As I recall neither of the two tribal officers involved (operating outside their jurisdiction) were charged despite holding those two hunters and a child at gun point for hours. Again, as I recall, the senior officer on scene was subsequently fired by the tribe. Was there any quiet deal for compensation? If so, it was really a quiet deal.

Has anyone heard any update on this? The NOF is underway, are the Skokes participating? Did WDFW withdraw the challenge?

I would be shocked and amazed if Ron Warren doesn't agree to absolutely every demand made by any of the PS tribes. He and Susewind get their paychecks whether they work on behalf of recreational fishing or not. Makes no difference based on their performances to date.

We were successful. We got you fifteen minutes in Area 10.

So you're saying we get enough time to launch and retrieve our boats, just no time to put a fishing line in the water. To heck with this defund the police nonsense; how's about we defund WDFW?

It's the catching, it's the OPPORTUNITY to be out in nature and on the water. By the way, I support such defunding.

It's only opportunity if it includes a reasonable chance of catching fish. Just like the SCOTUS said that treaty fishing rights are meaningless if there are no fish in the water to catch. Which appears to be the direction we're heading, even for many of the tribes. SCOTUS may have to re-address this issue soon if the U&A become functionally fishless.

That's true. Boldt II was supposed to cover that.

Have to disagree. My interpretation of that rule is that the moment your bait/lure hits the water the clock starts and like when shrimping your bait/lure has to be out of the water when the clock tics 15 minutes. And if that becomes too burdensome for the managers next year there will be a defined 15 minutes; as in 4:00 A.M. to 4:15 A.M.

Oh, and any fish hooked and not in the boat within that 15 minutes will have to be released.

It is all about opportunity after all.......

The Boldt II decision went to the SCOTUS a couple years back. It ended with a 4-4 tie when Justice Kennedy recused himself since he voted against the Tribes when this issue came up at the 9th Circuit court, back when he was a Circuit court judge. A 4-4 tie meant that the original decision from the 9th Circuit stands, but only for the 9th Circuit territory (nine Western States which include 15 District courts).

But if Justice Kennedy had participated in the decision, the Tribes likely would have lost the case. The Tribes are well aware of that. My sense is that they may no longer see the SCOTUS as a reliable path to adjudicating their issues. As such, they will likely avoid going to the SCOTUS for anything.

The Tribes aren't the only ones who can bring cases. Plus, the Tribes won the Culvert Case at the Supremes. That was here the State argued for the right to destroy runs with no consequence as a part of development.

Back a bit a friend of mine who is tribal told me the tribal golden rule for individuals was you do nothing that would put tribal rights ( be it fish or gambling or gas tax ) in court. I doubt that has changed much.