of course you are correct, cabezon, in refering to the legal history. however, this is NOT 1975. we are ALL in a new century with some pretty stinky issues to deal with regarding our fisheries. now if you go back far enough to the pt'n'pt treaties, they clearly state that the indians will fish in common with everyone resident of this state. that simple wording is a killer in court, but it probably needs to be approached once again. as far as the boldt decision, nothing really needs to be done to challenge the 50% take portion. all that needs to be done is to ENFORCE the ESA protection of listed fishes. that simply means, a zero tolerance for the killing of listed fishes. that in turn means everyone, and the sports are already, selective fishing. that in turn means NO NETS! i do believe there are several very simple straight forward legal arguements that no one seems to care about making, CCA included. as far as indians 'taking care of a resource for 9000 years', well that is probably a real stretch. when you consider the facts of isolated coast bound villages living and dieing on the numbers of fish they could kill, coupled with cycles of no shows for those fish, it was totally about extraction for survival. the numbers of indians involved vs the zillions of salmon around really had the equation in favor of the fish. so i don't see indians caring for a resource, there were simply to few of them to make a dent in the salmon populations. but here we are today, declining runs and a host of variables contritubuing. and i would agree that the non-indian popluation has had the greatest impact on run reductions, no question about that. but just what immediate steps can be taken? and my arguement is selective fishing by all concerned is a wonderful first step in recovery.