Here's the Tribune's coverage of the WDFW hearings in Pt. Townsend last week.

Major congratulations to the participants in the PSA Crab Allocation Protest.

I'll make my other comment after the article...

Steelhead, crab dominate hearing
JEFFREY P. MAYOR; The News Tribune

The steelheaders want an end to catching and keeping the state's wild steelhead.

The crabbers want an increase in the recreational crabbing allocation.


The boaters - guides and private owners alike - want to kill a proposed prohibition of powerboats on stretches of the Wynoochee and Satsop rivers.


Those were the common themes as dozens of people testified to the State Fish and Wildlife Commission on Saturday in Port Townsend. The commission was hearing comments on the proposed fishing regulation changes for the 2004-2005 season.


Saturday was the last day to submit oral or written comments on the proposals. The commission is scheduled to vote on the final recommendations at its meeting in February.


The most visible group was made up of the crabbers, who stood outside the USO Hall meeting site, waving signs reading, "We crab, we fish, we vote."


Gary Hulsey, president of the East Jefferson Chapter of Puget Sound Anglers and one of the organizers, said recreational crabbers want their share of the record bounty in the Sound.


A 1997 court decision mandates the crab harvest be split 50-50 between the state and Washington's tribes. The issue for the crabbers is the allocation of the state's 50 percent take, Hulsey said.


"Right now, we're going through record crab numbers, and the sport season in the last two years has dwindled from months to weeks," Hulsey said.


"After you take out the state commercial crabbers and the tribes, we get 15.4 percent of the harvest," the Port Townsend resident said.


Doug Williams of the Department of Fish and Wildlife said the state has traditionally split its portion of the Puget Sound harvest at 65 percent for commercial crabbers and 35 percent for recreational crabbing.


"It's just a question of increased pressure on a finite resource," Williams said.


Before the meeting and before the commission, Hulsey said the estimated 150,000 recreational crabbers on the Sound far outnumber the 250 commercial crabbers. He also said the value of the recreational industry is valued at $50 million, outpacing the $6.3 million value of the state's commercial harvest.


"We feel recreational crabbing is a subsistence crabbing, and a Washington State heritage, and that should be the priority," Hulsey said.


The protest was informational and not related to a specific proposal. The crab harvest quotas are not set in the fishing regulations.


"The split in the non-treaty allocation isn't written in stone anywhere; it's essentially the historical split between commercial and recreational fleets," Williams said.


"Up until recently, the split provided for a full-season recreational fishery. It's only been the past few years where sport crabbers had their seasons closed early because they had reached their quota or had gone over. Those early closures have come because of increased participation in the recreational fleet and increased harvest rates," he said.


Release all wild steelhead


For steelhead anglers, the issue was a regulation not among the 104 the state is considering - a statewide rule requiring all wild steelhead to be released.


"We can only be described as outraged that this item was not put on this list," said Bill Redmond of the Federation of Fly Fishers' steelhead committee.


"The harvest of wild steelhead is still supported by this department on 16 rivers," said Jack Berryman, president of the Wild Steelhead Coalition. "How can you kill the wild steelhead seeds and expect the species to survive?"


As part of his testimony, Berryman gave each commissioner a copy of "King of Fish: The Thousand Year Run of Salmon," written by David R. Montgomery, a professor of geological sciences at the University of Washington.


Another member of the coalition, Nate Mantua said the state's policies should make ecosystem management the priority, echoing the views of Montgomery in his book.


"Management philosophies and principles are geared toward harvest," Mantua said. "Everything in the system is important."


Jeff Koenings, director of the department, said he certainly understands the fervor to protect steelhead.


"It's one of the icons of the Pacific Northwest. It's like the orca," he said. "It's almost like a religion. There's a real interest in keeping steelheading going."


Koenings doesn't agree, however, with the call to eliminate the harvesting of all wild steelhead.


"Our position is where you have healthy runs, you should have the opportunity to catch and keep a wild steelhead," the director said.


"It's not a case of one size fits all in terms of regulations," Koenings said.


Powerboat prohibition


The proposal that drew the most comments was the one to make it illegal to fish from a boat with a motor on the Wynoochee River above the city of Aberdeen's water intake dam and on the Satsop River and Middle Fork Satsop above the confluence of the East and West forks.


Albert Carter, a Grays Harbor County commissioner, said that group has gone on record opposing the closure.


