Tribal netting

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by MasterAnglerTaylor, Jan 23, 2009.

  1. James Mello

    James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,811
    Likes Received:
    87
    Location:
    Tacoma
    We aren't assuming it *can't* be challenged, what we are assuming is that any of the previous cases being brought back will be laughed out of the court room. If you want to come up with a novel new idea on how to challenge it, please go ahead. It just can't be a rehash of something old.
     
  2. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    thanks james, and your suggestion is?????????????????????????????????????????
     
  3. James Mello

    James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,811
    Likes Received:
    87
    Location:
    Tacoma
    Dunno, for the tribes, since I can't come up with anything novel, I plan on focusing efforts on things I can control..... I don't like tilting at windmills....
     
  4. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    'tilting' is a state of mind not grounded in fact. try again if you choose.
     
  5. James Mello

    James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,811
    Likes Received:
    87
    Location:
    Tacoma
    You're the one suggesting new approaches not me.... It's *your* onus to prove you aren't tilting at windmills, not me....
     
  6. Derek Day

    Derek Day Rockyday

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    575
    Likes Received:
    148
    Location:
    Olympia
    GT,
    When are you going to get this. BOLDT IS NOT GOING DOWN. Furthermore, the tribes, because of their rights to the fish, have the only real lever to keep the state from driving the fisheries into the ground.
    1. There was nothing in the treaties that said how the fish had to be used.
    2. "in common" was interpreted how is usually is when a treaty is made between two states
    3. The supply of fish doesn't change Boldt. If anything it tip in the favor of the tribes.
    4. Before you mention taking Boldt back to court one more time--Do some actual research ie law review articles, maybe the book I suggested earlier (Pevar, 2004), enough of your half-assed conjecture.
    5. Speaking of tilting not being grounded in fact, have you read your "summary"? it's primarily your opinion--not grounded in fact.
     
  7. SpeySpaz

    SpeySpaz still an authority on nothing

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    2,030
    Likes Received:
    143
    Location:
    Roy, WA
    ...bad time for me to read the word "Boldt"...:hmmm:
     
  8. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    thanks derek, i have read boldt multiple times. your suggesting that extinction plays into the tribes hands is an interesting point. the summary i posted is what i have gleaned via this thread as well as in depth reading of various sources, including those written exclusively from the indian perspective. if what i posted offends your sense of what is, do your own reading!

    i never found rolling over and playing dead 'cause someone can't see any light at the end of the tunnel an operative strategy. i can't imagine this country moving forward on any issue, present or past, via such a dead dog strategy. but, if it works for you in your life space, continue on.....has never worked for me, just a different approach to lifes trevails.

    and i am surprise, james, to find out this is MY problem and I am the one who needs to solve it. and here i thought that the extinction of fish was OUR problem. my mistake, for sure. perhaps we are suffering from the 'no we can't' syndrome and need a bit of the 'yes we can' mind set. but that might be hoping for way too much.
     
  9. Kent Lufkin

    Kent Lufkin Remember when you could remember everything?

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    7,175
    Likes Received:
    1,267
    Location:
    Not sure
    The end result will be OUR problem indeed.

    The problem with all your points GT is that nowhere do you suggest what YOU or the sportfishing community in general are going to have to do in order to positively impact the end result. Every argument you've ever put forward, in this thread and many others before, is about what the tribes or the commercials HAVE to do so that YOUR fishing quality won't be adversely affected.

    Based on previous exchanges, trying to get you to understand how selfish that zero-sum position is might be akin to pissing upwind as I'm sure your reply will demonstrate.

    K
     
  10. James Mello

    James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,811
    Likes Received:
    87
    Location:
    Tacoma
    For being an engineer, you're pretty poor at separating concerns. The extinction is our problem, but I choose instead to focus on issues I know that I can make strong headway on. LCR commercial gillnetting, removal of unnecessary dams, conservation efforts in flood plains, etc.... Boldt will have it's day in court, but not until we can either come up with a novel new legal angle, or we have our shit lined up and can only point to the tribes as the culpable part.

