Treaty Fishing on the Stillaguamish

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Jason Griffith, Sep 27, 2012.

  1. Evan Burck

    Evan Burck Fudge Dragon

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,579
    Likes Received:
    1,956
    Location:
    Duvall, wa
    Home Page:
    Really?
     
    jeff27, ten80 and Gary Knowels like this.
  2. Steffan Brown

    Steffan Brown ...

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    544
    Likes Received:
    64
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Where do you fish now?;)
     
  3. troutpounder

    troutpounder Active Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    315
    Likes Received:
    60
    Location:
    everett
    Ok the name calling was probably the wrong thing to do. Jason you sound like your a good guy and I respect what you are doing in regards to conservation. My disagreement has to do with special right that the tribes have when it comes to hunting and fishing. According the the stilly tribes website a tribe member can harvest 3 deer when the rest of us can harvest one, the tribes get 50% of the harvestable fish, and tribe can use gill nets when fishing. This is a fundamental disagreement with probably 80% of the people on this site. I am sorry but NO ONE should have special rights when it comes to these natural resources. I believe that gill netting is wrong period. I do not understand how it can be considered fair and right for the tribes to use gill nets and harvest 50% of the fish. I am sorry that bad thing happened in the past to the natives, but any group of people short of the royals, have had bad things happen to their ancestors. Now that is 2012 people of the United States should all have equal right when it comes to hunting and fishing. You can not honestly tell me that throwing out a gill net and catching that many fish does not hurt the fish population. I am sorry I do not agree with treaty fishing. It is not a matter of race to me. If you were white, black, asian, native, purple, green, blue, or red I would still have a problem with gill netting and treaty fishing.
     
    Steve Mara likes this.
  4. Evan Burck

    Evan Burck Fudge Dragon

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,579
    Likes Received:
    1,956
    Location:
    Duvall, wa
    Home Page:
    How many fish do you think are caught by nets? Compare the total caught in Stilly nets next to the number of coho caught and killed at the Everett coho derby last weekend. Report back with your findings.
     
  5. troutpounder

    troutpounder Active Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    315
    Likes Received:
    60
    Location:
    everett
    evan you and I both know there is a huge difference between fish in the sound and in the stilly. The fish in the sound feed ALL the rivers and not just the stilly. Dont give me the smart ass response of " report back with your finding" that is just kinda dumb... dont you think?
     
    Steve Mara likes this.
  6. Evan Burck

    Evan Burck Fudge Dragon

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,579
    Likes Received:
    1,956
    Location:
    Duvall, wa
    Home Page:
    Not really. I'm trying to make the point that we take far more than the stilly tribe does. If you want to start another debate, start another thread. All you do is come on and show how little you know or understand this issue. You think you know, but you don't. The problem with people who don't know much are that they're unaware of how little they know. Many on here on the opposing viewpoint of you have worked in fisheries for years. Literally their job. And you come on here saying they don't know anything. So if you're going to make claims about how many fish someone's taking, come back with evidence; hard numbers to back up your claim. That's all I'm asking.
     
    Jason Rolfe likes this.
  7. troutpounder

    troutpounder Active Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    315
    Likes Received:
    60
    Location:
    everett
    I am not saying they dont know, what i am saying is I have a DIFFERENCE in opinion. Your will never change my feeling towards in my opinion the unfair taking of resource, and I will never change yours. That is fine with me, but just because you disagree you say I dont know what I am talking about. That is kinda foolish....
     
    Fishlikeyoumeanit likes this.
  8. Evan Burck

    Evan Burck Fudge Dragon

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,579
    Likes Received:
    1,956
    Location:
    Duvall, wa
    Home Page:
    Our opinions are probably not so different. It's in what we choose to do with it where we differ. You choose to take an "us vs. them" approach, and those of us with more experience in the matter have taken to working with them to make things better for both of us. I can tell you right now which one works far, far better and actually sees results.
     