"This will have a financial impact on not only guides but the county itself," Carter said. "This seems to be an issue between user groups."


Jeffrey P. Mayor 253-597-8640


jeff.mayor@mail.tribnet.com


Also on the table


Among the 104 rule changes being considered by the commission are:


• Keeping salmon and steelhead anglers from taking their catch out of the water if anglers are required to release the fish.


• A ban on the use of treble hooks in Marine Areas 1-13.


• Extending the closed area for catch-and-release fishing on over-sized sturgeon in the Columbia River, and requiring tags for sturgeon.


What's next


• Now until January: Department of Fish and Wildlife staff will review the oral and written comments and consider changes in the proposed rule changes for the 2004-2005 fishing season.


• Feb. 6-7: The commission will vote on the proposed rules at its meeting in Olympia.


• May 1: New rules will take effect.


(Published 12:01AM, December 11th, 2003)


Back to my comments...I don't necessarily agree with Dr. Koening's comment regarding having kill fisheries over healthy populations, but I think that his comment further begs the ultimate question, which is "Do we have truly healthy populations of wild steelhead".

All of the regression models show that not only do we not have really healthy populations, even on the OP, but that they also have been steadily declining when looked at as a whole, rather than trying to look at a few years of good runs as a successful management result.

While I don't expect a different comment from someone who wants to kill wild steelhead, or from someone who chooses not to, but doesn't want to be told not to, but to hear it from the Director, who is himself a PhD and has been in the field for a long time, is both discouraging and encouraging.

Discouraging because I expect a better recognition of prevailing science, and encouraging because there are still roads out there to walk, and folks who believe in WSR are willing to keep on walkin'.

Fish on...

Todd.

I agree that we dont have any truely healthy stocks, Id say inconsistantly healthy at best.

I read in an email from the WSC that the Hoh missed escapement by 800 wild steelhead last year, Id have to say I would believe the Hoh is the clossest thing we have to healthy in Washington State.

Oh but wait! The Quileute system is the trophy. It has proven that WDFW and the Quileute tribes use of MSY has been a great success. Not only is it healthy it is over twice escapement every year for nearly the past ten years. And it consistantly has gotten twice the escapement that it did in the hay days of the 60's and 70's. And it has the most harvest of wild steelhead and salmon on the peninsula. The numbers are hard numbers done from read counts, creel checks and tribal harvest, and not to mention smolt out migration counts. How can you argue about hard numbers?

Makes you wonder dont it? Who does all the steelhead red counts, smolt outmigration and documentation of tribal harvest. Who does it truely benefitt the most to always be far above escapement? You just cant argue with hard numbers the WDFW dosent, it dosent cost them anything and it makes them look good to boot.

The Quileute System ia amayzing its the only system in the state or the west coast for that matter that can handle massive comercial and substantial sport harvest. Yet with all the harvest and habiiat degridation the runs are actually getting larger.

It is just a testimate that MSY has worked, and that you cant blame harvest for the decline of wild salmon and steelhead.

I comend the WDFW and the Quileute tribe for the great success of management on the Quileute System.

Maybe the truth will come out someday before it is to late. We can only hope.

"It's one of the icons of the Pacific Northwest. It's like the orca," he said. "It's almost like a religion. There's a real interest in keeping steelheading going."

Koenings doesn't agree, however, with the call to eliminate the harvesting of all wild steelhead.

"Our position is where you have healthy runs, you should have the opportunity to catch and keep a wild steelhead," the director said.

"It's not a case of one size fits all in terms of regulations," Koenings said.

____________________________________

I made sure to hide away the quote when they finally close the Hoh and the big Q down one day, to remind everyone by failing to be proactive now and our continued arrogance will be the resources demiss.

From the Port Townsend Testimony-

Jack Berryman, WSC Past President, spoke of the Historical Failure of Salmonids Management and warned to let us learn from history and not repeat historical failures while we still have a chance. Jack presented each Commission member and WDFW Director Koenings on behalf of the WSC a copy of the just released book by David Montgomery, King of Fish: 1000 Year Run of Salmon. (suggested reading for all)

Peter Dorn, WSC VP Fundraising, testified about Failed Steelhead Escapements. Peter presented information that the Hoh River on the Olympic Peninsula, which is deemed one of healthy rivers for harvest of wild steelhead, failed to meet its spawning escapement last year. In fact, last year the Hoh fell below its escapement needs by 800 fish and the WDFW is still proposing a kill fishery on this great NW steelhead stream.

