A couple more cents:
Some have reported that the treaties are old or outdated, that this isn't the way things are done now. Age has nothing to do with a legally binding document. Our Constitution is older than the treaties. As society progresses, the Constitution has been 'updated' by amendments that reflect societal standards present at the time of the amendment. Given that the treaties are legally binding by the U.S. and various Tribal Nations, it will take a similar degree of legal amendment to 'update' or overturn them. Not something the WDFW (or NMFS for that matter) can do by itself.
Amendments are made when the bulk of society deems it necessary and starts the political or legal process for change. In the case of the Indian Treaties, I'm afraid that the bulk of society is pro-Treaty and we sporties, like it or not,are a small special interest group.
I prefer to think of this situation from a legal perspective and as a whole we are better off with laws that can't be changed on a whim. Issues of fairness, ethical behavior, ethnic division, and such are bandied about to support ones position rather than to look at the reality of the situation. This is when things start to rapidly digress.
For example, there have been several posts, worded variously and tinged with PC, that basically state that Indians are bad when they don't act like the rest of us. Right or wrong, ethical or unethical, this is a legal argument when it comes to fisheries. Its not worth getting worked up about and its wrong to place blame on WDFW, the Indian Commission, NMFS, the Tribes, or 'outdated' treaties. Another example is the mention of 'affirmative action'. This is not affirmative action. Treaty Rights are not special rights, but arrangements negotiated by land owners years ago for the transfer of that land from one hand to another.
In the specific case of Columbia River springers, this may very well be a case where the allocation of fish does not follow the rule of the treaties. I think this is what sporties should concentrate on so that such allocations are not made in the future. I for one would like to know the specific and official reasoning behind the allocation, or lack thereof, to the sporties.
I guess I'm posting this in response to what I consider some pretty carved in stone legal stuff (at least for now), but folks get around this because of a lack of knowledge or the convenient blame target in the Tribes. Because the Tribes can do some things that we cannot, we throw about arguments like "unfair rights","special rights,"we paid for this", when this really misses the point and simply starts a cascade of fingerpointing and blame. Just like the Constitution, the Indian Treaties are the law of the land and it will take a major Federal challenge to change.
If netting is ever going to be diminished, its going to take a concerted effort between the public (not just sporties), the Feds (the courts), and the Tribes. Its going to be hard enough without excessive emotional finger pointing.
[This message has been edited by obsessed (edited 06-05-2000).]
[This message has been edited by obsessed (edited 06-05-2000).]