runs began to be over exploited. Check your facts next time.
 
#27 ·
I was being ironic. Thanks for making my point.

Good conversation here. Some even managed to get past the blame game and talk about real solutions.

As SpeySpaz mentioned earlier, we are one of the last states that still allows commercial gill-netting. There's a reason for that...:beathead:
-Ethan
Ethan...please tell me - what IS the reason?
 
#18 ·
Let me type this slow so that it is clearly understood. Select Washington Indian tribes have fishing rights that are part of FEDERAL treaties between the U.S. government and individual tribes. The members of those tribes have RIGHTS to fish; if you are not a member of a treaty tribe, you do not. Those treaty rights were defined functionally by the Boldt decision (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boldt_Decision for a brief review) in 1974 to mean that the tribes can harvest half the available fish and shellfish. Washington state has NO ability to restrict fishing by the tribes (some similar decisions in Oregon); Washington state has gotten its *$&$(#^ handed to it in federal court multiple times since the Boldt decision. The federal courts have decreed that both WA DFW and the tribes are co-managers of these resources. Some amount of harvest horse-trading goes on between DFW and the tribes at the North of Falcon process (wdfw.wa.gov/fish/northfalcon/faq.htm), but I expect not much trust. The co-managers do have areas of conflict in the acceptable sustainable harvest on specific river systems and specific stocks; the tribes biologists and the states biologists disagree. If you think that the CCA has the ability to change a FEDERAL treaty, I have some bank stocks that I think you might be interested in.

The tribes are a heterogeneous mix. Some work cooperatively with other tribes and the wider society, others have historical emnity against non-native society and even other tribes. Some tribes are well-managed, others are kleptocracies. The tribes hire their own biologists, manage their own hatcheries, and govern the activities (kind of....) of their members. However, there is often considerable overlap and conflict among tribes in their "usual and accustomed" fishing areas and each tribe acts independently according to its own perceived best interests.

CCA or other pressure groups might be able to convince Wa State to outlaw the use of gillnets in state waters by non-treaty fishers; the last time that was tried by referendum in 1995, it went down to defeat (Initiative 640: 57.5% against, 42.5% for). Of course, on the Columbia River banning gill nets would mean convincing Oregon state to go along too. And any agreement by Washington and Oregon to limit gill netting would do NOTHING to stop the interception of mixed stocks by sport and commercial fishers in Alaska and B.C.; of course, we never see these fish that are taken off the top of the returns, do we.

At one point, I had some hopes that the pressures of the Endangered Species Act could be a powerful hammer to modify the activities of tribal fishers. However, both the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Fish and Wildlife Service are in the same branch of government, the Department of the Interior, and the same lawyers work for both. You cannot use the same lawyers as plaintiff and defendant. If an outside group were to sue to enforce the Endangered Species Act, it is likely that a complete end to fishing on endangered stocks would be implemented against non-treaty commercial and sports fishers before the RIGHTS of the tribes were suspended. (And I'm not that sure that a treaty wouldn't trump a law. I'm not a lawyer, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn once).

A possible lever to influence the activities of the tribes may be through the Federal appropriations process for other tribal activities. While some tribes are flush with casino funds, others are still dependent of federal funds for a variety of activities on their reservations. This means using carrots (dollars) rather than a stick (regulations). This will require trust, something in very short supply when discussing fishing allocations.

Steve
 
#26 ·
I definitely agree with everything you said. It is a very complex situation concerning First Nation treaties, interstate commerce and fisheries, and international commerce and fisheries. Not to mention logging, urban sprawl, and new developments. The federal government, First Nation tribes, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska, as well as the Canadian government and BC will all have to work together for a solution. It's gonna take a hell of a lot of work to get anything done.

Non-selective commercial harvest on all sides, Native, non-Native, Alaska, and BC, as well as poor hatchery and general poor fisheries management are the main reasons I see for the decline of this state's anadromous fisheries. A stop to gill-netting at any level would help. A stop to nets spanning 2/3 of a river's width would be ideal. As SpeySpaz mentioned earlier, we are one of the last states that still allows commercial gill-netting. There's a reason for that...:beathead:
-Ethan
 
#20 ·
I don't care if they want to keep fish for subsistence, fine, they've been subsistence fishing for 10,000 years I'm not gonna stop them or tell them they shouldn't. I think though that its total bull that they can commercial fish for endangered species in river.
 