    Finally, don't disparage the work others are doing. CCA, WSC, Wild Salmon, etc all are making headway on other issues and have a can do attitude. Boldt is what it is and that's why I choose to ignore it for now. But if other efforts can give us similar results on legal issues that we don't have to take to the supreme court to fight precedence, then I'm all for that *first*....
     
  11. Will Atlas

    Will Atlas Guest

    I'm sure this is already been said but non-tribal fishers need to clean up our act before we have a leg to stand on legally. Zero sport harvest of wild steelhead in WA is the first step towards changing harvest regimes, I'm just affraid we're running out of time. It will be a tragic day when literally EVERY stock of wild steelhead in the state of Washington has collapsed. Collectively we just never seem to be able to learn from our mistakes, a tragedy of the steelhead commons to be sure
     
  12. inland

    inland Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2003
    Messages:
    643
    Likes Received:
    89
    Location:
    .
    Can you imagine over a million wild steelhead returning to Puget Sound? A little over 100 years ago there likely was. Now there are maybe 20,000.

    Every stock already has collapsed (OP included). Even when deemed healthy 25 years ago they were at best 10% of historical. Boldt had absolutely NOTHING to do with this. It was steamships and canneries that did in ALL of the runs. Coupled with the crap of fish culture being substituted for habitat. That too goes back to the 1800's. Then of course large scale human development and resource extraction. Nothing new, you all know the story.

    MY fishing quality was impacted long before any of us were born.

    $38 million vs $424 million. We recreational fisheries generate more than 10X's the net economic contribution to WA...why is it WDFW is wrapped around their fingers??? If there were any semblance of conservation in the state government it should be $0 to $800,000,000. If every dime they bring in wasn't used for fish culture maybe the money could have been/is used for something to actually help the fish.

    William
     
  13. Salmo_g

    Salmo_g Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    8,725
    Likes Received:
    3,107
    Location:
    Your City ,State
    Thumbs up, Inland. We fish on the scraps and relic of a formerly abundant resource.

    As for why WDFW does what it does, it's their legislative mandate, the law, which they don't seem to want to bother mentioning to the Legislature that the model is obsolete and unsustainable. It amazes me to see so much intellectual dishonesty in gov't. and agencies. So many ditto-heads in salmon recovery continue to talk about recovering wild salmon and steelhead to the level of naturally self-sustaing HARVESTABLE runs as though it actually could happen. Delusion is a popular drug.

    Sg
     
  14. Leopardbow

    Leopardbow Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Messages:
    483
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Ferndale, WA
    I think there may be efforts are at least an acknowledgement now that the monies generated by recreational anglers needs to be returned to the resource in various forms which may include enforcement amount other things. We still need to keep hammering on our legislature and govenor though to change a system that has not been working.

    In addition, recreational anglers and their interests are now part of the North of Falcon process which has not been the case in the past. I believe this should allow a better allocation of the resources particularily to us recreational fishers.
     
  15. inland

    inland Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2003
    Messages:
    643
    Likes Received:
    89
    Location:
    .
    Salmo,

    Amazing how once something becomes the norm its nearly impossible to change it. You would think WDFW's track record "might" show their system isn't working. Unless that means to extract every last fish. Which its been doing a great job. Amazing how politics work. Everybody at WDFW knows the model is archaic. Don't fall out of line with the 'company' agenda or fear your job. And any other possibilities of future employment in the field you spent so much time and $$$ getting that degree/promotions. Seems like a fair and just system.

    And you are right. If we are extremely lucky we might be able to keep H&R fishing for steelhead over the next 10-20 years. There is no way the runs will ever come back to commercially harvestable levels with humans still in the picture.

    What about the illegal high seas drift net fisheries? Anybody have any guesses on how much impact they are playing with these WA state fish?

    William