Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Romano: Native Americans, Minnesota Fight Over Fishing

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

FlyTalk
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

May 14, 2010

Romano: Native Americans, Minnesota Fight Over Fishing

By Tim Romano

Last night my wife forwarded me a three minute audio story from NPR called Minnesota, Tribe Battle Over Fishing.

Yes, I listen to NPR. I also occasionally rock the EIB network in my car. You gotta get both sides. Anyway...

It seems that some members of the Leech Lake and White Earth Ojibwe tribes are going to fish for walleye and pike today (May 14th). Problem is, this is the day before the Minnesota walleye and pike season opens. Technically you're not allowed to fish for these species until Saturday the 15th.
Apparently members of these tribes plan to blatantly break the law as protest. They want the courts to clear up part of a 150-year-old treaty which they say gives them the right to hunt and fish whenever they please on the land that they don't own anymore. Way back when, the tribes sold 13 million acres to the government but claim the treaty specifically allows them to fish and hunt on the land as they see fit. The state says no, not true and plans to ticket and/or arrest the anglers.

This sounds like a nasty debacle to me, with no clear winner no matter how the cookie crumbles. On one hand you've got the Native Americas who basically were run off their land all of the country, given token amounts of money, blankets with smallpox and told to deal with it. Most - if not all tribes around the US got a raw deal. On the other you have law abiding citizens that are waiting their turn to cast a line this Saturday in Minnesota.

What do you say? Who's right? Who's wrong?

What if Minnesota just let the early anglers fish flies and barbless flies? I think that's a pretty fair compromise, no?

TR

Comments (32)

Top Rated
All Comments
from thuroy wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

If the fish is part of their survival as it is for some of the Inuits in the Arctic so be it. However, unfortunate as it may be, they should have to follow the same laws as every other angler.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from thuroy wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

If the lake is on Tribal land, they should be able to do what they want with it.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from carl9140 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

If its part of the treaty they have the right. How would you feel if the shoe were on the other foot?

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from fliphuntr14 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

This is like the spearing debate in wisconsin. With fishing regulations there not just there for the hell of it. They actually do protect the well being of the fish and the ecosystems.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from SD_Whitetail_Hntr wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

If the lake was on tribal land, this wouldn't even be a discussion because they would have their seperate tribal DNR who would set their regulations. Does part of that treaty also say that they don't have to buy licenses? Just curious.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Koldkut wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Why is this just now becomming an issue?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from ray cummings wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

First, please let me say that the Native Americans never "sold" the land. They did not feel that they "owned" the land so how could they sell it? Second, EVERY TREATY HAS BEEN BROKEN BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT! The U.S. government lies to you and I every day so who can believe what they say. They will not publish the original treaty for you and I to see. Did it say "on the lands we will give you"? Or did it simply say that they did not have to recognize the seasons that were set? We have to take their word for what it says. They interpret it to suit their own political goals and we are supposed to agree with them without question. Yes, it seems unfair that they are allowed to fish "out of season" but their ancestors did not over fish, pollute the water, or otherwise harm the fishing. They fished the rivers for hundreds of years without restocking or other methods of keeping the fish numbers up. Can we say the same thing?

+8 Good Comment? | | Report
from abmcp13 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Here in Wisconsin the native tribes are allowed to hunt and fish year round. The Indians took a case similar to this to court and the treaty was upheld by the courts. Let them hunt and fish year round. the Native Americans are known for their conservation. They had Buffalo roaming for thousands of years, and it was the Europeans who decimated the populations. They only take as much as they can use. Let them be, we've abused them enough

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gsquare wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

I take issue with the people who say the indians were good stewards of the land. The only reason they didn't destroy all the wildlife is because of diseases, malnutrition and their primitive weapons didn't allow them to kill as many animals and fish as they would like. And this was long before the europeans came over.
They lost the battle, assimulate like all the rest of the people's from all over the world have done and follow the rules.
And I'm glad someone at F&S listens to the EIB network.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from jbird wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

I think considering what was done to the Indians, letting a few of them catch a few fish a day early is pretty reasonable. Especially if the origional treaty stated that they could.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from deerhunter125 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

