I can usually find a few things I agree with in these tribal rants, but in this case, all I can find to agree with is that the State and the Tribe are deeply divided on these issues. That much is crystal clear. Rather than waste time and energy pointing out the flaws in Ms. Sharp's assertions, I'll simply state how refreshing it would be to JUST ONCE see a treaty tribe admit to SOME degree of accountability for the declining salmon populations. I won't argue that they dealt the major blow (that was us, back in the cannery era), but if they want their "half" to be some number larger than zero 50 years from now, they might want to take a quick glance in the mirror while planning their 5 days/wk. "winter steelhead fishery." It would also be nice to see the QIN send a representative to NOF or any other regional meeting to address co-management issues, as opposed to claiming they were never invited to the discussion.
It just makes me wonder what bridges they intend to build with this sort of self-serving ranting. Bitching about what we're trying to do to ensure a future for wild salmon while they refuse to make any changes of their own won't do much to improve relations or our salmon runs. Sometimes, I think they're interested in neither.