Notice: Undefined index: HTTP_REFERER in /home/stparch/public_html/headmid_temp_main.php on line 4394
Newspaper Archive of
Shelton Mason County Journal
Shelton, Washington
April 15, 1999     Shelton Mason County Journal
PAGE 4     (4 of 36 available)        PREVIOUS     NEXT      Jumbo Image    Save To Scrapbook    Set Notifiers    PDF    JPG
 
PAGE 4     (4 of 36 available)        PREVIOUS     NEXT      Jumbo Image    Save To Scrapbook    Set Notifiers    PDF    JPG
April 15, 1999
 
Newspaper Archive of Shelton Mason County Journal produced by SmallTownPapers, Inc.
Website © 2025. All content copyrighted. Copyright Information
Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Request Content Removal | About / FAQ | Get Acrobat Reader




9ournal of Opinion: I00eaders' 00ournal: Fish and chips I D(:00N"r W00,K, I We hope last week's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to  1" I. " _ I Pt.00 B.p... Editor, The Journal: of not parking in front not hear Washington's shellfish case starts to bring this poker If you have been one of the hydrant! game to an end so both sides can play go fish instead. The  ,* many parents who pick up their These things are shellfish dispute has reminded us of a poker game, a very mis- children from school, I'm sure you every day, and it's not c matched poker game at that, for the past 10 years. It is as if the tribes hold four aces and a king, the state has a 2, a 5, a 6, a 9 and a jack, both sides can see the other's hand, they just came from another game at Boldt's Card Room where they were dealt the same hands, practically the whole crowd standing around is supporting the state, and most of the spectators are complaining that the cards are marked. The state, bankrolled by the crowd, has piles and piles of chips - practically every chip in the game, in fact - but it wants to take the tribes' last three chips. When the rules for the game were set up, the state took almost everything the tribes had in exchange for the five cards they now hold, the tribes figuring the cards would ensure they would always have enough to eat. The cards were of little consequence to the state then, because there weren't enough in the crowd to care how they were dealt. We remember well a story we wrote in 1988 after in- terviewing then-Washington State Fisheries Director Joe Blum about shellfish negotiations. It's what brought to mind the poker mismatch. The state and treaty tribes were in the midst of lengthy talks that had developed a major sticking point; the tribes were insisting that their treaty rights to gather shellfish "in usual and accus- tomed places" gave them the authority to harvest on pri- vate lands, and the state was firmly disagreeing. In fact, Blum made a point of saying that contrary to what some people were thinking, the state had no intention of giv- ing away the resource or the public's rights. The key point of the interview, in retrospect, was when Blum said his agency was trying to negotiate with the tribes in lieu of going to court, because the Boldt decision in the previous dec- ade had determined that Indians had shellfish rights, and the state didn't want to get into a position where the court quanti- fied those rights. He wasn't trying to kid anyone as he tipped the state's hand. Too bad he wasn't playing lowball. The tribes, which took the stance that negotiation was better than legal confrontation, that cooperation should be sought first and litigation used as a last resort, talked with the state for a couple of years until they were blue in the face. They thought they were entitled to half of the shellfish, they had Boldt as a precedent, but they were asking for less than half because they didn't want to go to court any more than the state did. So what did they do when negotiations were fruitless, even though the state knew they held four aces? They didn't ignite a truck bomb next to a federal building. They didn't ambush a tourist bus in the tulip fields. They didn't blow up a jetliner in flight. They didn't hack people to death with machetes. They didn't pound spikes into trees headed for mills. • No, their sin was much worse than any of those tacks, They had the audacity to file suit to determine peaceful- ly and legally what was theirs. And shellfishing rights are theirs. They have been theirs since before white men showed up here. The treaties signed in the mid-1850s didn't give them special rights. The Indians nev- er gave up those rights. They reserved those rights in exchange for giving the U.S. government their land. The recent court de- cisions, such as the 1994 federal ruling about shellfish, only af- firmed those rights. At Medicine Creek in 1854, when the Puyallup, Nis- qually and Squaxin tribes met with Territorial Governor Isaac Stevens, they ceded 2.5 million acres of land to the government in exchange for reservation lands and the assurance they could hunt and fish in the usual places. In doing so they retained the things they needed to sur- vive, their means of trade and important parts of their culture. This is not a "that was then, this is now with dif- ferent rules" situation. This was a contract. Settlers can't claim adverse possession as if these resources