I have read numerous articles on this issue and in the treaty it does not specifically say that they are able to hunt fish, and gather on these seeded lands. Whereas the case that the Native American won in Wisconsin specifically said that they had the right to hunt, fish and gather. This is why there is a debate around the case.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hank111 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Gsquare you are an idiot, and it is people like you, that put them into this position.This place would be way better off had the europeans never found it.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from seph92 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Conservation was instituted to prevent WHITE men from slaughtering all of creation. We Natives have been hunting on this continent for ever and never did we have to worry about the population of the wildlife. We took only what was needed, to sustain our families and our villages.
Now after all the Genocide that has happened on this continent do you really think that we would be afraid to get a fine for doing what the government has tried for centuries to prevent, which is allowing a Native to live his or her culture.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Walt Smith wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

The indians are part of a sovergein nation governed only by the federal goverment, they will prevail.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Being a smidgen Passamaquoddy myself my sympathies are with the Sovereign First Nations People. Besides the treaties were forced on the Indians at gunpoint well before such a thing as a "fishing season" existed. After all for myself and other European looking folks, fishing is a sport like baseball (which has a season), for many Native Americans it isn't a sport. I thank my Native side for my attunement to the wild places and my respect for the life there.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from fflutterffly wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Romano says:... blankets with smallpox and told to deal with it... Most - if not all tribes around the US got a raw deal.
Please! Not all indian tribes where given Smallpox Blankets. However, In IMHO they were all given a raw deal. I don't see the big probleml here. How is it that 10, 20, 30 indians will ruin the opening day for the other guys? Not withstanding that it has taken 150 years to work this out! Why? If you want to settle this dispute take those 10, 20, 30 indians and protest loudly in front of the T.V. and other media at the state or federal level. And what is this BS about not letting the treaty be publicly accessed?

And another thing: You speak as if the government is a individual on to itself. Stop sitting on your beer bloated butts and make noise, organize and vote out the A-holes you don't like. Stop complaining and take action.

In my heart I believe all indians should have the right to access any time anywhere that is state or federally owned land. It's a small price for such a large loss.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from fflutterffly wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

GSquare you are one stupid dumb ass. Imagine if this happened to you today. If a group marched into your little world and tore it to shreds, raped your family... you included and than drove you off. Oh you might shot a few with your little pop guns, but in the end your self indulgent attitude would be nothing more than the whinny self righteous indignation you spout. NPR-EIB... who cares! Grow a pair and learn that compassion is not synonymous to weakness.

We have 'seasons' because, as so many pointed out, all people would over fish, over hunt and over gather if allowed to. We are a greedy, selfish lot.

The Native Americans had a larger population than the advancing Non-Indian , who, by the time they started to advance, had superior weapons.

Be honest here. If American indians had been left to their own, not ridden off land, their population would have expanded more quickly since there were more of them to begin with. (Exponentially possible) It's all relative to the Theory of Expansion. Who's to say with a larger population to support the Native American wouldn't have killed off the Greylings, hunted the buffalo down to small numbers or even brought this continent up to a more glorified position! None of us know! THIS IS A F-ING TREATY ISSUE... NOT A FISHING ISSUE!

I am totally off point and apologize to all .... except Gsquare!... Your still a dumb ass.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from wilksey88 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

I know ahead of time this post may not be popular...but...are the conservation laws not directed at the best interest of the species in coordination with harvest of the hunters/fishers? Why then should a group to self-govern outside of this idea? Wouldn't it be best for everyone involved if the overall uniform mentation about the debate was actually about the species and not about who has which rights?

As a side note, i've seen some comments about the Native Americans being known for their conservation such as this...
"Conservation was instituted to prevent WHITE men from slaughtering all of creation. We Natives have been hunting on this continent for ever and never did we have to worry about the population of the wildlife. We took only what was needed, to sustain our families and our villages"
...I think that might have been true in the past but what evidence is there for that now? (Not rhetorical, I honestly don't know). In person I have witnessed acts far the contrary. This is a far overarching "stereotype" if you will. There are good and bad stewards of the land both Native American and not.

Too many comments and thoughts about supremacy in regard to anything of one racial group over another isn't the best way to fix things...For better or worse, we are one country now and WE are judged as a whole.

