Could someone explain what was gained, by the state, or changed (other than the ability to join the expedited tribal permit process in order to get some summer fishing in) between the time that the tribes and the state didn't agree and their coming to an agreement. Or alternately what the tribes gave up. It seems that the state essentially gave in to most or all of the tribal demands even though many sportsfishers supported the states position of not giving away the farm even if it meant not fishing this year (I'm not sure of the commercial fleets position.) Usually a negotiation and agreement consists of give and take by each side. Are the tribal fisheries management policies and philosophy so superior to the state's that it is given a superior position (understanding that the treaties and Boldt come before all.) How is that Oregon and Canada don't seem to have the problems that we have in WA.
Please direct me to the proper discussion if this has already been gone over.
As previously stated, I believe we should have our own permits (although I am uneducated in any of this) and that the tribes should be treated as the sovereign nations that they continually assert.
Ultimately I believe that if we can't come to gather with equality of all people (tribal or not) within our state in order to protect our natural resources we will never come together as a nation or global community and overcome discrimination and have tolerance for others.
Not sure if I expressed myself well but I tried. :>)
Thanks