Todd, Many thanks for the article. I believe we all need to be as well informed as possible and your info helps a lot.

Im not a lawyer either so hope this question isnt too dumb.

When does a law outlive its usefulness or original purpose? The law on salmon/steelhead has its roots from more than 100 years ago and times have changed.

In this case we seem to be willing to sacrifice both economic impact and actual species elimination for the sake of honoring laws that were applicable then but perhaps not now.

My intention is not to tribe-bash because goodness knows their history is filled with unfair treatment, but continuing to allow fish to be taken that are on the endangered species list seems wrong to me. In this case we have two sets of contradicting laws, ie tribal fishing rights and endangered species law.

Wouldnt it make more sense to change, ie pass new laws, that recognize the commercial and tribal impact/benefit from before and species survival but put it into today's terms? The obvious one would be to offer $$ in exchange for the terrmination of current fishing rights.