OceanSun - Be careful what you asked for..... The Treaties did NOT provide the Tribes with anything. The Tribes agreed to turn over lots of their land in exchange for peace between the Tribes and the settlers; and continued access to fish and hunt in their usual and accustomed places in common with the settlers.

What that means is that the right to fish and hunt is a reserved right. That is, the Tribal right to fish and hunt was already there before the Treaties were signed. They were rights that have existed since time immemorial, and the Treaties specifically recognized that right. The Treaties did not grant them that right. They were already there, and are still there to this day. Said another way, those rights would exist even if the Treaties were terminated.

The phrase that has been the source of controversy for decades is "in common with". In 1974, Judge Boldt determined that it means the Tribes have the right to 50% of the available harvest. That decision was affirmed all the way to the Supreme Court in Washington, DC. Lots of folks disagree with that interpretation, but they ain't Supreme Court justices. In our system of governance under the Constitution, the judiciary makes the final interpretation of the law, including Treaties. So that's what the phrase means, like it or not. And that's what we have to live with.

I would note that the Boldt decision said the Tribes get 50% of the available harvest. But the ruling did NOT say the State has the right to the other 50%. That's why the State is in a difficult negotiating position. Legally, the Tribes are first in line for fish. Everyone else is behind them. But practically, it is just the opposite. In the real world, everyone else gets a shot at the fish before the Tribes (ocean, Puget Sound, in-river harvest, etc). So the State has to manage harvest from multiple user groups (some of whom are beyond their control) such that the Tribes get what they are entitled to (I used the word 'entitled" just as it is defined).

I hope folks understand the difficult position the WDFW is in. While it may be too much to ask for us to agree with WDFW, at least we should try to understand their situation.