The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 08:34:24 -0700, Paul S Person >><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
My understanding has always been that the "fish ladders" around the
dams on the Columbia were put in for the salmon.
This wasn't sentimentality: the salmon fishery is a /major/ part of
the economy. Keeping the runs going was vital.
Absolutely - which is why I've said Judge Boldt is so hated for what
may or may not have been a legal decision but was environmentally >>catastrophic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Washington
It appears that Judge Boldt simply upheld the treaties. Hard to hate
a man for doing the correct thing.
"Furthermore, the court also held the state could regulate
the Indian tribes' exercise of their treaty rights but only
to ensure the "perpetuation of a run or of a species of fish."[74]
To regulate the tribes, the state must be able to show that
conservation could not be achieved by regulating only the non-Indians,
must not discriminate against the tribes, and must use appropriate due process.[75]
It's not clear to me how that decision was "environmentally catastrophic".
Bottom line is the best way to exterminate a fishery is to over-fish
it for 10-20 years at a rate of 20-25% above a sustainable rate.
Sounds like the treaty should have included a few more parties than
just two.
The devil, I suppose, is, as always, in the details.
This whole topic reeks of the "everything was find until someone
decided those non-white people had rights" syndrome.
I suppose it could also have been viewed as shock at the very concept
that treaties made with the First Nations were actually enforceable in
court against white people.
And, if we (USA) were smart, the non-tribal take allowed in subsequent
years would have been (or, perhaps, actually was) reduced so that the
total take remained the same.
Result: no overfishing. At least, none from the Boldt decision.
On Wed, 03 Sep 2025 08:00:53 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Bottom line is the best way to exterminate a fishery is to over-fish
it for 10-20 years at a rate of 20-25% above a sustainable rate.
Sounds like the treaty should have included a few more parties than
just two.
International treaties are usually made with 2 or more nations
involved. In this case the fish predominantly (that's an exaggeration
but 40-50% anyhow) spawned in Canadian territory having swum through
US waters.
On Tue, 02 Sep 2025 21:11:59 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2025 08:34:24 -0700, Paul S Person >>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
My understanding has always been that the "fish ladders" around the >>>>dams on the Columbia were put in for the salmon.
This wasn't sentimentality: the salmon fishery is a /major/ part of
the economy. Keeping the runs going was vital.
Absolutely - which is why I've said Judge Boldt is so hated for what
may or may not have been a legal decision but was environmentally >>>catastrophic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Washington
It appears that Judge Boldt simply upheld the treaties. Hard to hate
a man for doing the correct thing.
"Furthermore, the court also held the state could regulate
the Indian tribes' exercise of their treaty rights but only
to ensure the "perpetuation of a run or of a species of fish."[74]
To regulate the tribes, the state must be able to show that
conservation could not be achieved by regulating only the non-Indians,
must not discriminate against the tribes, and must use appropriate due process.[75]
It's not clear to me how that decision was "environmentally catastrophic".
Had Judge Boldt made his ruling to take effect with the beginning of
the NEXT salmon run he would have allowed the fishery to continue
long-term. But no question the argument WAS made before the judge that
the maximum number of fish for that season had already been caught and
that giving an order allowing / encouraging more the the maximum fish
catch that was sustainable without destroying the fishery long term
would be the result of allowing fishing of more than that.
He WAS advised of the practical effect of the latter option yet he
went ahead and chose that alternative for his order - and given the
majority of the fish he allowed to be caught spawned in Canadian
rivers after swimming through US waters he not only saved the American
share of the salmon fishery but the Canadian share as well.
I stand by my original claim that at least in Canada few people who
remember what Boldt did (i.e. destroying 80-90% of what used to be a
thriving fishery) remember him with any fondness nor respect.
On Tue, 09 Sep 2025 19:23:25 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2025 08:00:53 -0700, Paul S Person >><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Bottom line is the best way to exterminate a fishery is to over-fish
it for 10-20 years at a rate of 20-25% above a sustainable rate.
Sounds like the treaty should have included a few more parties than
just two.
