Hi Ed,

Me again. I'm here to say maybe you've got a point. Then again . . . Well let's just see. OK, you say, let's unite. Sounds like a fine idea to me. Now what? We favor steelhead conservation? Sounds good to me. What next? We favor getting the damn Indian nets out of "our" rivers (cuz they certainly couldn't belong to the Indians too, could they? I mean, we must have stole them fair and square, and just cuz we haven't a single legal document anywhere supporting our claim to the rivers doesn't mean, well damn, thread drift here) so you and I can bag more steelhead.

Well, for arguement's sake, I'll go along with you on this. So how shall we go about making this happen? We could get this in federal court. Oh, except it's been in federal court. Numerous times, beginning in 1905, and the Indians have won every damn time. Know why? Because of the law. I said in another thread that we are a nation of laws.

The law says the treaties are the supreme law of the land. The treaties say the Indians can fish. The treaties do not impose the various restrictions that the many rants on the BB would have imposed. Oh, and by the way, the treaties don't say you and I have to fish the way we would have in 1855 either. So neoprene waders and graphite rods are legit. Whew! Good thing too. I'm not as tough as my Viking forefathers.

So treaty Indian fishing rights have been before the U.S. Supreme Court numerous times over the last 100 years. And the Indians win every time (even in conservative and Republican appointed courts). Ed, do you notice a pattern here? It seems to me that taking this back to court is about as useful as spitting into a strong headwind.

OK, what else? If we are a nation of laws, how about changing the damn law and getting the nets out of our rivers? Former Senator Slade Gorton had just that idea when he was first elected state senator in 1980. (Gorton was the state Attorney General who argued the state's case in U.S. v Washington before the Supreme Court - the Boldt Decision - and lost) Guess what? The rest of the Congress thought Slade was a modern version of General Custer, and they would have none of it. Slade's anti-Indian bill couldn't even make it to the floor of Congress. That attitude is apparently very out of touch with where the majority of Americans are with respect to the U.S. government living up to the treaties made with Indian tribes.

OK, so changing the law has been tried, and it failed. Any more ideas? The only ones I can think of are not legal, so I won't go into it here.

Ed, I just want you to know that I'm not against you. My opinions about treaty Indian fishing are based on a pretty thorough reading of the facts and history about this subject. I am not an expert, but I'm pretty well informed about how things got to be the way they are. And, in trying to live my life to the fullest, as advised by CnF in another thread, I won't waste my time on uninformed tirades against treaty fishing. But if you have a constructive idea, I'm all ears.

And if Dave at Rockport really thinks there was much direct correlation between the tribal netting last year and the Skagit steelhead run, then Dave still has a thing or two he could learn about arithmetic, and possibly other things. If you add last year's tribal steelhead catch to the sport steelhead catch to the spawning escapement it still didn't add up to jack s%&t. But then, it's probably a lot easier to be angry without having the facts in hand.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.