  9. troutpounder

    troutpounder Active Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    315
    Likes Received:
    60
    Location:
    everett
    Well I would say there should be no vs them at all. I would say it should be ONE set of rules and laws that ALL of us follow
     
  10. Evan Burck

    Evan Burck Fudge Dragon

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,579
    Likes Received:
    1,956
    Location:
    Duvall, wa
    Home Page:
    Ideals and realities are often two different things. There is nothing that can be done to change how this works. Once that's accepted, whether we (or they) like it or not, then we can actually do something to make things work for both of us, and work together for things like habitat management, river cleanups, etc. You have to work with what you got. No point in debating opinions on things that will never change.
     
  11. bennysbuddy

    bennysbuddy the sultan of swing

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,662
    Likes Received:
    1,727
    Location:
    m-ville
    I vote this for best sane post of the week
     
  12. triploidjunkie

    triploidjunkie Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,297
    Likes Received:
    2,667
    Location:
    Grand Coulee, WA
    Most of the treaties were signed as a legally binding agreement for land. A deed if you will. Saying do away with treaties because times have changed is asinine. It would be akin to selling your house, only to have the buyer come back years later and want his money back because the bottom fell out of the housing market, and it's only worth half now. And he's keeping the house too.
     
    Craig Pablo likes this.
  13. Skeena88

    Skeena88 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    17
    Location:
    Covington WA
    Troutpounder said " I would say it should be ONE set of rules and laws that ALL of us follow".

    I think we already have that. It is called the Treaty of Point Elliot.

    Troutpounder said " I am sorry I do not agree with treaty fishing".

    Too bad. Its a condition of the contract. If you want to abolish article 5 of the Treaty which affirms the Tribe's right to fish, I suspect that you would also have to abolish Article 1. That would upset a lot of people. Article 1 is the one where the tribes cede title to the land around most of Puget Sound.
     
  14. Josh

    Josh dead in the water

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    3,309
    Likes Received:
    841
    Location:
    NW Washington
    Evan has made a really good post that I hope you (and everyone who harbors strong feelings on this sort of topic) read carefully. He is 100% correct. He isn't giving you opinion, it's fact. You can rail all you want against United States vs Washington and the treaties that were signed in ~1845. But you might as well be shouting at the wind to make it stop blowing for all the good it will do you.

    You think that tribes are screwing the rest of us out of a resource that we deserve? Guess what, there are plenty of tribal members who think they were screwed out of land and a way of life that they they deserve. You can come up with legitimate arguments to support both opinions, many men smarter than us have spent years doing so. But the ship has sailed on both of those worlds. The paths to undoing the Boldt decision or the treaties themselves are so unlikely as to be non existent without a time machine. I made a joke about that in the other thread, but it isn't far from the truth. This stuff isn't changing. The best thing that can happen for the resource is for treaty and non-treaty fishermen to put aside old grievances and find common ground on the goals we all share. Namely, increasing the number of fish. 50% of zero is still zero. Since 1974, some treaty and non-treaty groups have taken this path together and seen results. Some are still dragging their feet for whatever reason almost 40 years later. While I'm no expert, as I understand it, the Stilly tribe should be counted as one of the more engaged partners in regards to working to improve habitat and fish returns.

    Or, like I said elsewhere, if you think you've got a legitimate court case to overturn US v. WA, then by all means hire a lawyer (a team of them) and start your march through the courts. But I've gotta tell you, you've got about as much chance as a tribal member does of getting "his" land back from under your house. Things are the way they are in this particular situation and they aren't likely to change. The best path forward is to work together so that there are enough fish that nobody gives a damn about 50/50 splits.

    50% of a decade worth of record fish returns will make everyone forget this kind of stuff real fast.
     
    svira, mtskibum16, JS and 3 others like this.
  15. Augerinl

    Augerinl New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    4
    Amazing how interesting a thread can be when its discussion instead of mud slinging. Good read.
     
    Fishlikeyoumeanit and aplTyler like this.