Bigotry, Calls for Violence, Follow Protest of Tribal Treaty Fishing
B
bennysbuddy
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.
Absolutely. These are first and foremost, the causes of the trouble the salmon are in now.
Dizane
Coast to Coast
One could say that conservation is an underlying issue with anything regarding salmon or any other wildlife. That doesn't address my statement. The article you quoted doesn't deal with or mention conservation except for a token mention in the last sentence.
I'm not entirely sure what message the article is trying to convey. It's such a long laundry list of quotes from ignorant individuals that any message it has gets lost easily. If anything, a fair reading of the article is it attempts to portray certain recreational fishing groups as anti-indian, bigoted, and part of a larger "anti-indian movement". In my opinion that's an unfair portrayal, but based on hbmcc's post above it seems to have had some success.
Finally, the disagreement at North of Falcon was about allocation. That's what North of Falcon is about.
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...
rapido101
Kicked
Dizane said: "If anything, a fair reading of the article is it attempts to portray certain recreational fishing groups as anti-indian, bigoted, and part of a larger "anti-indian movement". In my opinion that's an unfair portrayal"
If you can't judge an individual or group's attitude by their rhetoric and/or actions what would you use as criteria? It's naïve to attempt to separate discussions of conservation efforts from the people involved and their respective passions. If you have criticism of the writing style that's one thing - but the message is quite clear: racism and bigotry are alive and active in this disagreement over a conservation issue near and dear to all our hearts.
As in any discussion, you are welcome to dispute the writer's (credited above) position. I'd love to hear some good news about people for a change . . . . but it'd be great if you supported your argument with verifiable facts rather than just your 'opinion.'
If you can't judge an individual or group's attitude by their rhetoric and/or actions what would you use as criteria? It's naïve to attempt to separate discussions of conservation efforts from the people involved and their respective passions. If you have criticism of the writing style that's one thing - but the message is quite clear: racism and bigotry are alive and active in this disagreement over a conservation issue near and dear to all our hearts.
As in any discussion, you are welcome to dispute the writer's (credited above) position. I'd love to hear some good news about people for a change . . . . but it'd be great if you supported your argument with verifiable facts rather than just your 'opinion.'
Last edited:
Salmo_g
WFF Supporter
Rapido101,
As Dizane mentioned, the disagreement wasn't about conservation. NOF is all about killing salmon, and who gets to kill how many, while paying the highest quality lip service to the conservation needs of the species. The WDFW - tribal disagreement came down to 8 (eight) wild Puyallup River Chinook that are wild in name only, in that they are NORs (natural origin recruits) that are the product of Green River hatchery Chinook (that have been used in the Puyallup hatchery system since the Puyallup has had a hatchery system) that stray and spawn naturally in the Puyallup River basin. So the wild Chinook at the source of the disagreement are fake and in no way are they wild Chinook native to the Puyallup basin. Want 8 more "wild Chinook" spawners in the Puyallup? Easy, let 8 more hatchery fish stray into the natural spawning environment.
There is no attempt being made at actual Chinook recovery in the Puyallup - that would be actual conservation work. Instead, under the PS ESA Chinook recovery plan, the purpose is to maintain as high a harvest rate as possible on Puyallup Chinook while achieving the artificially created escapement goal for wild Chinook that are neither wild nor native.
From what I read about the protest demonstrations, racism and bigotry weren't the point. The point was that one group - treaty fishermen - were allowed to fish under a very specious, sorta' permit, while non-treaty fishermen were allowed no such option. The reason that situation looks bad is because it is bad. It doesn't take racism to point that out.
Sg
As Dizane mentioned, the disagreement wasn't about conservation. NOF is all about killing salmon, and who gets to kill how many, while paying the highest quality lip service to the conservation needs of the species. The WDFW - tribal disagreement came down to 8 (eight) wild Puyallup River Chinook that are wild in name only, in that they are NORs (natural origin recruits) that are the product of Green River hatchery Chinook (that have been used in the Puyallup hatchery system since the Puyallup has had a hatchery system) that stray and spawn naturally in the Puyallup River basin. So the wild Chinook at the source of the disagreement are fake and in no way are they wild Chinook native to the Puyallup basin. Want 8 more "wild Chinook" spawners in the Puyallup? Easy, let 8 more hatchery fish stray into the natural spawning environment.
There is no attempt being made at actual Chinook recovery in the Puyallup - that would be actual conservation work. Instead, under the PS ESA Chinook recovery plan, the purpose is to maintain as high a harvest rate as possible on Puyallup Chinook while achieving the artificially created escapement goal for wild Chinook that are neither wild nor native.
From what I read about the protest demonstrations, racism and bigotry weren't the point. The point was that one group - treaty fishermen - were allowed to fish under a very specious, sorta' permit, while non-treaty fishermen were allowed no such option. The reason that situation looks bad is because it is bad. It doesn't take racism to point that out.
Sg
rapido101
Kicked
Hello Salmo,
Thanks for the details over the disagreement.We can certainly nuance whether the disagreement was over 'conservation.' No, bigotry and racism weren't the 'point' of the disagreement - but their existence and appearance when a dispute arises IS the point. And yes, the situation is bad . . . yes, 'treaty' fishermen are allowed and others not - that's part of the Treaty. The argument might be that the Treaty should be modified by negotiation - but regardless bigotry and racism have no place here. I'd think we could all agree about that? And isn't that the core message of the article?
Thanks for the details over the disagreement.We can certainly nuance whether the disagreement was over 'conservation.' No, bigotry and racism weren't the 'point' of the disagreement - but their existence and appearance when a dispute arises IS the point. And yes, the situation is bad . . . yes, 'treaty' fishermen are allowed and others not - that's part of the Treaty. The argument might be that the Treaty should be modified by negotiation - but regardless bigotry and racism have no place here. I'd think we could all agree about that? And isn't that the core message of the article?
Last edited:
rapido101
Kicked
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.
Similar threads
Support WFF | Remove the Ads
Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works.
Info