are theirs because they've overrun the place. Anyone who has ever benefited from a will, farmed his grandfather's land or enjoyed a family heirloom can grasp the concept of providing for your descendants. But instead, a lot of people are calling Judge Rafeedie a nut to go with the Boldt. The two judges simply honored treaties. Honoring those treaties should be the starting point for the solutions to tough problems that have developed because thousands of people bought tidelands without tribal treaty rights in mind. For decades, those treaty rights have been out of sight, out of mind because of the way our society settled and developed Washington and the fact the rights were not fully exercised by the tribes. Perhaps courts can place the blame for the mess that sounds like a title insurer's nightmare, and perhaps they won't. We're more interested in playing the hand U.S. citizens willingly dealt themselves and their descendants in the 1850s and find- ing reasonable solutions that don't crush people who depend on shellfish harvesting for a living. The tribes are still exhibiting their trademark pa- tience. They could have started harvesting half of the naturally occurring shellfish in 1994 when their treaty rights were affirmed, but they haven't. There have been only a handful of harvests from private tidelands, and a Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission spokesman says few private tidelands owners will be affected by the rulings anyway because few have commercial quantities of shellfish that make it worth harvesting. The Indians are still listening. Commercial growers say de- termining the amount of naturally occurring shellfish on a given beach would be a quagmire because beaches are seeded artificially, but the tribes say surveys of adjoining beaches could determine the amount. At any rate, it doesn't sound like it's out of the question that the state could buy beaches exclu- sively for the use of the tribes in a settlement that would keep tribal harvesters off commercial tidelands. How nice it would have been if the state had looked at the four aces and done that 10 years ago, at a savings of hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. All the bluffing did was buy 10 more years of the status quo before everyone had to face the water music. Let's not see another chapter of contentiousness as the state tries to use the 3 it has stashed up its sleeve. -CG 4ason Journal Th] April 15, 1999 Exploring how guys think By DAVE BARRY Today we're going to explore the mysterious topic of How Guys Think, which has baffled women in general, and the editors of Cos- mopolitan magazine in particular, for thousands of years. The big question, of course, is: How come guys never call? After successful dates, I mean. You sin- gle women out there know what I'm talking about. You go out with a guy, and you have a great time, and he seems to have a great time, and at the end of the evening he says, quote, "Can I call you?" And you, interpreting this to mean, "Can I call you?" an- swer: "Sure!" The instant you say this, the guy's body starts to dematerial- ize. Within a few seconds you can stick a tire iron right through him and wave it around; in a few more seconds he has vanished entirely, gone into the mysterious Guy Bermuda Triangle, where whole squadrons of your dates have dis- appeared over the years, never to be heard from again. Eventually you start to wonder if there's something wrong with you, some kind of emotional hang-up or personality defect that your dates are detecting• Or pos- sibly foot odor. You start having long, searching discussions with your women friends in which you say things like: "He really seemed to like me" and "I didn't feel as though I was putting pressure on him" and "Would you mind, strict- ly as a friend, smelling my feet?" This is silly. There's nothing wrong with you. In fact, you should interpret the behavior of your dates as a kind of guy com- pliment to you. Because when the guy asks you if he can call you, what he's really asking you, in Guy Code, is will you marry him. Yes. See, your basic guy is into a straight-ahead, bottom-line kind of thought process that does not work nearly as well with the infi- nitely subtle complexities of hu- man relationships as it does with calculating how much gravel is needed to cover a given driveway. So here's what the guy is think- ing: If he calls you, you'll go out again, and you'll probably have another great time, so you'll prob- ably go out again and have anoth- er great time, and so on until the only possible option will be to get married. This is Classic Guy Log- ic. So when you say "Sure!" in a bright and cheery voice, you may think you're simply indicating a willingness to go out again, but as far as he's concerned you're en- dorsing a lifetime commitment that he is quite frankly not ready to make after only one date, so he naturally decides he can never see you again. From that day for- ward, if he spots you on the street, he'll sprint in the opposite direction to avoid the grave risk that the two of you might meet, which would mean he'd have to ask you if you wanted to get a cup of coffee, and you might say yes, and pretty soon you'd be