Please keep criticism mature and to the issue-I am not too close-minded to not hear other views

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from huskerguy wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

These situations are never good. On one had I feel for the tribes. They did get hosed back in the day. Yet on the other hand some take it a bit to far, and do things while saying they're part of some tribe so they don't get punished. But how many fish can they really catch in one day?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bones812 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

If there is a treaty giving them the right to hunt fish or whatever then Its their right granted by the goverment. If not then they are breaking the law.Laws are laws,rules are rules.Niether were made to be broken And don't let them fish early with flies or barbless flies.They should wait to see if it is really a treaty right.It wouldnt be fair to the other anglers.Im sure that if a non native went on to tribal land to hunt or fish without a permit they would end up in the same situation as them natives.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jamesti wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

look at the treaty and at the law and make a decision.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Native Americans these days aren't the conservationists they are made out to be. they frequently take walleye in wisconsin and waste it. i've seen speared walleye in garbage cans and up on shore. not too mention they also will take spawning muskie. if they want to spear because its in their heritage why don't they use canoes instead of big rigs with fancy lighting set ups to attract fish.

by the way native americans aren't really a sovergein nation. they have no army...anyone could come and take their land if it weren't for the U.S. Gov. Throughout history people have been conquered and gotten off much worse than the native americans...look at Africa for examples

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jhunt2 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

I think they should be able to hunt what ever when ever but they should have to do it the old fashion way, homemade bows and arrows. If they want to keep their traditions they should have to do it traditional. If not they are just regular people and shouldn't get any special rights.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Koldkut wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

How long do Native Americans get to live under the stigma that they have been cheated out of evertyhing? The government is going to pay out how long? How long before we get to call them Americans like the rest of us, how many generations. I love a feel good story myself, but at least Gsquared said what some other are thinking. +1 for you Gsquared.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from dighunter wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

IT seems to me like this whole Native people vs everyone else things seems to be getting worse. Do the Native Americans abide by all other laws of the land or are they allowed to pick and choose which laws they abide by? If the old ways of fishing whenever they want are to be upheld, then fishing in the old way (no modern gear) should be enforced when it is outside of the established season.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

I've had enough of "tribal" poaching to do me a lifetime and am tired of hearing the arguments. As long as they hunt and fish with the same tribal implements they had available at the time of the treaty, fine. I've had enough of their spotlighting and gillnetting passing off as hunting and fishing. Around these parts, there seems to be lots of blond and blue eyed tribal members by marriage and who knows what else.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from countitandone wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Hey TR, compromise rarely works because both sides feel they got screwed. Now read this "huskerguy"...every three years, come July, we have a return from the sea Sockeye Fishery on Lake Washington. If the fish count at the Chittendem Government Locks Fish Ladder (Seattle), during the week prior to this fishery, is such that it will support this long awaited fishery, well... here are the rules. Recreational fishermen get a six(6)fish take, total, for this weekend only fishery. Natives fish from long boats, short boats, 32' gill netters and fill the beds of dump trucks, semi's, stake-bed one tons, car trailers and the trunks of cars with their "catch of the day" and then return and do it again. Many sockeye are left dead on the docks of Stan Sayers Memorial Hydroplane Pits after the Natives "leave with their share." I have witnessed this, on the 3 year cycle, for years. So, as it is today in Washington State, it may be tomorrow in Minnesota and possibly in the future of "huskerguy" at his local fishery..."how many fish can they take in one day?"

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ohiodeerhunter wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

This should be about what is best for the fishery,and if the native americans,who did get screwed,need to fish for food,let them. If the native americans are going to fish for max. harvest,using gillnets,boats with outboard motors,lights to fish at night,ect. then they should follow the same fishing regs. as the rest of us.
NO ONE should be allowed to overharvest,it is bad for ALL of us.
AS for those who planned to break the law in protest,give them their tickets,and let them have their day in court.(In the jurisdiction where the violation occured.)

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from seph92 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

As a Mohawk I agree that we as individual native nations should not be able to take more than we can carry or eat. Having treaty rights does not allow us to exploit the land that we must share with the colonists.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 3 years 47 weeks ago

As long as Native Americans have dual sovereignty, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs is a 6 Billion Dollar agency with lots of lawyers looking to spend the money bringing lawsuits against the USA, they will continue to find opportunities to reap financial gains. How many times have they been paid big money for their land, and then sued to get it back, and won?! They make the case they were taken advantage of, and get the land back!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from John Huscio wrote 2 years 17 weeks ago

its not 1750 anymore and you cant just hop in your birchbark canoe and drop your fishtraps anywhere...........its the 21st century and the natural resources are more scarce...........the indians should abide by the same fishing/hunting regulations as anyone else.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from tacomanusmc wrote 2 years 17 weeks ago

