Here is the opinion... https://solicitor.doi.gov/opinions/M-37034.pdf. A quick reading reveals several problems with this opinion. First, they basically ignore the Skokomish/France decision. By doing so, they are able to ignore the conclusions in it and make their own. A quick review of all the maps attached appear to not include the river or its bed. Second, the decision mentions the need for fishing, ignoring the fact that the tribe raised this question and was assured that the reservation was not for hunting and fishing, but rather only for residing and that they were able to utilize all their traditional areas (as can be seen in the attachment to the decision). This explanation is clearly at odds with the decision. The decision also tries to assert that owner ship of the bed and water is essential to the fishery. They neglect to understand that the tribe no longer uses weirs, that the weirs would be explicitly allowed if the tribe opted to use them, and that sharing of the water and river bed has been done for the last hundred years. Further more, the tribe itself at one point issued non-tribal permits at a cost, further implying that shared use did not prevent their ability to use the river.

All in all, its a very poor decision in my opinion and does not stand up to historical or common knowledge