treaty fishery question

"if" we were to start an inititive to ban non-treaty commercial gill netting and purse seine fishing for salmon from washington waters and it passed could the tribes continue to gillnet fish since they would not be "in-common" with the people of the state anymore ? , other than the sportfishers, could that be why they didnt support I-696 ?

Yep, thats right...they would continue on but they would certainly be the "bad guys" reverse pressure might work.

Jim

No.

Treaty tribes hold fishing rights independent of non-treaty fishing. They'd still harvest their half, and there may be some issues of foregone opportunity with some salmon runs, Not really an issue with steelhead runs.

I think they didn't support I-696 because they were afraid that hatchery production, habitat protection, etc., would go down because the state wouldn't have non-treaty commercial fishermen to subsidize and hand-hold anymore.

The treaty fishers may have actually ended up with less fish in the long run. In these situations, what's good for the tribes is good for the non-treaty commercial fishers.

We pretty much get screwed either way.

Fish on...

Todd.