enjoying each other's company again, and suddenly a clergyman would ap- pear at your table and, YOU'D HAVE TO GET MARRIED AIEEEEEEE.. (You women think this is cra- zy, right? Whereas you guys out there are nodding your heads.) So my advice for single women is that if you're on a date with a guy you like, and he asks whether he can call you, you should give him a nonthreatening answer, such as: "No." Or: "I guess so, but bear in mind that I'm a nun." This will make him comfort- able about seeing you again, each time gaining the courage to ap- proach you more closely, in the manner of a timid, easily startled, woodland creature such as a chip- munk. In a few years, if the two of you really do have common in- terests and compatible personali- ties, you may reach the point where he'll be willing to take the Big Step, namely, eating granola directly from your hand. No matter how close you be- come, however, remember this rule: Do not pressure the guy to share his most sensitive inner- most thoughts and feelings with you. Guys hate this, and I'll tell you why: If you were to probe in- side the guy psyche, beneath that macho exterior and the endless droning about things like the 1978 World Series, yQ_U would find, deep down inside, a passion- ate, heartfelt interest in: the 1978 World Series. Yes. The truth is, guys don't have any sensitive in- nermost thoughts and feelings. It's time you women knew! All these years you've been agonizing about how to make the relation- ship work, wondering how come he never talks to you, worrying about all the anguished emotion he must have bottled up inside, and meanwhile he's fretting about how maybe he needs longer golf spikes. I'm sorry to have to tell you this. Maybe you should become a nun. Stevens Treaty destroyed Editor, The Journal: From an anthropological point of view, in Washington Territory in the early 1800s, an agrarian society met a hunter-gatherer so- ciety. These two groups have dif- ferent land-use patterns: An agrarian society uses land inten- sively and continuously. Its land- use patterns support a large pop- ulation, and eventually lead to a cash, as opposed to barter, econo- my. A hunter-gatherer society uses land non-intensively and sporadically. Its land-use pat- terns support only a small popu- lation, generally self-sufficient or with limited bartering. These different types of socie- ties have different and largely in- compatible legal approaches to ownership of land: Hunter- gatherers do not need to own title to individual tracts of land. The group needs to control "rights" to a wide area. Individuals sometimes control "rights" to a specific spot, for a specific use, such as spearing salmon. To maintain productivity, agrarian societies need to vest title to spe- cific tracts in individuals on a permanent basis. This title is meaningless unless it includes most "rights" to the land and its products. The Stevens Treaties were in- tended by the U.S. to resolve these differences in types of land ownership. Article 1 obviously means to resolve them in favor of the needs of agrarian land owner- ship. Because the Boldt decision dealt with salmon fishing, in which an agrarian society acts largely as hunter-gatherers, the pernicious effect of not interpret- ing "in common with" in Article 4 to mean "subject to the same laws as" was not immediately appar- ent. In the Rafeedie shellfish deci- sion, keeping the Boldt interpre- tation of this key phrase as "deserving equal harvest" creates a conflict with agrarian landhold- ing practices by not protecting ti- tle to the land and its products. This interpretation in effect de- stroys the treaty by creating an internal conflict between Article 1, which clears the way for agrar- ian land ownership, and Article 4, which when interpreted thus pre- serves hunter-gatherer rights to land use. Agrarian law allows for hunt- ing through its laws of trespass, and if "in common with" is inter- preted to mean "under the same laws," the Indian's ability to hunt is preserved, though limited to the same extent as any citizen's, while the intent of the treaty is not destroyed. By refusing to hear the shell- fishing case, the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed a deeply divi- sive situation to persist. Oyster growers OWN their oysters and clams, under American law. Al- lowing people onto the tidefiats to pick at will according to a com- plex and unworkable formula of division is deeply offensive to our laws of land ownership, and it rightly should be. The tribes are already pursuing their "right" to access to all uplands for hunting purposes, or for the gathering of roots and berries - which accord- ing to Rafeedie's logic, may very well include your potato crop. With the Stevens Treaty de- stroyed, what should our laws of land ownership be? Should we all become hunter-gatherers, subject to periodic famine when the herds/salmon/oysters fail? Helena James Lilliwaup Willingly taxed Editor, The Journal: The government wastes a lot of my hard-earned tax dollars. They hire expensive consultants to tell them how much to pay other ex- pensive consultants. They never ask me how to spend tax dollars. Unfortunately, the only taxes on which I have a direct