Is it OK to Gillnet an Endangered Species?...
It appears that it is... Our Idaho Nez Perce Tribal Leadership has decided that the treaty signed in 1855 allows them to set up a commercial fishery for Steelhead and Salmon so they have now been putting out gillnets to capture the fish for resale.
Our native and wild Steelhead Trout have struggled to recover their natural migration ranges. The State of Idaho, Nez Perce Tribe, Sportsmen and conservationists alike have worked hard and spent millions of our tax dollars to recover the wild Steelhead Trout and Salmon in our state. What is the logic in putting out such an indiscriminate killer like a gillnet?
Why have we not heard from Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club or HSUS on the issue of protection of these Endangered Species? (This will be a question for another day...)
The State, Federal government and Tribes enacted strict fishing rules for hatchery Steelhead Trout and Salmon, where any wild fish must be released upon it being caught during the normal fishery for hatchery Steelhead and Salmon. It disturbs me as a Sportmen and conservationist that the Tribal Leadership has decided to jump into the commercial fishery business using gillnets that are not discriminate to wild fish. It also concerns me that our fisheries biologists have predicted near record returns of Salmon this spring as well, heightening the chance of Salmon once again up in Redfish lake.. Will these Salmon (wild or not) be subject to the same nets?
I'm told it's a tradition within the Tribe where gillnets have been used in the past to provide for subsistence for Tribal members. I think it’s admirable that Tribal members take care of members in need, but I also think it's pushing "tradition" to use those gillnets to create a commercial fishery based on a 1855 treaty (when the logic used at the time was to support Tribal subsistence for those members).
Supporting and remembering one's heritage is important, we've all have past family histories that should be handed down from generation to generation. My family (The Hagedorn "Tribe") has hunting and fishing traditions as well. I understand that we had traditions in our family hunting history that were a bit more destructive, but we've learned and grown from those ways and now practice good conservation when in the field.
It would seem to me that the Nez Perce Tribal Leadership would have the vision to grow and learn in the same way. Passing on traditional histories and cultural heritage is important and useful, but on the other hand, exploiting those traditions at the expense of good relationships with your neighboring communities is destructive behavior.
Millions of Sportsmen’s tax dollars paid through the purchase of their sporting equipment to the Department of Interior have been used to ensure the success of all the fish hatcheries that contribute to good fisheries and economic returns to those Idaho communities around the rivers, streams and lakes supported by those hatcheries. By not working closely with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the local county, cities and groups relying on these fisheries, the Tribal Leadership have set themselves up for microscopic examinations of their practices.
Rumors of not cutting adipose fins (the method used to determine wild (with) from hatchery (without) fish) from smelts released from the hatchery they operate to not providing good (or any) reservation catch counts to the Department of Fish and Game contribute to the lack of credibility of those in Leadership when they say they will only use so many nets and that catches will be closely monitored.
We are currently told that a minimum number of nets have been put out, with few fish caught. "Only one Wild Steelhead" has been killed is what’s been reported... If I were out hunting and came in with my limit of Grouse and claimed "Only one Wolf was killed" during my hunt, would that be an acceptable excuse to the public? I suspect not...
Driving on Highway 95 and seeing Steelhead and Salmon being sold out of the back of cars and trucks without any safety or health inspections endangers not only the fishery but our citizens as well.
Actives surrounding this fishery approved by Tribal Leadership is unhealthy for our wildlife and our citizens. That's why I've introduced House Bill H0471 requiring the buyers of Steelhead and Salmon (and other wildlife) to have a "buyers license".
Safety of our citizens and our wildlife should be important to all of us, regardless of the State or Nation you hail from.
Your thoughts?
Our native and wild Steelhead Trout have struggled to recover their natural migration ranges. The State of Idaho, Nez Perce Tribe, Sportsmen and conservationists alike have worked hard and spent millions of our tax dollars to recover the wild Steelhead Trout and Salmon in our state. What is the logic in putting out such an indiscriminate killer like a gillnet?
Why have we not heard from Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club or HSUS on the issue of protection of these Endangered Species? (This will be a question for another day...)
The State, Federal government and Tribes enacted strict fishing rules for hatchery Steelhead Trout and Salmon, where any wild fish must be released upon it being caught during the normal fishery for hatchery Steelhead and Salmon. It disturbs me as a Sportmen and conservationist that the Tribal Leadership has decided to jump into the commercial fishery business using gillnets that are not discriminate to wild fish. It also concerns me that our fisheries biologists have predicted near record returns of Salmon this spring as well, heightening the chance of Salmon once again up in Redfish lake.. Will these Salmon (wild or not) be subject to the same nets?
I'm told it's a tradition within the Tribe where gillnets have been used in the past to provide for subsistence for Tribal members. I think it’s admirable that Tribal members take care of members in need, but I also think it's pushing "tradition" to use those gillnets to create a commercial fishery based on a 1855 treaty (when the logic used at the time was to support Tribal subsistence for those members).
