Who cares? You may think, “Where is Point No Point anyway, and I’ll never use that ramp so who cares?”

The park and ramp project are owned by WDFW. It’s public land-- it’s YOUR park. It’s designed as a public access point for launching small watercraft. The advocates for the ramp are Attorney Generals Office, WDFW, Puget Sound Anglers, Coastal Conservation Association, Northwest Marine Trade Association, The Poggie Club, Bremerton Sportsman’s Club, Kitsap Park Advocates, and the local community supports it too. They are involved FOR YOU, because this decision will apply to every boat ramp in Puget Sound.

One Tribe has opposition, and their most recent objection is that “tribal fishermen set crab pots in as little as 12’ of water…where the proposed ramp would physically occupy…. (so) this will eliminate the use of a geographic area where tribal crabbing occurs.” (So the pots are dry at low tide??)

SO… if the US Army Corps rules the tribal claim is valid, then any tribe can use this same claim on any boat ramp in state marine waters. Legally, this January decision sets a state-wide precedent. This means ANY Corps permit for in-water repairs or modifications on ANY ramp can be contested and automatically denied, thereby taking the public right to access marine surface waters by eliminating launch sites over time as permits requests are submitted.

The tribe can crab anywhere, anytime, in any U & A areas, which means ANY marine waters in WA. Why such strong tribal focus on a single lane ramp in the obscure reaches of North Kitsap county? Because it’s not about the ramp itself (which is about 10 miles off the tribe’s reservation area), it’s about taking control of assess to the water. If the Corps rules the complaint to be valid, then the ruling applies to “the launches nearest to YOU” as well.

OK, OK, more strategic political theories, enough already! But you gotta ask, Why would the tribe care about a single lane beach ramp at remote Point No Point, when there isn’t even a dock? The Tribe nearest Point No Point (S’Klallam) did not see any opportunity at this ramp, and to avoid conflict, applied for and rapidly received theirown permit for new, private commercial ramps at Port Gamble. (The advocates applaud the S’Klallam’s solution and welcome their new launch!) Why don’t the Suquamish do this as well, and not try to control a Fish and Wildlife ramp that they are not even paying for, and that has no commercial use anyway (as determined by the S’Klallam)?

I welcome your input. Try to find fault in this theory, and let me know. We hope you are all tracking this decision, as it will have direct impact on your ability to launch and access the Sound going forward.

01/05/2021

No doubt, you could be correct.....

Oh for the "old days" ...... Pre 1974, many on here remember those days !!!!!!

This may be an "apples to oranges" comparison, but the CoE recognizes the legal implications of granting or denying a permit for the PNP ramp.

See the link:


https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-new...t-cherry-point/

The permit for the PNP ramp (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) is likely the same type of permit the CoE denied at Cherry Point.

Again, the comparison may not be appropriate (a coal terminal vs a boat ramp) but the legal implications are clear.

The litmus test for the Corps is whether any impact to tribal rights is de minimus. If the PNP project doesn't fall within de minimus (if any) impacts virtually nothing will be permittable in the face of a tribal objection.

By the way, this is the second work day in January.....counting down.

I have never seen a tribal or even a recreational pot in that area. Ever!

Rhetorical:

Since the tribe has developed its crabbing capacity subsequent to Rafeedie have Suquamish crabbers failed to harvest their 50% within their U&A?

From the CoE guidance on di minimus rulings: "If a decision to deny a permit was based soley on U&A rights, the Corps would need conclusive facts to support an established treaty right is being interfered with above a di minimus effect. The record must show the interference with a treaty right has reached a level of legal significance that is above di minimus effect."

Considering the quote in the first post is from the Tribal attorney's letter , the question becomes:

Will the square footage area of a small ramp, with 95% of that area being too shallow to hold crab, decimate the tribal crab fishery to an extent that requires denying the public water access on public lands, and also deny other future permits in that vast U&A?

(Keep in mind that this tribe's crabbing U&A of about 400 sq miles goes from Seattle to Canada, or Marine Areas 7, 8-1, 8-2, 9, and 10)

You're applying logic to a situation involving the Tribes.

There should be no question under a purely analytical basis that this proposed single lane ramp without floats will have zero adverse impact.

Now, the 800 pound gorilla is whether the Corps will apply an apolitical analysis.

It should also be noted (again) that this project has already removed a deteriorating structure and creosote pilings that had a much bigger footprint/environmental impact than the proposed ramp. Put another way, even with the ramp the project will result in less impact to tribal treaty fishing.

