Tribes want free Discover Passes

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Go Fish, Aug 22, 2011.

  1. Dustin Bise Active Member

    Posts: 3,089
    509
    Ratings: +7 / 0
    I was reading the 1855 treaty just for fun. This line seemed relevent to discover passes.

    Provided, also, That the exclusive right of taking fish in the streams running through and bordering said reservation is hereby secured to said Indians, and at all other usual and accustomed stations in common with citizens of the United States, and of erecting suitable buildings for curing the same; the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries and pasturing their stock on unclaimed lands in common with citizens, is also secured to them.

    im not a lawyer, but wouldnt a state park be unclaimed lands in common with citizens, be a state park? in which case they have already had the rights secured to them to be there, after they cough up 30 bucks?

    Maybe im not interpeting it right, it can be a confusing thing.
  2. Alex MacDonald Dr. of Doomology

    Posts: 3,320
    Haus Alpenrosa, Lederhosenland
    Ratings: +879 / 0
  3. Salmo_g Active Member

    Posts: 7,473
    Your City ,State
    Ratings: +1,615 / 0
    Dustin,

    My guess is that is the crux of the dispute. Treaty tribes may regard state and federal parks as open and unclaimed in the same sense as state forest land and federal national forests. I think so far the courts have held that parks are not open and unclaimed, but rather reserved and set aside for specific purposes, like recreation and conservation of fish and wildlife. For example, tribes are allowed to hunt on state and federal forest land, but not in state or national parks (exceptions in Alaska).

    Alex,

    For the benefit of your analysis it might help to understand that treaty tribe Indians have dual citizenship. Indians were not citizens of the US until 1935 (Indian Reorganization Act) or maybe it was 1954, when it finally became legal, although biologically ill-advised, to sell alcohol to Indians. Kind of amazing by today's standards, but Indians could not vote until they were granted US citizenship, when they became dual ciitzens, of their respective tribes and of the US. Also up to 1954, Indians throughout Puget Sound area tribes were shipped off to the Indian boarding school at Tulalip (where they were beaten for speaking native coastal Salish). After that they began attending the local public schools near their homes. Naturally it costs more to fulfil the education promise of the treaties to provide the extra education assistance in schools located near Indian reservations, but most of us would regard it as far more humane than the old boarding school method. Education effectiveness remains about the same, however, with 1 in 4 Indians graduating from high school.

    The only legal reason I can see for treaty Indians not to have to buy a Discover Pass is if a state park is co-located with a "usual and accustomed fishing ground or station." Then it gets sticky with the assertion that the entirety of the ceded lands comprises usual and accustomed, when in fact it doesn't. There are plenty of court cases that clearly establish that present-day owners of known historic fishing locations cannot deny access to treaty Indians when the purpose is fishing (US v Winans 1905, is one I think). Entering a state park containing a lake to go water skiing does not qualify.

    Sg
  4. Lenkerr Aimless Wanderer

    Posts: 93
    Bellingham, Washington
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    With all the talk about treaties and "tribal rights" and "historically" this and entitlement that, I wonder, as I have for many years now, if Native American rights, traditions etc. are to be kept sacred and need to be passed along through generations, why are they fishing with purse seiners, reefnetters, gillnetters and stringing nets across rivers? Or hunting elk and deer with high powered rifles? How is that "traditional" or in anyway part of their heritage? I am all for our Native American friends pursuing their heritage. As long as they do it as their fore fathers did, with nets made of woven cedar bark and spears. Oh and they never sold their fish or any seafood products to anyone else, so that should stop also. Just sayin'.
  5. Alex MacDonald Dr. of Doomology

    Posts: 3,320
    Haus Alpenrosa, Lederhosenland
    Ratings: +879 / 0
    Thanks, SG; I ignored the dual citizenship issue since it doesn't mitigate my central point-you're a citizen, even with dual citizenship. And yes, it does get technical when the fishing question is raised. I could possibly see it there.

