Anyone know when they net the forks area rivers? Is there somewhere i can look to see when they do it?
Salmo, you hit the issue square on the head. The key phrase is 'only after all other alternatives have been employed'. . . The courts have ruled that the treaty fishery may be restricted for conservation necessity only after all other alternatives have been employed. Those include complete closures of non-treaty commercial and recreational fishing.
Pleade don't take this the wrong way. But it doesn't make any difference what you or I think it was intended to mean. The case the judge used to back up BOLDT stated something to similar to...right, salmo, a real long shot but 'in common with' implies that everyone in this state was viewd as having a 'right' to fish. i honestly do believe that the intent of the treaties was to preserve a way of life, subsistence, ceremonial, and as mentioned, a barter system. i don't believe the treaties were intended to provide the indian fishery free reign on commercial harvest.
The reality is, there have been several challenges already to Boldt. Unless you come up with another angle, the law isn't going to try to reinterpret what has already been interpreted.wow, what a discussion.
having finally read all 130 pages of Boldt and SCOTUS, including the comments by the justices (most interesting), I feel like all these decisions are vulnerable to challenge. What has changed?
-the science of fisheries management
-use of genetic typing to identify stocks
-ESA listings
-casinos as the primary livelihood of many of the fish eating tribes
-collapsing stocks in some watersheds
-increasing public attention to the issues
-development of SELECTIVE net fishing systems similar to the weirs the tribes used before the arrival of the white man and his monofilament...Yes, Selective Nets. The tribes don't have to kill endangered fish.
Boldt and other decisions were difficult decisions, made in a different time, and now new decisions face us in this time.
Clearly, joint management and multiple jurisdictions in Federal and State and Tribal government make it a hideously complex issue.
Bob
As to this - I don't think so.But I think if the Treaty framers had even considered the possibility of gillnets strung across rivers, decimating native fish populations in the process of harvesting fish from a hatchery, the wording and conditions of the treaties would have been a bit different, huh? maybe included some phrases like "ecologically sustainable manner..."
Err, before suggesting things are simply just based on Gaussian distributions, you may want to read the text.... The curve is actually a shape in which the lower population values show a very static recruit to spawner (nearly a level curve) until a "minimum" threashold is reached. Then from there, the value becomes asymtotic to a maximum carrying capacity. The neat thing about the curve is the resiliance of the population to mortality, yet it's complete crash and stasis below the critical threshold. I believe the specific values you are talking about are the MSY and MSH curves which are quite a bit different than what I was talking about.i am very famaliar with the various theories of salmon wandering, think of the bell shaped curve here with the mid point being the natal eco system. those studies started in ernst in the 60's and have been elaborated upon ever since. of course in that time frame, the UofW fisheries folks were in the dark regarding migration and fish returns, '...too complicated they proclamed...'. it was an interesting time with light shined on the subject by 2 comparative psychologists from the university of WISCONSIN, kind of an embarassing moment for the fisheries program, to say the least. i have to say, i don't think they have gotten ahead of the knowledge curve to this day.
hood canal was a central focus in the salmon wars of the 80's it was indian vs non-indian to see who could catch the most fish. one group or the other wiped out all the last of the wild fish in the canal. what you find there today are a very few wandering fish + the huge dog salmon hatchery harvest for the total benefit of the indians. the canal does not represent a 'crash' of fish in an eco system as the tootle did, it is an example of overfished to extinction.
I think that you're missing the point. Nobody said that nets don't have an affect, and I think that all folks will agree that irresponsible fishing is irresponsible.Hey, nothing against the tribes and their fishing rights, but some of the stuff I've seen is irresponsible and wrong no matter who's doing it. There has to be some accommodations made, and I don't think giving up flyfishing for steelhead will do anything but give me an excuse to feel like a little disempowered victim, and I don't wear that well.
The incentive is that 75% of the guides are native and the fees for charters go back to them. Also, licenses to float or bank fish would also go to the tribes. Probably way to complicated but the traditional way of thinking isn't working so we need to brainstorm....Johnnyrockfish,
I don't see anything attractive to the tribes in your proposal. They already have most of what you describe and then some. The only thing you're offering them is guide licensing fees, and that is far less than what you're asking them to give up. For an analogy consider this: here, I'll give you $25 and you give me $100. Fair enough, OK? Why do you think the tribes would be interested in your offer?
Sg