#21 ·
of course you are correct, cabezon, in refering to the legal history. however, this is NOT 1975. we are ALL in a new century with some pretty stinky issues to deal with regarding our fisheries. now if you go back far enough to the pt'n'pt treaties, they clearly state that the indians will fish in common with everyone resident of this state. that simple wording is a killer in court, but it probably needs to be approached once again.

as far as the boldt decision, nothing really needs to be done to challenge the 50% take portion. all that needs to be done is to ENFORCE the ESA protection of listed fishes. that simply means, a zero tolerance for the killing of listed fishes. that in turn means everyone, and the sports are already, selective fishing. that in turn means NO NETS!

i do believe there are several very simple straight forward legal arguements that no one seems to care about making, CCA included.

as far as indians 'taking care of a resource for 9000 years', well that is probably a real stretch. when you consider the facts of isolated coast bound villages living and dieing on the numbers of fish they could kill, coupled with cycles of no shows for those fish, it was totally about extraction for survival. the numbers of indians involved vs the zillions of salmon around really had the equation in favor of the fish. so i don't see indians caring for a resource, there were simply to few of them to make a dent in the salmon populations.

but here we are today, declining runs and a host of variables contritubuing. and i would agree that the non-indian popluation has had the greatest impact on run reductions, no question about that. but just what immediate steps can be taken? and my arguement is selective fishing by all concerned is a wonderful first step in recovery.
 
#22 ·
This is a question of curiosity. If The state of Washington were to make commercial fishing illegal, hence ending the ability to catch fish and sell them in the state for profit, wouldn't that also effect the tribes? Their treaty only covers harvesting for themselves, if I am correct. It does not give them the right to sell the fish they catch. From my understanding (and I could be wrong), the tribes pretty much do most of their fishing for profit. They don't have the same customs that they did back in the day when they only netted enough fish to survive. It is when fish got commercialized is when the stocks started to deplete, if I understand it correctly.
 
#23 ·
Cabezon is right about using the carrot rather than the stick. If tribal guides made more money taking sports out fishing they'd start lobbying within their own tribe to have more fish for their customers. It all comes down to money and survival. Rules can only go so far. I'm booking a trip on the Quinault very soon.

JR
 
#25 ·
No, I don't think that a state law would have much impact on the tribes' abilities to sell their catch. The tribes historically engaged in trade with other tribes; they just didn't seem to be effective enough to put a dent in the populations; of course, we have no data for fish populations at that time. You might find a lawyer that would make the argument that the state could ban the purchase of salmon caught in state waters, but I doubt it would fly. And the tribes, like good businesspeople, have avenues for selling their fish across the country and across the ocean.

GT, the problem is that the sports ARE NOT selectively fishing. We kill wild kings in the salt, the Alaskans and BC fishers kill wild kings in the salt. These are mixed stocks; there is no reasonable way one can discriminate whether these fish are from healthy stocks or not until they are bonked. If I were a federal judge and this was my case, the Armageddon solution would be 1) close ALL salmon fishing in Washington and SE Alaska (even catch and release causes mortality), 2) force the state to pay whatever it took for WA DOT to rebuild EVERY culvert, bridge, and road that acts as barriers to fish passage in the watersheds of impacted stocks, 3) block further building permits in any part of the watershed, 4) stop all logging activities in the watershed, and 5) ban the release of any hatchery fish in these watersheds of any species. And, it is possible that a judge might do this before interfering with a treaty. Of course, if I made those extreme demands, one might expect someone would invoke the "God Committee" amendment in the ESA and overrule my decision. In other words, just let the stock go extinct (see the history of the snail darter and the Tellico dam). [In fact, there was an argument on another board to ignore the status of wild fish and just boost up the number of hatchery fish. The same arguments were made regarding Oregon coho; a conservative group was successful in arguing that hatchery coho = wild coho if the hatchery fish were derived from the same stocks. Who needs rivers under this nightmare?]

No easy answers.
 
