Steelheadude:
I've started to research the treaties and decisions for my own information, but it looks as though you're way ahead of me. The timeline and chron youve indicated looks real good, but there are a couple of items you may have overlooked. One item dated 1865 is a report from the superintendent of Indian affairs, which states in general that 10 years after the treaties were signed and ratified, the government had funded only about 15 percent of the improvements which were to have been provided in the treaties, and the tribal members were starving. They were encouraged by the (BIA) to fish for their own sustenance, and sell any surpluses commercially for cash.
This appears to be where it all began.
I havent received a copy of the Boldt decision yet to study in its entirity, but it's coming. from what I understand it only upholds the language and the intent of the original treaties. Subsequent decisions and liberal interpretations by later courts nave actually done more damage.
I'm still trying to get up to speed on all this, I'm glad someone is on a similar track, maybe if more people are better informed, we will be able to bring more effective pressure on the real culprit in the whole issue, that being the United States government.
From what I've discovered so far, at one time there was a treaty pact, with an international organization which loosely and voluntarily regulated the offshore high seas fishery. The Tribal Fishing Council attempted to insert themselves into that forum, which ultimately caused the dissolution of the organization. As I see it, that ultimately caused the degradation of the entire fishery.
Herein lies the crux of the whole deal.
The tribes can raise all the smoke they want by suing the State for culvert replacement, and insert themselves into the process if they wish. It appears they already have. All they will ultimately achieve is to raise the price of the culverts. The State's plan is already to replace / rebuild the culverts, all the tribes are pressing for is an escalated time table. By litigating, they will have stalled the process.
The culvert program is a 2-stage process. First you replace the culverts, then the fish must be restocked. The fisheries program is already underfunded, and I wonder if they have the resources to fulfil the program.
The cost is an issue. As a construction guy, I've already replaced some culverts. The price per culvert ranges from $250,000 for a small one, th $800,000 and up for a big'un. Some can go more, depending on where they are. With over 400 to go, at an average $1/2 million each, it looks like $200 million or more for just the construction budget. and so far the federal govt hasnt ponied up a dime.
With an anticipated return of 200,000 additional fish, that's a cost of $1,000 per fish in the first succesful run.
Well, thats about what I've spent so far, so I'm keeping up with the State.
I havent heard the WDFW 's spin on all of this yet, but their rhetorical response is "offshore mortality".
The truth or the matter "according to me" is the offshore fishery. Until an international treaty is ratified which restricts the harvests and methods, all we will achieve is to ranch more fish for the high seas nets. That will require Federal Government action, and frankly I dont believe they have the balls for it. First they would have to send a tough delegation to the bargaining table, then spend hard $$$ for enforcement. The US doesnt have the spine for either action.
All we're doing with habitat improvement is feelgood stuff to keep the lay public happy when they take their Sunday drive out of the city.
Get used to it, folks.
Sorry, that's only 2 cups of coffee worth. Wait till later in the day.