Originally Posted By: BrianM
Not to add to the gloom and doom, but I tend to agree with the sentiment expressed above regarding the ever growing human impacts on Pacific salmon and Pacific salmon fisheries, especially in Puget Sound.

With regard to how that intersects with Tribal treaty fishing rights going forward in light of the "culverts decision", I'd be interested to hear how others think the Supreme Court's "moderate living" standard limitation on Treaty fishing rights may play out. In the "culverts decision", the 9th Cir. noted that the Supreme Court specified the fishing clause of the treaties guaranteed “so much as, but no more than, is necessary to provide the Indians with a livelihood—that is to say, a moderate living.”

Most if not all of the Tribes are less economically dependent on fishing than back in the 1850s. (The subsistence and especially cultural importance of fishing is another matter completely.) And the Tribes, like other segments of our society, have benefited from other aspects of modern society and the development of the Puget Sound region (better roads, hospitals/medical care, education opportunities, employment opportunities, abundant food supply at every neighborhood grocery store, etc.).

I wonder if the "moderate living standard" gloss on the Tribes' treaty fishing right combined with the Tribes' economic development in other areas (e.g., casinos and other commercial ventures) may eventually undermine any treaty-based claims they may make to significantly curtail future development and preserve/restore salmon runs and salmon habitat. Thoughts?


Really great observations. I haven't thought of this, but it's likely the Tribes have.

The question you seem to be raising is that because of the "moderate living standard', the Treaty rights may have been diminished, as it relates to commercial use of salmon (putting aside ceremonial and subsistence use). In other words, if the Tribes currently enjoy a 'moderate living standard' due to unrelated economic development (for example, casinos), do the Treaty rights to salmon for commercial purposes still apply?

The Tribes certainly believe the Treaty rights to commercial salmon still apply since they are moving forward with economic development, with startling success. And I've never heard them express any concerns about their Treaty rights being at-risk because they are developing themselves economically. But as we all know, economic development (at various scales) is the root cause of the loss of salmon habitat. And if the Tribes are contributing to that loss with their own economic development (e.g., casinos), it brings that question more into focus as it relates to both Indian and non-Indian economic development and the 'moderate living standard' set by the Supreme Court. I'm not the first person to raise that issue on this BB.

My sense is that the Tribes have decided to 'cross that bridge when they come to it'. The question being raised is whether the bridge will still be there when they arrive.....