Quote:
Originally posted by boater:
well, rolleyes , lets say a member of one of the boldt case tribes that has the right to 50 percent of the fish decides that he wants to do some sport fishing before he nets, i guess that means that he can buy a license like the rest of us and do alittle sportfishing and when the time comes he can exercise his treaty right and net some fish, but if you went to court and said that the tribes already get half the fish and we feel that they shouldnt get any of our share they would say he or she had the same "rights ?, privilege? as the rest of the people of washington state.
I would say he is double dipping. Because he or she is a treaty Indian, he or she can par-take in the 50% harvest for treaty indians, and if they want to buy a license they can par-take in the sports fishermens 25% harvest. there is nothing wrong with that beside it being slightly discriminatory since non treaty people can never par-take in there 50%harvest. Thats a whole nother can o worms.