Mr. ned, I applaud your sticktoitiveness on this topic! I himmed-n-hawed before I decided to respond, as I only can provide conjecture as to how the permitting processes proceed for new/replacement launches.

All of my experiences have been in freshwater construction on the mid/upper Columbia. I hypothesize that the tribal influence is less dramatic in this instance, as there is less dough to mine in freshwater (assumed), as compared to saltwater applications. But I will say that in the last 15-20 years, it appears that the pendulum has really turned in the favor of the tribes when it comes to favorable legal decisions, fish/game season setting/self-regulation, as well as "off rez" government document review also.

In this new age of "Woke, Hyper Sensitivity, and Celebrate-Individualism" the NW Native Americans/Indians/Tribes are aligning to really own The State of Washington's natural resources, with little resistance from our own WDFW. The Federal Gov has designed the system already by setting up the payouts for past dirty deeds in regards to habitat loss on the Columbia as restitution (BPA and every PUD get's hammered every 10-20 years by Tribes for more cash). Who can fault anyone if they get a chance to capitalize financially due to any of these circumstances, but when will it ever end??? What travesties have taken place in the last XX (50) years to keep these moral and racial divides continuing? That's what bothers me, as when does the money stop being paid out, and the speciality treatment end? Will there ever be a sunset clause to any of these race issues (and no reservations), regarding the resources? Ie-Natives get to fish/hunt like their ancestors, yet their ancestors were doing it how many 100's of years ago, and the tribes are lowering the % to be considered a "native" (really, seems like follow the money to me??)? It just can't self sustain, in my logic?? Am I asking the question nobody want's to ask, because then you're a RACIST??? IDK..sorry for the rant guys..

Don't be too quick to look at it that way...if the tribe thinks that recreational crabbers will have easier access to crabs in that area due to the boat launch, then I guarantee you they will consider that an adverse impact.

In any event, the impacts are, at worst, de minimus, in my opinion, so hopefully the Corps stands up to the tribe and makes them prove otherwise.

Fish on...

Todd

If their concern is easier recreational access to the resource (crab or others) then that argument is DOA given that those resources have been or should have been divvied up before each season begins. Also, as for crab the recreational crabbers in that MA (2W) haven't taken the State's 50%; a NT commercial regularly occurred to "mop up" the State's share.

Snit - Your questions have been debated on this BB for years, so you are not alone.

Perhaps I can lend some perspective on your concerns, without hijacking the thread.

The Tribes signed numerous Treaties back around 1855 or so. Many of them were negotiated by Isaac Stevens so they are known today as the Steven’s Treaties. The Tribes gave up much of their ancestral land they ‘owned’ (loosely defined) in exchange for the right to continue to live on the land as they had for centuries. They didn’t want to be shuffled off to a distant reservation.

They also did not give up their right to hunt and fish in their usual and accustomed places. Since they lived a subsistence lifestyle, they had to hunt, fish, and gather roots and berries for sustenance (no other choice in 1855). But take note, the Treaties did NOT give the Tribes the right to hunt and fish in their usual and accustomed places. The Treaties acknowledged that right existed BEFORE the Treaties were signed. Signing the Treaties ensured that right would continue into the future, up to and including 2021. Thus, the Treaties did not provide the Tribes with anything they didn’t already have, including the right to hunt and fish in their usual and accustomed places. That remains so today.

In the intervening 160+ years, lots of things have happened in the PNW, including building lots of dams on the Columbia and its tributaries. This had the effect of facilitating human development throughout the PNW to the detriment of the fish and wildlife resources that live there, and which the Tribes rely on for both subsistence and ceremonial purposes. We all know the Tribes no longer live a subsistence lifestyle. They go to the grocery store just like everyone else. But the Treaties have not changed. The Tribal rights reserved by the Treaties still exist.

So when will it end? In short, it won’t. The Treaties remain as they were negotiated. The Tribes still have their reserved rights. This is not racism. It’s just a product of the negotiations that occurred in 1855. The Columbia River Tribes will be somewhat satisfied when the Columbia River once again produces a similar number of adult salmon that existed when the Treaties were signed (~ 10-15 million). The current production of salmon in the Columbia is around 1 million, so we have a long way to go.

