Damn I dont have long to respond.
The bolt decision which is now the law of the land was radical at the time. States had controlled fishing rights since the "Winans" decision clear back in the 1890's I believe. That was upheld in 1916 and again in 1942 I believe(could be off by a few years as I got to go back to work and dont have time to look it up). Havent read it in about 5 years when I last had this arguement so I can remember exactly.
The treaties were signed in 1854-1855 with all the regional tribes(which many here need to read for themselves) As I stated the tribes were not forcing the issue and not in a position of strength at the time. They were getting pushed off traditional lands and being ravaged by desease. Look it up SG. The treaties when signed stated nothing about #'s and stated exactly this "usual and accustom grounds in common w/ all citizens of the territory....." The decisions had been well established through the supreme court in 1916 and 1942 that the states had the right to regulate all but the rez and in common with the citizens ment just like everyone else off the rez. Same laws as everyone else.
Then came all the changes of the 60's and 70's when we started righting wrongs of the past. Everything was challenged in court again and again until people got the right judge to give the right decision they wanted. The changes in our area started with Belloni in Or. which people should also read. Bolt piggy backed on him with his decision and was the golden boy for the tribes so to speak.
Bolt's decision which I have read multiple times and dont agree with stated that "in common with" at the time of the signing ment 50/50 split. This was the only really radical thing he found in his ruling as other parts he took from other decisions already made in other courts. How he got that I am not sure but he got there using the logic that this was what the tribes probably thought it ment at the time(his personal oppinion). Now they had the decision they had filed 100's of other case and not been able to get. It went up through the liberal 9th circut and then the liberal supreme court of the time which was coming down with decision after decision to right past wrongs. Voted largely along party lines(surprise, surprise)
My point is this. We constantly have wackos in the legal system that make rulings based on their own oppinions(not established law) that impact far to widely in this country. Choices should be made by the people IMO. No one group should be able to hold down another but no one man should be able to decide for the entire state or country either. This was a bad decision for our fish and the prospects for them.
The decision was not based in so much logic and fact that it could never be touched as some think either. A different court would rule differently. The supreme court did leave some wiggle room as well. We just need to have some pols that are not owned by the tribes and will negotiate. Stevens stated to a max of 50% as the court thought this was unfair to non-tribal fishermen(not a 50/50 split). One day it will change IMO. Maybe not the decision but the #'s.
And to those who dont agree fine. But I do know the case and ruling as I have read it multiple times. I just dont agree with it. Iam a history buff as well. So disagree if you like but dont pretend it is not logical or somehow some redneck rant. It is oppinion and if I were more like some here I guess I would just surf google and cut and paste someone elses thoughts as my own. By the way, hows my spelling loser.