Here’s more information on this issue that may be "news" to some folks on this BB.

The Boldt Decision said the Tribes have the right to 50% of the available harvest. Everyone knows that. But the Boldt Decision did NOT say the States have the right to the other half. So it’s not a 50/50 split as most folks seem to suggest. The Tribes have the right to 50% of the available harvest. Period. If the State can secure the other half, great. But if not, there is no violation of the Boldt decision. It’s not an enforceable statute on the part of the State. Only the Tribes can ask for enforcement since the decision (the original Treaties) was between the Federal government and the Tribes. The States were not yet in existence so they’re not a signatory to the Treaties. So the State can’t ask for enforcement of an agreement their not a party to. But the Tribes can, and they will.

Further, the fishing rights assured in the Treaties is a reserved right. That is, the Treaties recognized that the Tribes ALREADY have the right to fish in their usual and accustomed places. The Treaties did not provide them with that right. The Treaties just recognize the right was already there, and would continue in perpetuity. So even if the Treaties were to vanish today (which won’t happen), the Tribal rights to fish in their usual and accustomed places in perpetuity remains.

The Federal government (in this case the National Marine Fisheries Service) has a trust responsibility to the Tribes. They don’t have a trust responsibility to the State. Clearly, NMFS does not want to get between the State and the Tribes on this issue. But if it happens, the Tribes will play the “trust responsibility” card on NMFS. At that point, NMFS has no choice. They need to address the needs of the Tribes before they address the needs of the State. That is, they would need to secure the Tribal allocation (50%) before going any further.

In my view, there is more at stake than just one season’s worth of fishing in Puget Sound. The breakdown of fisheries management between the two entities authorized to manage the fisheries (Washington State and Tribes) puts the Federal government in charge of fish management that historically been the primary role of WDFW and the Tribes of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. That's not a good outcome for anyone, even the Tribes.

I sincerely hope for a equitable resolution to this issue that enables the appropriate level of fishing to occur, and to preserve the traditional role of the States and the Tribes to manage the fishery for their constituents, and the fish.