Actually, the re-hearing modified Boldt somewhat, to the benefit of the non-indians. Boldt awarded 50% but it did not include on-rez or C&S. The second visit to the Supremes split the harvestable 50-50, including all harvest in WA.

This decision has national implications because there are a lot of fishing and hunting tribes with some sort of treaty.

One aspect of a "settlement" would be to split harvest 50:50 but include losses due to habitat destruction as harvest. In this case, the NI side would count fish lost to logging/dams/water diversions/etc. as their harvest. Essentially, the only ones who could actually catch a real fish would be the Indians. The State has a lot to lose, but given the current makeup of Congress I suspect that the Tribes have even more to lose.