1) A little knowledge is dangerous. An informed opinion includes more than just U.S. v. Washington, etc. Key rulings on treatys and treaty fishing date to U.S. v. Wynans, 1905, and possibly earlier. Taking a treaty, or a small piece of one, out of context, and ignoring the century of case law that informed and influenced it, and you get the umpteenth uninformed PP BB debate of opinions on treaty fishing that collectively are worth, well, about what is paid for them.

2) Am I as smart as CFM thinks I am or not? Not sure I followed that. I didn't jump in right away, emotionally or rationally, because I was out of town, away from email and the internet. Am I biased? Hell yes. It should be impossible to be informed and not be biased by that information. What cracks me up are biases that are uninformed and based upon the value of visceral knowledge - "well, I just know it's BS, therefore, it just is!" But I love it for its entertainment value. Eddie is correct; Judge George Boldt was no bleeding heart liberal. It's highly unlikely that Alzheimer's influenced his decision; the ninth Circuit and then the Reagan Supreme Court upheld it.

3) No offense taken at all, Aunty M.

4) Todd and I have answered all these questions previously in other threads, I believe. A search over the last 5 years should turn them all up. Plunker provided a couple key relevant pieces of the decision in this thread.

5) CFM, sorry, guess I didn't see the Aug. 4 Lewis R. thread. You could email me if you think I'm missing or ignoring something significant here. Or, you could call me when the fishing is hot!

Sincerely,

Salmo g.