I can't for the life of me figure out what that article has anything to do with this conversation.
CF, you absolutely have not seen why I "don't want this t[h]read out of control", because it's not, and I haven't said or felt anything along those lines.
I'm also certainly not being paid for my time as I write here. What ever gave you that idea?
Lastly, if you feel there are issues in the Boldt (with a "d") decision that should be brought back to the courts and argued, I'd encourage you to go for it. This debate isn't about what anyone's opinion is, or what could be, or should be, or might be.
It's about what it is. Right now, the Boldt decsion and everything in it is "what it is". If you go to court and change some aspects of the Boldt decision so that it doesn't say what it says now, then that new case is the one I would quote if it controlled the issue. I'm not here pushing my "opinion" of rights vs. privilege. I'm simply stating what the state of the law is.
If you'd like to start a new thread, then make some rules right up front, like opinions aren't welcome unless they are backed up by laws or facts, and that those laws and facts are quoted in the thread, then I'd be up for it. I don't want to hear anymore "I feel" or "that's not fair" or "it could be this or that".
If the thread will be titled "How does the Boldt decision affect our right to fish", which already begs the question by calling it a right, then let's make sure it's limited to "how it does", not what we wish, or hope, or don't know.
P.S. Cf, there're still some questions back there a few posts that I'm waiting on...