Ed,

You're probably wishing I would go away by now. But Indian fishing is a subject I've put a lot of time and subsequent thought into, so I just can't seem to let it alone.

You allege that the Indians abuse the 50:50 catch sharing. I think they catch more than 50% of the harvest of some runs, particularly steelhead, but that doesn't necessarily constitute abuse. I think they do what the law allows them or what they have been able to derive from agreements with WDFW. How does fishing according to the law or and agreement with the state become abuse? Unfair or unjust it may seem, but I don't think it is abuse to do what an agreement allows. Maybe we need more factual information about the agreements.

As for nobody overseeing, I'm not sure what you mean. The treaty catch gets more overseeing by state and tribal fish samplers than does the sport catch. I've found it humorous that sport fishermen believe the Indians don't report all their catch, and the Indians believe that the sportfishermen report all their catch. Based on my personal observations, I think both are correct.

As for the allegation that our "dwindling runs of wild chromers being raped," I think I'm beginning to get it. If a wild steelhead is caught in a treaty gillnet, it is being raped. If a wild steelhead is caught on your hook, it is, let's see, it is being . . . seduced? Sorry. That's sarcastic, and I couldn't resist. I assume you mean that the gillnet caught fish results in mortality, and your hook and line caught wild steelhead would be carefully released to resume its spawning migration. If my assumption is correct, we agree on that much.

Actually, I have no problem with the treaty Indians taking some wild steelhead for their use (even if that means selling them) provided enough are allowed to spawn such that each river basin is achieving its potential steelhead productivity. That is a direct opposition to MSH as a fish management policy.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.