I've always been confused by Native Americans and claims to fisheries.
I seen claims that they should not be subject to limits of amount of fish, or times of fishing, etc.
The arguments I've seen seem to be based on the idea "we were here first".
If I were the decider of it all, I'd say the following. If you fish with exactly the same equipment you had when you were here originally, you can do it. No motors. No fiberglass or aluminum boats, only wood canoes made of treetrunks. No monofiliment. No fishing reels, rod, or metal hooks. No nets, except what you can make from natural fibers as was done prior to the europeans coming. Etc.
And I would say that if you want to use ANY modern methods at all, you have to:
1] Follow the rules and conservation policies of the state F&G agency of the state(s) where you live.
2] Allow other US citizens to access the resource according to the rules of the state F&G.
In my time (I'm old) I've seen monofilament gill nets strung all the way across a stream bu native Americans that had salmon running, tended by motor boats. That just doesn't make any sense to me.
I think that native Americans were treated terribly by european settlers. But I also think of how they'd be treated, even today, in China or Russia. (Think Tibet.) We ain't perfect here in America, but we aren't terrible either. I would hope that there would be less confrontation, and more collaboration in the USA to achieve to maintain the resouces and allow general access to fish.
Just some thoughts of a old fart who knows nothing.
The tribe got the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to write an opinion that the tribe owns the river to the far bank. WDFW decided in the face of that opinion to close that highly accessed area (from the privately owned side of the river) to public fishing. After no further communication from D.C. our WDFW and the AG performed extensive research supporting that the BIA's opinion is wrong and sent that to the Dept. of Interior (parent agency to BIA) in the form of an extensive letter ending with a request that Interior have the BIA letter rescinded.
Now the Skokomish tribe comes up with their resolution threatening to take their marbles and go home like a spoiled child if WDFW doesn't withdraw its letter. Frankly, if their position is sound why this action? Or have they gotten wind that things may not be going their way in D.C.?
Assuming that WDFW doesn't knuckle under to this threat what might be the repercussions? If the Skokomish refuse to participate in NOF will the process proceed without them and, if so, will they then go to the BIA for a permit (recall 2016)?
Alternately, if the other tribes refuse to participate in support of the Skokomish might NOF not occur? Without an agreement to take to NOAA there would be no permit issued for the State to have a fishery. If that were to occur could/should the State finally submit for its own permit and seek emergency permitting pending completion of the usual process?
If anything the Skokomish resolution would seem to reinforce a common perception of how the negotiations at NOF are carried out and why there needs to be public visibility of that annual process. To quote Louis Brandeis "sunlight is the best disinfectant."