Tribal netting

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

  1. ak_powder_monkey

    ak_powder_monkey Proud to Be Alaskan

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,223
    Likes Received:
    112
    Location:
    Eagle River, Alaska

    In rural Alaska you can barter subsistence caught salmon and subsistence hunted game is certain areas of the state. I've got no problem with bartering they should be able to barter whatever they catch, fine barter is trading for goods and services though not money. In river commercial fishing is BS no matter who does it.
     
  2. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    thanks for that distinction AK, worth a ponder. perhaps that is what the intent of the original treaties was all about, subsistence, ceremonial and barter. once folks cross over to the commercial sale of fish, all of these folks, no matter their racial backgrounds, need to come under one simple set of common rules and regulations.
     
  3. Trent

    Trent Ugly member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2008
    Messages:
    732
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Here
    A major reason why the state of Washington cannot ban netting for the tribes is because the treaty is a Federal agreement between the tribes and the Indians. Essentially this means that their isn't much the state can do about regulating them. There are (I think) five states that are in the same prediciment as us (washington). I know Arizona is one of them, but I can't remember the others. I'm taking a Northwest history class and our teacher is talking alot about the tribes and the treaties, I should pay more attention though. This whole topic on the treaties and the laws and regulations around them is very confusing, to say the least.
     
  4. colton rogers

    colton rogers wishin' i was fishin'

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    868
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    gig harbor, washington
    i think they should have through all the hatchery fish back, just so they have some laws to abide to and maybe they could get thrown in jail one at a time and then the net fishing would be extinct. like a genocide to gill nets.
     
  5. Derek Day

    Derek Day Rockyday

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    575
    Likes Received:
    148
    Location:
    Olympia
    For those of you who would like to know more about treaty fishing rights I suggest The Rights of Indians and Tribes by Steven Pevar. It devotes an entire chapter to hunting and fishing rights.

    There are two ways that tribes could be stopped from fishing.

    1. Conservation Exception: Tribes could be restricted from fishing if it is a "conservation necessity". And must pass a strict 3 prong test. It must be reasonable and neccessary to perpetuate the species. It must be the least restrictive means of of achieving this goal. And other means, less injurous to the tribe's rights, must be utilized. Puyallup Tribe v. Dept. of Game

    2. The Federal Congress can explicitly abrogate the treaty. At which point the tribes can sue for just compensation for the loss of their treaty rights (and will win), acording to the 5th Amendment.

    Gt, the treaties won't be reinterpreted. Quit barking up that tree, its usless. We shouldn't waste our time on this issue if we want to see our anadromous runs rebound. Our efforts would be much more valuable placed elsewhere (land use/development practices). Tribal netting is by no means a low hanging fruit.
     
  6. James Mello

    James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,811
    Likes Received:
    87
    Location:
    Tacoma
    The unfortunately reality is the Boldt decision was a primarily commercial oriented decision. There is no stipulation that the only method of exchange was barter. This is the huge diff between states and NA tribes and Washington State and Stevens treaty tribes.
     
  7. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    so derek, you believe that in the one hundred or so years it will take to restore lost habitat that the anadramous fishes will still be around? that is the immediate problem, i am afraid. sure thing, habitat restoration, removal of dams, improvements in culverts.......blah, blah, blah are all noted and worthy. unfortunately, the fish don't have that long before we won't have to worry about protecting them.

    renegotiate the treaties? thought never crossed my mind. ask for an interpretation '...in common with other citizens of washington state...', might be worth some effort.

    as i have pointed out, california and oregon shut down all harvest this past season. i think washington can pretty easily state the case for protection of already listed ESA fishes as a total shut down. given that fish don't carry drivers licenses with their place of residence, and the fact that fish stock mix in pretty much known areas, closing down the fishery should not be rocket science.

    do i expect this to happen in washington state? no, someone will eventually kill that last wild anadramous fish and then this discussion will end along with indian fishing 'rights'. just remember that shortly after boldt, there were no fish left in hood canal, zero, extinct. so don't sit there and think this is a fantasy or that somehow the forest primeval will be returning on your watch on the planet, ain't goin'to happen folks, we are on the cusp right now.
     
  8. MasterAnglerTaylor

    MasterAnglerTaylor Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2007
    Messages:
    746
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Poulsbo/Pullman, WA
    Nice....another wff post gone off topic and to shit.
     
  9. cabezon

    cabezon Sculpin Enterprises

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,938
    Likes Received:
    535
    Location:
    Olympia, WA
    Actually, you got the information you asked for (at least as is known publically) in the first reply. But, then we had an interesting exchange of views on the contributions of tribal netting to salmon population declines and the possibilities of changing that situation. We didn't all agree, but we are all better informed.

