Be that as it may, that really doesn't matter to the court. The court says the State is violating the tribal right to fish, and they can't do that. Simple as that.



This is also wrong. The court wouldn't have found this was an issue if it was A-ok for the State to maintain the current level of fish (meaning the culverts kept blocking x amount of habitat = x amount of supposed fish)...did you even read the decision?
page 22: 'The court found that salmon stocks in the Case Area have declined “alarmingly” since the Treaties were signed, and “dramatically” since 1985.'
Then on page 24: 'In its brief to us, Washington denies any treaty-based duty to avoid blocking salmon-bearing streams...'
Then on page 26: 'The State misconstrues the Treaties.'

Can't get much more black and white that the State has an obligation to maintain salmon runs for one reason....the tribes right to fish. This decision is fairly black and white.