No.

Treaty tribes hold fishing rights independent of non-treaty fishing. They'd still harvest their half, and there may be some issues of foregone opportunity with some salmon runs, Not really an issue with steelhead runs.

I think they didn't support I-696 because they were afraid that hatchery production, habitat protection, etc., would go down because the state wouldn't have non-treaty commercial fishermen to subsidize and hand-hold anymore.

The treaty fishers may have actually ended up with less fish in the long run. In these situations, what's good for the tribes is good for the non-treaty commercial fishers.

We pretty much get screwed either way.

Fish on...

Todd.