say are the local school bonds and levies. I can understand wanting to say "no" to taxes, but this is the place I actually want my tax money to go. Pioneer School District is defi- nitely a no-frills district, with a very frugal school board and a dedicated staff. Pioneer kids need a high school that's closer than an hour and a half bus ride each way. With a lo- cal high school, we will have a say on our school curriculum. The time is right, since the current bond market allows us to get more school for our money right now. Please join me in supporting our great Pioneer kids. Vote "yes" to build them a school. Colleen Gallagher Shelton realize there are some major parking problems. I have picked up children from Mountain View, Evergreen and Shelton Middle School. Some of the things I have seen people do on a daily basis to get a parking spot closest to the front doors of the school are in some cases inconsiderate, rude, il- legal and unsafe. I have seen people parking on the wrong side of the street, dou- ble-parking, which once left me trapped, unable to leave the school until the person came back to their vehicle! I have even wit- nessed parents stop their cars in the middle of the street, due to there being no place close to the school's front doors to park, and get out to go retrieve their chil- dren, leaving their vehicle run- ning with nobody in it, and be gone for over five minutes! To top it off people are ignoring the rule three vehicles doing once, it's more like While all this is dren are leaving to cross the st that are double- wrong side of the with people who fast in a school zone to get through the I know Evergreen sent letters home to ing them to park they have even police there after or two to get th straightened out. So has seemed to help. Does a child have to before people realize happen, and small chaotic parking lot mixture? School guards Editor, The Journak I'm pretty skeptical about the value of police, and they don't have much to do with my idea of education. But it might be just common sense to have one on campus at a large high school. A high school in session is a fair number of people drawn from different backgrounds, with one major difference from the average crowd: most of the people at a high school are not full-grown. A lot of the kids are bored, and probably most of them are fidg- ety. In short, this is a social prob- lem waiting to happen. Most pub- lic events have security guards, as do most public buildings. Why not the high school? A major advantage of an officer on the campus is that it lets the teachers get back to what they are trained and paid to do, which is teaching. separating the control from the tion. My best school were wimps, extremely aged, or above. Their ready for college, and they were suppos, teacher teaches law while a p you to obey it, and Mandela has shown, two very different things. So maybe putting campus is not a sign are getting worse, sign that we are and starting to value the education that we vide. It's Bizarre Editor, The Journak I remember when I was a kid and read comic books. There ex- isted a world called "Bizarre- Land" where the good guys were bad and vice-versa. It seems like we're living there now. In a normal world, "public" land consisted of parks and for- ests, "private" land was what was owned by individuals. In today's world, however, all land appears to be "public" and no land is "privately" owned. In fact, public land now charg- es admission. And "private" land is charged fees for using. Public is private, for those that can afford the fees, and private is public, with no rights given to an owner. All one has to do is to look at the recent rulings regarding shellfish, look at the constraints of meeting the requirements of the Growth and/or look at the sals for lem. Where are the vate property disappeared. Our versed itself. The salmon and powerfully than those that own We're living in sion of the world nothing cute about voices of Olive Tree, or Sammy it's a dream, and we volce that says, Scotty. There's no here." Because, th the case here with politicians and are leading the Power stayed Editor, The Journal: This winter with all the winds, the power stayed on. As a resi- dent of the Phillips Lake area for a number of years, we have al- ways managed to lose power Obviously, the taken throughout and fall months sucl back trees, etc., paic NOT lose power at That's a j every winter, be it for a few hours or a number of days. . iiiiiiii II iv uuu " '" USPS 492-800 POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Shelton-Mason County Journal, P.O. Box 430, Shelton, WA 98584. Published weekly by Shelton Publishing Inc. at 227 West Cota Street, shelton, Malllng address: P.O. Box 430, Shelton, WA 98584 Telephone (360) 426-4412 Second-class postage paid at Shelton, Washington Member of Washington Newspaper Publishers' ASsociation SUBSCRIPTION RATES: $25.00 per year in-county addreSS, $35.00 per year in state of Washington $45.00 per Charles Gay, editor and publisher. Newsroom: Carolyn Maddux, Patch, sports editor; Jeff Green, general assignment, city society editor, county government; Sean Hanlon, police, courts, Port of She Stephen Gay, advertising manager; Dave