I recall discussions with one gill netter who brought back, and distributed to the hungry, 20 fish that arrived in the boat dead. Over 400 pounds.

Well if the tribes cannot be influenced by any sort of action then it seems pointless to eliminate commercial gill nets which is only half the problem. If there's no solution to solve the problem then I'll just have to bag the idea and move on to something else!

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

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.

Denham,

If the ocean mixed-stock fishery that Flea Flicker suggested doesn't appeal to you, may I suggest that you focus on a buy-out/ban on gillnetting on the lower Columbia River (LCR)? That fishery has become an anachronism that is inconsistent with conservation. It is also a non-treaty, non-Indian fleet, so racism is not an issue. And, importantly, there exists a reasonable solution that is consistent with conservation.

The LCR gillnet fishery kills steelhead and wild spring Chinook when hatchery spring Chinook are available for harvest. It takes a mix of hatchery and wild summer Chinook, and then in the fall it takes ESA listed tule fall Chinook while trying to harvest abundant upriver bright Chinook and hatchery tule fall Chinook. The reasonable alternative is fish traps. But not the little one like the one being tested by the Wild Salmonid Conservancy down by Cathlamet. Large fish traps that could trap, sort, and separate by species and hatchery/wild status could be readily retrofitted at fish ladders at Willamette Falls, Bonneville and the Dalles Dams, Barrier Dam on the Cowlitz, and Merwin Dam on the Lewis River. Such traps would allow the sustainable harvest of hatchery origin salmon while safely releasing wild salmon, or when harvestable numbers of wild salmon are available, some of those could be harvested as well.

These would be salmon in good table fare condition because the prospective trapping locations are low in the river system. This alternative uses existing technology that is known to be effective. Only salmon that are known to be harvestable would be removed from spawning populations.

The downside is change. People resist change. Change is hard. Change is not the preferred alternative. Supporting the status quo gillnet fishery is easy. It is traditional for over 100 years. It is also akin to believing that you can pick up a turd by the clean end.

I wrote up a mock draft last night and focused primarily on the LCR gill net industry. My only problem is I cannot find a "tangible" call to action entailing what citizens could do to help the cause. I understand Oregon dropped out of their end of the bargain as well. If there were some petition people could sign to make a difference that would be great. Opposed to calling or emailing your local legislators which doesn't do much.

By the way, all the feedback has been great and I really appreciate the time folks have taken to help out.

I arrive there by deduction. See this US DOJ page for their summary.
https://www.justice.gov/enrd/us-v-washington

I would think that if alternate sources of income were part of the equation, it would say so, wouldn't it? Something like:

"Up to 50%, but no more than is necessary to provide Indians with a livelihood--that is to say a moderate living, inclusive of all other sources of potential contribution to their said livelihood"...

Again, I'm no lawyer, so take it as my opinion.