    My colleagues and I worked our asses off to recruit First Nations kids when I was a Senior Advisor for UC Davis. We regularly traveled to the rez, and were regularly ignored! There's a "tribal" college near Davis-and I use the term "college" here completely tongue-in-cheek! Deganawida-Quetzalcoatl "University" is a complete joke, with none of the tribes contributing anything whatsoever to it's non-existant budget. Doesn't make any sense to me, unless it's simply a case of not valuing education. There's a few kids who went on to University, but none of them were a product of that place. They certainly were capable of doing the work, but I'm suspecting it was peer pressure which kept most of them from succeeding. Can't speak to the experience here in Washington, since I have none from an educator's standpoint.

    I found your mention of the beatings they received at the hands of administrators at Tulalip strikes a sympathetic chord: it's not widely known that kids from the Outer Hebrides of Scotland received the very same treatment at the hands of the English until about 1955 at the schools they were shipped to!
  6. dflett68 Active Member

    Posts: 594
    snohomish
    Ratings: +189 / 0
    "conflict, conquer, and take" is a principle? a value to live by? that's rich. what's even richer is the opportunistic use of the thoreau quote, hdt would undoubtedly vomit if he knew you were pasting his words to the tail end of the position you are taking. people of conscience and conviction have always opposed the sort of things that we are discussing. the idea of taking what's not yours just because you are strong enough to do it, and/or murdering/raping/pillaging in the process, has always been viewed as immoral by those who care for what's right more than they care for money and power. henry himself spoke out VERY vocally in writing and in public speech against such things. if you ever read walden, from which your thoreau quote was taken, it almost certainly included the equally famous "on the duty of civil disobedience" tacked on the end. read that and see if you still want to be associated with henry's ideas. i know he would not want to be associated with yours.
  7. dflett68 Active Member

    Posts: 594
    snohomish
    Ratings: +189 / 0
    couldn't agree more, it should be stamped out. And where it is too late to stamp it out, make it as right as you can as a nation. we are the richest and most powerful nation in the history of the earth, we can spare some fucking fees for a microscopic segment of our population who we bent over a barrel and screwed without justification and can never repay for what it cost them and their children. earlier in the discussion i was also thinking of kuwait and our response to it. it would be silly to believe our government stepped in there simply on principle, but it would be equally silly to suggest that we could claim that principle as our rationale for the gulf war, and then say it doesn't apply to our own invasion of north america.
  8. Alex MacDonald Dr. of Doomology

    Posts: 3,320
    Haus Alpenrosa, Lederhosenland
    Ratings: +879 / 0
    I could agree-in principle-with your first thought here, but first let me deal with Kuwait and the second gulf war, as I still have some connections with the specops community; on the first one, we were asked by the Kuwaitis to step in, and we agreed to do so, but not as a singular force. Hence, the coalition. On the second one, it's a lot more complicated. Suffice it to say it was a pretense for going after the remainder of al-quida after we dealt with them in Afghanistan. My friends still in uniform tell me that in Iraq, almost all of the enemy they eliminated were not Iraqi. Saudis, Uzbeks, Khazaks, Pakistani, Indonesian, etc, but few Iraqi. So it's not always the "stated principle" that the suits claim-in my experience, it's usually NOT the "stated principle"!

    On to the primary question! Yes, no question, some tribes were shat upon; you get no argument from me. I don't know if there were bands which were dealt with fairly, though. What was Manhattan purchased for, for example? What, some twenty bucks worth of shiny beads-something like that? But here, everybody was pleased with the deal at the time, and going back to recalculate this would not be acceptable to me. So I guess the question is: which ones were satisfied with the results of their treaties negotiated at the time, and not with threat of force hanging over the negotiations. I don't know the answer here. If there were some who were not unhappy, they don't get the do-over, in my opinion.

    What it really boils down to for me is the realization that humans are apex predators, have been for eons. Denying that denies human nature. Possibly half a million years ago, we weren't the apex predators we evolved into, and maybe in another half-million years, we can evolve beyond that. Maybe...
  9. gt Active Member

    Posts: 2,616
    sequim, WA
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    and it is here that you have the story totally and completely incorrect and as a result your arguements go down the toilet.