Pierik, ad sales. Front office; Jul manager; Vicki Kamin, circulation; Donna Dooms, bookkeeper; rant. Compoaing room: Diane Riordan, supervisor; Margot Brand and Jan up; Koleen Wood, typesetter and computer system manager; Karl and computer system manager; Cynthia Meyer, proofreader. Pressroom: production foreman; Roger Lawson, darkroom; Kelly Riordan, pressman. uuuuuuu 9ournal of Opinion: I00eaders' 00ournal: Fish and chips I D(:00N"r W00,K, I We hope last week's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to  1" I. " _ I Pt.00 B.p... Editor, The Journal: of not parking in front not hear Washington's shellfish case starts to bring this poker If you have been one of the hydrant! game to an end so both sides can play go fish instead. The  ,* many parents who pick up their These things are shellfish dispute has reminded us of a poker game, a very mis- children from school, I'm sure you every day, and it's not c matched poker game at that, for the past 10 years. It is as if the tribes hold four aces and a king, the state has a 2, a 5, a 6, a 9 and a jack, both sides can see the other's hand, they just came from another game at Boldt's Card Room where they were dealt the same hands, practically the whole crowd standing around is supporting the state, and most of the spectators are complaining that the cards are marked. The state, bankrolled by the crowd, has piles and piles of chips - practically every chip in the game, in fact - but it wants to take the tribes' last three chips. When the rules for the game were set up, the state took almost everything the tribes had in exchange for the five cards they now hold, the tribes figuring the cards would ensure they would always have enough to eat. The cards were of little consequence to the state then, because there weren't enough in the crowd to care how they were dealt. We remember well a story we wrote in 1988 after in- terviewing then-Washington State Fisheries Director Joe Blum about shellfish negotiations. It's what brought to mind the poker mismatch. The state and treaty tribes were in the midst of lengthy talks that had developed a major sticking point; the tribes were insisting that their treaty rights to gather shellfish "in usual and accus- tomed places" gave them the authority to harvest on pri- vate lands, and the state was firmly disagreeing. In fact, Blum made a point of saying that contrary to what some people were thinking, the state had no intention of giv- ing away the resource or the public's rights. The key point of the interview, in retrospect, was when Blum said his agency was trying to negotiate with the tribes in lieu of going to court, because the Boldt decision in the previous dec- ade had determined that Indians had shellfish rights, and the state didn't want to get into a position where the court quanti- fied those rights. He wasn't trying to kid anyone as he tipped the state's hand. Too bad he wasn't playing lowball. The tribes, which took the stance that negotiation was better than legal confrontation, that cooperation should be sought first and litigation used as a last resort, talked with the state for a couple of years until they were blue in the face. They thought they were entitled to half of the shellfish, they had Boldt as a precedent, but they were asking for less than half because they didn't want to go to court any more than the state did. So what did they do when negotiations were fruitless, even though the state knew they held four aces? They didn't ignite a truck bomb next to a federal building. They didn't ambush a tourist bus in the tulip fields. They didn't blow up a jetliner in flight. They didn't hack people to death with machetes. They didn't pound spikes into trees headed for mills. • No, their sin was much worse than any of those tacks, They had the audacity to file suit to determine peaceful- ly and legally what was theirs. And shellfishing rights are theirs. They have been theirs since before white men showed up here. The treaties signed in the mid-1850s didn't give them special rights. The Indians nev- er gave up those rights. They reserved those rights in exchange for giving the U.S. government their land. The recent court de- cisions, such as the 1994 federal ruling about shellfish, only af- firmed those rights. At Medicine Creek in 1854, when the Puyallup, Nis- qually and Squaxin tribes met with Territorial Governor Isaac Stevens, they ceded 2.5 million acres of land to the government in exchange for reservation lands and the assurance they could hunt and fish in the usual places. In doing so they retained the things they needed to sur- vive, their means of trade and important parts of their culture. This is not a "that was then, this is now with dif- ferent rules" situation. This was a contract. Settlers can't claim adverse possession as if these resources are theirs because they've overrun the place. Anyone who has ever benefited from a will, farmed his grandfather's land or enjoyed a family heirloom can grasp the concept of providing for your descendants. But instead, a lot of people are calling Judge Rafeedie a nut to go with the Boldt. The two judges simply honored treaties. Honoring those treaties should be the starting