In the meantime, the Tribes use whatever leverage they have to ensure the Federal government lives up to the expectations of the Treaties they negotiated and signed in 1855. If that means negotiating with government agencies such as BPA, the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, or WDFW, that is what they will do. They are acting in the best interests of their Tribe. Which is exactly what we would expect them to do.

Hope this helps.

Mr. Cohoangler

Your basic description was probably covered in Wash State History, but that was 30+ years ago! Thanks so much for taking the time to dumb it down and oversimplify the treaty situation for me, much appreciated! Reminds me why I dropped Calculus in school also..gick!

"hate the game, not the player" comes to mind.

Yeah, this has nothing to do with race. It's contract law. It's both sides trying to maintain their sovereign rights. Everyone in the aformentioned advocate group supports the tribes right to harvest their share as designated by Boldt as recognized in our contract (also known a Treaty).

Speaking for myself, I am interested in preserving my ability to enjoy the water. I don't think the waters are too crowded that anyone's ability to boat/kayak/swim/fish/crab/waterski is hamered. I think there's plenty of room for everyone. I would promote and be in favor of the tribe putting in 1, 2, or 10 boat launches. What does it matter as long as we're all observing the harvest guidelines?
However, the tribal claim is that a launch will add to marine traffic and create unsafe marine conditions, and therefore hamper their ability to harvest their half. To each their own opinion; that's what the Corps has to rule on.

If I were to oppose a tribal harvest, it would be seen as a racist objective. Yet the tribe may be able restrict my ability to harvest my share by limiting water access ...this is where it gets into the contract law part of it, and departs from both logic and "co-management".

When US laws are based on the constitutional concept of being equal under the law,then our own contract (we wrote it) deviates and creates a super-citizen group that has rights others don't have, things eventually go sideways. Stevens/ US govt made the contract, and I respect that. Boldt was legally sound. In this case, I have a legal and sovereign right to access any federal waterways, and the AG and advocates agree. It's a govt vs govt sovereignty contract issue. Has nothing to do with race.

"the tribal claim is that a launch will add to marine traffic and create unsafe marine conditions, and therefore hamper their ability to harvest their half"

They of course don't truly believe that themselves but are throwing up any argument they think may stick. When we rule in their favor on such a ridiculous argument it only sets bad precedent and encourages the craziness.

What do you think the true reason is they don't want it? Spite? They want the Sound all to themselves? (that ship has sailed and never coming back to port).

Heck, pay them $1,000/lb for the 12 crab a year they may not catch because of the launch as mitigation.

Crazy Town!

If you were to dig through all of the related correspondence you would locate a letter from the tribe cancelling a scheduled meeting with WDFW which was to include PNP. The reason it was cancelled was that WDFW stood fast on its position regarding tribal hunting on private lands which infuriated tribal leaders. If there had been any potential for resolving PNP it went away right then.

Way of the world right now I guess - we're all better at making enemies than working together...

With all there casino money, lobbyist and lawyers and our spineless WDFW and Gov. does it just make sense to just have them manage the whole thing and we get our half? Kind of a joke now. As I understand it we can't get a breakwater in West Seattle because of the tribes and I imagine its only a matter of time before that the rest of the central sound deals with these same things.

Might as well sell the boats and get Kayaks to fish. Then they will have something to complain about. 500 kayaks fishing the point will make them wish they had just STFU and let the few folks who use the launch for the tiny window area 9/10 are open.

First work week of January 2021 has come and gone - without a decision.

With regard to PNP the ball is in the hands of the Corps. The Commission has supported pushing forward on the permit application, the Directors and other staff members have met with tribal reps to no avail, and both the current and prior Director have sent detailed letters to the Corps refuting the Suquamish assertions. What else would you have them do?

Now, as to that guy we call a Governor (and his predecessor) could exert significant pressure should he so desire. But in the political world that is expecting far too much from him. Too much money at stake.

Oh, by the way, have you noticed not a word from that guy about how the tribal casinos continue to operate while he has shut down non-tribal operations. His silence says a lot. He should have been shaming them and taking whatever steps available to minimize the activities at those high risk locations.

Larry,
I know in the past the Norm Dicks at times would get involved in issues involving the tribes.
Do you know if Derek Kilmer has been involved to possibly helping break the stalemate regarding the launch?
SF

Oh yes! Boating United sponsored a town hall meeting 8 Aug 2019 on the importance of boating with Rep. Kilmer as the keynote speaker. After his spiel he opened up to comments and a number of people spoke to the PNP issue and the fact that it had been with the Corps 6 years and asked him to intervene to get a decision from them. Lots of head nodding but the resulting action was less than responsive.

