There's not really any state issue involved...being a federal law, the only way that the treaty can be abrogated is by an act of Congress. You'd have to lobby a senator or representative to write and intorduce a bill taking away or changing the fishing rights.

Frankly, I think the chances are about 1 in 1,000,000, maybe worse. The rest of the country would just see it as a bunch of rednecks going after the Indians again. Right or not, the rest of the world could probably care less about the issues involving steelhead and salmon that you and I care very much about. I doubt your average citizen would mind

This would apply to both the Boldt decision and to the treaty itself...neither can be "overturned"...they are the law. The law would have to be changed by Congress.

Negotiating with the tribes is the only way to get much done...and they have to get something out of it, too, or they have no reason to come to the table. It doesn't have to be money, or fish, though, it could be good press, or getting rid of bad press.

Maybe rather than going after them, you could go after their market for wild steelhead, i.e., the protest thread at the top of the page. I don't know how much good it would do or not. I doubt that the majority of people in the state care any more about steelhead and salmon than people in Kentucky do.

Even if a protest did work, I don't know how much of the sales are local...some are, that's for sure, but if their making sales around the country or around the world, it might not matter at all.

Worse case scenario is that the protest does no good, and then further strains tirbal non-tribal relations...putting us all farther from the negotiating table than we were before...and business as usual ensues.

Fish on...

Todd