My point certainly is taken to an extreme precisely because I believe continued discussion on the Boldt Decision or the Medicine Creek Treaty is so very counterproductive. The Boldt Decision is the law of the land, the odds of ever changing it are extremely long so we had better learn how to live with it. If anyone believes that the Boldt Decision will be overturned or even substantially weakened then I need some of their stuff at 4:20!!! We can talk about what the treaties really mean or intended until the cows come home - it doesn't matter. The Boldt Decision has interpreted the language and been upheld as the law of the land. If you have passion about protecting the salmonid resource you would be more effective working at something other than an overturn or reinterpretation of the Boldt Decision. My .02 for what its worth. And for better or worse, the Supreme Court agrees.

Less than 10 hours to 4:20!!!

You are correct again eddie...Like it or not, we should try working with the broad spectrum of stakeholders to improve the sharing of our fisheries resources. Suing the tribes has proven to be an exercise in futility time and time again. Working with the tribes is all we have as an option unless we want to get even more frustrated. Don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean we have to agree with our adversaries, just engage them at the peace table.

"Suing our adversaries will certainly alienate them".....(Dances With Trout 1855)

I guess I am just really confused.... Who got their butt kicked here.....???

I don't mean to sound as rude as I do, but this lying down and taking the kicking in the head that we seem to be so good at anymore is sickening. Since when have we ever kept a promise that hurt us or this country???? When did this start?
I guess reparations for the blacks is possibly a good thing then too.... There have been many, many "laws of the land" that have been overturned. Roe V Wade is one such "Law of the land". Do you feel so confident that it will never be overturned even though it has been reviewed and scrutinized every year since it's inception? It may possibly be overturned one day, and ONLY because those that believe it is wrong do not roll over and whine about how "there is nothing that can be done". I do not bend one way or the other with that argument.... just making the point against your statement that nothing can be done. Enough of us get peaved and become a large group.... believe me change can happen when an injustice or unfair "law" is in practice.... Good thing the Blacks did not think like you when the Supreme Court believed that they were inferior and not afforded the same rights as white..... They would still be pickin' cotton and singing the woes of slavery......


MC

Sigh - Okay, one more time. A treaty exercised in our name by the Government is the supreme "law of the land". The only way that it can be modified is by all parties to the treaty agreeing to the modification. Since the Indians are US citizens, the Supreme Court has the final say in any conflicts arising over the treaty. Yes, the Government often disregards treaties but they are international treaties where not all parties have standing before the US Judicial system.

You can debate the rightness of this, you can argue over what the Indians should do but in reality it's just mental j**king off. Does no good for the resource, only makes you feel better. If you are truly concerned about the salmonid resource, do something productive. If you need to complain about the Boldt decision, please do it in private. The fish do not need the distraction.

Eddie -

I usually agree with alot of what you say...but in this instance I think you are wrong. I do think having a constructive conversation about what chain of events would have to occur in order for the Boldt decidion to be reexamined, on some level whether it be executive or judicial, is a very good idea. The trouble is getting to the 'constructive' part....

Isn't it time the United States defended its domestic resources as vigorously as it defends its international ones?

Wow, did this thread get hijacked or what?

I think these orginizations are finding that working with the tribes has been a very productive road to take.I used use there nets stretched across my favorite rivers every year as my criteria for judging them and there charector.But as I opened my eys a little farther and started doing some research I found that they are involved in alot more and in some cases have alot more money invested in restoration and such then any of our groups.You are rigt that the boldt decision is there to stay and that we need to work with them.I know it is hard every year when I see them netting a favorite steelhead run on the canal though.

H2O - Nice to know that there is at least one out there that can tolerate my pinko babbling and I agree with you that we need to defend our domestic resources and do it vigorously. Where we part ways is that a reexamination or reopening of the Boldt decision is not the best way to defend our resources. There are other ways to work with the tribes that can and will show a benefit for the resource and by extension - sportfishers. Coming at it from trying to change Boldt is a non starter, a dead end road. That is what I find so disturbing. An incredible amount of energy and passion wasted. We must all pick the mountain we are going to die on, and for me, Boldt isn't it.