Washington vs United States Discussion Thread

JayB

Active Member
Good ongoing discussion over at Piscatorial Pursuits:
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/...ashington_appeals_to_the_Supr.html#Post979216

Lots of insightful commentary over there. This was one of my favorites:

"I may not have been a fan of how it has played out, but I am generally supportive of tribal fishing rights...they have treaties, treaties are the law of the land, and overall they got royally screwed...but that being said, I would caution the tribes to take to heart the axiom that "Pigs get fat, and hogs get slaughtered".

Tribal fishing rights/techniques aren't going anywhere until they have been pushed far enough to effectively exclude all other options and fishers, and when that happens, then there will be political will to abrogate the treaty right. If they think that can't happen then they, too, haven't been paying attention the last 200 years.

I feel like we have been heading that way the last several years. Start shutting down Alaska commercial fishing so that six more Chinook can swim through a culvert under a logging road in the Willapa hills and this will stop being a small scale problem where a handful of redneck sporties in Washington are getting bent, and will become an economic problem of large enough proportions to get some attention."

I think the tribes will probably step back from the brink and avoid claiming dominion over any activity that could conceivably have any impact on habitat, since that would indeed galvanize a phalanx of very powerful constituencies and interests that make recreational fishermen look about as powerful as a mason jar full of earthworms in comparison.

They seemed to do the math on whale hunting and quickly concluded that the amount of public sympathy that they would lose would vastly outweigh any benefits associated with harpooning the odd whale or two.

Lots of info over at the SCOTUS blog as well:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/washington-v-united-states/
 
Last edited:

HBB

Active Member
The SCOTUS blog argument analysis is worth checking out, I was looking at that yesterday.
 

Milt Roe

Active Member
Repairs/replacement to impassable culverts on private forestlands are nearly complete. If the state had made a similar effort, this issue would not be before the SCOTUS.
 

bk paige

Wishin I was on the Sauk
I read that earlier today, great discussion. Repair all the culverts and just how many salmon runs will be saved? Any extra will be caught elsewhere, by commercial l, rec or by tribal gill nets.
I'm sure there will be benifits, just as sure there will be some with zero benifits except to the contractor.
 

dustinchromers

Active Member
Repairs/replacement to impassable culverts on private forestlands are nearly complete. If the state had made a similar effort, this issue would not be before the SCOTUS.
I read that earlier today, great discussion. Repair all the culverts and just how many salmon runs will be saved? Any extra will be caught elsewhere, by commercial l, rec or by tribal gill nets.
I'm sure there will be benifits, just as sure there will be some with zero benifits except to the contractor.
Both of the above are completely true. Private timber companies are serious about replacing culverts. Like real serious. And of timber harvest is happening in that unit is a given. It's not even scoffed at as a cost. In fact it's embraced as maintainance of the land.

Second quote, tribes I think are genuine about wanting to save salmon. Thing is they don't want to make any hard decisions themselves and actually do so. It's like me eating steak. I want to stop but I can't. I want to be vegan but I'm unwilling to take any actual steps to doing so. Oh well, I'll just have lamb instead.
 

cabezon

Sculpin Enterprises
WFF Supporter
Let's assume that the treaty tribes win this appeal. What will be the tribal response (treaty and non-treaty) if the state decides to open limited gambling sites outside of reservations and channel their share of those gambling activity toward fixing the culvert lawsuit? How much would it hurt the tribes if the state invited MGM or the Wynne Corporation to build strategically-placed casinos in the state? Can one win the battle and lose the war? [Note: I am not a fan of this response by WA state. I would prefer to see both sides bargain in good faith toward a reasonable solution, but the state has cards to play.]
Steve
 

Support WFF | Remove the Ads

Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works. Info

Latest posts

Top