Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

Beads or something

NFR 
9K views 99 replies 37 participants last post by  FinLuver 
#1 · (Edited by Moderator)
dead horse.
 
#75 ·
Dustinchromers.
Fun fact: The canard about Europeans introducing scalping to Native American cultures is a popular myth. Archeologists have found evidence of scalping, in the form of deeply gouged cuts, on skulls found at Native American battle sites dating back to at least the fourteenth century.
 
#78 ·
Sweet, good info. Another fun fact is that the Europeans never traded blankets known to be infected with smallpox. This was a myth stemming from a very popular book purporting white guilt. Isn't it interesting the fact that history is sometimes not factual.

On another note Swanny counts coup by taking ad fins
 
#79 ·
First of all, I am neither defending nor condemning the kid in the original post. We see a total of one fish, the rest is just him talking, whether he is telling the truth or not, and whether he is talking about himself or himself and a multitude of other people is moot.
What I am replying to is the general idea of a sovereignty and tribal blood quantum. Language is very specific in the Quinault River Treaty (as with all Stevens treaties) stating "the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed grounds" so even though they don't catch them on the reservation they have the right to take fish wherever they fished historically, so in that regard as long as they catch the fish and sell them wherever they historically fished and traded the idea of a tax is ridiculous.
Secondly, in response to the blood quantum issue. The US government had the idea to rid the new world of Natives from the start and were largely successful, when they did agree to make some reparations by negotiating rights and reservations, they tried to either place warring tribes on the same reservation or on reservations bordering or in close proximity to tribes that were historically enemies. They also had the foresight to begin a long-term plan of extermination by assigning a European based idea of how much "Indian" someone was with a fractionated number.
Historically, Native people cared nothing for how much "Indian" blood one had coursing through their veins. Being "Indian" was where you lived, who you lived with and how you lived. My Great great grandfather was half Piegan but married into the Salish tribe and wholeheartedly embraced the Salish language, cultures, traditions and way of life. In everyone's mind he was for all intents and purposes Salish, with no regard to his Piegan/Hispanic blood. In that respect I wish Tribes would exercise their authority to change enrollment eligibility and do away with "blood quantum" requirements completely, remove the colonized idea of a fractionated number for amount of "Indian" someone is, and establish broader requirements for enrollment, thinking more traditionally to include people who have knowledge of and practice tribal culture, traditions and/or language.

I fully believe that as long as there is a group of people that have knowledge of specific culture/traditions and/or languages that a "Tribe" should exist regardless of "blood quantum".

I fully support treaty rights, but agree that there are certainly people that do it against the regulations which I am against, much like there are non-Natives that poach wild steelhead which I am also totally against. I'm also personally against the regulation that allows the retention of one wild steelhead.
 
#82 ·
they tried to either place warring tribes on the same reservation or on reservations bordering or in close proximity to tribes that were historically enemies.
Do you have an example of this? There may very well be, it's just something that I'm interested in and I've never heard of this shitty thing done among the various other shitty things that were done to native Americans.

I fully believe that as long as there is a group of people that have knowledge of specific culture/traditions and/or languages that a "Tribe" should exist regardless of "blood quantum".
There was a definate and well documented attempt to extirminate native languages and cultures through boarding schools and agriculture programs and that is a terrible and sad thing. But do you really believe that ANYONE who wants to claim to be part of a "Tribe" should be allowed to harvest whatever resources that tribe traditionally harvested? If that's the case I'm feeling Makah and I want to go harpoon a whale. I doubt even a minority of native peoples would agree with you on this.
 
#88 ·
Chris,

I understand your frustration, however the discussion I was having with River Pig was well above this type of mockery and I'm most certain you realize that, if not then I feel sorry for you. I believe in my original reply I covered the fact that I realize there are idiots out there from all sides of the skin color spectrum.
 
