Hi Salmo G,

Thanks for the Reality Check!

Your arguments hold legal merit and I agree in part. But I think that, while legally treaties are not subject to “amendments”, there is a need to reevaluate agreements struck in a time (and ecological climate) far different than now exists.

It’s not just treaties – I believe that many aspects of the legal/political/Constitutional system need examination in an era where so much of our natural environment is threatened.

Each side has a lot of grudges against the others and use whatever tactics they have at their disposal to exact their revenge. Many of the native tribes are still angry at what the white man has done to their land, rivers, and lakes. And they’ve used whatever means were at their disposal to make their displeasure felt.

Are Washington’s commercial and sports fishermen much different? We’ve blamed the tribes for the same things they blame us for – rape and destruction of the resources. We (sports fishermen) can each say to ourselves, “Oh, but that’s in the past . . . I’m talking about preserving the dwindling salmon runs NOW!”. Unfortunately, the native americans look around us and laugh ‘cause they see plenty of evidence of how we continue to justify our abuse of the environment. If I were native american (I’m not), I can easily see why they say, “Why should we limit ourselves – these Washington State commercial and sport fishermen only want more for themselves. “

I’m saddened that it will probably take the extinction of some of our native salmon/steelhead runs before we’re (tribes, state/federal government agencies, and user groups) willing to let go of our righteous posturing and work with each other instead of fighting and bickering.