Once again Smalma is right. The case is more about establishing a legal foundation than it is about more salmon. The Tribes believe that unless there are fish to catch, their Treaty rights don't exist. Kinda makes sense.....

So, the first step was to establish a right to fish, which they achieved with the Belloni decision; and then an allocation which they achieved with the Boldt decision (50% of the available harvest). Next was the right to ensure that there are fish for them to catch. This case has sometimes been called Boldt 2. It establishes that Treaty rights extend to habitat protection since wild salmon need good habitat to survive. The Tribes are also going after the Federal government in their "Treaty Rights at Risk" initiative, which asks the Feds to curb development that is occurring through Federal authorization (e.g., Federal highway $$'s, wetland permits, etc). A quick internet search will provide lots of information on that issue.

It's likely the Tribes will start to focus on any activity that has the potential to degrade salmon habitat. As Smalma stated, that will include logging, mining, road building, hydropower, residential development, agriculture, irrigation, navigation, and the list goes on. They will likely prevail in many instances. And they will use this court case as precedent. That's good news for all of us.

But there is a limit. Clearly the Steven's Treaties (1855) contemplated develop-ment by the settlers. The Tribes knew that settlers would be coming onto their traditional hunting and fishing areas. Settlements were springing up in the territory, so they understood that more would be coming. It's not likely that anyone knew the extent to which the settlements would arise. Seattle was just getting started, and most of the territory was still wilderness. But still, the Tribes likely can't claim complete ignorance of the development issue. And they know that.

So they will likely use this newly won legal authority selectively and with great care. Indeed, that's why they selected highway culverts as the test case for extending their Treaty rights. Culverts are clearly an obstacle for salmon, they were authorized and built by the State (WashDOT), they have a link to Federal appropriations (Federal highway tax $$'s), they are clearly fixable, and replacing them has been shown to have an immediate improvement for salmon. As the lawyers might say, good cases make good law.