It's simple. Have a 3rd party read the treaty, then go by their interpretation of it. But since common sense ain't nearly as common as it should be, make them follow the rules just like the rest of us. If they want to cry about it being unfair, they should go about trying to get the law changed, without any protests that are only going to bring out the ass in everyone. That said, I do think the Indians are over sensitive. Just because they did it 300 years ago, doesn't mean that they should be able to do it now. 300 years ago, there were a lot more fish and game available than there are now, so allowing them to hunt and fish whenever they feel like it will only hurt the populations. The hunting and fishing regulations exist for a reason. And stop making it sound like the white man is to blame. The Indians did their part too.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from ray cummings wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

First, please let me say that the Native Americans never "sold" the land. They did not feel that they "owned" the land so how could they sell it? Second, EVERY TREATY HAS BEEN BROKEN BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT! The U.S. government lies to you and I every day so who can believe what they say. They will not publish the original treaty for you and I to see. Did it say "on the lands we will give you"? Or did it simply say that they did not have to recognize the seasons that were set? We have to take their word for what it says. They interpret it to suit their own political goals and we are supposed to agree with them without question. Yes, it seems unfair that they are allowed to fish "out of season" but their ancestors did not over fish, pollute the water, or otherwise harm the fishing. They fished the rivers for hundreds of years without restocking or other methods of keeping the fish numbers up. Can we say the same thing?

+8 Good Comment? | | Report
from carl9140 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

If its part of the treaty they have the right. How would you feel if the shoe were on the other foot?

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from thuroy wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

If the lake is on Tribal land, they should be able to do what they want with it.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from wilksey88 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

I know ahead of time this post may not be popular...but...are the conservation laws not directed at the best interest of the species in coordination with harvest of the hunters/fishers? Why then should a group to self-govern outside of this idea? Wouldn't it be best for everyone involved if the overall uniform mentation about the debate was actually about the species and not about who has which rights?

As a side note, i've seen some comments about the Native Americans being known for their conservation such as this...
"Conservation was instituted to prevent WHITE men from slaughtering all of creation. We Natives have been hunting on this continent for ever and never did we have to worry about the population of the wildlife. We took only what was needed, to sustain our families and our villages"
...I think that might have been true in the past but what evidence is there for that now? (Not rhetorical, I honestly don't know). In person I have witnessed acts far the contrary. This is a far overarching "stereotype" if you will. There are good and bad stewards of the land both Native American and not.

Too many comments and thoughts about supremacy in regard to anything of one racial group over another isn't the best way to fix things...For better or worse, we are one country now and WE are judged as a whole.

Please keep criticism mature and to the issue-I am not too close-minded to not hear other views

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from abmcp13 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Here in Wisconsin the native tribes are allowed to hunt and fish year round. The Indians took a case similar to this to court and the treaty was upheld by the courts. Let them hunt and fish year round. the Native Americans are known for their conservation. They had Buffalo roaming for thousands of years, and it was the Europeans who decimated the populations. They only take as much as they can use. Let them be, we've abused them enough

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from jbird wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

I think considering what was done to the Indians, letting a few of them catch a few fish a day early is pretty reasonable. Especially if the origional treaty stated that they could.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from deerhunter125 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

I have read numerous articles on this issue and in the treaty it does not specifically say that they are able to hunt fish, and gather on these seeded lands. Whereas the case that the Native American won in Wisconsin specifically said that they had the right to hunt, fish and gather. This is why there is a debate around the case.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from seph92 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Conservation was instituted to prevent WHITE men from slaughtering all of creation. We Natives have been hunting on this continent for ever and never did we have to worry about the population of the wildlife. We took only what was needed, to sustain our families and our villages.
Now after all the Genocide that has happened on this continent do you really think that we would be afraid to get a fine for doing what the government has tried for centuries to prevent, which is allowing a Native to live his or her culture.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Walt Smith wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

The indians are part of a sovergein nation governed only by the federal goverment, they will prevail.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bella wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Being a smidgen Passamaquoddy myself my sympathies are with the Sovereign First Nations People. Besides the treaties were forced on the Indians at gunpoint well before such a thing as a "fishing season" existed. After all for myself and other European looking folks, fishing is a sport like baseball (which has a season), for many Native Americans it isn't a sport. I thank my Native side for my attunement to the wild places and my respect for the life there.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from fliphuntr14 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

