As a conservation measure defendants frequently prohibit plaintiffs from fishing within 1000 feet of the shore in Hood Canal, while not similarly restricting tribal fishermen. As a result of the dual management of the fishery, tribal fishermen have substantial control over when and where they fish. Plaintiffs have no similar control, and essentially fish when tribal fishermen choose not to. K. Defendants systematically enforce conservation regulations against plaintiffs as nontribal fishermen, but not against tribal fishermen. Defendants' violations of plaintiffs' rights to the full and equal benefit of all laws and affording tribal fishermen special privileges and immunities, have caused substantial personal damage to each plaintiff.
Plaintiffs incorporate the above allegations by reference as though expressly rewritten herein.
Plaintiffs are entitled to an award ofattomey's fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988. Ajudgrnent in the principal amount of damages actually incurred by plaintiffs, the exact amount to be proven at trial. An express determination affirming plaintiffs' right to take a fair share of available harvestable salmon in Washington state, which fair share is a quantity at least equal to the total amount of salmon actually taken by tribal fishermen. An order requiring that the laws and regulations of the state of Washington, whether an allocation regulation implementing Indian treaty fights, or a regulation required for conservation of the Washington state salmon fishery, or a regulation allocating shares of fish for conservation purposes, be applied and enforced equally as to both tribal and nontribal fishermen. An award of interest, costs, and a reasonable attorney's fee.