: Alantic Salmon Fisfing
06-13-2002, 12:40 AM
I am courious about one thing. On the East Coast when fishing for Atlantics do you have any problem with Indians like we do on the West Coast. Do they get an allotment like they do here.
I was just asking. Jim S.
06-13-2002, 01:31 PM
Don't beleive we have that problem. We just let them build Casino's that way they can pry us with "fire water" and take our paychecks.:devil:
06-13-2002, 01:34 PM
Really should not have said that since I won $1,800 bucks my first trip to one of their Casino's in which I purchased a 9RPLXI and a Ross BG5. I hope they do not put a hex on the new set up. :rolleyes:
06-14-2002, 10:39 AM
They build them here to and they still get the fish. We can thank a old senile judge for that :razz:
06-14-2002, 11:34 AM
Not that I spend alot of time thinking about this but to be somewhat fair, we did displace them and took their lands. Not only did we take their land, we exploited its natural resources, clear cut trees, built sprawling factory's, polluted our water ways with chemicals and human waste.
Its funny how people have given the Indians a bad name. From where I stand we should all point fingers at each other.
I certainly begrudge no one to take fish ( with limits of course ). I may not take any personally but if others take them "responsibly" I don't have a problem. My problem lies with the poacher / braggards who take fish out of season or takes more than the limit or better yet takes it home to show everybody and then throws it out.
I have to say I don't really know the Laws that pertain to the Indians out your way and I am not a Bleeding Heart Liberal but when I look at the bigger picture we seem to be much more of the problem that has caused the decline of our fisheries.
06-14-2002, 07:54 PM
Here on the East Coast we don't have problems with Indians and Salmon, because certain parties built these things called dams that have wiped our Atlantic Salmon out.
06-15-2002, 12:11 PM
I'm not against anything. It's just that I wanted to know this or about if things on the East coast were the same as we have them.
06-21-2002, 02:07 PM
In the great lakes the indians do not net steelhead or salmon any more that I know of. Maybe some perch or white fish. They have reverted to casinos and are now driving mercedes as far a s I can tell. I think up in Wisconsin they are allowed to spear carp or pike in the spring but no trout or salmon spearing or netting.
07-01-2002, 01:34 PM
I wish I was back in Wisconsin. I was born there and was transplanted to Washington in 1944. At the young age of 9.:)
It's been my opinion for a long time that the $$ being made in casinos should offset the rights to collect dwindling salmon and steelhead stocks until such time that they recover enough to be gillnetted again.
Decisions are made to be revised to meet the times, we should not be gillnetting in these times. It's a well known fact that casinos are making enough money for the 1-2% of the Washington population that came to North America before other settlers from the east.
IMHO they should be driven to choose between these rights, not given both.
07-02-2002, 02:34 PM
The United States government promised many of the Pacific Northwest tribes fishing rights in perpetuity in return for ceding their land to the U.S. These rights are guaranteed in writing in the form of treaties and are a binding obligation between sovereign entities. Why would the building of casinos by the Indians abrogate that obligation? I wonder how we would feel if the Indians decided to unilaterally reclaim their land because we engage in some arbitrary economic activity like selling goods over the Internet. The Indian nations couldnít do this, of course, because they lack the power to impose their will on our society, but I think the analogy is still apt.
07-02-2002, 03:22 PM
you've done a good job of describing how the deal went. The only thing I think that's gone truely wrong with the then vs. now "facts" is the Native Americans were using the fish for food and "cerimonial (sp?) purposes."
Kind of frosts me to see "Summer Salmon" even here in the grocery stores in Southern Oregon. Fish are caught, cleaned, iced down and shipped in 'bonded' (or so I was told) trucks out of Washington to other States for sale. Can't sell them in Washington as that would put a NA in the hooskow.
Interesting conversation with an Albertson's store manager last summer when they were advertising "Washington Caught" steelhead at $3.99/#. Asked Manager if the fish were 'farm fish' or netted out of a river. Said he didn't know, but why. Told him one was legal to sell in Oregon (no matter how much it would tick off the local guys who fish for them), the other was highly illegal in Oregon. (As in Washington you can't "sell" a river caught fish.)
Apparently he did check and I noticed the adds, including the Washington Caught stickers in the fish case, were pulled two days later. Ya, the fish was for sale, but now no comment on it's origions.
07-02-2002, 04:00 PM
I hear you. I donít particularly like the idea of seeing gillnetted steelhead in a supermarket display case anymore than you. And Iím not fond of gillnetting for salmon and steelhead whether by the Indians or by commercial interests. That said, when the treaties were signed the United States could not have foreseen the harvest methods of today or how those fish would be utilized anymore than the Indians could have foreseen how we would be using their land today. Sure, I donít like Indian gillnetting and the Indianís penchant for hatchery production. And I will bet that our Indian counterparts are not particularly fond of urban sprawl, large-scale commercial logging, or water and air pollution. But whatís good for the goose is good for the gander. If we want the Indians to change their behavior to better suit our own sensibilities, then we should be prepared to sit down and negotiate mutually agreeable terms. Isnít that the way civilized nations are supposed to do things?