Jgreen - Let's see if I can help.....

Some Tribes have the right to fish in their usual and accustomed places only because that is what their Treaties say (as interpreted by the courts). It's not because they are Indians or because of the color of their skin.

There are plenty of Tribes in Washington State that DO NOT have the right to fish in their usual and accustomed places. Why? Because they don't have a Treaty with the Federal government that provides them with that right. Examples include the Tribes in the Upper Columbia including the Colvilles, the Kalispell, the Wanapums, and the Spokane Tribe. Their "rights" to harvest fish are no different than yours and mine, despite the fact that they are Federally recognized Tribes (except the Wanapums) and fishing is an important part of their heritage. And that heritage is just as important to them as it is to the Tribes who have fishing rights. But without a Treaty to assure them that right, they don't have one.

Also, the right to fish is a Tribal right. It is not a right of individual tribal members. No specific Indian has the right to fish, even those with a Treaty right. The "right" is held by the Tribe. The Tribe can extend that right to individual tribal members so they can go fishing. But the Tribe can also revoke that authority by due process. So individual Tribal members have the privilege to fish, not the right to fish.

In that sense, it's no different than the State of Washington. The State has the authority (i.e., the right) to manage the natural resources within their boundaries. They hold the "right" to fish. You and I do not. The State can extend that "right" when you buy a fishing license. And they can revoke that right by due process. As such, fishing by individual anglers, such as you and I, is a privilege, not a right.

That is no different than the Tribes who have Treaty reserved fishing rights.

Hope this helps.