Originally Posted By: jgreen
They don't own the stream bed (including gravel bars). Why can't the state just tell them that until the litigation is finished things will at least continue as scheduled? Shouldn't the state have judiciary power in this matter? It is a state funded hatchery, not federal. Unless I'm missing something.


The stream bed ownership/reservation boundary is, I believe, the issue. An opinion from the Dept. of Interior supporting the tribe is no different than that of a parent supporting their child. In short, not necessarily the most rationale, impartial posturing.

I strongly object to the WDFW closing what has been State waters absent a court order.

And while I understand the argument for closing what is a State hatchery so doing would, IMHO, undermine the State's position in ongoing litigation. Keep that closure idea on the shelf but clearly visible.
_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!

It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)