Empty Nets: Indians, Dams, and the Columbia River

by Roberta Ulrich

Empty Nets is a disturbing history of broken promises and justice delayed. It chronicles a native people's fight to maintain their livelihood and culture in the face of an indifferent federal... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0870714694
• ISBN13: 9780870714696
• Release Date: November 1999
• Publisher: Oregon State University Press
• Length: 248 Pages
• Weight: 0.80 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.6" x 6.0" x 9.0"

Customer Reviews

Valuable facts about an essential story but in a repetitive narrative

One of the more depressing features of American history is the remarkable diversity of ways in which Native American rights have been violated. This book tells the story of a sixty-year struggle to get in-lieu fishing sites on the Columbia River when the original fishing sites were flooded by dams. Everyone agreed that the Indians had a right to in-lieu sites, and eventually their allies included governors, senators and congressmen, and yet another twenty years passed before action resulted. Ulrich's story of how whites failed the river people provides an invaluable source for those interested in the topic. But it's a problematic read because 200 pages of bureaucratic stonewalling and procrastination don't make for a compelling narrative. All too often, the book becomes a litany of depressing facts more than a story. Ulrich's chronological organization, instead of building the history around themes, does not help her overcome this narrative weakness. The chronology just emphasizes the "more of the same" nature of the bureaucratic failings instead of strengthening either the drama or the analytics. The basic issues are straightforward enough. The Army Corps of Engineers built dams on the Columbia River. These dams these drowned traditional Indian fishing sites to which Indians had treaty rights. The US government agreed to provide alternative, "in lieu" sites. The Corps agreed in principle but didn't find it interesting in practice to build fishing sites. Politically, it was also more rewarding to build recreational sites for whites than in lieu sites for Indians. The Bureau of Indian Affairs was its usual incompetent self and did not move the in lieu sites forward. White fishermen had no interest in the rights of Indian fishers. There were conflicts with other users of the rivers, such as sailboarders, residential developers, and the railroads on each shore. So all the whites agreed that the Indians had a right to in lieu sites but nobody actually did anything to provide the sites. Meanwhile white overfishing and white dam building destroyed the salmon runs and reduced the number of fish on the river. So there you have it: a story that needs to be told, but I wish it had been told a little differently.