First, I want to make sure that everyone knows that neither I nor Washington Trout (where most of you know I work) are big supporters of current tribal fisheries management. But having said that, I think that most of you react too emotionally to this issue without thinking it through or getting the facts.

A "net" stretched all the way across a river is not in and of itself the crime many of you make it out to be. First of all, do you even know what it is you're looking at? The anchor rope you see tied at both banks is likely to have several different types af panels hanging from it of various depths and mesh size. It might even be missing panels, creating gaps that fish can safely swim through. In other words there might not be actual "net" stretched all the way across.

Secondly, even if it is all the way across, and it is removed when or before the legal quota is met, what's the diff? If the net was left all the way across 24-7 for the entire season, that would be one thing, but I don't beleive that is very often the case. You can argue about the quota, or the aims of the fishery (WT often does), but gear type is not usually the big problem (unless you're trying to implement a "selective" fishery).

Thirdly(?), in-river fisheries are often the most responsible way to manage a fishery because they are generally not mixed-stock. In terminal fisheries, you generally know exactly what you're fishing for and certainly where they came from, and can manage the fishery accordingly. For instance, maybe you do want the net stretched all the way across the river during some period because you want to meet your quota by catching every hatchery fish swimming by, which may have a different run-timing than the wild fish you're trying to avoid in the fishery. This is certainly what most PS tribes try to do in their steelhead fisheries. They don't always achieve perfect results, and there certainly can be problems with this approach, but it's not exactly rape and pillage either.

I don't know what you saw, and I certainly wouldn't try to call the Nisqually's paragons of fish-management virtue. But the scientific, political, and social issues surrounding treaty fishing-rights and tribal fisheries-management are difficult and often nearly intractable. It doesn't help when Native Americans percieve reactions to their harvest techniques as something like: "I saw some Indians fishing! This has to stop!" I have to say that I can see their point, and I don't support many of their practices any more than you do.