Brian, Elmtree, and others,

Regarding net fishing downstream of the locks: You don't have to like it, so I'm not going to bother discussing the merits of treaty or commercial fishing. Seek, however, to understand the purpose of commercial fishing. The purpose of commercial fishing is to catch fish, lots of fish, as fast and efficiently as possible. It is not the purpose of commercial fishing to allow fish to swim on by. Conservation is achieved by having closed periods and closed areas. A fish run is projected at a certain run size, and a harvestable surplus is determined (we won't talk about accuracy here). Those fish that are deemed harvestable exist only to be caught in the minds of managers. So the job of the commercials, whether they are treaty or non-treaty, is to get in there and harvest their allocation. As long as the recreational fish allocation and the spawning escapement make it through, I have to ask you, why do you care how, when, or where, or why the treaty fishermen take their allocation. What is there to find sickening about it? Unless you have a quarrel with treaty fishing in general. And if you do, I'm not posting here to argue about it. You have your perogative. I think, however, it's beneficial for us all to be clear about our issues. So if the issue isn't treaty fishing, but is about nets at the locks, I have to ask what's the difference. The nets could be set or drifted out of Shilshole to the same end; i.e. the allocated treaty harvestable will be caught, somewhere. And actually, the closer the fishing occurs to the terminal area, the more precisely it can be managed by those empowered to do it. Consequently, I can make no case against netting at the locks.

Regarding the treaty fishery and non-native species: Elmtree, the treaty is silent on origin of fish, as there were no hatcheries or fish transplants in the 1850s. The treaties are clear about "usual and accustomed fishing areas," and Boldt clarified that to mean basically anywhere in the various treaty tribes marine waters or river drainages where any Indian may have fished at one time or another historically. That's the long way of saying damn near everywhere.

Regarding who gets the money from treaty fishing: The treaty fishing right is the property of the treaty tribe. A tribe is entitled to franchise an individual to exercise the right. It's comparable to the state fishing "privelege." The state issues/sells licenses to recreational and commercial fishermen, which is a franchise of sorts. Then we licensed anglers exercise our fishing privelege. Most treaty fishermen pay a landing tax to their tribe on their catch just as non-treaty fishermen pay a landing tax to the state.

This post was not intended to bash any of you who contributed to this thread. My intended contribution is that of clarity, and I'm sure you'll let me know if I've not succeeded. I do apologize if this post offends anyone.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.