SSF,

I think that Aunty M and I both answered that question above, albeit not very clearly. Here's the scoop, though I'd be very surprised if you already didn't know this...

"The tribes...reserved the right to off reservation fishing 'at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations' and agreed that 'all citizens of the territory' might fish at the same places 'in common with' tribal members. ... However, off reservation fishing by other citizens and residents of the state is not a right but merely a privilege which may be granted, limited, or withdrawn by the state as the interests of the state or the exercise of treaty rights may require."

United States v. Washington, 384 F.Supp. 312, 332 (1974), (emphasis in original).

"The right to fish 'at all usual and accustomed' places, may, of course, not be qualified by the State, even though all Indians born in the United States are now citizens of the United Sates."

Id. at 337, citing Puyallup-I, 391 U.S. 398 (emphasis in original).

In short, the answer to your question is that they are not treated the same because legally they are not the same.

Treaty fishers have a federally guaranteed right to fish, while the rest of us have a privilege that can be restricted all the way to the point of having no fishing whatsoever, if the interests of the state or of treaty obligations require it.

The state cannot require anything of the tribes, short of stopping them from doing something that will immediately cause the extinction or extirpation of a run of fish.

It would literally take an act of Congress to change that...and good luck on that. Even with a republican administration there would be way too much public outcry for the "poor Indians", especially when we "greedy rednecks" just want to take all their fish (a la Boldt Decision).

You're argument is the same as saying "since we can't remove the dams from the Snake and Columbia Rivers, we shouldn't regulate water withdrawals by the farmers, either".

Now the "right vs. privilege" subject comes up here and elsewhere about once a year, and legally it doesn't really matter what anyone's opinion about it is. The Supreme Court of the United States has said that's the way it is...and if they say that the sun is purple, legally it is until either they change their mind or Congress overrides them with a new law.

I think that answers your above questions...if not, let me know and I'll see if I can try again.

Fish on...

Todd