I think Thoreau would have disagreed with you. Civil disobedience is a fact and fabric of American society. And, I find it interesting that the treaties we are now talking about came about right after the time that Thoreau came into being. The American people began to demand a change in the way that we were dealing with the Native Americans (Indians), genocide. Signing of Treaties was a way of moving the Natives from their land without unpopular wars. The cost of which we now pay for by having the ethical responsibility to uphold the promises made by our supreme law making bodies even if it doesn't fit our cultural norms.

Aunty, I have a tremendous respect for many of the positions I have seen you take on this board. I understand and support the idea of the need for a law abiding society, the alternative is anarchy. However, my point here is that this is not cut and dry. The history of this country is such that one must understand the complexity of issues such as these. If Natives wouldn't have "broken the law" prior to Boldt, would they have reaffirmed their treaty guaranteed rights to fish??
Unfortunately, the history of this country leads me to believe otherwise; Most of the people that jump on this Native Bashing bandwagon don't understand history and don't realize the degree that White Privilege and Racism play in their opposition to the "special" rights supposedly given to Natives.

The Makah Nation has the right/responsibility to decide how to prosecute these law breakers not sportfishers, and their fear of the political repercussions will most likely lead to a significant response.