Dick Burge, WSC VP Conservation and Nate Mantua, VP of Science and Education provided the State of Steelhead Resource and Biological Diversity. Dick and Nate provided compelling and sound scientific reasons for protecting of biodiversity and run timing in steelhead waters. They also provided evidence from the first years landing data since the 5 fish limit was instituted that this new limit has not reduced the kill of wild fish. As example, while the Quillayute escapement was declining from 12,500 to 11,200 fish last season, the sport kill increased from 1790 to 1930 wild steelhead. Anecdotal observations suggest sport fishers and guide trips have increased considerably following the closure of the other Washington and Oregon areas and are taking more wild fish. The reduced limit regulation in this case has not effected the reduction of the overall kill rate of wild steelhead and in fact the rate has gone up! Dick and Nate again presented the Commission and WDFW Director a copy of the WSC paper entitled Biological and Economic Effects of Wild Steelhead Release.

First I will say that I am for WSR in principle ..same goes for salmon. There is a problem , however. The flyfishers and WSC tried to dominate the commission meeting with testimony over and over again saying the same thing...Stopping wild steelhead harvest by sportsmen is not their only goal in my opinion. It seems that their common thread is to designate rivers as off limits to all except those few who share their views. Fly fishing only perhaps?

The problem with narrow agendas is that they are pushed by a narrow minority and seek to impose rules and regulations on the majority who may sympathize with parts of their agenda but oppose most of it. WDFW and state government needs to atleast try to rule on things for the most inclusive results. Now I know they fail miserably on that when it comes to commercial fishing bias and boneheaded decisions but I think real change needs to be shown to be inclusive and not exclusive or it will fail.

Just because a bus load of fly fishermen descended on the commission hearing doesn't mean that they represent a majority viewpoint. The show of force by the crab convoy (myself included) didn't seek to dominate the meeting or disrupt it.. We were there to bring an issue to light that is supported by virtually ever person who crabs and a big percentage of license holders who do not. We will follow up with petitons that , although not official or binding on anyone, will show a broad base of support for inclusion....The effort does not seek to exclude anyone it only seeks to bring a fair balance to harvest of a natural resource that belongs to all the people and not to a tiny minority.

The WSR cause is a good one that I support. For me, though,it makes no sense whatsoever to close rivers to harvest of wild steelhead by sportsfishers while allowing commercial harvest of the same fish...no sense at all. Until an all encompassing policy can be enforced I agree with the director.

I hate to say it but a successful campaign to change things has to be for US and not for ME.

Grandpa,

Although many WSC members are fly fisherman, many of the same ones are gear fisherman and there are many others that dont even fly fish.

I gear fish and fly fish, (mostly gear fish).

In my opinion I believe comercial harvest is what is stopping WSR without exceptions. if WSR was put in place the next fight would be agianst comercial harvest. I believe comercial harvest would be the target by all steelhead fisherman once they stop fighting about WSR. I believe the WDFW knows this and dosent want to fight the tribes because its not politically correct and the sport fishers are easier to screw than to actually try and save wild steelhead.

I think they find it easier to keep the fight between the sport fishers than to take it to tne next level and fight for the fish.

I truely believe that once WSR goes through it will be only a matter of time before we as a whole force WDFW to stop the rape of our rivers.

The WDFW keeps calling foregone oportunity if we dont harvest fish, (thats what they want us to believe to scare us away from total WSR). I think it is time to make it WSR for a conservation measure. If it is done for conservation under the Boldt Decision by federal law the tribes have to participate. I dont see why this would be so hard to argue? Nearly all of our rivers are not meeting escapement. And the ones that are need to be conserved to maintian them and stop them from meeting the fate of the rest.

If we take away harvest of wild steelhead the State will be forced to change management. Maybe not overnight but if it goes to WSR and the runs continue to drop, (as they will), sport anglers may not unite over everything but Im sure they will unite agianst comercial harvest of wild steelhead.

Grandpa,

I'll have to make this really short...

No one was trying to disrupt the meetings, not anyone outside at the crab convoy nor anyone inside giving public testimony. Folks were exercising their right to give public testimony when they governing agency is making decisions that affect things that are important to them.