Supporting and remembering one's heritage is important, we've all have past family histories that should be handed down from generation to generation. My family (The Hagedorn "Tribe") has hunting and fishing traditions as well. I understand that we had traditions in our family hunting history that were a bit more destructive, but we've learned and grown from those ways and now practice good conservation when in the field.
It would seem to me that the Nez Perce Tribal Leadership would have the vision to grow and learn in the same way. Passing on traditional histories and cultural heritage is important and useful, but on the other hand, exploiting those traditions at the expense of good relationships with your neighboring communities is destructive behavior.
Millions of Sportsmen’s tax dollars paid through the purchase of their sporting equipment to the Department of Interior have been used to ensure the success of all the fish hatcheries that contribute to good fisheries and economic returns to those Idaho communities around the rivers, streams and lakes supported by those hatcheries. By not working closely with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the local county, cities and groups relying on these fisheries, the Tribal Leadership have set themselves up for microscopic examinations of their practices.
Rumors of not cutting adipose fins (the method used to determine wild (with) from hatchery (without) fish) from smelts released from the hatchery they operate to not providing good (or any) reservation catch counts to the Department of Fish and Game contribute to the lack of credibility of those in Leadership when they say they will only use so many nets and that catches will be closely monitored.
We are currently told that a minimum number of nets have been put out, with few fish caught. "Only one Wild Steelhead" has been killed is what’s been reported... If I were out hunting and came in with my limit of Grouse and claimed "Only one Wolf was killed" during my hunt, would that be an acceptable excuse to the public? I suspect not...
Driving on Highway 95 and seeing Steelhead and Salmon being sold out of the back of cars and trucks without any safety or health inspections endangers not only the fishery but our citizens as well.
Actives surrounding this fishery approved by Tribal Leadership is unhealthy for our wildlife and our citizens. That's why I've introduced House Bill H0471 requiring the buyers of Steelhead and Salmon (and other wildlife) to have a "buyers license".
Safety of our citizens and our wildlife should be important to all of us, regardless of the State or Nation you hail from.
Your thoughts?
Posts
4 comments:
As I stated earlier in a letter to the editor of the Lewiston Tribune that was printed is why hasn't the tribe sought out any other alternatives to using gill nets. I suggested they harvest the fish they need from the hatchery systems and would not harm a single native fish. What else the tribe doesn't understand is that sport fishermen won't be coming to the area if nets are in the rivers, which means less people will visit the casinos in the area.
Did treaty rights include the use of nylon nets and powered boats?
I agree with you 100%, The nez perce should not be able to sell fish at all!! like you stated the treaty was set up to support tribal subsistance, not sell fish out of the back of a truck.The tribe always says they want to protect their culture and their way of life. They should have to fish and hunt the way their ancestors did, to prodect their culture and way of life, no motor boats,no high powered rifles with scopes,no atv`s,no factory made gill nets,no 50 caliber rifles to shoot whales,etc,etc,etc. All tribes should have to hunt and fish like their ancestors did, and then they will be perserving their culture and way of life, they need to make their own gills nets take them out in their canoes just like their ancestors did!!!! Craig C.
I am a resident of Orofino, Idaho and am employed in the natural resources industry. I have the utmost respect for Native American culture and support actions that show pride in their heritage and history. Putting gilnets in the river to catch fish for commercial sale is not representative of their heritage and is an embarrassment to their culture. Those treaties are upheld in order to maintain practices associated with their culture and heritage. If they were catching fish for sustenance that would be a different matter. Similar to this is when I see Native Americans snagging steelhead spawning and then walking up the bank to sell them along the highway to any Joe that stops by. This disgusts me. The public continues to ask Idaho Fish and Game and the US Fish and Wildlife Service why the salmon and steelhead runs have not returned fully and why salmon seasons seem iffy. Salmon and steelhead have enough industrial and environmental hurtles to cross without being gilnetted in masses when they arrive to their spawning grounds. If you have not already, please sign the petition to take the gilnets out of the river. Those that are gilnetting need to take a look at how they represent their culture...what happened to "Native Pride?" - Karen
No, it's not okay. That's what most of us believe here in Oregon (except the gillnetters of course.) My advice to everyone here is to join the Coastal Conservation Association, as a first step toward reining in the nets. We need to start with the Lower Columbia gillnetting first. Once that is banned, we can move on toward persuading the treaty tribes to move to a selective harvest.
Please see www.JoinCCA.org for more info and also see the resource blog http://www.gillnetskill.blogspot.com
Thanks for this post, Rep. Hagedorn! Good Luck in this project.
Virginia Ross
Member TV Oregon Chapter, CCA
Post a Comment