Snaggers on film: Steelheader.net- Steelhead, Salmon and trout fishing

luke- i'm with you on no more reparations- to me, seems there have been "sufficient reparations", from the boldt decision of 1972 to the partial monopoly on full blown casinos; i say "full blown" because casinos can operate on non-tribal land, but with no slots and a different set of rules and regulations, which i'm unfamiliar with..what i do know is that some of these big casinos make BANK, and i believe the respective tribes receive stipends from the success of these casinos, each and every member in cases..this i'm fine with..the boldt decision of 1972, that i have an issue with..it's antiquated..50%??? that's a load of $hit- after watching hundreds of netters over the years- and i haven't seen them all, i'm sure all the ones i don't see follow every rule and record all information as they're supposed to- i still have yet to see them actually count the fish they pull from their nets, and record them into any sort of logbook, not that i even know what the proper procedures are for netters; what i do know is that each and every year when the price of salmon goes down, the fish are caught in nets and thousands of perfectly edible salmon end up rotting on the banks, and sometimes, nowhere near the water where the rotting carcass may actually do some good in the ecosystem- hens stripped of eggs, and every buck, regardless of condition(i've seen many 20+lb chrome coho) tossed on the bank to rot as if it were a nasty, spawned out chinook from a month earlier..should tribes still be allowed to net? i would have to say yes, but i would like their regs enforced more closely(sporties need more enforcement, too), and the number 50% needs to be looked at more closely...is 50/50 really fair? is it ok to still net when "emergency closures" disallow sporties to fish, even if it is made a selective gear fishery? the constitution of this great country is over 200 years old, and the basic ideas from that are still in effect, but even those come under scrutiny and are amended, if need be..the boldt decision of 1972, needs to be scrutinized by non-biased parties and an amendment should be made, if the findings of the research shows that it not only to be fair, but also for the overall benefit of the resource..the quinault hatchery is world class; i not only like what is done there, but would like other state agencies to take notice, and possibly try to mimic what you guys do there..those of you with a.d.d. and those smoking pot, good, forget everything i've ranted about--the main point i had in this post is that in my opinion, antiquated rulings need to be looked at from a 2006 and beyond perspective, and i believe an amendment to the boldt decision or a whole new ruling would not only benefit the fish, but also the recreational angler, who are BIG parts of washington's economy, and responsibe tribal netters and guides, who give a good representation of what they would like to get done...it's true, a couple of rotten apples can spoil a whole bunch but if there are many bad apples in your bunch, you may as well put them in the compost pile and pick a new basket

--------------------
"i've fallen, and i can't reach my beer!"