International treaties are usually made with 2 or more nations
involved. In this case the fish predominantly (that's an exaggeration
but 40-50% anyhow) spawned in Canadian territory having swum through
US waters.
So the Indian Nations were ignored?
Sadly, I my incompetence at search engines prevents me from finding
anything like, say, a chart showing salmon industry takes over the
past 50 years.
"Collapse" brings up various disasters such as an Atlantic salmon
fishery failing to retain its fish. "Boldt decision" mostly brings up >articles about the fishing wars that preceded it.
On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 07:56:58 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Sep 2025 19:23:25 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2025 08:00:53 -0700, Paul S Person >>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Bottom line is the best way to exterminate a fishery is to over-fish >>>>>it for 10-20 years at a rate of 20-25% above a sustainable rate.
Sounds like the treaty should have included a few more parties than >>>>just two.
International treaties are usually made with 2 or more nations
involved. In this case the fish predominantly (that's an exaggeration
but 40-50% anyhow) spawned in Canadian territory having swum through
US waters.
So the Indian Nations were ignored?
At least in Canada native 'nations' deal with the federal government.
No they do NOT deal with foreign nations - and there would definitely
be national security issues if they attempted to deal directly with
Putin or Xi.
On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 08:09:49 -0700, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Sadly, I my incompetence at search engines prevents me from finding >>anything like, say, a chart showing salmon industry takes over the
past 50 years.
"Collapse" brings up various disasters such as an Atlantic salmon
fishery failing to retain its fish. "Boldt decision" mostly brings up >>articles about the fishing wars that preceded it.
I got a flier from my Member of Parliament today triumphantly
announcing Canadian salmon catches were at record levels and praising
open net "farms" for turning the tide.
My concern is that previously fish farms have been using Atlantic
salmon on closed containment "farms" on the west coast, the issue
being that while "farmed" Pacific salmon are indistinguishable from
"wild" (ie you can't tell the difference when they're in the open
ocean as opposed to net containment) allowing open net "farming" of
Atlantic salmon in west coast waters is dangerous as the Atlantic and
Pacific species are quite distinct but definitely inter-fertile - and
given the different west coast species have distinct "salmon runs"
(e.g. when they return from the ocean to spawn) all kinds of bad
things can happen with hybrid Atlantic / Pacific fish.
I understand the economic case for fish farms of the Atlantic type on
the west coast but biologically it's sketchy at best.
That's my last comment on the west coast fishery unless there's a
specific question. Note that there is "closed containment farming"
where the ponds are inland with no access to the open sea. That's a
horse of a totally different color since there's no risk of
inter-breeding.
On Mon, 15 Sep 2025 14:25:49 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 07:56:58 -0700, Paul S Person >><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 09 Sep 2025 19:23:25 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> >>>wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2025 08:00:53 -0700, Paul S Person >>>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Bottom line is the best way to exterminate a fishery is to over-fish >>>>>>it for 10-20 years at a rate of 20-25% above a sustainable rate.
Sounds like the treaty should have included a few more parties than >>>>>just two.
International treaties are usually made with 2 or more nations >>>>involved. In this case the fish predominantly (that's an exaggeration >>>>but 40-50% anyhow) spawned in Canadian territory having swum through
US waters.
So the Indian Nations were ignored?
At least in Canada native 'nations' deal with the federal government.
No they do NOT deal with foreign nations - and there would definitely
be national security issues if they attempted to deal directly with
Putin or Xi.
They don't here, either, but they are clearly involved in the fishing >industry.
My point was that the treaty did not include all the people affected.
It only included all the /white/ people affected.
And Boldt may have acted as he did in response to the US Government's
failure to recognize the Indian Nations' treaty rights for some time
in the past. He may have felt that delaying the implementation would >encourage future abuses while having to do it at once despite the >consequences would make the US Government take it's treaty obligations >seriously for a change.
Unravelling the multifaceted world of institutional racism was and is
an effort fraught with difficulty.
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 14 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 15:55:00 |
| Calls: | 178 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 78,201 |