E-Mail 'Culvert case about treaty rights could be a new landmark' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'Culvert case about treaty rights could be a new landmark' to a friend

* Required Field

Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.

Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.

E-Mail Image Verification

Loading ... Loading ...

4 thoughts on “Culvert case about treaty rights could be a new landmark

  1. Maybe the tribes will stop their relentless of gillnetting salmon to prove they aren’t just trying to restore the fishery so they can rape it? I’m a sport fisherman and I have to fish with a single barbless hook. My familys take this year in Hood Canal. One coho. Meanwhile the tribes gillnet from beach – their take on Sunday in one set (about 4 hours) – 1000 pounds of Chum and Coho.
    I’m sorry – but I dont take the tribes seriously. They say one thing out of one side of their mouth (Save salmon, restore creeks/culverts, etc – and i support that), but out of the other side of their mouth they flood the natural habitat with Millions upon millions of hatchery fish and slaughter them relentlessly with nets – not to mention shooting seals and the damage the nets cause to other wildlife.

    So seriously – how much do the tribes really care about saving salmon – they are not better than the non-tribal fishermen before them. The tribes want the fishery, for money.

  2. I refuse to defend tribal members who do something wrong, but there is a lot of misplaced anger when it comes to tribal fishing. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the right of tribal fishers to split the total harvestable catch, 50-50, with non-tribal fishers.

    Because non-Indian sport fishers far outnumber Indians, each angler is allowed to take home just a few chinook and coho. Tribal members take their share with nets. The larger numbers of chum salmon are captured in nets by both tribal and nontribal commercial fishers.

    We can have lively discussions about selective fishing, indiscriminate gillnets, how fish are counted, environmental ethics, and many other issues. But, as of this moment, the 50-50 split is a matter of law.

  3. UPDATE, Oct, 25
    Former Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife director Jeff Koenings testified in the federal culvert trial on Friday. See AP reporter Tim Klass’s story in the Kitsap Sun. Koenings told the court that diverting state dollars for culvert repair and replacement could harm salmon if it means less money for higher-priority salmon-restoration projects.

Comments are closed.