B-run,

Thanks for the reply. No, I'm not filing you into any catagory; it's not my place to do so.

As for the treaties needing work, many would agree. But here is what the courts have said: the mere passage of time does not invalidate the agreements made.

The upshot is simple. Treaties can be updated by the willing consent of the parties to the treaty. But consider this, the Indians had only Gov. Stevens and James Swan acting in their behalf when the original treaties were negotiated. If new negotiations were held, the tribes would show up with a bevy of lawyers just as capable as the U.S. gov't. lawyers. Do you really think the U.S. could strike a better deal with tribes now (with all the development on the land and so forth) than they did in 1855? I think not.

Many people make the mistake of thinking that a new or modified treaty would be whatever they would like to see put in it. That is not how treaties work. They are like willing buyer, willing seller negotiations. And nowadays tribes would be holding all the trump cards in a negotiation, unlike the first time around. That is the main reason why I think the treaties are likely to remain intake. Modifying them would be even more costly than the way it is now. Some tribes are upset that the courts allocate half of their fish to the non-treaty citizens. Not hard to understand that when you consider that the U.S. gov't. considered the tribes the legitimate owners of the land and resources, originally.

As for thinking the net fishing stinks, as long as you think net fishing by whites stinks also, then I'm fine with your opinion. But fishing is still fishing. Like, is fishing with a dry fly really on a higher moral plane than fishing with a wet fly? And if so, why? Clearly, the fish being caught certainly don't care. The difference that I see is that certain fishing methods allow management options that other methods, like gillnets or ocean trolling, don't.

Thanks for your interest.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.