Reader takes issue with Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission column
In a recent issue of The Daily World a Mr. Ed Johnstone, head Indian Fish Bloviator felt compelled to again relay his group’s point of view on the management of the local fish stocks. I feel compelled to relay how our group of lowly, barbless hook bank fishermen feel.
Right off the bat he did point out the fact that there are fewer fish to share (yup, he said share) and some changes need to be made. He did mention marine mammal predation once but in the rest of his spiel he did not bring it up again as he and his group complained how other things need to be addressed first.
He first mentioned a healthy salmon population was needed to meet their social, spiritual, economic and cultural needs of current and future generations.
You leave the word economic out of that paragraph and we all know that there are plenty of fish for their social gatherings.
What he doesn’t want you to dwell on is the economic part because that entails netting all local bays and rivers and selling the fish in Oregon.
His second paragraph of needs and wants was a really cute way of saying that they need to concentrate on trying to get more of the cut than the 50% they already get. I guess netting their 50% first is not working out well and they want a bigger share.
His third need expressed the need for his people to share more information. What?
His fourth paragraph states that all non-Indian people must recognize Tribes and First Nations as co-managers and respect their sovereignty rights and trusts.
That is going to be hard to do since we can all imagine them leaving their Pacific Salmon Commission meeting wearing shirts that say “Hee, hee, hee, looky what we got the judge to sign.”
Also, incorporating Indigenous values and traditional knowledge in this fish saving deal is kinda hard to swallow since his genius forefathers built several villages at the mouths of rivers that are now being flooded by rising ocean waters. To deal with that problem you have now conned the governments of neighboring sovereign nations to foot the bill to build them fancy new ones up on a hill.
My last question is that if the “vital documents” you all agreed on aren’t going to be finalized for another year at a traditional longhouse ceremony, can we all pray you don’t add five or more new stipulations by then.
Ray Messenger
Hoquiam
Westport Golf Links is not progress
The reason Westport is not Seaside?
Because we already have one of those and do not need another.
Locals don’t want what you call progress, especially when it’s to benefit the very few golfers at the expense of losing prime wetlands, recreation for all and threatens snowy plover nests.
No Westport golf or perhaps put it next to the Westport Winery, which is not in Westport.
Leave our beach alone.
Mark Pouliot
Hoquiam
