It's always a Zoo...with all kinds of breeds. With the weather we are having there will be fisherman, water-skiers and partiers.... I suppose local retailers have stocked up on red and blue hooks and plenty of Coors.
Wish I could hit Puget Sound this weekend for some Coho. The Lake Washington fishery being open always takes some pressure off some of my favorite areas, making the fishing more enjoyable by them being less crowded. To bad Amie and I will be moving furntiure out from the condo to move into our new house in Kent instead.
Just a few more weeks and we should be back to fishing almost every weekend and we no longer will have to haul our kayak's and other gear up and down 3 flights of stairs to start and end every trip. That was always a real pain in the back and lower as well. :beathead:
Not exactly the point that I was trying to illustrate. The point that I was trying to make is that they are making a compromise on a legal right. I just thought that it was interesting because compromise is often more possible than a lot of people could believe.
Typically in the legal system, a concession on a right by a party opens the door to the removal of that right, since the group can concede something, they no longer have a "need" of that right.
Lake washington sockeye is a man made run. You will find the answer to your question on page 2. I'd suggest the whole article though. It's pretty cool. Someone here posted it before, but I couldn't find the link to credit him/her with the good find. http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/Waterres/lakes/biolake.htm
Of course. They still get the first crack at them. Probably haven't brought in their limit yet. I believe the tribes still have to wait until the escapement is reached as well. I may be mistaken as usual though.
Under the Boldt decision and a variety of other laws, tribes have a right to a certain percentage or pre-establish amount of fish that come in on each run. Especially in runs where there is indian hatchery facilities.
Since fish are prescribed in amounts to varying groups, the relenquishing of a number of fish is giving up the rights to those particular fish.
I am not discussing the tribes giving up their right to fish. I am describing that these particular fish were given up when they were lawfully awarded as part of their fish harvest. The tribe is saying "hey, you can have more of our share."
In the eyes of some policy makers and interpertations of the law, this is viewed as an opportunity to say "well, since you can give up having these fish, then you won't need them ever so we are going to reduce you rights to X amount of fish per season."
Oh and as a side note, tribal casino profits are not awarded or distributed on a share ownership basis, such as a publically traded company like Boeing. Rather, there are regulations by the Federal Government that dictate that all revenue from casinos must be spent on the betterment of the tribe and tribal lands. Example: Housing, education, health clinics, etc.
Ok you win they gave up their right to catch a few fish which I doubt is going to set any kind of precedence for future decisions on their right to continue to fish. For what ever it is worth I am not going to get real thankful because a handful of commercial fishermen, native or citizen, gave us some fish.