RT

I don't think policy makers at NMFS or the politicos are stupid, and fairness is not often an issue in politics. I think you and Neanderthal are on the right track--the Indians are playing the political game just like everyone else, using whatever leverage they can muster, whether it be money or influence. Problem is, sporties can't do the same, so WE are not playing the game.

I think the apparent re-interpretation of Treaty Fishing Rights has been drastically affected by ESA. As Cohoangler pointed out in a previous thread, the Indian allocation of hatchery fish is made PRIOR to any ESA considerations, the largest being incidental take of ESA fish. So if the allocation is made, and it is determined that the harvest of this allocation will take most or all of the incidental take of ESA fish, then all other users (sporties and commercials) do not receive allocations.

This seems to be the initial legal interpretation of Treaty Fishing Rights with ESA thrown in, but it is not necessarily the only interpretation or the correct one. I think justifiable arguements can be made that with hatchery fish raised by State or Federal monies, ESA incidental take considerations should apply equally to both sporties and tribes. In other words, we get half of incidental take (or a third if the commercials are involved). The justification could be that these fish were raised for commercial operations on the coast (if indeed so), and recreational opportunities in the rivers. Why would hatchery fish be raised solely for Tribal take? I don't know if this argument will cut through the Treaty language, but I think this is in line with what the States are thinking.

In this sense, it seems fruitless to ask NMFS why. I think NMFS feels they have legally interpreted Treaty Fishing Rights with the ESA issue (or at least their bosses in DC think so). It now seems we have to provide alternative legal interpretations and send the matter to the courts.

The bottom line may be that sporties don't have any lawyers thinking about these things like the Indians and politicos.

Dan S

This is a jurisdictional issue, not discriminatory. If we want to fish the Columbia River, on the Oregon side, we need an Oregon license. If we want to fish some lakes and streams on Natl Park land, we can't use lead shot. If we want to fish the Quinault or upper Salmon, we need an Indian guide. The Skoks simply haven't pursued providing license or access fees, probably because they fish the river pretty hard themselves.

I will point out, however, that I have fished gravel bars on both sides of the river and the Skoks don't seem to care. They just don't want us on reservation property without permission. Given the sometimes unhealthy relationship between Indians and sporties, can't say I blame them. Although the Skoks can net both sides of the river, I heard that they were restricted to fishing between the bridges, leaving some pretty good tidal holes below the lower bridge. Although I think they can snag anywhere.

[This message has been edited by obsessed (edited 08-23-2000).]