CFM,

Answers to your questions:

No, Indians do not have special rights under Washington State or federal law as fishing guides.

Washington State law does not apply to fishing on Indian reservations, except under the most extreme conservation situation; i.e. treaty Indians may not harvest the last spawning salmon or steelhead.

Indians may act as fishing guides on a reservation with a permit or license from the Tribe that governs that reservation. Indians may act as fishing guides on off-reservation waters with a license from the state. The catch by a non-Indian angler is allocated to the non-treaty share if it is recorded on a punch card issued by the state. The catch is allocated to the treaty share if it is recorded by the guide or tribe as such.

Yes, Indian guides may take non-Indians fishing on reservation waters to harvest part of the treaty Indian share. They cannot do the same on off-reservation waters.

You cite several RCWs. I think your confusion can be attributed to thinking that state fishing laws might apply on Indian reservations. They don't.

It appears Washington State made an exceptional law in favor of the Wanapum Indians. Please note that it is limited to ceremonial and subsistance fishing, which is what the Tribe requested. At first glance, you might think the state was disregarding the interests of state citizens overall, in favor of one tribe. But there is more to the story. Washington State did not have to grant the tribal request for this special fishery. But it was probably wise to do so. The reason is that there is a track record of federal case law going back to 1895 regarding treaty Indian fishing. The tribes have won overwhelmingly. If the state hadn't granted the Wanapum fishery, the tribe could likely have adjudicated their right to such a fishery in federal court. They most likely would have won. And the fishing right would be unrestricted. That is, it could have included ceremonial, subsistence, and commercial fishing, which in this case, happened to be more than the tribe actually was after.

Several of the state laws you cite were written with commercial fishing in mind, and they only apply on off-reservation waters. So I'm not so sure that they include unintended conflicts. If they do, the legislature would likely be amenable to revising them, assuming WDFW supported the revisions.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.