April 15, 1999 Shelton Mason County Journal | ![]() |
©
Shelton Mason County Journal. All rights reserved. Upgrade to access Premium Tools
PAGE 4 (4 of 36 available) PREVIOUS NEXT Jumbo Image Save To Scrapbook Set Notifiers PDF JPG
April 15, 1999 |
|
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