It looks like a clear cut case to me. If the Samish are a recognized tribe, then they were more than likely included in the treaties signed in the 1800's. They way I see the Boldt decision (in a nutshell) is that any recognized tribe has the right to harvest fish in their customary waters.

This also exposes the other tribes for what they are, greedy. They will stand on the Boldt decision, claiming that they are getting what is rightfully and customarily theirs, but will fight any other tribe who claim their right to the same benefits. It appears that their attitude is "what's good for the Goose, is good for the Gander... unless it negatively impacts me!" The other tribes should just back off and let the Samish bear the burden of proof to see if they qualify for the rights that the Boldt decision. All the other baloney about all the litigation and agreements being messed up should be considered secondary when you're argueing for what is right. If in fact the Samish have rights to the Native American portion of the harvest, who are the tribes to tell them they don't. And if the tribes can dictate who can or can't harvest fish, maybe the Boldt decision isn't good enough for the tribes and should be thrown out.

Looks like the shoe is on the other foot now. Having someone cut into a slice of your half of the pie sucks, doesn't it?