point for the solutions to tough problems that have developed because thousands of people bought tidelands without tribal treaty rights in mind. For decades, those treaty rights have been out of sight, out of mind because of the way our society settled and developed Washington and the fact the rights were not fully exercised by the tribes. Perhaps courts can place the blame for the mess that sounds like a title insurer's nightmare, and perhaps they won't. We're more interested in playing the hand U.S. citizens willingly dealt themselves and their descendants in the 1850s and find- ing reasonable solutions that don't crush people who depend on shellfish harvesting for a living. The tribes are still exhibiting their trademark pa- tience. They could have started harvesting half of the naturally occurring shellfish in 1994 when their treaty rights were affirmed, but they haven't. There have been only a handful of harvests from private tidelands, and a Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission spokesman says few private tidelands owners will be affected by the rulings anyway because few have commercial quantities of shellfish that make it worth harvesting. The Indians are still listening. Commercial growers say de- termining the amount of naturally occurring shellfish on a given beach would be a quagmire because beaches are seeded artificially, but the tribes say surveys of adjoining beaches could determine the amount. At any rate, it doesn't sound like it's out of the question that the state could buy beaches exclu- sively for the use of the tribes in a settlement that would keep tribal harvesters off commercial tidelands. How nice it would have been if the state had looked at the four aces and done that 10 years ago, at a savings of hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. All the bluffing did was buy 10 more years of the status quo before everyone had to face the water music. Let's not see another chapter of contentiousness as the state tries to use the 3 it has stashed up its sleeve. -CG 4ason Journal Th] April 15, 1999 Exploring how guys think By DAVE BARRY Today we're going to explore the mysterious topic of How Guys Think, which has baffled women in general, and the editors of Cos- mopolitan magazine in particular, for thousands of years. The big question, of course, is: How come guys never call? After successful dates, I mean. You sin- gle women out there know what I'm talking about. You go out with a guy, and you have a great time, and he seems to have a great time, and at the end of the evening he says, quote, "Can I call you?" And you, interpreting this to mean, "Can I call you?" an- swer: "Sure!" The instant you say this, the guy's body starts to dematerial- ize. Within a few seconds you can stick a tire iron right through him and wave it around; in a few more seconds he has vanished entirely, gone into the mysterious Guy Bermuda Triangle, where whole squadrons of your dates have dis- appeared over the years, never to be heard from again. Eventually you start to wonder if there's something wrong with you, some kind of emotional hang-up or personality defect that your dates are detecting• Or pos- sibly foot odor. You start having long, searching discussions with your women friends in which you say things like: "He really seemed to like me" and "I didn't feel as though I was putting pressure on him" and "Would you mind, strict- ly as a friend, smelling my feet?" This is silly. There's nothing wrong with you. In fact, you should interpret the behavior of your dates as a kind of guy com- pliment to you. Because when the guy asks you if he can call you, what he's really asking you, in Guy Code, is will you marry him. Yes. See, your basic guy is into a straight-ahead, bottom-line kind of thought process that does not work nearly as well with the infi- nitely subtle complexities of hu- man relationships as it does with calculating how much gravel is needed to cover a given driveway. So here's what the guy is think- ing: If he calls you, you'll go out again, and you'll probably have another great time, so you'll prob- ably go out again and have anoth- er great time, and so on until the only possible option will be to get married. This is Classic Guy Log- ic. So when you say "Sure!" in a bright and cheery voice, you may think you're simply indicating a willingness to go out again, but as far as he's concerned you're en- dorsing a lifetime commitment that he is quite frankly not ready to make after only one date, so he naturally decides he can never see you again. From that day for- ward, if he spots you on the street, he'll sprint in the opposite direction to avoid the grave risk that the two of you might meet, which would mean he'd have to ask you if you wanted to get a cup of coffee, and you might say yes, and pretty soon you'd be enjoying each other's company again, and suddenly a clergyman would ap- pear at your table and, YOU'D HAVE TO GET MARRIED AIEEEEEEE.. (You women think this is cra- zy, right? Whereas you guys out there are nodding your heads.) So my advice for single women is that if you're on a date with a guy you like, and he asks whether he can call you, you should give him a nonthreatening