And by the way, I'm a founding board member of the Wild Steelhead Coalition, the WSC's VP of Political and Legal Affairs...and pretty much the only time I flyfish is for trout. I'm a die hard egg fisherman...always have been.

Every time WSR comes up folks start tagging it as an idea put forth by a small minority of fly guys to create a fly only fishery. The most ironic thing is that they usually follow it up by saying WSR advocates should be more "inclusive". WSR advocates are very inclusive, and include people from all walks of life and all walks of gear types. And surveys show...they are not a minority, either.

Misrepresenting those things is being exclusive, not inclusive.

Fish on...

Todd.

Boy, I think many of this board's participants are missing the point when it comes to fishing rights and co-management between the State and the Tribes. It is very simple, really. A given resource either has harvestable numbers or it does not. You can argue all you want about what constitutes "harvestable" and/or "conservation" and what does not. You can argue all you want about what resource is "healthy" and what is not. Currently, MSY is the approach used. It is admirable that we have highly educated people devoted to educating us about new approaches. Perhaps, one day we will change. For now, we define what is harvestable using MSY techniques.

Once the harvestable portion of a given return is determined, assuming we are talking about a system within the Boldt Case Area, the Tribes can harvest half the harvestable and the State can harvest the other half. Management plans are agreed to and thats that. Methods chosen to harvest each share are typically included in the plans. There is little use arguing over what one side's harvest methods are vs. the other. A dead fish is a dead fish.

For example, if a "catch and release" or a "mark selective" recreational fishery is in place, there will be mortality associated with that fishery; hatchery and wild mortality. The best available data is used to calculate that mortality. There will also be mortality in the Tribal fisheries; whether in river net fisheries or guided sport fisheries. Fishing moratlity data from both Tribal and State managed fisheries all count towards the "harvestable" amount.

Arguing about how "the other side" harvests its share of the resource is pointless.

Boy, I think many of this board's participants are missing the point when it comes to fishing rights and co-management between the State and the Tribes. It is very simple, really. A given resource either has harvestable numbers or it does not. You can argue all you want about what constitutes "harvestable" and/or "conservation" and what does not. You can argue all you want about what resource is "healthy" and what is not. Currently, MSY is the approach used. It is admirable that we have highly educated people devoted to educating us about new approaches. Perhaps, one day we will change. For now, we define what is harvestable using MSY techniques.

Once the harvestable portion of a given return is determined, assuming we are talking about a system within the Boldt Case Area, the Tribes can harvest half the harvestable and the State can harvest the other half. Management plans are agreed to and thats that. Methods chosen to harvest each share are typically included in the plans. There is little use arguing over what one side's harvest methods are vs. the other. A dead fish is a dead fish.

For example, if a "catch and release" or a "mark selective" recreational fishery is in place, there will be mortality associated with that fishery; hatchery and wild mortality. The best available data is used to calculate that mortality. There will also be mortality in the Tribal fisheries; whether in river net fisheries or guided sport fisheries. Fishing moratlity data from both Tribal and State managed fisheries all count towards the "harvestable" amount.

Arguing about how "the other side" harvests its share of the resource is pointless.

Todd...I didn't mean to imply that your group tried to disrupt anything..sorry if I did. Maybe dominate the testimony time would be more fair. I think you had 54 people lined up to talk and all of them said basically the same thing....release wild steelhead. Many others had one person make their case short and sweet. That saves alot of time and might get the point across better.

I guess my core point is this:

The tribes are allowed to harvest 50% of any run using estimates and the rest of us get the other 50%. That is the scenario. The 50% allocated to non tribal fishers is then divided up between commercial and sport under various formulas with sports usually getting less than half. If the sports sector is regulated to nonretention of wild fish then it seems the other sector should follow that rule. The problem is that when sportsfishers drop a percentage of fish via C&R the forgone opportunity seems to divert to the tribes. So you want to save wild steelhead by releasing them but then they are still fair game for the tribes. Saying that this is the best we can do because the tribes govern themselves is a cop out and should not be allowed to stand. If we must stop harvesting fish for true conservation then we should stop harvesting fish period with no strings attached that favor any group or other. C&R is considered part of harvesting because of the mortality percentages.

