This is becoming an interesting topic. As I recall, the treaty language that the Boldt decision was based upon stated that the tribes could share the resource "in common" with the white folks. Boldt interpreted that to mean 50% of the harvestable fish. If the state mandated release statewide on all waters of native (unclipped) fish, my interpretation would be that there would be no fishery on the wild steelhead for the tribes to share "in common". Probably the issue would eventually be settled in court, but it might help the wild steelhead population. However, as always, be careful what you wish for - it might happen. Which would mean that all users of the resource, including sportsmen, would be prohibited from retaining wild steelhead. If the sportsmen screwed up on this then Washington state would have only one recourse - close steelhead fishing to all. Just some thoughts.
Tight lines,
Eddie