answer, such as: "No." Or: "I guess so, but bear in mind that I'm a nun." This will make him comfort- able about seeing you again, each time gaining the courage to ap- proach you more closely, in the manner of a timid, easily startled, woodland creature such as a chip- munk. In a few years, if the two of you really do have common in- terests and compatible personali- ties, you may reach the point where he'll be willing to take the Big Step, namely, eating granola directly from your hand. No matter how close you be- come, however, remember this rule: Do not pressure the guy to share his most sensitive inner- most thoughts and feelings with you. Guys hate this, and I'll tell you why: If you were to probe in- side the guy psyche, beneath that macho exterior and the endless droning about things like the 1978 World Series, yQ_U would find, deep down inside, a passion- ate, heartfelt interest in: the 1978 World Series. Yes. The truth is, guys don't have any sensitive in- nermost thoughts and feelings. It's time you women knew! All these years you've been agonizing about how to make the relation- ship work, wondering how come he never talks to you, worrying about all the anguished emotion he must have bottled up inside, and meanwhile he's fretting about how maybe he needs longer golf spikes. I'm sorry to have to tell you this. Maybe you should become a nun. Stevens Treaty destroyed Editor, The Journal: From an anthropological point of view, in Washington Territory in the early 1800s, an agrarian society met a hunter-gatherer so- ciety. These two groups have dif- ferent land-use patterns: An agrarian society uses land inten- sively and continuously. Its land- use patterns support a large pop- ulation, and eventually lead to a cash, as opposed to barter, econo- my. A hunter-gatherer society uses land non-intensively and sporadically. Its land-use pat- terns support only a small popu- lation, generally self-sufficient or with limited bartering. These different types of socie- ties have different and largely in- compatible legal approaches to ownership of land: Hunter- gatherers do not need to own title to individual tracts of land. The group needs to control "rights" to a wide area. Individuals sometimes control "rights" to a specific spot, for a specific use, such as spearing salmon. To maintain productivity, agrarian societies need to vest title to spe- cific tracts in individuals on a permanent basis. This title is meaningless unless it includes most "rights" to the land and its products. The Stevens Treaties were in- tended by the U.S. to resolve these differences in types of land ownership. Article 1 obviously means to resolve them in favor of the needs of agrarian land owner- ship. Because the Boldt decision dealt with salmon fishing, in which an agrarian society acts largely as hunter-gatherers, the pernicious effect of not interpret- ing "in common with" in Article 4 to mean "subject to the same laws as" was not immediately appar- ent. In the Rafeedie shellfish deci- sion, keeping the Boldt interpre- tation of this key phrase as "deserving equal harvest" creates a conflict with agrarian landhold- ing practices by not protecting ti- tle to the land and its products. This interpretation in effect de- stroys the treaty by creating an internal conflict between Article 1, which clears the way for agrar- ian land ownership, and Article 4, which when interpreted thus pre- serves hunter-gatherer rights to land use. Agrarian law allows for hunt- ing through its laws of trespass, and if "in common with" is inter- preted to mean "under the same laws," the Indian's ability to hunt is preserved, though limited to the same extent as any citizen's, while the intent of the treaty is not destroyed. By refusing to hear the shell- fishing case, the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed a deeply divi- sive situation to persist. Oyster growers OWN their oysters and clams, under American law. Al- lowing people onto the tidefiats to pick at will according to a com- plex and unworkable formula of division is deeply offensive to our laws of land ownership, and it rightly should be. The tribes are already pursuing their "right" to access to all uplands for hunting purposes, or for the gathering of roots and berries - which accord- ing to Rafeedie's logic, may very well include your potato crop. With the Stevens Treaty de- stroyed, what should our laws of land ownership be? Should we all become hunter-gatherers, subject to periodic famine when the herds/salmon/oysters fail? Helena James Lilliwaup Willingly taxed Editor, The Journal: The government wastes a lot of my hard-earned tax dollars. They hire expensive consultants to tell them how much to pay other ex- pensive consultants. They never ask me how to spend tax dollars. Unfortunately, the only taxes on which I have a direct say are the local school bonds and levies. I can understand wanting to say "no" to taxes, but this is the place I actually want my tax money to go. Pioneer School District is defi- nitely a no-frills district, with a very frugal school board and a dedicated staff. Pioneer kids need a high school that's closer than an hour and a half bus ride each way. With a lo- cal high