I agree that we sports fishers need to unite against the nets and not against each other. Wild steelhead have become an icon much more so than wild salmon and I think we need to look at the overall picture. This is a tough challenge and it is great that groups such as the WSC focus on one part of the problem as the big picture is too much for one small group to tackle. No matter what position you take or what cause you champion there will be many who will disagree and oppose you. That's ok with me so long as we keep up the fight. If we must get spit on by commercial fishermen so be it. Taking on the tribes is what this must come down to. No one wants to do that but stop them we must. They are the ones getting in the way of every good idea for conservation. They do some good I know but netting wild steelhead and salmon erases all the good in my book.

By the way alot of the really smart guys on this subject won't be heard in forums like this because they are afraid of alienating someone. Well alienating is inevitable in politics, religion and fish issues.

Agreed Grandpa,

The Tribes are indeed the real problem and I do believe their harvest rights is what is standing in the way of any real recovery.

Do they really do anything? I really dont think so.

The Quileute Tribe for instance is 100% funded for services and Natural Recources by the federal government. And they do not pay taxes so where does the money come from?

Sure they are the ones out there doing the work but on taxpayer dollar's.

I would much rather have a group doing all the reasearch and work that is in it for the fish and dosent have comercial interests.

Remember last year when Bob posted the photos of the tribes drift netting on the OP on a river with the emergency closure signs? They were herding fish into the nets in real low water...remember? That is what I am getting at. We stop fishing to save the runs and they figure they have it all to themselves with their own set of rules which have nothing to do with conservation. It seems to me that some of the really smart guys on here could investigate the laws and prove that WDFW has alot more clout than they are willing to use with the tribes. Maybe we should include this angle in our debate?>

todd, what if koenings said that he wants to eliminate the "harvest" of wild steelhead statewide and it was accepted and passed, wouldnt that put an end to every targeted catch and release wild steelhead season in the state on rivers where there needed to be an amount of fish available to harvest to have a "targeted" cnr season ?

Grandpa,

I think WDFW has alot more power than they let on.

Oregon and Alaska dont take [Bleeeeep!] from the tribes. But Washington lets its Non Tribal fisherman and hunters get bent over and butt probed with a totem pole.

I've got a clue for ya... there were numerous populations of fish in trouble well before Boldt. Your reasoning is not washing here. Why would the Tribes stand in the way of recovery? A healthy population is in ALL of our best interests, theirs included.

Hate to tell ya, WDFW gets a BIG part of their budget from the federal government too. So, are we splitting hairs just to bang on one of the co-managers? Many Tribes are spending their own money on salmon recovery as well as federal funding. Don't paint all Tribes with the same brush.

"Do they really do anything?" You yourself said the Quileutes are doing all the work. Of course they are really doing something. Many Tribes are alone in collecting the basic stock assessment data that affects ALL fisheries, not just theirs. What do you think co-management stands for? One side collects the data and the other side catches all of the fish? Come on. Don't believe me? Ask your favorite WDFW Region 6 bio and see what they have to say. Don't ignore what the Tribes are doing becasue it suites you. Look around, ask others, educate yourself. There is a ton of information out there, you just have to open your mind a bit.

I dont ignor what the tribes are doing!

I watch them rape and pillage the rivers of the OP first hand!

Those must be code words for "breaking the law?" And I am assuming this law breaking is conducted by any indian that puts a net in the water? Or is it just some of the indians? Of course those of us fishing under State regulations are all law abiding citizens?

Just thought I'd ask.

Grandpa, Sound s like Todd corrected you on Fly Fisher label. But I would like to correct you in the above quote. The WSC was not responsible for lining up 54 people to say the same thing. I certianly don't remember that many, but I do rember many attending, because of the crabbing protest and motors on the Satsop & Wynooche.

The WSC did, however, coordinate a total of 6 board members, three minutes apiece, to present compelling and scientific evidence of the status of wild steelhead. We worked hard on our testimony and were well prepared. If you call that dominating, so be it, I'll take it has a compliment. The others who testified may have been a few other WSC members (Les Johnson is a Trustee and Dave Bailey is the Steelhead Summit Chair) and others who were excercising their privilage to testify at the public testimony.

On another note, in fact the WSC is working together with other organizations, including yours. In the Steelhead Summits, we have hosted, we are working together on other issues regarding steelhead, in fact that was my testimony to the Commission.

