Have a choice here. The State (WDFW) needs to fight this to the Supremes if necessary. Other choice is find somewhere else to fish in marine waters as the Indians will get them here.

I doubt WDFW will elevate or appeal the decision. Why? Because if they do, the Suquamish can hold the "NOF non-agreement" threat over the Department. WDFW caves to any and every demand of PS treaty tribes in order to continue riding the shirt tail of the BIA ESA Section 7 permit that authorizes salmon fishing in Puget Sound.

WDFW's Ron Warren called riding the tribal ESA permit the "best alternative." Is that true if it gives treaty tribes de facto control over development along PS shorelines?

Litmus test for Director Susewind who to date has given PNP his support.

Consider this:
The Treaty calls for the US government to protect the tribal reservations from physical threat and judicially. IE when the tribes sued in Boldt, they were represented by the the federal govt and the case was called "USA vs State of Washington."

If the Corps had OK'ed the ramp, and the tribe decided to file suit against the Corps, it would be "USA vs Army Corps of Engineers (USA)".
How does that work? Think legal council at the Corps might have been influenced by that, possibly interfering with the factual merits of the permit?

Second: It strikes me as odd that the Corps decision had to do with defining treaty rights, and if this ramp infringes on their ability to harvest within treaty specifications. (It is a gray area that takes some debate.)
Why is it in the Corps jurisdiction to define legalese on a treaty? I thought only Congress could do that?
I would have thought the Corps looked at structural, environmental/ESA, and hard permitting/construction requirements, not legal interpretation of hypothetical claims...especially when there is no appeal process.

Another perspective is that if the Corps is responsible to protect Treaty rights how is it that the Corps can approve a project that would clearly have an adverse impact if the tribe(s) don't object (because they have been paid compensation to facilitate the approval)?

At some point the whole issue of "sovereign rights" will have to go to the Supremes. Either the Federal Government is superior or the Tribes are. I know WA considers the Tribes to be superior to the State but don't know how the Feds will deal with who is superior. Right now, it looks like the Feds cave too.

The Feds being multiple agencies which seem to find their path of least resistance being treaties which in so many ways have been altered over time to the benefit of the tribes with no quid pro quo. The most current such situation is an emergent agreement whereby tribes will be able to provide sport betting with approval of the State but no off-reservation sport betting provided by non-tribal organizations. I suspect that if the State would have made an issue of PNP holding up that sport betting issue the objections would have evaporated very quickly.

At some point there will have to be activation of the RESET button.

Congress will have to set the "Reset" button.