If commercial fishing for Steelhead was banned in the 1920’s why are the Indians allowed to do it?

Because state law does not apply to Tribes. Treaty trumped it.

Emotionally, maybe. Legally, no.

Then why aren't tribes allowed do commercially hunt deer, elk, develop nukes etc.

Why do they get to pick and choose which laws do/do not apply to them while claiming full benefits of citizens of the United States? Pick one! Be your own country or not! Don't cherry pick the benefits of each.

I say pay reparations, buy out the treaties and then let's all live in common. Never happen as they've got the best of both now and Woke America has too much of a guilt complex.

Just because they don't commercially hunt does not say they can't.

Pay reparations? They owned the whole state. Who is going to pay them market rates for that?

Regarding hunting, each tribe makes their own regulations. For game animals in some tribes, one individual can harvest multiple animals by hunting for each family member's stated quota (ie self, wife, kids, extended family...), and in addition, there are mass harvests for ceremonial purposes above the personal harvest.

The treaties "locked in" many rights that seem excessive now, but when the treaties were written, it seemed inconceivable that animals or fish would be in the sad state they are in today. Washington was only a territory in the 1850's, and the governing authority did not consider the possible outcomes of the rights promised when they hastily penned the treaties.

So, here we are today. To me, a big part of the issue is the way our 1850's government wrote the treaties. Most laws are designed for fairness and equal application, and attempt to see that "all people are created equally" and given equal status, application, and chance.

(racism,sexism, etc..don't start! ...lets just stay on fishing and hunting)

In contrast and contradiction, the treaties wound up creating a Supercitizen. One where, because of your race, you are granted rights others don't have. We in the Northwest have to honor those treaties, although this contradicts what most all other laws are based on.

The Boldt Decision only applies to certain northwest tribes, so east coast and other states don't have this contradiction to deal with. Aren't we lucky.

WDFW has to consider Recs, commercials, and the tribes, whereas other states only have rec and commercial. What a mess when a sovereign nation can enter with rights that supersede all others before any conversation has started. It gives majority rule to a minority group.

I'm not ignorant of, or necessarily against tribal goals, recognition, history, or their granted treaty rights...I'm just glad I am not the WDFW Director.

To be a state federal law required treaties. The treaties are with " nations " who became citizen of the US by a act of congress without concurrence of treaty nations people. The aboriginal nations were basically conquered or bought out. ( if that failed force was used ) Hell in 1910's the federal government was still trying to wipe out the plains nation native culture. This nation was built on the concept of " manifest destiny " and right or wrong has little to do with history as history is what it is.