    1. the NA elders never thought they 'owned' anything, not a concept they could get their arms around.
    2. the US government offered them property and guaranteed it was theirs, another foreign thought but one that obviously resonated while i am sure they laughed about getting something for nothing.
    3. the tribal elders signed on, no guns to their heads, saving their historic fishing rights, good move.
    4. if the tribes have an issue, they need to visit the graves of those elders and take them to task given what they know today, but hindsight is always 20/20 for all of us.

    there was nothing in these treaty deals that had a gun to the heads of any NA. what they could not grasp was ownership of property, not in their vocabulary nor the historic life style. now how do you deal with that? well i am sure there was a concerted attempt to explain these western civ concepts. did the NA understand? i don't know but that is water over the dam and here we are today.

    the tribes may choose to be 'soverign' nations and in that case the rest of the population of this country needs to treat them just as we do any foreign nation. think about that for a moment or two. or, the tribes, like every other population of people who inhabit this once great nation need to keep their traditions but assimilate into the majority society if they choose to make forward progress for their children and grandchildren, totally their choice to move forward or live in their own welfare state.

    now if we are talking about reperations, lets start by restoring all properties, lands and monies stollen from the japenese americans during WWII. this is a clear taking that was understood by all from the beginning. no need to translate into Chinook, it's just another minority that got totally taken to the cleaners. so, when do we restore their businesses, their farm lands, their bank accounts?
  10. dflett68 Active Member

    Posts: 594
    snohomish
    Ratings: +189 / 0
    i don't put getting swindled on par with getting massacred, or even getting held up at gunpoint. but if all we were discussing was lop-sided business deals, there'd be little to debate. we all know that the invaders would have done the ultimate, and in many cases they did, to get what they wanted. that was wrong. it was very wrong. it was utterly in conflict with our stated constitutional beliefs about the inherent rights of being human. splitting hairs over 2-3% of the population in a given state having to pay for the right to park in a government maintained dirt parking lot is just fucking ridiculous.
  11. Dustin Bise Active Member

    Posts: 3,089
    509
    Ratings: +7 / 0
    Actually the use of fish for trade was very extensive. As with any culture, individuals are gonna act outside the interest of the whole. Also, not all the tribes effected by this have bad fisheries practices. I suspect the reason they are using said products is economic but i have no facts to back that up.

    One of the sites to me that is a great example of this is on the Little Spokane River. You need a discovery pass to park at the painted rocks (hieroglyphics) and this would be most relevant to the Spokane Tribe. It is located on state park lands, but obviously has cultural significance. There was even an established traditinal fishing site on the little spokane.



    Sg, great insight as always thanks.
  12. dflett68 Active Member

    Posts: 594
    snohomish
    Ratings: +189 / 0
    "nothing in the treaty deals that had a gun to the heads of any NA" - i'm sure you are right. that's the stuff no one would ever put in writing. but if you think there was any doubt in the mind of anyone who signed those treaties that if the natives refused they would surely perish, you are kidding yourself. that's pure nonsense. everyone who resisted got punished to death, and all parties knew that it would be a treaty written by the white man, or death. you can quote as many treaties as you like, you can't change the context. if you didn't sign, you were doomed.
  13. gt Active Member

    Posts: 2,616
    sequim, WA
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    one only has to look at the LEK and compare their response to the JSK to understand the NA's did understand what was going on and in some instances did not go along with the deal being offered. i think we tend to think of NA's as sort of third world not connected folks when in fact they are astute business people capable of cutting deals that benefit their short and long range goals. so when generalizations happen '...we screwed the NA's...' what is being displayed is a put down to their intelligence and their ability to protect and preserve what they saw, at that moment, as the most important aspects of their way of life. when we roll forward to today, what we see is an attempt at 'taking' which is not their's to flaunt any more than making an independent decision to poluted the Elwha with hatchery zombies for their own benefit. viewing today's NA's in light of their business acumen is an important first step to understanding this is all about money for the tribes and if there are sufficient 'bleeding hearts' out there, they will play the siren sound as loud as they can to get what they want. time to call a spade a spade!
  14. Nick Clayton Active Member

    Posts: 2,846
    Ratings: +1,125 / 4
    I grasp the point you are trying to make, and appreciate your well thought out and fairly rational responses to a highly flammable subject. However, I would ask you a question in return....

