Jon, Well said. gt, Your first paragraph response to Jon's post was terrific. Unfortunately, you then slipped right back into the Indian are at fault in the second paragraph. I.e. you wrote,"So long as the Indian net fishermen get that free pass exactly because folks are afraid to call them out, the longer the indiscriminate killing of wild fish continues." The problem with this line of reasoning is that the Indians have a treaty right, which was upheld by the federal courts in US v. WA back in the 1970's, to fish with whatever means the individual tribe deems OK. Therefore, anytime any of us non-Indians talk about getting the Indian net out of the river, we are talking about taking the Indian treaty fishing rights from them. This is why this approach has not worked since Bolt made his ruling in US v. WA and why it is counterproductive to continue tossing that card on the table. It doesn't matter how any of us may feel about Indian nets in the river or Indian tribes selling steelhead to fish brokers, restraunts, grocery stores, or fish markets. Arguing that the tribes need to have the nets out is in a very literal sense telling them that their treaty fishing rights (or a portion of those rights) ought to be taken from them. They will not agree to this anymore than you and other non-Indians who want the treaty fishing tribes to give up part of their fishing rights would agree to give up your privately owned land. This is exactly why it never works to try and tell the tribes what they ought to be doing in regards to fishing. It is also why I continue reminding you and others that the tribes have a right to fish with whatever means they so choose. And is also why I keep saying it is long past the time that this ban Indian netting diatribe ceases. It has not been effective for over 30 years, and it will not be effective now or in the future no matter how many times it is said. We can work with the tribes, but it is folly to think that they will ever give up their treaty right to fish with whatever means they choose.