salmo,
first of all the government did not sign the treaties to recognise that the tribes were the "real" owners of the land and resources. the indians barely understood the language and they were forced on them to make them feel like they had a say and to ease the guilty conscience of the government. on the subject of court challenges. the court said that non treaty persons get 51% of the harvestable fish and thetreaty persons get 49% of the harvestable fish. the court also stated that the tribes do not have the right to harvest the last fish in the river. the court also said that the state can prevent off reservation tribal fisheries in the name of conservation as long as the closure is equally applied to tribal and non tribal persons/fisheries. thus the rub my friend. example 1: winter of 1998 wdfw closes peninsula rivers to the non tribal harvest of wild steelhead due to extremely low returns but yet the tribes continue to net! example 2: early fall 1999 non tribal sports do not get to fish elliot bay for surplus green river wild/hatchery chinook due to not enough fish for escapement/spawner requirements but yet the tribe continues to net. total unequivocal B.S. on the states part bust most definately FACT! the treaties use the verbage "in commom with all citizens". again B.S.. thats what drives me nuts. in the interest of fairness if we can't fish because there are not enough fish then nobody should fish. the rules should apply to everyone-equally! you are correct that we can't do anything on the state level and i696 stated that. you are also correct that the tribes are not the biggest problem but some are part of the problem. the same applies to sport and commercials.