    If I bump into you on the river, and tell you that 125 years ago your great-great-great-great-great grandfather stole a splite cane rod and silk line from my great-great-great-great-great grandfather and that now I felt that you should give me YOUR rod and reel to make up for it, how would you respond?

    I've avoided this thread since its start because of my own highly volitile feelings on the subject, but it has been interesting if nothing else. The thought of this country being "stolen" from the indians is laughable to me. Exactly what made it "their" land in the first place? A result of being the first ones here? Is it absolutely set in stone fact that they were indeed the first ones here? Too many variables and unknowns to me.

    I have nothing against the people and their desire to keep their cultural flame burning, but the fact is we are dealing with major problems all around the globe that may have been unthinkable 200 years ago. I have a feeling it would be difficult to be netting the Elwha river back in those days and be able to even comprehend the concept that those salmon and steelhead resources would run out. Global warming? Recession? Overpopulation? Dwindling natural resources... I'm sure these problems would have been difficult to grasp back then. IMO its time to let the past be the past, and deal with the real world problems facing us all. Cultural heritage and words used to form treaties mean jack shit when trying to deal with dwindling native steelhead numbers. Its time to throw that past shit right out the window, and move forward from this point. You want to be a member of this society? Great. Pay your taxes, follow the same laws as everyone else, and be treated as a member of society. Want to be some sort of independant nation? Great. Pay for your own schools, housing, insurance, etc... Buy non resident licenses and the whole works.

    The past in the past, and we need to stop clinging to it while completely ignoring the problems we are all currently facing. Examples of stronger societies overwelming weaker ones can be found throughout global history. This is nothing unique.
  15. Dustin Bise Active Member

    Posts: 3,089
    509
    Ratings: +7 / 0
    Can someone who is agaisnt this make a specific reasoning as to why we should be able to break the treaty?

    I even went and looked up the orignal aritcal. The state parks offciails agree with the tribes and they are working on a way for the tribes to get the access that was assured to them in 1855. That makes me happy.

  16. Nick Clayton Active Member

    Posts: 2,846
    Ratings: +1,125 / 4
    ARTICLE 9. In order to prevent the evils of intemperance among said Indians, it is hereby provided that if any one of them shall drink liquor, or procure it for others to drink, (such one) may have his or her proportion of the annuities withheld from him or her for such time as the President may determine.



    It's always interesting how only certain parts of the treaty are constantly brought to the spotlight. I wonder why that is?
  17. Dustin Bise Active Member

    Posts: 3,089
    509
    Ratings: +7 / 0
    Maybe because that was eradicated 1924?
  18. dflett68 Active Member

    Posts: 594
    snohomish
    Ratings: +189 / 0
    Nick, my response would be that I'm not individually responsible for the actions of another individual, just as you are implying and I think most Americans probably believe. But the offender was not an individual or a family, it was a nation which still exists as an entity - the same entity that took this land. To answer your first point, are you really suggesting that what unfolded was reasonable and fair under your value system? if you saw it happening to someone else, or to yourself, in our time, you would not object?
  19. Alex MacDonald Dr. of Doomology

    Posts: 3,320
    Haus Alpenrosa, Lederhosenland
    Ratings: +879 / 0
    What was that Conan the Barbarian quote?? "to drive your enemies before you, and hear the lamentation of their women". Sorry the Governator accent doesn't come through here:clown::clown:
  20. Nick Clayton Active Member

    Posts: 2,846
    Ratings: +1,125 / 4
    Object? Absolutely!

    And that is exactly why I struggle to wrap my mind around your point of view; I have never, ever, witnessed this happening to the very people requesting special treatment because of it. Just as none of this has happened to ANY of the people reaping the benefit of this special treatment.