I was not trying to say the Tribe does not have a right to shell fish and other resources, but rather combatting the issue of whether or not the treaty becomes worthless without Salmon. If Boldt is correct, the original intent of the treaty was for the tribes to have the rights to half the salmon and half of the other resources available. Many of the resources now being exploited had no value or the tribe had no way of utilizing them. The interpretation of the treaty is looked at loosely, stating that they are allowed half of these resources. At the time of the treaty there would have been no way of knowing that these resources would eventually become available. To value the treaty only on the available resources at the time of signing (mainly Salmon, clams, halibut, and such) and is, in my opinion, to state that the others have no value. That clearly is not the case. I believe that the value of these resources now available more than makes up for the resources lost. If the intent of the treaty was to provide for the tribes and to allow them to maintain an income, then it surely does such. If it was to maintain a historical way of life, then the Salmon become more important but the other resources come into question as they were not part of that historical life style. Neither were some of the methods used today. I think it is reasonable to state that the treaty was intended to proved a little of both, realizing some things would be lost and others gained. That is where we are today.