Sorry, guys, but I only have about two minutes...so I'll have to make it extra brief.

Rich, Oregon is bound by the U.S. v. Oregon case, which is a sister case to U.S. v. Washington (the Boldt decision). Alaska, and B.C., too, for that matter, are not at all.

Grandpa, I generally agree with 90% of what you say regarding the politics of fisheries. Whether you think it won't wash or not, we don't have any legal way to stop the tribes from harvesting their half of the harvestable fish however they want, with a few restrictions that I'll have to save for later.

We do, however, have a political way to change their fisheries. You mentioned the pics of the OP rivers being closed for sporties, while tribal guys were still fishing. If you remember, those pics came from a protest, a protest where the tribes eventually voluntarily stopped fishing. If we were still fishing, too, there would have been no political protest to make.

If we get our own house in order, first, then we can talk smack about somebody else's. As long as we're directly harvesting steelhead, we can't realistically ask another group to stop directly harvesting them.

Believe it or not, outside the angling world steelhead fishermen are viewed exactly the same as Indians...whach 'em and stack 'em. There's only one way to change that perception and get public sentiment on our side, and that's for us to stop whackin' 'em.

More later...

Todd.