#85 ·
It's just a confused kid, making an ass out of himself on the internet. I understand that we're all passionate about trying to preserve a dwindling population of wild steelhead, and fishing for said steelhead, but I think that using this screenshot or whatever you call it to incite knee-jerk mockery is just as tasteless as "not giving a fuck". CLO, I'm not sure you put much more thought into starting this thread than this kid did when he posted a picture of his bong. This kid is not the problem, he's not doing anything illegal, he's just young and confused. If you want to have a discussion about Boldt, or treaty rights, that's awesome. But this cyber burning-in-effegy of some random Quillayute kid is ridiculous, and totally counter productive.
 
#86 ·
a few examples: The Flathead reservation (my home reservation) for one. Salish and Kootenai traditionally did not get along, the Crow reservation borders the Northern Cheyenne reservation and they were sworn enemies.....
The US government placed the Hopi reservation completely within the Navajo reservation thus creating a conflict....

Secondly, it is definitely a minority that agrees with this point of view, but there are some (a growing number on my reservation) but I've also talked to members from other tribes that are interested in pursuing this type of requirements for enrollment.

I can't speak for everyone, but from what I know personally and can theorize with some confidence is that the vast majority of tribal members have come to embrace the colonized mindset, and the "me" and "my" mentality and feelings of ownership over resources (fish, wildlife, timber, revenue). They certainly wouldn't want to share "their" resources with someone who wasn't from their tribe.

As for you "feeling Makah" it wasn't (and wouldn't be) that simple. The overwhelming majority of people who were "adopted" into our tribe had married into it, those individuals that didn't truly lived the life of a Salish person. They spoke the language, learned the traditions and culture and participated wholly in it. They spent many years (often their entire lives) living as a member of the Salish tribe without asking for anything in return.

I'm not personally aware of a lot of Makah traditions, but imagine spending years learning the language, learning the songs, participating in ceremonies before being able to have the honor of hunting a whale, because that's exactly what it was/is, an honor held for only those deemed worthy from what limited knowledge I have.

Feeling Makah (or interior Salish, or Crow, or Navajo etc) and living Makah (or interior Salish, Crow or Navajo) are two completely different things....

To finally answer your question, no, I don't want ANYBODY that claims to want to be part of the tribe to be able to harvest all of the resources the tribe can *(that's not the point, that is a European, colonized mindset again of "me", "my" and "our versus their" resources) but if someone is married into the tribe (especially someone from another tribe) or feels in their heart strong enough to spend years to learn the language, learn and practice the traditions and culture, participate in ceremonies and generally live among a said tribe as one of them I think the tribe should consider adopting them as a member.
Thanks for the examples. Guess it's not too suprising. As colonizers we have a way of drawing boundaries that lead to conflict. Sort of what we do...
I shouldn't have been a smart ass about "feeling Makah". I don't nor do I want to harpoon a whale.
I can't speak to "feeling" vs "living" native since I don't have experience with either, but I can tell you from a few years living in Missoula (and I'm sure you've seen it too) that there's no shortage of disaffected yuppies in search of meaning in their lives who idolize native American traditions. Be careful what you wish for. Who gets to decide who'se "living" native enough?
 
#87 ·
Thanks for the examples. Guess it's not too suprising. As colonizers we have a way of drawing boundaries that lead to conflict. Sort of what we do...
I shouldn't have been a smart ass about "feeling Makah". I don't nor do I want to harpoon a whale.
I can't speak to "feeling" vs "living" native since I don't have experience with either, but I can tell you from a few years living in Missoula (and I'm sure you've seen it too) that there's no shortage of disaffected yuppies in search of meaning in their lives who idolize native American traditions. Be careful what you wish for. Who gets to decide who'se "living" native enough?
Indeed River Pig, no shortage whatsoever! I just moved to Missoula from Ronan and while I saw it from the outside I truly had no idea how many until I moved here, lol so yeah I see your point about what I wish for!

You definitely hit the million dollar question, who decides, and to be honest I don't know. It would most likely be one of (if not the largest) hurdle to that type of requirement.

By the way, thanks for the frank discussion. It's been nice to see from a different viewpoint.
 
