Salmo g., you're clearly well read and don't state something as fact without having some data to back it up. Thanks for a thoughtful post. It was refreshing and I hope gives a few of the more prolific "itchy trigger finger" posters some ideas for how to carry on an intelligent debate.

One question......with respect to the Boldt Decision, where is the parallel between fishing "in common" and dividing up the pie into two equal pieces when the two parties are not equal in membership? How did they arrive at the conclusion that in common meant anything other than same gear, same days, same place, etc.?

I have to assume that somewhere in the document itself it's clarified (I couldn't stomach reading the whole thing), and I just didn't get that far.