Diego,

Here's the stuff I was referring to above...

...

LEGAL PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED IN PRIOR CASES

...

2. Size of Shares. As to those runs that are subject to allocation at all, the maximum share of the treaty Indians is 50% of the harvestable portion of the run which passes through its customary fishing grounds. The treaty Indians are entitled only to a smaller portion, if such a portion is sufficient to provide the treaty Indians a moderate living. Passenger Fishing Vessel, 443 U.S. at 686-687, 99 S. Ct. at 3074-3075. The burden is on the State to show that some share less than 50% would be sufficient to provide the Indians a moderate living. U.S. v. Washington (Phase II), 506 F. Supp. 187, 208 (W.D. Wash. 1980) (appeal denied).

U.S. v. Washington, 626 F.Supp. 1405, 1429 (W.D. Wash. 1985).

It hasn't been litigated as to the exact interpretation of the above statement, but it is generally accepted that "moderate living" includes all income, not just that from fishing.

The states have not tried to reduce tribal allocations through this holding yet, but tribal gaming seems like the best bet I've ever heard of for giving it a shot. I guess we'll have to just wait and see if it ever happens, or what will happen if the states try.

Fish on...

Todd.