You are right Boldt doesn't read that way. It is pretty explicit in the Boldt rulling (and it's antecedents) that conservation comes before harvest. But as Todd pointed out, there has to be an actual conservation issue if you're seeking a change in the management of a fishery. If Green river wild coho are listed as healthy, and the tribal fishery is not impacting any listed stocks, I'm not sure how the conservation argument can be succesfully made in this particular case.

Isn't the Makah whaling permit being litigated now for reasons of conservation, and international treaty obligations? I'm not as familiar with the status of that permit process 'cause honestly it doesn't really interest me as much as salmon issues.


Mingo,

The fishing rights retained by the tribes in the treaties have no expiration. But It won't be the Supreme Court that makes the treaties obsolete, time and the social nature of man will bred the tribes out of existence. Their blood will be watered down a hundred times over, and their culture bastardized till it becomes recognized only as a trademark for some brand of canned pinks. And in a 150 years people will brag that they are 1/64th indian. Considering the amount of land bought with those fishing rights, how many generations of indian fishers should be allowed to operate under the tribes pretense of the treaties before you consider it 'even'?



I do get bitter...no, pissed, when I'm upriver of a gauntlet of nets. And just for consideration, I was not around here in the early '70's. If I was, I'm pretty sure it would color my current viewpoint. I have no doubt about it.