#93 ·
Didn't have time or patience to read all 5 pages of this thread, but I just wanted to comment that while many of us disagree with the practice of harvesting wild steelhead, the practice of not marking their 1 fish per year on their catch record cards is rampant by many locals on the OP. I have seen it many times on multiple day trips where I will see the same group of locals harvesting native steelhead each day. Even though this is a disgrace and should warrant immediate WDFW enforcement, it is still a drop in the bucket compared to commercial gill netting. Allowing the tribes to aggressively gill net one day per week on the Hoh, or up to 4-5 days every week on rivers like the Queets is a shame and accounts for much higher percentages of native fish harvested. I know there are native tribal rights that the state must agree to, but when these tribes are setting up roadside stands to sell "fresh caught wild steelhead" to the general public for profit, I believe that a line has been crossed regarding the protection of sacred ancient fishing rituals.

If you truly care about protecting the wild steelhead of the Olympic Peninsula, consider contacting your state representatives and encouraging them to support House Bill 1660 which will prioritize recreational fishing over commercial fishing, hopefully cutting down the amount of gill netting that is allowed in our state. Here is a link to the bill if you want to read it : http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House Bills/1660.pdf

And here is a link to find the State Representative in your district.. It lists phone numbers and emails. Shoot them a quick note and let them know that what is going on pisses you off and you want them to do something about it. Make sure they know about House Bill 1660 and encourage them to support it. http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/
 
#97 ·
Didn't have time or patience to read all 5 pages of this thread, but I just wanted to comment that while many of us disagree with the practice of harvesting wild steelhead, the practice of not marking their 1 fish per year on their catch record cards is rampant by many locals on the OP. I have seen it many times on multiple day trips where I will see the same group of locals harvesting native steelhead each day. Even though this is a disgrace and should warrant immediate WDFW enforcement, it is still a drop in the bucket compared to commercial gill netting. Allowing the tribes to aggressively gill net one day per week on the Hoh, or up to 4-5 days every week on rivers like the Queets is a shame and accounts for much higher percentages of native fish harvested. I know there are native tribal rights that the state must agree to, but when these tribes are setting up roadside stands to sell "fresh caught wild steelhead" to the general public for profit, I believe that a line has been crossed regarding the protection of sacred ancient fishing rituals.

If you truly care about protecting the wild steelhead of the Olympic Peninsula, consider contacting your state representatives and encouraging them to support House Bill 1660 which will prioritize recreational fishing over commercial fishing, hopefully cutting down the amount of gill netting that is allowed in our state. Here is a link to the bill if you want to read it : http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2015-16/Pdf/Bills/House Bills/1660.pdf

And here is a link to find the State Representative in your district.. It lists phone numbers and emails. Shoot them a quick note and let them know that what is going on pisses you off and you want them to do something about it. Make sure they know about House Bill 1660 and encourage them to support it. http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/
Even though you missed the point, as bk paige pointed out, the state can enact any sort of legislation in regards to recreational vs. commercial fishing all they want, still will not have any impact on tribal gill netting. The treaty between the United States and the Hoh Tribe is a treaty between two sovereign nations, these treaties are the supreme law of the land, state legislation will have no impact whatsoever.
 
#94 ·
Cascadian- the tribes used to trade and barter well before Euros showed up, so they will continue do do so now. Would be nice it they showed some restraint(the Hoh tribe has some what, quinalt not one bit) but maybe with some public presure? Bill 1660 has nothing to do with the tribes but non treaty commercial. Tight lines
 
#96 ·
So to answer the thread question, yes. You do it because its the law. You should also do it because there is no need to kill the fish. Anyone using the "but I'm hungry argument" is full of bull shit. Having just worked at the Lakewood, WA food bank a few Saturdays ago, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to be hungry... the place is packed with food. Lastly, and most importantly, you do it in hopes this threatened species survives. Better yet, given that there are folks like this ding-dong out there decreasing the odds for survival, consider not fishing the river at all... leave them be.
 
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