    Steve
     
  10. HauntedByWaters

    HauntedByWaters Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    2,937
    Likes Received:
    289
    Location:
    Bellingham
    This topic is tired and has been done to death.

    However, it is hard to imagine a greater threat to salmon and steelhead than the gauntlet of nets on some of our lower rivers.

    The Nooksack will go through period where there are dozens of nets across the river from the mouth up, strategically put in all the right spots.

    I am amazed the fish are still surviving at any level with what I see.

    There is no arguing that all these nets have a huge impact.
     
  11. James Mello

    James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,811
    Likes Received:
    87
    Location:
    Tacoma
    In this particular case it's because you are choosing to only look at the immediate impact while you're on the river. That is NOT to say that nets don't impact the fisheries, to the contrary they ARE an impact. But let's be realistic. In the salmon fishery, the other half of the fish are caught in nearshore commercial fishers by any number of countries/tribes. Add to that rip-rapping of rivers, strip malls, pollution in the high seas and local water ways, and you start to see that the nets, while a big contributor doesn't amount to a hill of beans compared to the other problems....
     
  12. Mike Etgen

    Mike Etgen Not Quite A Luddite, But Can See One From Here

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2003
    Messages:
    1,433
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA.
    In that case, why would you read anything about it, or for that matter, why comment at all?

    As far as I can tell, everyone has been pretty civil about it. Where's the harm?
     
  13. HauntedByWaters

    HauntedByWaters Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    2,937
    Likes Received:
    289
    Location:
    Bellingham
    Well lets frame it in the context of the theory of efficiency. When you want to speed up a process, the first things you identify are bottlenecks. This way you don't waste your time, energy, and other resources on fixing and re-fixing things with diminishing returns.

    The netting of rivers is truly a bottleneck. A huge bottleneck.

    It is a lot more than just a "hill of beans".

    Case in point: The closed section of the Nooksack, above Deming, is closed in order to allow hatchery fish to make it unmolested to the hatchery and get the genetics for the next generation. But guess what happened when that stretch of river was closed to sport fishing? 8 gill nets were setup on that stretch because of the absence of sports anglers some of who would cut said nets. This stretch of river is now full of nets. Wild fish are starting to show as well and they going right through that area high into the Maple Falls area and now there are more gill nets than ever because the hatchery is trying to save their opperation.
     
  14. Kent Lufkin

    Kent Lufkin Remember when you could remember everything?

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    7,175
    Likes Received:
    1,267
    Location:
    Not sure
    Interesting thread and much more civil than others like it the past few years.

    I'm intrigued by Derek's comment: "Tribes could be restricted from fishing if it is a "conservation necessity". And must pass a strict 3 prong test. It must be reasonable and neccessary to perpetuate the species."

    In light of the precipitous decline in anadromous populations that was unanticipated in 1974, I think a reasonable man would conclude that continuing to allow tribal fishing in spite of probably extinction would amount to the tribes winning the battle but losing the war. In the end, 50% of nothing is nothing. And nothing is what have the tribes would have after legally perpetuating their 'cultural tradition' with long-term disregard for it's consequences.

    I wonder if a case could be made that allowing treaty netting even if sport and commercial fishing were shut down as in California and Oregon could force a re-interpretation of Boldt?

    It's hard for me to image any court agreeing to hear such a case until and unless commercial and sport fishing had already been banned leaving the tribal netting as the only remaining impediment.

    Given the low priority that WFDW and other state agencies seem to place on anadromous conservation, that sort of action probably won't be taken until after it's too late.

    K
     
  15. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    i have to agree that the gill nets are indeed a 'bottleneck', one easily identified and an issue that demands immediate attention. for those of you who persist in believing that the majority of these declines are due to habitat loss/change, let me, once again, call your attention to the hood canal. the duck'a'bush, dosewallips and hamma hamma are now sterile eco systems. upstream there is ZERO habitat degredation. the olympic nat'l park serves as the beginning point for these rivers. the olympic nat'l forest covers the lower reaches and you can see for yourself, little logging or road building.

    so why would the fish in these rivers have gone extinct? following boldt, the salmon wars took off in ernest with someone killing the very last wild fishes in the canal. OVERFISHING drove these runs to extinction. don't for a minute believe that is not going to happen in the remainder of the eco systems that make up puget sound.

    and for those of you who joined CCA, don't you think its time to ask a few questions about how your dollars are being spent or not?