saw this legal action pending recently: intent to sue WA concering fisheries

[Stein]

At some point, the blunt hammer that is the ESA will find a way to swing into a new victim.  That's my guess anyway.  I can fake my way through some legal contract stuff, but treaty rights and ESA aren't on that list.

From my perspective, we (non-tribal, non-commercial) are paying a huge price towards a bill that will never get paid.  I think many of us would be OK if there was some sort of coherent plan and either an end in sight or at least more shared sacrifice.

[pianoman9701]

Don't the treaties allow them half the harvestable amount?  Seems like they are arguing they are going far over that with help from the state and feds.

I don't believe so. My understanding is that those aren't part of the treaties and are non-binding goals set between the participating tribes, the DFW, and the USFWS for projected returns and harvest. Anyone care to comment or correct me? Bueler, Bueler?

The Boldt decision found that "in common with" means half.

That's good to know. Who confirms harvest numbers?

[Special T]

Don't the treaties allow them half the harvestable amount?  Seems like they are arguing they are going far over that with help from the state and feds.

I don't believe so. My understanding is that those aren't part of the treaties and are non-binding goals set between the participating tribes, the DFW, and the USFWS for projected returns and harvest. Anyone care to comment or correct me? Bueler, Bueler?

The Boldt decision found that "in common with" means half.

That's good to know. Who confirms harvest numbers?

My understanding is it is reported but not by individual tribe it is reported to NW Indian Fisheries Commission. I heard that this was so that this was to reduce hate or retribution to individuals and thier tribe.


https://nwifc.org/