Originally Posted By: Carcassman
When that "moderate living" clause first became public knowledge, many non-Indian groups, particularly commercials, wanted the state to pursue it in the 80s. The state wouldn't. One could conclude that the state believed catches by Indians in the 1980s did not reach the moderate living threshold. Since runs have declined since then................


I agree. But I believe point that BrianM is making is that the economic conditions of the Tribes has increased considerably since the 1980's. And with the development of casinos, and the economic benefits that accrue (more and better housing, better schools, secondary economic development, etc), the Tribes may have already achieved the 'moderate living standard' in the absence of lots of salmon. So, if the 'moderate living standard' has already been achieved, has this eroded the Treaty right?

This is particularly important in the context of the need for enough fish to sustain an economically viable commercial salmon harvest. So, in light of that standard, does the Treaty right to enough salmon for a 'moderate living standard' still apply to the Tribes who are, say, millionaires?

I'm NOT saying the Tribes are millionaires. Clearly, they're not. I'm just wondering whether the Treaty right to enough salmon for a 'moderate living standard' still exists, even if they were.

(Again, this does not address the issue of ceremonial, subsistence, and religious use of salmon by the Tribes.)