school, we will have a say on our school curriculum. The time is right, since the current bond market allows us to get more school for our money right now. Please join me in supporting our great Pioneer kids. Vote "yes" to build them a school. Colleen Gallagher Shelton realize there are some major parking problems. I have picked up children from Mountain View, Evergreen and Shelton Middle School. Some of the things I have seen people do on a daily basis to get a parking spot closest to the front doors of the school are in some cases inconsiderate, rude, il- legal and unsafe. I have seen people parking on the wrong side of the street, dou- ble-parking, which once left me trapped, unable to leave the school until the person came back to their vehicle! I have even wit- nessed parents stop their cars in the middle of the street, due to there being no place close to the school's front doors to park, and get out to go retrieve their chil- dren, leaving their vehicle run- ning with nobody in it, and be gone for over five minutes! To top it off people are ignoring the rule three vehicles doing once, it's more like While all this is dren are leaving to cross the st that are double- wrong side of the with people who fast in a school zone to get through the I know Evergreen sent letters home to ing them to park they have even police there after or two to get th straightened out. So has seemed to help. Does a child have to before people realize happen, and small chaotic parking lot mixture? School guards Editor, The Journak I'm pretty skeptical about the value of police, and they don't have much to do with my idea of education. But it might be just common sense to have one on campus at a large high school. A high school in session is a fair number of people drawn from different backgrounds, with one major difference from the average crowd: most of the people at a high school are not full-grown. A lot of the kids are bored, and probably most of them are fidg- ety. In short, this is a social prob- lem waiting to happen. Most pub- lic events have security guards, as do most public buildings. Why not the high school? A major advantage of an officer on the campus is that it lets the teachers get back to what they are trained and paid to do, which is teaching. separating the control from the tion. My best school were wimps, extremely aged, or above. Their ready for college, and they were suppos, teacher teaches law while a p you to obey it, and Mandela has shown, two very different things. So maybe putting campus is not a sign are getting worse, sign that we are and starting to value the education that we vide. It's Bizarre Editor, The Journak I remember when I was a kid and read comic books. There ex- isted a world called "Bizarre- Land" where the good guys were bad and vice-versa. It seems like we're living there now. In a normal world, "public" land consisted of parks and for- ests, "private" land was what was owned by individuals. In today's world, however, all land appears to be "public" and no land is "privately" owned. In fact, public land now charg- es admission. And "private" land is charged fees for using. Public is private, for those that can afford the fees, and private is public, with no rights given to an owner. All one has to do is to look at the recent rulings regarding shellfish, look at the constraints of meeting the requirements of the Growth and/or look at the sals for lem. Where are the vate property disappeared. Our versed itself. The salmon and powerfully than those that own We're living in sion of the world nothing cute about voices of Olive Tree, or Sammy it's a dream, and we volce that says, Scotty. There's no here." Because, th the case here with politicians and are leading the Power stayed Editor, The Journal: This winter with all the winds, the power stayed on. As a resi- dent of the Phillips Lake area for a number of years, we have al- ways managed to lose power Obviously, the taken throughout and fall months sucl back trees, etc., paic NOT lose power at That's a j every winter, be it for a few hours or a number of days. . iiiiiiii II iv uuu " '" USPS 492-800 POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Shelton-Mason County Journal, P.O. Box 430, Shelton, WA 98584. Published weekly by Shelton Publishing Inc. at 227 West Cota Street, shelton, Malllng address: P.O. Box 430, Shelton, WA 98584 Telephone (360) 426-4412 Second-class postage paid at Shelton, Washington Member of Washington Newspaper Publishers' ASsociation SUBSCRIPTION RATES: $25.00 per year in-county addreSS, $35.00 per year in state of Washington $45.00 per Charles Gay, editor and publisher. Newsroom: Carolyn Maddux, Patch, sports editor; Jeff Green, general assignment, city society editor, county government; Sean Hanlon, police, courts, Port of She Stephen Gay, advertising manager; Dave Pierik, ad sales. Front office; Jul manager; Vicki Kamin, circulation; Donna Dooms, bookkeeper; rant. Compoaing room: Diane Riordan, supervisor; Margot Brand and Jan up; Koleen Wood, typesetter and computer system manager; Karl and computer system manager; Cynthia Meyer, proofreader. Pressroom: production foreman; Roger Lawson, darkroom; Kelly Riordan, pressman. uuuuuuu