Hmmm, wish I could dredge up my previous iteration of this concept. It could be workable. It is NOT a purchase of treaty fishing rights. It isn't even a lease of treaty fishing rights. What makes the concept fairly workable is that it is simply a purchase of fish. That is, via whatever funding mechanism selected and whatever agent, i.e. WDFW, a fish purchase contract can be made with a treaty Indian tribe for X number of salmon or steelhead from the treaty harvest allocation.

For example, say a tribe's steelhead allocation this winter is 4,000. The tribe determines that they want to harvest 1,000 of its allocation for ceremonial, subsistence, and perhaps some commercial sales. The remaining 3,000 are sold by contract to our agent (WDFW) at the prevailing ex-vessel price of $0.65 and say 8 pound average for a value of $15,600. However, these fish are sold as is, that is, live and well in the river.

The second biggest hitch in this concept (the major hitch is for treaty tribes to do business with WDFW and recreational anglers on this scale) is that the treaty fishing right is the property of the treaty tribe, not individual Indians. However, tribes franchise individual fishermen, through tribal licenses, to exercise the treaty right and harvest fish. And the individual tribal fisherman earns the money from the sale of fish.

This concept will work for tribes that can devise a way that keeps both the tribe and individual fishermen happy.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.