#31 ·
No, I don't think that a state law would have much impact on the tribes' abilities to sell their catch.
In rural Alaska you can barter subsistence caught salmon and subsistence hunted game is certain areas of the state. I've got no problem with bartering they should be able to barter whatever they catch, fine barter is trading for goods and services though not money. In river commercial fishing is BS no matter who does it.
 
#30 ·
there are a number of factors throwing up road blocks in this discussion. the first of these is the fact that washington state and the federal government was unwilling to take on the indian lobby. this was demonstrated when the makah were fined a total of $20 ea for the illegal killing of a whale. the actual question that needed a legal hearing was whether or not federal regulations trump past treaties. that question remains.

seems as though both CA and OR, this past year, were successful in closing down all harvest, including ALL commercial fishing, indian, non-indian. don't for a second think this can't be accomplished, it was demonstrated last year. what is lacking is balls on the part of our elected officials to take on some enormously powerful lobbies. these include the commercial fishing groups who have for more than a century defined the essence of seattle, the indians who still claim that they have not been paid in full for whatever, and the associated businesses who profit from the sales of all things related to supporting both of these groups.

big time, hard choices for elected officials. and that is why i still believe that unless legal action is taken, nothing is going to change.
 
#32 ·
thanks for that distinction AK, worth a ponder. perhaps that is what the intent of the original treaties was all about, subsistence, ceremonial and barter. once folks cross over to the commercial sale of fish, all of these folks, no matter their racial backgrounds, need to come under one simple set of common rules and regulations.
 
#33 ·
A major reason why the state of Washington cannot ban netting for the tribes is because the treaty is a Federal agreement between the tribes and the Indians. Essentially this means that their isn't much the state can do about regulating them. There are (I think) five states that are in the same prediciment as us (washington). I know Arizona is one of them, but I can't remember the others. I'm taking a Northwest history class and our teacher is talking alot about the tribes and the treaties, I should pay more attention though. This whole topic on the treaties and the laws and regulations around them is very confusing, to say the least.
 
#35 ·
For those of you who would like to know more about treaty fishing rights I suggest The Rights of Indians and Tribes by Steven Pevar. It devotes an entire chapter to hunting and fishing rights.

There are two ways that tribes could be stopped from fishing.

1. Conservation Exception: Tribes could be restricted from fishing if it is a "conservation necessity". And must pass a strict 3 prong test. It must be reasonable and neccessary to perpetuate the species. It must be the least restrictive means of of achieving this goal. And other means, less injurous to the tribe's rights, must be utilized. Puyallup Tribe v. Dept. of Game

2. The Federal Congress can explicitly abrogate the treaty. At which point the tribes can sue for just compensation for the loss of their treaty rights (and will win), acording to the 5th Amendment.

Gt, the treaties won't be reinterpreted. Quit barking up that tree, its usless. We shouldn't waste our time on this issue if we want to see our anadromous runs rebound. Our efforts would be much more valuable placed elsewhere (land use/development practices). Tribal netting is by no means a low hanging fruit.
 
#37 ·
so derek, you believe that in the one hundred or so years it will take to restore lost habitat that the anadramous fishes will still be around? that is the immediate problem, i am afraid. sure thing, habitat restoration, removal of dams, improvements in culverts.......blah, blah, blah are all noted and worthy. unfortunately, the fish don't have that long before we won't have to worry about protecting them.

renegotiate the treaties? thought never crossed my mind. ask for an interpretation '...in common with other citizens of washington state...', might be worth some effort.

as i have pointed out, california and oregon shut down all harvest this past season. i think washington can pretty easily state the case for protection of already listed ESA fishes as a total shut down. given that fish don't carry drivers licenses with their place of residence, and the fact that fish stock mix in pretty much known areas, closing down the fishery should not be rocket science.

do i expect this to happen in washington state? no, someone will eventually kill that last wild anadramous fish and then this discussion will end along with indian fishing 'rights'. just remember that shortly after boldt, there were no fish left in hood canal, zero, extinct. so don't sit there and think this is a fantasy or that somehow the forest primeval will be returning on your watch on the planet, ain't goin'to happen folks, we are on the cusp right now.
 
#39 ·
Actually, you got the information you asked for (at least as is known publically) in the first reply. But, then we had an interesting exchange of views on the contributions of tribal netting to salmon population declines and the possibilities of changing that situation. We didn't all agree, but we are all better informed.

Steve
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top