Yeah, this has nothing to do with race. It's contract law. It's both sides trying to maintain their sovereign rights. Everyone in the aformentioned advocate group supports the tribes right to harvest their share as designated by Boldt as recognized in our contract (also known a Treaty).

Speaking for myself, I am interested in preserving my ability to enjoy the water. I don't think the waters are too crowded that anyone's ability to boat/kayak/swim/fish/crab/waterski is hamered. I think there's plenty of room for everyone. I would promote and be in favor of the tribe putting in 1, 2, or 10 boat launches. What does it matter as long as we're all observing the harvest guidelines?
However, the tribal claim is that a launch will add to marine traffic and create unsafe marine conditions, and therefore hamper their ability to harvest their half. To each their own opinion; that's what the Corps has to rule on.

If I were to oppose a tribal harvest, it would be seen as a racist objective. Yet the tribe may be able restrict my ability to harvest my share by limiting water access ...this is where it gets into the contract law part of it, and departs from both logic and "co-management".

When US laws are based on the constitutional concept of being equal under the law,then our own contract (we wrote it) deviates and creates a super-citizen group that has rights others don't have, things eventually go sideways. Stevens/ US govt made the contract, and I respect that. Boldt was legally sound. In this case, I have a legal and sovereign right to access any federal waterways, and the AG and advocates agree. It's a govt vs govt sovereignty contract issue. Has nothing to do with race.