Rather than just leaning on the Corps he made an effort to orchestrate further dialog between the Suquamish and WDFW rather than become directly involved. At that point the new Director agreed to meet with tribal leaders but when he arrived they refused to discuss; essentially snubbed his overture.

Worse, Rep. Kilmer's local staff repeatedly tried to dodge the issue by asserting we were trying to have Kilmer to take a side which was patently wrong. The requests were for Rep. Kilmer to "encourage" the Corps to make a decision.

As a result another year was lost in what has become a true bureaucratic debacle.

Draw your own conclusions.

It just seems so obvious that the decision has been made by the Feds, they just don't have the gonads to say it because it will end up in Court and they could lose there.

I agree. In my view, their tentative decision is to issue the permit. But they're concerned about whether they are prepared for the resulting litigation (from the Tribe). The previous litigation on culverts in Puget Sound (which went all the way to the Supreme Court) is likely a major concern for their attorneys.

Larry,
Thank you for the information.
SF

The culvert litigation was about destroying habitat that produced the fish. The State's position included the idea that they could destroy a whole run if progress called for that, with impunity. The launch is about access, not habitat. Whole different set of arguments. While Boldt had stuff about habitat, he also held that neither side obstruct access.

If the Corps issues the permit would the Suquamish take formal action to oppose it? So far all they have had to do is submit an objection and some rather over the top testimonials from a couple of tribal fishers.

A formal action, especially a court action, would bring all of this stuff out into a more public arena. All sorts of information could come out to include Chinook harvest, crab harvest, casino money and their agreement with the Port of Seattle where they are being paid to facilitate Port project permitting.

Again, so far they have been able to play the delay game but that is hopefully going to come to an end this month.

01/11/2021

WDFW will find something to "protect", won't need a boat launch.....won't be able to fish from a boat, spinning reel & 13' or 14 foot rod, fish from shore !!!!! Get lots of practice casting long distance....... could happen...... grrrrrrrr

Leonard Forsman has a lot of power. I remember him from NKHS and when I worked at Kiana Lodge with his family before the tribe purchased it. I remember when the totem pole was set on fire at NKHS.
His brother Tony owns Suquamish Seafoods. Of course he's going to stand up for the tribe. The tribe has taken the Navy to court over water quality issues. I'm surprised they don't want the ramp. They built a dock in Suquamish and non-tribal can use it.

Kilmer cares about the Navy. So did Dicks but Norm liked to fish.

The second full work week of January 2021 has come and gone without a decision being issued. Half way through their own target month.....but who's counting?

Oh, and I recall last seeing Leonard Forsman on TV lamenting the adverse impact of trade wars on tribal (his brother's??) seafood sales to Asian countries.

Week three has now ended; one more work week in the Corps' target month for issuing a decision on WDFW's permit application for the PNP ramp. Will they make their own deadline??? Suspense is killing me!

Three days to go now - can I start holding my breath in anticipation?

Are you good for 72 hours?

Will I be surprised if it doesn't happen by Friday? No. But I will be very disappointed given that the January 2021 target date was established by the Corps' representative on 14 July 2020 or just over 6 months ago.

Keep in mind that this permit application has been with the Corps for over 7 years now.

Again, if it doesn't happen this month it will be a sad commentary.

If you haven't seen it here is the PNP website: https://pointnopointramp.com/.


Larry B.

Unless the tribes give their okie dokie, I wouldn't get your hopes up for a permit.

Should the Corps deny the permit they will have to explain their decision which will have to include a further definition of de minimus which is the threshold for denying a permit.

Under their own explanation, I think the tribe could sue at anytime in the future if they experience any hardship or reduced harvest. A preemptive attempt to keep it from being built is simply based off assumptions, all of which can be dealt with after the fact. The actual ramp can only be beneficial to them as they clearly intend to use it. If problems arise, the tribe could then petition for damages and changes to the use. The whole attempt to stop the ramp is simply a power grab and attempt to obtain benefits in advance.

Entities, especially government ones, have shown a great willingness to pay the Tribes to allow projects.

Hopefully this will help put that evil Genie back in the bottle.

B-E-E-P !

And another deadline goes by... anyone surprised?

Nope. Not surprised at all. I believe they have decided just unwilling to say so.

