The "bad behavior" in my view is taking a share of fish greater than their share allocated by treaty, and using the deck-stacked legal/political system to force WDFW to agree to that.
Has WDFW taken any position that would deny a treaty tribe their share of harvestable fish allocated by treaty? If not, then why would they deserve equal derision?
Your question about whether or not WDFW has ever taken a position that would deny a treaty tribe their share of harvestable fish is really funny. The fact that they did this was the whole point of US v. WA. As far as your point about them taking more than their share allocated, I seriously doubt if you or anybody can show that they have done that. Finally, regarding your contention that the tribes have some responsibility to ensure you get your share of the fish, I only have one comment. I guarantee that you do no want the tribes to help manage your fisheries.
“The way they’re managing
the Hoh is unacceptable,”
Burge explains.
A recent agreement allows
the Hoh tribe to receive
55 percent of harvestable
steelhead for the 2008-2009
seasons, although the tribe
was allocated 68 percent ofthe fish from 2003-2006, and
actually harvested 82 percent,
Burge says.
Those allocations run
counter to the 1974 Boldt
decision, Burge points out.
That decision, and court
orders that followed, mandate
Washington tribes receive up
to 50 percent of the annual
harvest, and sport anglers get
the other 50 percent.
With some tribes demanding
more than an equal share
under the law, Burge urged
commissioners to guarantee
that any fish that anglers do
not harvest, estimated to be
about half of the 50 percent
allotment each year, be allowed
to contribute to the spawning
population.
Today, those fish are
allocated to the Hoh tribe by
the Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife, and make up
a portion of the greater-than 50
percent share of fish the tribe
receives.
“
They’re just giving all our
fish away,” Burge laments.
Previous Topic
Index
