Originally Posted By: JustBecause
Originally Posted By: Larry B
Or take the opposite approach and report on the Supreme Court's affirmation of the Boldt decision and their inclusion of an economic development off-set to tribal fishing rights. IF a tribe's economic status were on a par with their surrounding community might they lose their commercial treaty fishing rights (and, thereby, substantially reduce their non-selective gill net harvest)? Gutsy issue to take up at any university but guaranteed to garner some attention.


trigger warning! this may upset Larry B smile

If you're referring to the "moderate living" language in the decision, it refers to a living made from fishing, and not anything else. They can have all the casino money in the world but if their fishermen can't make a living fishing, we are not fulfilling the treaty.

Think of it like this, you still want to fish, even though the non-Indian economy is enormous and wide spread and has been mostly responsible for the condition the fisheries are in, correct? Why should you get to fish at all?

Now, when you answer that question, remember you don't have a federal treaty-reserved right to fish.


If that is factual; that is, it is limited to fishing generated income.

Clearly that is not my understanding but if you have the cite please provide for my edification.
_________________________
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)