Originally Posted By: Carcassman
The thing in Boldt (Supremes review) tied the fish share to a moderate living. They were entitled to 50% or a moderate living from fishing, whichever was smaller. The Commercials begged WDF to litigate moderate living in the 80s and the state wouldn't. Some would argue, then, that the harvest taken in the 80s did not meet the moderate living level.

I think we keep missing the idea that it is the State, not WDFW leadership, that is driving the bus. The whole state has too much to lose, so they believe, to challenge the Tribes.


Was the "moderate living" language really tied solely to fishing income? It has been my recollection that as their general economic status increased that the tribal fishing share could be reduced.
_________________________
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)