Originally Posted By: Carcassman
The first answer to Salmo's question is that if WDFW stopped producing hatchery salmon the Tribes would haul their *ss into court. Since Boldt II was about dead fish in the boat, the Tribes are gonna get them one way or the other. With no hatcheries the State would would to seriously protect habitat, clean up pollution, and restrict growth. NO chance of that. They would also have to deal with BC and AK interceptions. Canada "might" be induced to at least listen but since nobody takes AK fish but themselves there are no hammers.


Let the treaty tribes sue. The suit would be based on the U.S. federal treaty right to fish. WA state nor territory made any treaty with the tribes (states have no such right or ability.). If hatchery fish are essential to treaty fishing under the U.S. treaties, then let the federal government pay for and raise those hatchery fish. This would be a good test to see just how deep the federal treaty right reaches. It's pretty clear that the federal purpose for promulgating the treaties with Indian tribes was to facilitate the settlement of WA territory - that would become WA state - along with all the associated development that comes with settlement. There was already ample evidence that settlement and industrialization leads to dams on rivers and pollution and diminished fisheries. So the feds have that going for them should they wish to use it.