If he presented one side, how many sides does this "argument" have?
I was a bit disappointed by that article in the Skagit breaking news, it really made the inhabitants of the area seem like a bunch of knuckle draggers, and while there are a few of those around, most people up that way are fairly forward thinkers.The author cherry picked the responses very carefully to slant his article. I and many others made comments to the Skagit Breaking News Facebook thread that the author used for most of his information yet most of us that commented were not quoted. Bigotry is alive and well on both sides of the issue.
Absolutely. These are first and foremost, the causes of the trouble the salmon are in now.Loggers messed up the watersheds, how come that is not front and center? When I was a kid, you could see the international ship fishing offshore when they could come in as close as 3 miles if I recall.. We dammed the Columbia at Grand Coulee and made EXTINCT INSTANTLY, great runs of salmon and steelhead. Talk about arrogance.
The underlying issue - and the basis of the disagreement - is the conservation of the fish species for both sport and resource.
Maybe it's trying to convey that many are using plain old racism and are advocating illegal activities to prevent the Native Americans from receiving the benefits from the treaties they signed with the US Government...I'm not entirely sure what message the article is trying to convey.
I didn't quite see it that way, or maybe I'm just into context. What I thought was: racism and bigotry are bad from anyone and anyway you look at it, and; some white people are willing to violate another Treaty. Of course, that's nothing new.Rapido101,
It's been a few days now since I read the article, but my interpretive filter came out with: the honorable native Americans are pure as the driven snow, and a bunch of PNW honkies are racist bigots, ignoring the core issue at stake.