To be fair Col. Bullock has until mid-night tomorrow. Sure, as if that is going to happen.

It is almost like they don't even think about this unless someone is communicating up their chain of command. As in, hello General - there is a problem in your Seattle office.

Well, Monday will be the 1st of February and absent some unanticipated miracle they will have officially missed their own target without explanation and/or establishing a new target.

Larry B.

....and then the communication , with attached copies, need to start up the chain and also include the Federal elected officials with a request to them for a Congressional inquiry from their office as to why it's taking so long.....

Been awful quiet. Anybody ask the Corpse what's happening?

Reportedly moving closer to a decision. All I know.

March 1st.
Any word?
SF

If I step out my back door I am one step closer to China. But I'm not getting there anytime soon.

Yeah, no need to run when they’ve been crawling since 1996 regarding that property....
SF

You all do remember the movie Groundhog Day, right?

The ACOE has formally denied WDFW's permit application to build the ramp, citing the Suquamish Tribe's treaty fishing rights as the determining factor.



Fish on...

Todd

Denied.

Even better, the last tribal objection claimed they historically fished in the EXACT FOOTPRINT where the ramp would lay, backed by signed affidavits from tribal members claiming this. The WDFW responded with photos of a dock/ramp/rail launch that was just recently removed...which had been there for decades. So how is it that they crabbed there, in ,12' of water.

The way the Corps wrote the denial means this precedent (reasoning behind denial) can apply to ANY ramp that is in a U&A. Well, every foot of salt water in the state is in a U&A, so yes, that means the ramp nearest you. ALL RAMPS, public or private, need this same permit for any repair, new build, replacement, or maintenance. When the Corps receives the permit application, they are required to notify the local tribe for approval. With any objection, that ramp is shut down. My senator and a recent discussion with the Attorney General representing this case both agree.

Further, if the PNP ramp violates Treaty rights, then don't all ramps? It seems the treaty share needs no boats on the water to be able to fish, instead of having the ability to fish "in common" on grounds with everybody else.

PNP is only the first case where Boldt closed a state park and ramp. It isn't the last. Coming soon to a boat launch near you...

I guess we’ll have to settle for this at PNP.
Wouldn’t removing the drain pipe in the south side infringe on someone’s U & A fishing rights?
I guess not if there are the right partners....or maybe just different partners?
SF

https://www.kitsapsun.com/story/news/202...BdGYhENXx1A8jpI

Near future scenario:
We've seen LaPush and Neah Bay close access to the non-treaty share, because they're located on reservation land. So maybe Sekiu needs a permit to repair their pilings or ramps, and it's denied based on similar obscure objection. They deteriorate or are deemed unsafe and close. Now there would be no public launch or water access from Pt Angeles to Westport. Makes for some nice, private fishing grounds.

As a US and WA State resident, I'm so fortunate to have sovereign, federally secured water I can access. Oh wait...that was yesterday.

"...Settle for this at Point No Point?"

You mean settle for this everywhere. This is the start of ramp permits routinely being denied, and ramps therefore closing. Why would a tribe with a ramp in it's U&A would approve a permit. What's in it for them?

The Corps has decided to relinquish its federal authority on saltwater permitting, and defer to a separate sovereign government to make the decisions on our rights to access federal surface waters.

Don’t take my post too seriously as I’m pissed also.
My point is there is going to need to be a lot of work done, some on the beach to accomplish that restoration project.
Wouldn’t that also possibly do harm to a U & A fishing area?
Yet not a peep on that from the group opposing the ramp.
Is that because there is another tribe supporting it?
SF

Arguably, the only time pnp is fished is during summer Chinook openers anymore, which is two to three weeks or less a year. It's not a go-to winter blackmouth destination. So that two or three weeks a year obstructs the Suquamish so much that we can't build and use a ramp, yet there are already 200 boats out front forced to drive and waste gas from other far away locations? Or is it because sport fishermen would have better access to crabbing in that location, hence the denial?

What specific forms of obstruction are we talking about here? and when, and how? I'll have to read the decision when I have time. Im going fishing.

either way....

Nice logic Leonard. Not.

More division, neato....I really wonder what it's going to be like in 100 years? My kid started golfing a couple of weeks ago with his buddies (I don't). Secretly I'm happy for him. Of course, he's still into killing critters, but when I'm dead he can sell all the guns and the boat and he'll have 150-200k to go blow on other cool hobbies where he doesn't have to "fight" with other American stakeholders to get an opportunity to utilize those resources.

