Friends (if I’m not being presumptuous),

and I’m proud to call you that, altho I’ve never met you, because these responses were much more thought out than the usual venting that’s been going on here. I decided to risk offending you at the prospect of making some of you better informed. Few things are so discouraging to me as hearing a sportsman’s argument that won’t hold water, let alone legal or biological substance. So I thought I’d share some of what I’ve learned from bird-dogging fishing and treaty issues over the last 30 years.

Backlash2, I apologize if my rant seemed aimed at you. I intended no personal attacks; rather I attempted to aim at specific issues. If it appeared personal, I need to edit my stream of consciousness writing style more carefully. Some points to consider: unregulated hunting and clear cutting are not protecting by any laws. Treaty fishing is, and the court has held that the passage of time does not undermine the validity of the agreement. You want to change the treaty, you must negotiate with the Indians. Be reminded, however, that the tribes are much better informed today and in a much better bargaining position; i.e. will you give Seattle back to the tribes if they forego netting the Green/Duwamish? Imagine what they could do with the rental income! Automatic weapons and the constitution is an excellent example you mention. But for the 2nd amendment, the U.S. would probably have some of the world’s most restrictive gun laws, but congress and the courts haven’t been able to crack the 2nd amendment. Refer to that Seattle Times article about the U.S. being a nation of laws. I agree with you completely about accountability through enforcement. Yet the courts have indicated that lack of enforcement or enforcability doesn’t justify infringing on treaty rights. And . . . about your handle, are you still spinning an old knuckle buster Pfluger Supreme?

Corky, please re-read. I hope I didn’t make a pitch for over-fishing. If fish counts are dwindling (and I’m aware that they are) then it is appropriate to reduce human induced mortality by all causes. And case law has already spelled out how that’s done. Fish in excess of the escapement goal are deemed harvestable, with the harvest being split between treaty and non-treaty. In the extreme end, non-treaty fishing ends before treaty fishing because the courts have held that treaty fishing is a right which supercedes non-treaty fishing, which is a privilege. Ouch! That hurts, doesn’t it?

Thickline, it may seem hard to believe, but according to harvest data (which may not be completely accurate) non-treaty commercial fishing has been so reduced in Washington that it is no longer the major adverse impact to “most” Washington salmon populations. And those who think high seas netting is the big threat really have their heads in the ozone. Federal law and Coast Guard enforcement have reduced that to a few pirates, which are a tiny fraction of the fishing that was going on 10 years ago.

Backbouncer1, good eye. The 80/20% is indeed my cynical visceral opinion, totally unsubstantiated by any facts. But since it’s a visceral opinion, it’s not subject to any rational debate (grins).

Big Jim, altho some states define fishing and hunting as rights, it is meaningless at the federal court level, where non-treaty citizen fishing has been defined as a privilege. Hope you won’t stomp me for that; I’m just the messenger.

Chuck, I agree with your points 2 - 5. Net fishing in rivers is a good way to fish, compared to mix stock fishing with any type of gear in the Sound, Harbor, or ocean. The reason is that harvest rates and numbers can be more precisely monitored and controlled. It doesn’t mean that it will be, but it can be. Also, nets are not as good as river fish wheels and traps, but don’t underestimate their value as a means of harvesting true surpluses of fish. At the risk of inciting riot, I’d venture that it is more efficient to carefully and properly regulate a river gillnet fishery than a hook and line recreational fishery, the biological difference being that the hook and line fishery can sort and discriminate, releasing unharmed those fish not intended for harvest.

Oscar, where’d you read your history? If the treaties were forced on the tribes, can you explain why the Chehalis, Shoalwater, and Cowlitz tribes, to name three, never signed? And why treaty negotiations that failed in 1854 were undertaken again in 1855 by Gov. Stevens? It seems to me that if the tribes were forced into the treaties, Stevens would have gotten all the tribes, and gotten them in the first go round. And Sealth, of the Suquamish agreed to sign the treaty only because his tribe was dwindling from disease (thanks for smallpox, whitey!), and he didn’t think his people would be around much longer, so he decided to take the deal Stevens offered. It is true that the Indians didn’t understand the language (English) that the treaties were written in, which is why Steven had interpreters, and why the federal courts have ruled that where there is uncertainty in the treaty language, it must be legally interpreted as the tribal representatives would have understood and agreed to. Ergo, the treaties cannot be interpreted to the tribes’ disadvantage. I also beg to differ that no federal court ever said 51/49% split. The U.S. Supreme Court in its 1979 ruling of U.S. v Washington explicitly allocated “50%, or a moderate living standard” as the treaty share. That was the supreme’s major modification to Boldt’s allocation in his district court decision, which exempted the tribes’ on-reservation and ceremonial and subsistence harvest from their 50%. You are right about the conservation restriction and the tribes’ not being allowed to harvest the last fish in the river. Of course, that is referring to the “last” fish, as in what should be the spawning escapement. Of those fish in excess of the escapement goal, you can be pretty certain that it will be the tribe, not you or me, that is allowed to catch it. I’m not sure if that is the principle relating to your 2 examples or not. I’m not familiar with them.

Smilesforu, government is the last place I look for leadership. I believe that true leadership emerges at the grassroots level, and when quality leadership emerges, government invariably follows. There are exceptions, but Jefferson, Madison, etc. are long dead. As for Elwha, Rome was not built in a day, and the fat lady hasn’t sung yet. Patience. This one will happen.