Boater,

I guess there are a couple of ways to look at that.

One is that the Boldt decision was a recognition of what had always been there, but that wouldn't really reflect the practical difference between fishing pre- and post-Boldt.

The other is that the state had ownership of 100% of the fish, minus those that the tribes harvested in their exclusive on-reservation fisheries.

Fish on...

Todd.

P.S. I think this topic has had its fill...