Mastercaster,

As one who has also "seen it from the other side," I agree that it wouldn't work with some tribes, perhaps, but I disagree in that I'm fairly certain that it could work with other tribes.

Treaty fisheries are feeling the economic pinch of declining ex-vessel prices. In the case of one tribe I'm well acquainted with, the tribe has paid fishermen to go out and exercise the treaty fishing right the past two years because the price received for fish was too low to cover the costs of fishing, that is, boat amortization, fuel, and nets, not to mention the fisherman's time value. This is a case that is ripe for a revolutionary change in marketing treaty fish. The tribe does want, as usual, enough to cover normal ceremonial and subsistence needs, but they're not making any money commercially in most cases. This is also a tribe where the preponderance of the harvest is recorded. They do permit "over-the-bank" sales, but the fishermen are required to either report those sales, or the fisheries office estimates the harvest based on past records. Accountability isn't 100%, just as it isn't in the non-treaty commercial and recreational fisheries. So I don't think you have much of a point in that regard.

There is an evolving opportunity for some tribes to improve the economic return for part of their treaty fishing allocation. It isn't a buyout of treaty rights by any stretch. It's simply a higher value marketing technique that could yield benefits to treaty and non-treaty fisheries.

Finally, progress is made by those with a "can-do" attitude, not by those who can only think of reasons why it will fail.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.