There is MUCH to consider when we look at the [now] depleted runs of fish in all of our rivers.

There are many more people fishing those rivers today; likely a logarithmic increase per decade.

Environmental factors - chemicals in use today that never existed in the 40's, 50's. Also, the loss of foilage along those rivers from the efforts of those loggers, not to mention the soil erosion and silting in of a number of rivers and at various times.

Judge Boldt made his decision, I would want to believe, on what he felt were the legal merits of the case...not how many fish were in the rivers. No matter...it too had a monumental effect on these populations of fish....likely the biggest factor, but not the only one.

I HATE GILLNETS....no matter Native or non-Native Commercial. We need to OUTLAW them completely. There are other ways to harvest commercial catches...much more selective. (And yes, I know they are no where near as effecient...and that is fine by me...but then...who am I?)

When I first came on this forum, I was pretty outspoken about the Native fisheries, and voiced some opinions that were unpopular. I have not mellowed in my zeal, but learned, studied, and used some common sense.

I don't think it's right for the punishments for the sins of our great grandfathers to be passed on to us...likewise, let us not blindly pass on to the Native peoples the punishments (or blame) for the non-Natives responsibilities in the decline of the fisheries.

Mike B