Go luck with Kitsap County wanting to build a fishing pier at Norwegian point. Hopefully that project is DOA,

Dash point pier just got shut down for structural damage. Extremely popular, especially for pinks. Several years ago I went down and watched well over 25 kings hooked on a tide. Several doubles and I believe a triple. I lost one on a poor netting job and got another about 20 minutes later. One guy was using braid and lost 4 or 5 at the dock. First time I went down in the early eighties while I wasin college. It was on the old dock and no one knew or cared to hook pinks. I stood alone and hooked 10 to 15. I had three in the bag and was going to try for a fourth when the old guys on the dock started to harass me about how only kings counted. Literally let the buzz bomb drop down on that cast and pulled in a 8-10 lb cookie cutter king. Only fish that were caught all day. I came back a day or too later and everyone on the dock had a pink buzz bomb. The guy who was teasing me the hardest said he put in about 14 hours the other day and didn't get a sniff. He had a handful of bombs and was handing them out to all the other old guys.

In any case, it will be sad to see it go away, even if it is a zoo at times. I have a feeling it will now be very hard to repair or rebuild with this latest decision. Redondo repairs are going on 2 years now. Since construction appears to be under way, I guess they might have permits on that one.

Just one more access closed - hopefully to reopen but not in time for this fall's recreational fisheries. And if it remains closed until serious repairs consider the possibility that the requirement for a USCOE permit is now problematic.

As to Col. Bullock's (he signed it but no doubt written by the attorneys) decision no where is there a standard laid out for what constitutes de minimus let alone referring to de minimus as a standard. Yet de minimus is the language in their own policy statements.

Now is the time for WA State to take on the Corps for as Ned as mentioned it sets a standard where any proposed project can and will be objected to by one or more tribes with U&A. The question I have is whether it will get to SCOTUS before I beat it to the history books.

Have a choice here. The State (WDFW) needs to fight this to the Supremes if necessary. Other choice is find somewhere else to fish in marine waters as the Indians will get them here.

I doubt WDFW will elevate or appeal the decision. Why? Because if they do, the Suquamish can hold the "NOF non-agreement" threat over the Department. WDFW caves to any and every demand of PS treaty tribes in order to continue riding the shirt tail of the BIA ESA Section 7 permit that authorizes salmon fishing in Puget Sound.

WDFW's Ron Warren called riding the tribal ESA permit the "best alternative." Is that true if it gives treaty tribes de facto control over development along PS shorelines?

Litmus test for Director Susewind who to date has given PNP his support.

Consider this:
The Treaty calls for the US government to protect the tribal reservations from physical threat and judicially. IE when the tribes sued in Boldt, they were represented by the the federal govt and the case was called "USA vs State of Washington."

If the Corps had OK'ed the ramp, and the tribe decided to file suit against the Corps, it would be "USA vs Army Corps of Engineers (USA)".
How does that work? Think legal council at the Corps might have been influenced by that, possibly interfering with the factual merits of the permit?

Second: It strikes me as odd that the Corps decision had to do with defining treaty rights, and if this ramp infringes on their ability to harvest within treaty specifications. (It is a gray area that takes some debate.)
Why is it in the Corps jurisdiction to define legalese on a treaty? I thought only Congress could do that?
I would have thought the Corps looked at structural, environmental/ESA, and hard permitting/construction requirements, not legal interpretation of hypothetical claims...especially when there is no appeal process.

Another perspective is that if the Corps is responsible to protect Treaty rights how is it that the Corps can approve a project that would clearly have an adverse impact if the tribe(s) don't object (because they have been paid compensation to facilitate the approval)?

At some point the whole issue of "sovereign rights" will have to go to the Supremes. Either the Federal Government is superior or the Tribes are. I know WA considers the Tribes to be superior to the State but don't know how the Feds will deal with who is superior. Right now, it looks like the Feds cave too.

The Feds being multiple agencies which seem to find their path of least resistance being treaties which in so many ways have been altered over time to the benefit of the tribes with no quid pro quo. The most current such situation is an emergent agreement whereby tribes will be able to provide sport betting with approval of the State but no off-reservation sport betting provided by non-tribal organizations. I suspect that if the State would have made an issue of PNP holding up that sport betting issue the objections would have evaporated very quickly.

At some point there will have to be activation of the RESET button.

Congress will have to set the "Reset" button.