treaties

[kirkster5]

I'm a little afraid to open this can of worms but here goes:

At what point do we have to say enough already. I know what we ("the white man") did to the Native American Peoples in our History was very bad. I also know we tried to make ourselves feel better with many treaties that allowed for the maintaining of SUBSISTANCE harvesting of fish and shellfish. But centuries change and frankly the Boldt decision was wrong and even if it wasnt the damage being done to the fish/shellfish stocks are not coming from recreational harvest and needs to be stopped. There have been several violations of these treaties yet not even that has motivated the DFW to call for a change.
Lets face it the intent of SUBSISTANCE was for feeding the Native population not for future Commercial harvest quotas that are now helping to depleate,to a dangerous level, the amount of bio-mass in Puget Sound.

I don't want to sound like I'm blaming the whole thing on The Native American's this is not a race issue but the Native and non-Native commercial fisheries policies in the Sound are not working. Can we continue a hands off policy and really, with a straight face, say that we are working to restore these fisheries. The whole pie needs to be addressed not just limiting recreational opportunities and patting ouselves on the back when a wetland is restored(although that is a good thing).

Thanks for listening to my rant and vent my frustration. I'd like to hear from others to either set me straight(I have been known to be wrong) or am I not alone here?

[SomeSailor]

You're 100% correct... but like everything, it usually comes down to money. From the Native American's I've spoken to about this, it appears the money is pretty much a monopoly. They get small amounts compared to what the retail prices are on both crab and salmon.

I think the whole treaty should be ratified to limit it to personal consumption and even then put limits in place that best manage the resource, with no preference towards anyone (regardless of race).

I watched them net the whole Pocession Point / Shipwreck area nearly every day for two weeks. They'd start at around 5:45 and be done by 7:00 or so. The poor unsuspecting saps in small boats would show up afterwards and roll all day for the few fish that missed the purse nets. I always wondered if they had any idea. Like you've said... it just isn't right.

I'd like the Sound to be designated as a "Sport Fishing Sanctuary" and kick ALL the commercial boats out to the Straits and open ocean.

[Randygh]

Recognized treaty tribes are considered soverign nations by federal treaty and as such hunting on ceded "open/unclaimed land" allows tribal members to basically thumb their noses at WDFW enforcement on those lands. I don't think there is such a thing as open and unclaimed lands, although federal courts have decided open and unclaimed refers to state and federal publicly owned land. Tribes do have their own game laws that may or may not be enforced by tribal police. However, tribal members must purchases proper licenses and tags when hunting on private or non-ceded land. While I am very familar with the hunting issues, I can't say much about fish/shellfish tribal commercial fishing. When the Boldt decision was handed down, I thought it would not be good for fishery resources and I still believe so.

The WDFW attempts to co-manage fish stocks and game issues with most tribes. Some tribes do cooperate and share tribal taking data with the WDFW. However, there are tribes that do not share information either because they didn't gather the information or just don't want to make public the tribal takings. The WDFW makes a big deal of co-management, but I can guarantee you that co-management of the Colockum Elk herd with the Yakama's is an absolute farce. [Here's an interesting tidbit--when whitemen first came to the central Washington area, THERE WERE NO EXISTING ELK HERDS. The elk had been extirpated by native overhunting. We whitemen reintroduced elk into the Yakima, Colockum and Blue Mountain areas to reestablish the elk in those areas. The elk were brought in by the state of Washington in the early 1900's. They were captured in Yellowstone Park. To the best of my knowledge, the indians did not assist in the reintroduction.]

The federal treaties granted tribes the right to take fish and wildlife for sustenance in the usual places by customary methods. It doesn't say anything in the treaties about the tribes taking fish/shellfish for commercial trade, although before whitemen arrived in the Pacific NW, coastal tribes traded with inland tribes. Dried fish was one of the commodities traded among the tribes.

There is no easy solution to the quagmire we (native americans and the rest of us) are in regarding management of fish and wildlife resources. I do not believe tribes are as concerned about habitat improvement as we are. I have seen firsthand how the Yakama Nation has completely degraded native wildlife habitat on the reservation by allowing feral horses to overgraze and trample once pristine habitat. And the tribe wonders why there are no big bull elk on the reservation. Terrible accountability on their own reservation.

I hate to say this, but tribal-nontribal hunting and fishing issues aren't going to get better. The WDFW is attempting to help matters by touting co-management and at the same time some tribes are thumbing their noses at the dept. The WDFW doesn't want to litigate, it wants to placate.

[Fred P]

It seem that WF&W likes to have the sport fisherman thinking that the gill netters are getting most of the fish and the gill netters thinking that the Indians are getting more fish than they should and the Indians thinking that the sport fisherman are getting most of the fish. WF&W have set the harvest level for over 100 years. When the fish counts are low WF&W need more staff and more money to study the the problem. We should all be looking at WFW as to why they are letting the fish be over fished. When a run is low why are fishing it at all? The only reason that I can think of is to get more staff for WF&W. Anytime a run is low WF&W can point a some problem, its the dam or the habitat, they never say that they set the harvest to high. Also we the State of WA should buy the Indians fishing rights. Yes it would cost $$$ but it would end a problem that will not get better.

my $0.02s
Fred P...............

[kirkster5]

Not such a bad idea

Why not try to negotiate a cash buyout and re-negotiate the treaties. I'd even be willing to pay more for my fishing licenses, give an annual cut of this money to the tribes in exchange for them being melded into the other commercial fisheries laws and managment. Hell I'd pay $100 per annum if it meant we could restore the fisheries stocks and actually be able to catch fish/shellfish with some regularity. It would sure beat the $38 I spent this year with very frustrating results.

Then instead of paying lip service to restoration and habitat preservation there would be only 2 competing interests.....recreational and commercial but both would be bound by Law. Might even be able to recover the stocks fast enough to actually help or Orca problem.