My feeling is that a readdress should allow for the tribes to 50% of the share or enough for subsistence or ceremonial. In cases where there is excess above the basic tribal needs the tribe and state would split the left over. What that does is take away the tribes ability to fight for historical levels but allows them to fight to keep adequate runs and basically clean waterways. Luckily, with the casino money coming it, there suddenly are new requirements to be a member.

The original Boldt Decision gave the tribes 50% of the off reservation commercial catch. C&S and on reservation did not count in the sharing. Don't think you really want to go back to that. It was the Supremes, the second time around I believe, that lumped all catch together.

The Tribes have threatened to take to AK catch to court and have that count against the NI share. Don't know if they would also go after the WA rec catch in BC, too.

If the Tribes want to have the runs restrored to levels at treaty times I am all for that for the watersheds that still have lots of anadromous access. In the other areas (Columbia, for example) hatcheries will be needed.

That was a mistake, carcassman, what I was trying to say was that if there was enough to justify both fisheries the Non-treaty side would get half, but that the C&S tribal fishery would always take precedent and always be guaranteed. Which, considering the history and the fact that our/non-indian side did most of the habitat damage, is probably fair.

I would agree that C&S should take precedent over all other harvest. Same up in AK. If you subsist on salmon, regardless of race, then you are first in line. The folks way out in the boonies can't hit safeway whenever they want.

People ahead of profit.