This is like the spearing debate in wisconsin. With fishing regulations there not just there for the hell of it. They actually do protect the well being of the fish and the ecosystems.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Koldkut wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Why is this just now becomming an issue?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from fflutterffly wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

GSquare you are one stupid dumb ass. Imagine if this happened to you today. If a group marched into your little world and tore it to shreds, raped your family... you included and than drove you off. Oh you might shot a few with your little pop guns, but in the end your self indulgent attitude would be nothing more than the whinny self righteous indignation you spout. NPR-EIB... who cares! Grow a pair and learn that compassion is not synonymous to weakness.

We have 'seasons' because, as so many pointed out, all people would over fish, over hunt and over gather if allowed to. We are a greedy, selfish lot.

The Native Americans had a larger population than the advancing Non-Indian , who, by the time they started to advance, had superior weapons.

Be honest here. If American indians had been left to their own, not ridden off land, their population would have expanded more quickly since there were more of them to begin with. (Exponentially possible) It's all relative to the Theory of Expansion. Who's to say with a larger population to support the Native American wouldn't have killed off the Greylings, hunted the buffalo down to small numbers or even brought this continent up to a more glorified position! None of us know! THIS IS A F-ING TREATY ISSUE... NOT A FISHING ISSUE!

I am totally off point and apologize to all .... except Gsquare!... Your still a dumb ass.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from SD_Whitetail_Hntr wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

If the lake was on tribal land, this wouldn't even be a discussion because they would have their seperate tribal DNR who would set their regulations. Does part of that treaty also say that they don't have to buy licenses? Just curious.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from fflutterffly wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Romano says:... blankets with smallpox and told to deal with it... Most - if not all tribes around the US got a raw deal.
Please! Not all indian tribes where given Smallpox Blankets. However, In IMHO they were all given a raw deal. I don't see the big probleml here. How is it that 10, 20, 30 indians will ruin the opening day for the other guys? Not withstanding that it has taken 150 years to work this out! Why? If you want to settle this dispute take those 10, 20, 30 indians and protest loudly in front of the T.V. and other media at the state or federal level. And what is this BS about not letting the treaty be publicly accessed?

And another thing: You speak as if the government is a individual on to itself. Stop sitting on your beer bloated butts and make noise, organize and vote out the A-holes you don't like. Stop complaining and take action.

In my heart I believe all indians should have the right to access any time anywhere that is state or federally owned land. It's a small price for such a large loss.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jamesti wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

look at the treaty and at the law and make a decision.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Native Americans these days aren't the conservationists they are made out to be. they frequently take walleye in wisconsin and waste it. i've seen speared walleye in garbage cans and up on shore. not too mention they also will take spawning muskie. if they want to spear because its in their heritage why don't they use canoes instead of big rigs with fancy lighting set ups to attract fish.

by the way native americans aren't really a sovergein nation. they have no army...anyone could come and take their land if it weren't for the U.S. Gov. Throughout history people have been conquered and gotten off much worse than the native americans...look at Africa for examples

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Koldkut wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

How long do Native Americans get to live under the stigma that they have been cheated out of evertyhing? The government is going to pay out how long? How long before we get to call them Americans like the rest of us, how many generations. I love a feel good story myself, but at least Gsquared said what some other are thinking. +1 for you Gsquared.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from WA Mtnhunter wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

I've had enough of "tribal" poaching to do me a lifetime and am tired of hearing the arguments. As long as they hunt and fish with the same tribal implements they had available at the time of the treaty, fine. I've had enough of their spotlighting and gillnetting passing off as hunting and fishing. Around these parts, there seems to be lots of blond and blue eyed tribal members by marriage and who knows what else.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from countitandone wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Hey TR, compromise rarely works because both sides feel they got screwed. Now read this "huskerguy"...every three years, come July, we have a return from the sea Sockeye Fishery on Lake Washington. If the fish count at the Chittendem Government Locks Fish Ladder (Seattle), during the week prior to this fishery, is such that it will support this long awaited fishery, well... here are the rules. Recreational fishermen get a six(6)fish take, total, for this weekend only fishery. Natives fish from long boats, short boats, 32' gill netters and fill the beds of dump trucks, semi's, stake-bed one tons, car trailers and the trunks of cars with their "catch of the day" and then return and do it again. Many sockeye are left dead on the docks of Stan Sayers Memorial Hydroplane Pits after the Natives "leave with their share." I have witnessed this, on the 3 year cycle, for years. So, as it is today in Washington State, it may be tomorrow in Minnesota and possibly in the future of "huskerguy" at his local fishery..."how many fish can they take in one day?"

