Hi, everyone. Long time, no post.

Anyone who knows me or has seen my posts over the last couple of years knows that I couldn't stay out of this one for too long.

My two cents will be short and sweet. Well, probably not, but I'll strive to keep it as short as I can.

As usual, read Salmo's posts. He's one of the more informed sportsmen I know when it comes to the law. His post above is right on the money.

Secondly, this is not about equal rights. As noted above, it's about a deal. White men take the land, and Indians move onto the reservation and retain the right to fish usual and accustomed places. That's it. Wherever they fished at treaty time, they can fish now, with absolutely no intervention on the part of the state, except for the equal sharing of the harvestable portion of the run.

Read the Boldt decision, and read all of the other cases that lead up to it. I'm sorry that I don't have all of the legal citations handy, but here are a few case names. I hope they're accurate, but I'm going on memory, memory that is somewhat distant.

Puyallup Tribe v. State of Washington
Passenger Fishing Vessel Owners v. Wash.
United States v. Washington.

All of these cases have several chapters, starting with arrests of Indian fishers and ending, after several trips there, at the Supreme Court. The Boldt decision was not the final chapter, but is the biggest, by far, of the rest. However, reading the rest is important to get the proper context of that decision.

Go to your local county law library and tell the librarian you would like to see those cases. Bring about a five gallon bucket of quarters to make copies of them all, and a wheel barrow to carry them all out, and then go home and read them all.

While I don't necessarily agree with the decision, it is amazingly well thought out and is a viable, if not acceptable, solution to what was becoming a problem of absolutely massive proportions. At the very least reading them will give you the historical and factual context to make an informed opinion about tribal fishing. I don't want to seen nets in rivers, or anywhere else for that matter, but I give about four seconds of my time to someone who sees a net, thinks it's bad, and then starts badmouthing the feds, states, and tribes all at once for letting it happen, unless they know the historical and factual history behind those nets being there. If you know that history and then don't like the netting, then you and I agree wholeheartedly. If you know the history, and like the nets, then I respectfully disagree with you. If you don't know anything, but spout off either way, then I don't really have time to care about your opinion.

I hope everyone had a nice V-day. Robbo, I hear you got a new ride. Any luck breaking it in up there? Maybe we can do a little fun fishing some time.

Talk to you all later.

Fish on.

Todd.