Originally Posted By: MPM
Thanks, cohoangler.

From a legal perspective, I would think that there is a good case that impacts/mortality should be split 50/50 as well. My thinking is that, regardless of whether you are talking about trees, fish, or iron ore, if you destroy the resource or sell it, that should count toward your 50% interest in the resource, and should count as "taking fish" in the language of the treaty.

Does anyone know if this has been adjudicated?


No it has not...and the concept of ESA impacts, if course, was not discussed in all of the US v Washington cases, as it didn't exist at the time...s fait sharing of impacts is what we would like, but due to the relatively high use of impa ts in the tribal fishery to get their share of the harvestable fish I don't see them going for it willingly... this is likely to be the next big US v Washington issue, and will directly pit treaty rights versus conservation policies.

Fish on...

Todd
_________________________


Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle