RT,

Good work on your part. I appreciate that your are interested in my review. However, I must concede that this complex issue goes way beyond my expertise. I've followed fish management and treaty fishing issues for over 20 years, but this one is so complex that I would be surprised if it is well understood by anyone who actually does not actively work in this fish management and allocation arena.

My friends on the Cowlitz indicate that the state has made trade offs, like the ones Guy Norman referred to, with the tribes getting either some lower Columbia spring chinook (Cowlitz) or credits, in lieu of other fish later in the season, like coho or steelhead. I wish I did know how that worked, since the treaty share on fall chinook and steelhead is greater than the non-treaty share.

I'd like to insert a comment about how people only see what they want and ignore the rest. It relates to "our fishing rights" and the discrepance between the treaty and non-treaty shares. I've mentioned before that the federal courts have decided that treaty tribes have fishing rights. You and I have a fishing privilege. Do you think those are different when it comes to legal interpretations? I do.

The feds have that trust responsibility for the tribes. They actually have an obligation to us too. However, it's not hard to see how the federal lawyers would see that the trust responsibility to a fishing right is a higher priority than the trust responsibility to those with fishing privileges. I think that's a key to understanding why the feds gave deference to the treaty fishery over the non-treaty is deciding who gets to harvest the "incidental take" of ESA fish, even tho treaty nets will be 100% lethal, and the non-treaty recreational fishery could result in fairly high survival of released wild fish.

RT, sometimes I think our friends and neighbors here on this BB don't assimilate some of the basic facts that get posted here. Like this thread contains the oft-repeated comment regarding "the rights the government gave the Indians 100 years ago," and so forth. It's been stated so often, it's hard for me to believe there is a single hard core angler who doesn't understand the score and some basic facts about treaty fishing.

The U.S. government didn't give the tribes any rights. The tribes reserved all rights they previously had unless specifically given up in the treaty. I might mention that the U.S. did the same. And we wonder why tribes can sell and consume alcohol on reservations when that was forbidden in the treaty. Simple. A law changed that in the 1950s. The question was asked if some of the treaty fishing rights can be traded for casinos and such. The answer of course, is certainly. But what tribe would make such a trade when they can legally have both? The tribes own the fishing rights. That is the federal case law I have long ago come to understand. Trades can be made, but it would have to be along the lines of willing seller, willing buyer. Laws do change, but so far, the congressional Indian fighters have failed badly on this front. Like it or not, Americans and their congressional representatives generally support Indian rights, including treaty fishing rights.

Sorry for the slight thread drift away from the Columbia situation. But the treaty fishing implications are central to that issue, so the comments seemed relavent and worth repeating.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.