I've worked on many of these issues in years past, and perhaps I have some credibility with you now.

I agree with Preston that the only significant effect of a Samish Tribe ruling is that the Samish will be entitled to share in the existing 50% treaty harvest of salmon, steelhead, and shellfish. This is why existing treaty tribes oppose the designation. They may recite other reasons, but that is the primary one. It would dilute the value of the treaty fishing franchise held by existing treaty tribes. Consider, for example, the Chehalis Tribe is a non-treaty tribe (wouldn’t sign, although Governor Stevens tried very hard to persuade them to do so). The Chehalis Tribe can only fish on their reservation, and their catch is attributed to the non-treaty allocation after the insistence of the Quinault Tribe, which does have treaty rights. This action increased slightly the allocation to the Quinault Tribe in the Chehalis River fishery.

I disagree with some of the opinions of Flytier that Sparkey posted. Revisiting the Boldt case to hear the motion of the Samish Tribe or appeals of existing treaty tribes is highly unlikely to have any effect on reclassifying steelhead from or to the foodfish catagory, nor is it likely to change the 50-50 treaty - non-treaty harvest allocation. The 50% allocations to treaty and non-treaty fisheries was ruled on, and upheld, by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1985. Any present motion for a hearing in U.S. District Court will not overturn a Supreme Court decision, although there is a remote chance of it setting the stage for a Supreme Court re-visitation. U.S. v. Washington is the law of the land since the Supreme Court decision in 1985.

The classification of steelhead as gamefish, rather than a foodfish, in Washington State by the state government, is irrelevant to treaty fishing. Steelhead (rainbow trout) and cutthroat trout were reclassified from the genus Salmo to Oncorhyncus by the American Fisheries Society in 1989, 15 years after the 1974 Boldt decision. This classification has absolutely nothing to do with the inclusion of steelhead within the treaty fishing right. There may be a confusion that if steelhead were classified as a gamefish by Congress, as with the Black Bass Act, then commercial harvest of steelhead might be prohibited, but cannot be assumed.

Along with suggesting that re-opening the Boldt case might get steelhead removed from the treaty harvest allocation, Flytier’s narrative inaccurately indicates, “. . . steelhead get a very good price on the commercial market, musch better than pacific salmon.” I would have to ask, compared to which Pacific salmon, pinks and chums? In recent years, the ex-vessel price for steelhead has been around $0.65 per pound or so, sometimes less. Steelhead have lost their luster in the marketplace due to the increased availability of farmed Pacific and Atlantic salmon. When steelhead used to bring higher prices in the market, Pacific salmon were also proportionately higher. However, the salient point is that steelhead continue to have some commercial and cultural value to treaty tribes, and re-opening part of the Boldt case has somewhere between little and no chance of changing the treaty tribes right to harvest and sell steelhead.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.