I think it's a great idea, but my experience on this topic points to the probability that even if the program was set up and funded, either by license increases or otherwise, the tribes wouldn't go for it.

Grandpa2, PSA has a great conversational relationship with Billy Frank, and I'm sure you've heard his opinions on such an idea;

1. Treaty rights are not for sale, or lease;

2. Even if they were, it couldn't be done because while the tribe holds the treaty right, it is exercised by individual fishermen who make a certain amount of money based on how well they fish and what price they can get for their fish. It would be impossible to apportion the $$ to the proper tribal fishermen.

3. In the fuzzy areas of the Boldt decision, management is done by agreement, pretty much each and every year. That being said, agreements that happen over and over again start to carry the weight of law, and changing any agreements to lease/sell rights would be more difficult as time goes on.

Without agreement from all individual fishermen, it wouldn't happen. While some of the fishers do it just for the money, some of them do it because they like to exercise their treaty rights, and they like to fish. The former might not care if they are guaranteed the same money, while the former probably wouldn't care no matter how much money they were offered.

On another note, I'm pretty sure that subbing out netting duty would violate all kinds of federal laws, including the Boldt decision itself. As far as I know, the only non-tribal folks that can even be on the boat while treaty fishing takes place are spouses of the fishermen who are on the boat, too.

Fish on...

Todd.