FYI,

November 8, 2003, Bellevue, Washington --

Twenty-six steelhead advocates from more than 20 angling and conservation organizations met for a third Steelhead Summit, working together once again on behalf of the northwest's very special seagoing rainbow trout.

Summit I and II, also hosted by the Wild Steelhead Coalition, were conducted in November 2002 and May 2003, respectively. At the earlier events, key steelhead issues were identified, and committees formed to draft policy and action plans on each. Examples are habitat, harvest, hydropower, hatchery practices, research, education and public outreach. Summit III continued these, and other, discussions, and inter-organizational liaisons were strengthened.

A summit group steering committee was established, a communications network was refined, and future goals were outlined. Another summit meeting is tentatively planned for spring of 2004.

Organizations represented at Summit III were: Wild Steelhead Coalition, Trout Unlimited, Puget Sound Anglers, American Rivers, Washington Wildlife Federation, National Wildlife Federation, Federation of Fly Fishers (and several FFF clubs), Washington Trout, Northwest Women Flyfishers, Willapa Anglers, Olympic Peninsula Guides Association, North Umpqua Foundation, Steamboaters, Little Bear Creek Protective Association, and the Recreational Fishing Alliance.

Other groups involved in the Summit's "umbrella" organization are the Sierra Club, NW Sportfishing Industry Alliance, Native Fish Society, Wild Washington, Save Our Wild Salmon, and several British Columbia fishing clubs.

Summit groups will continue to collaborate between meetings, and are expected to make significant input to WDFW and other agency policy processes, as appropriate.

Rich..I am not slamming WSC's efforts at all. I was merely saying that the same point was made over and over again..that is fine. I guess I should regroup and restate my position. I am for wild steelhead release and C&R in general as long as it is not used to create exclusionary fisheries. If it just means no harvest of wild fish for EVERYONE then that is good. If it means a statewide ban on retention of wild steelhead by sports fisheers only then that is BS. This is a small piece of the puzzle and I applaud all of you for sacrificing the time as I have to voice your opinions and get involved. Keep it up. I am searching for more answers here and not trying to belittle any of the efforts to improve fisheries....

As far as the tribes go ....pacificnw which tribe are you a member of?

This is the same old wine in a brand new bottle. (Points for the musical group that coined that phrase). Let me see if I can answer some of the questions that have been brought up here.

1. Rich, Oregon and Alaska are not governed under the Boldt Decision. The Boldt Decision was actually fairly narrow and defined treaty rights for a group of Indians that were covered by a number of treaties signed in the early 1850's in what became Washington State. I will admit that I am surprised that the tribes in Oregon and Alaska have not attempted something like this (Maybe they have, enlightenment anyone?).

2. I am for Wild Steelhead Release and Wild Salmon Release as well. I do not fly fish very often so trying to paint WSR as a fly-only initiative is not accurate I think.

3. One way to take care of the Wild Steelhead retention problem by the tribes would be to have the co-managers of the resource (WDFW and the Tribes) negotiate a new method of fishing in the rivers - actually an old method - the fish wheel. There would be mortality. I'm not certain if the mortality would be less or greater than that of C&R - but all could be negotiated. My guess is that even if the State financed the placing of the fish wheels and associated infrastructure, it would be significantly less than the amount of money spent on raising Hatchery fish in those rivers where a healthy run of Wild Steelhead could exist.

4. As long as salmon are managed as a food fish, we will never see Wild Salmon Release. Grandpa makes a good point that without complete marking of Hatchery Salmon, Wild Release is impractical at best. Once again, the State pays a huge amount of money to create Hatchery Salmon so that they can be caught by the Commercials, Tribes, & Sports Fishermen. Once again, I reccomend the book King of Fish by David Montgomery for some interesting ideas about how we can improve habitat and survival of Wild Salmonids of all types.

There are ways to solve this problem. Economically for both the Tribes and the Commercial fleet, the trend is unmistakable - it is not economically viable to catch these fish. My concern is that when the bottom falls out of the salmonid catching economy - there will be no Wild Fish left to save. One hedge to that would be to manage one river system in each of WDFW's regions as a Wild Fish sanctuary - no fishing of any kind allowed. That could be insurance for the future.

Thanks for informing me.

I was under the impression that every state in the 9th district was under the Boldt Decision.

If Washigton State is the only one I am puzzled why treaty tribes in these other states have not filed class action suits?