eddie

I think that the courts would accept such rule requirements if it could be shown that it was within the limits the Boldt Decisions. As just one example; (this came from the Boldt (Civ. No. 9213) on page 115;)

"16. The Stevens' treaties do not reserve to the Treaty Tribes any specific manner, method or purpose of taking fish; nor do the treaties prohibit any specific manner, method or purpose. Just as non-Indians may continue to take advantage of improvements in fishing techniques, the Treaty Tribes may, in exercising their rights to take anadromous fish, utilize improvements in traditional fishing methods, such for example as nylon nets and steel hooks."

I am pretty sure that "nylon nets" didn't mean "gill nets", so if the state would band the use of gill nets in our rivers for "conservative purposes", one would think that legally the tribes would also have to band the use of gill nets in the inland waters. The way I am reading Order 16, the tribes can fish in the same methods and manner that we can fish with. To the best of my understanding, the tribes did not use gill nets prior to signing the treaties of the 1850's.

So what do think? This is not a making any "new issues", it's only forcing both parties to abide by the rules that are set down in the decision to protect the fish. No new can of warms here, only a true count of how many worms are in the can!

I feel extremely confident that this issue would be winnable under the existing court orders that have already been set force in the Boldt Decision


Cowlitzfisherman