I’m not sure where to begin with some of these comments…..

For example, Spokey9 stated that “This might be our chance to get back some of our rights in the process.” if the State wins the lawsuit. I don’t understand the comment. What rights? Be specific.

Recall that the State of Washington is arguing they have NO legal obligation to protect salmon habitat or salmon. They are arguing that they do so as a policy choice, not a legal obligation. I’ll quote you some of the arguments at re-hearing:

Judge: (To the Washington Attorney General’s representative) “Are you saying the State of Washington has the authority to dam up and destroy all the salmon habitat around Puget Sound, and with it the salmon resources, with no consideration to the impacts to the Tribes?”

Washington: “Oh, your honor, we would never do that. Salmon are really important to the people of Washington. We spend a lot of money restoring….”

Judge: (cutting him off) “That wasn’t my question. I understand that salmon are important to the State. My question was whether the State of Washington believes it has the legal authority to permanently destroy salmon habitat, and the salmon stocks, despite the provisions of the Treaties?”

Washington: (Long pause) “Yes your honor. That is our position.”

There you have it. If that legal position doesn’t make your blood boil, it should.


Krijack suggests the Tribes are expanding the Treaty provisions to fish and wildlife resources that were beyond the scope of the Treaty. The suggestion seems to be that the Treaty is limited to salmon.

The Treaty is not specific to salmon. The treaty states that the Tribes have the right to hunt and fish in their usual and accustomed places in common with the citizens of the territory. There is nothing that restricts those rights to salmon. The Tribes have stated (correctly) that they historically relied on many forms of fish and wildlife for subsistence. That makes sense. Salmon are available for only a limited time while the need to eat is perpetual (duh). So they had to subsist on crabs, clams, geoducks, elk, deer, and anything else they could catch and eat. So a wide range of fish and wildlife resources also fall under the Treaty provisions.

I’ll leave you with this fact: In the early 1970’s, the Tribes were harvesting about 2% of the salmon resources of the State of Washington. In 1974, the Boldt decision said they have the right to 50% of the available harvest. Now fast forward to 2017. The Tribes are still taking 50% of the available harvest, but the actual numbers of salmon they’re catching is LESS than the 2% they were taking in 1974. Think about that for a minute. I’ll wait………

I hope everyone can see why this lawsuit was necessary. The salmon stocks in this State have fallen to the point where 50% of today’s harvest is LESS than 2% of what it was in 1974. Much of that loss is due to the loss of functioning habitat. The Tribes know this all too well. The lawsuit seeks to highlight the continuing, persistent, and insidious loss of habitat from human development (including their own, as several folks have indicated).

In my view, all recreational anglers, and anyone who values Pacific salmon, should be on the side of the Tribes on this issue.