Originally Posted By: Carcassman
Hoh v. Baldridge held that the State could not, by fishing in front of the Tribes, create a conservation problem forcing Tribal closure. Makes sense. But, should the Tribes be able to force the NI side to be closed because they CHOOSE to be non-selective and thereby create a conservation problem?

And, if mass -marking hatchery fish was/is such a good idea why are not all Tribal fish marked?

One thought is that if a crisis occurs with wild fish the tribes will be the only ones able to fish, so let it get to a crisis stage, shut out the non-tribal fisheries and cut out all competition. Then maybe they can restore the runs(???) as they see fit and totally control the resource.
Crazy theory, eh? Bob R
P.S. And if this sounds screwed up ask why the state considers themselves co-managers when the Nisqually tribe will not even provide the state with catch numbers for tribal crabbers in the South Sound? Hell of a way to preserve a resource and be responsible fisherfolk.