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ohiodeerhunter wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

This should be about what is best for the fishery,and if the native americans,who did get screwed,need to fish for food,let them. If the native americans are going to fish for max. harvest,using gillnets,boats with outboard motors,lights to fish at night,ect. then they should follow the same fishing regs. as the rest of us.
NO ONE should be allowed to overharvest,it is bad for ALL of us.
AS for those who planned to break the law in protest,give them their tickets,and let them have their day in court.(In the jurisdiction where the violation occured.)

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from thuroy wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

If the fish is part of their survival as it is for some of the Inuits in the Arctic so be it. However, unfortunate as it may be, they should have to follow the same laws as every other angler.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from huskerguy wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

These situations are never good. On one had I feel for the tribes. They did get hosed back in the day. Yet on the other hand some take it a bit to far, and do things while saying they're part of some tribe so they don't get punished. But how many fish can they really catch in one day?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bones812 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

If there is a treaty giving them the right to hunt fish or whatever then Its their right granted by the goverment. If not then they are breaking the law.Laws are laws,rules are rules.Niether were made to be broken And don't let them fish early with flies or barbless flies.They should wait to see if it is really a treaty right.It wouldnt be fair to the other anglers.Im sure that if a non native went on to tribal land to hunt or fish without a permit they would end up in the same situation as them natives.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jhunt2 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

I think they should be able to hunt what ever when ever but they should have to do it the old fashion way, homemade bows and arrows. If they want to keep their traditions they should have to do it traditional. If not they are just regular people and shouldn't get any special rights.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from dighunter wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

IT seems to me like this whole Native people vs everyone else things seems to be getting worse. Do the Native Americans abide by all other laws of the land or are they allowed to pick and choose which laws they abide by? If the old ways of fishing whenever they want are to be upheld, then fishing in the old way (no modern gear) should be enforced when it is outside of the established season.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from seph92 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

As a Mohawk I agree that we as individual native nations should not be able to take more than we can carry or eat. Having treaty rights does not allow us to exploit the land that we must share with the colonists.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 3 years 47 weeks ago

As long as Native Americans have dual sovereignty, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs is a 6 Billion Dollar agency with lots of lawyers looking to spend the money bringing lawsuits against the USA, they will continue to find opportunities to reap financial gains. How many times have they been paid big money for their land, and then sued to get it back, and won?! They make the case they were taken advantage of, and get the land back!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from John Huscio wrote 2 years 17 weeks ago

its not 1750 anymore and you cant just hop in your birchbark canoe and drop your fishtraps anywhere...........its the 21st century and the natural resources are more scarce...........the indians should abide by the same fishing/hunting regulations as anyone else.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from tacomanusmc wrote 2 years 17 weeks ago

It's simple. Have a 3rd party read the treaty, then go by their interpretation of it. But since common sense ain't nearly as common as it should be, make them follow the rules just like the rest of us. If they want to cry about it being unfair, they should go about trying to get the law changed, without any protests that are only going to bring out the ass in everyone. That said, I do think the Indians are over sensitive. Just because they did it 300 years ago, doesn't mean that they should be able to do it now. 300 years ago, there were a lot more fish and game available than there are now, so allowing them to hunt and fish whenever they feel like it will only hurt the populations. The hunting and fishing regulations exist for a reason. And stop making it sound like the white man is to blame. The Indians did their part too.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gsquare wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

I take issue with the people who say the indians were good stewards of the land. The only reason they didn't destroy all the wildlife is because of diseases, malnutrition and their primitive weapons didn't allow them to kill as many animals and fish as they would like. And this was long before the europeans came over.
They lost the battle, assimulate like all the rest of the people's from all over the world have done and follow the rules.
And I'm glad someone at F&S listens to the EIB network.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hank111 wrote 3 years 48 weeks ago

Gsquare you are an idiot, and it is people like you, that put them into this position.This place would be way better off had the europeans never found it.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment