Man, I don't know if I'm doing the right thing wading back into this mess, but I just can't stand the misinformation that we all seem to labor under. Here are the facts - The US Govt. signed treaties with the tribes back in the 1800's. We wanted to move them off their land (not surprisingly they tended to live in the most desirable spots) and put them on reservations. The language of these treaties was somewhat imprecise which led to George Boldt's interpretation. Probably an unintended consequence of the treaty agreement, but there nonetheless. The Boldt decision has been upheld many times and like it or not, is the law of the land. Now, as for the fact that the Native Americans have special rights. Once again, possibly an unintended consequence, but they are in essence guaranteed these special rights by the treaties that were signed. And just to make it even more complex, treaties are held by our system as being the most difficult legal instrument to alter. It certainly requires the agreement of both parties in order to amend the treaty. Given the fact that the Native Americans have taken an admittedly bad result ( being moved from their home, losing a great deal of their heritage, boarding schools, etc, etc.) and turned it into a good result for them (1/2 the fish, casinos, cheap cigs, etc), we should be awfully careful what we wish for. Those nasty unintended consequences crop up from time to time. I seriously regret the policy of slavery for the African-American, I wish the Irish American was not discriminated against. In reality, those groups are not protected by a treaty signed in our name by the US Government. And guess what - we get to live with all the consequences, intended or not, of that action. I wish it were different, especially for the fishery resource, but as you know - wish in one hand and [Bleeeeep!] in the other - see which one fills up first.