The Boldt Decision - 39 years Later

On February 12, 1974, Federal Judge George Boldt issued his historic ruling reaffirming the rights of Washington's Indian tribes to fish in accustomed places. The "Boldt Decision" allocated 50 percent of the annual catch to treaty tribes and his ruling is still being litigated today in the court of public opinion.

Back to the River tells the story of the treaty rights struggle from pre-Boldt era to tribal and state co-management. The movie includes the voices and personal accounts of tribal fishers, leaders and others active in the treaty rights fishing struggle.

In 2004 the Seattle Times did story on the 30th anniversary of the Boldt Decision. The tag line on that piece was, the fish bonanza is over; now, preserving habitat is a paramount issue.

Nine years later and we're still in the same boat. 

House Republicans threaten subpoena over EPA Alaska (Pebble) mine study

Leave it to the Daily Caller to push all the pro Pebble talking points in this story about Republican push back on the EPA's Bristol Bay watershed assesment.

Republicans on the House Oversight Committee have sent a follow-up letter to the Environmental Protection Agency, demanding they provide more documents regarding the agency’s review of a potential mine in Alaska or face a subpoena to appear before the committee.

LINK

This drivel is in need of some comments, we just added ours.

The case has become the latest in a series of attempts to overturn the state’s stream access law

Conservative property rights groups and conservation organizations have become involved in the bitter, eight-year legal fight over access to Montana streams from bridges.

Two conservative groups – the United Property Owners of Montana and the Political Economy Research Center – have filed friend of the court briefs in the case between a sportsmen’s group and Madison County. In addition, Montana Trout Unlimited has entered the fray on the other side to support the Public Lands Access Association in the case.

LINK (via:The Missoulian)

Vote the Environment this Tuesday

In the run up to this Tuesday's election somwhere in the neighborhood of 2 billion dollars will have been spent by the presidential candidates staking out their positions on various issues. Of that 2 billion virtually nothing has been spent by the campaigns spelling out their man's position on environmental issues, a stunning omission given the threats to clean air, water and public lands. Due to campaign laws many organizations hands are tied when it comes to endorsing specific candidates. Others not bound by those same rules attempt to stake out some sort of middle ground when it comes to the environment and politics. They like to argue that both campaigns silence on environmental issues is somehow a statement on both candidates commitment to protecting the environment. Nothing could be further than the truth.

A brief examination of the stated policy positions of the candidates for President, and their respective party platforms, leaves no room for debate. If you care about protecting the environment you'll cast your vote for Barack Obama. You can debate the other various policy positions of each candidate but in the case of clean air, clean water and protecting public lands the choice is clear. Anyone who claims otherwise, or tries to portray it as some sort of non-partisan debate is either afraid to speak the truth or mis-informed. 

While there are many other policy issues one must consider before casting his or her vote, when it comes to the environment the choice is clear. We need leaders committed to protecting the places we live, work, and play. Take these values into the voting booth this Tuesday.

Does Your U.S. House Rep. Support Clean Water?

The Sierra Club marked the 40th anniversary of the Clean Water Act by releasing a Clean Water Voting Record for the U.S. House of Representatives.  The online report card features an interactive map and issues letter grades for U.S. Representatives’ voting records on clean water issues.

LINK (via:Ecowatch)

Chasing Butterflies....with Hounds

After six decades as the California Department of Fish and Game, the agency in charge of the state's wild animals has a new name — one that has many hunting and fishing organizations leery.

The agency has been renamed the Department of Fish and Wildlife, thanks to legislation signed by Governor Jerry Brown and it wouldn’t seem to be a big deal. But some sporting groups don’t like the connotation. “Generally, that means a shift toward butterflies, endangered species, and other stuff like that,” said Mike Faw of the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance.

LINK (via:Backcountry.com: The Goat)

The new legislation also banned the centuries-old practice of using hounds to hunt bears and bobcats which also has some sporting groups crying the blues.