The Boldt decision was not given to us by the 9th Circuit Court, but by George Boldt, a Federal Judge in Seattle ( and a Republican appointed by Nixon.) The 9th, as well as the Supreme Court upheld Boldt's ruling that the tribes were entitled to 1/2 the harvest of fish and shellfish. He took everyone involved in the case, including the tribes, totally by suprise by interpreting the words of the treaty "to share in common" to mean that the Indians get half the harvest. I have been a "non-treaty" (translates as non indian) fisherman for most of my life, but got out of Puget Sound 20 years ago. Also, the 9th did not give us the Spotted Owl decicion, Judge Dwyer, a democrat, did that. As for families of cambodians being given a free pass, that's news to me. I live on the waterfront, own additional waterfront with shellfish on it, and have several friends in the clam and oyster raising business on Hood Canal. We are not plagued with Cambodians, or Indians. The shellfish ruling has been a non issue for us. Have you ever harvested clams or oysters on a commercial level? It's god awfull work, usually done at night during low tide. Without coming across as racist, it's not the sort of thing your average tribe member is going to want to do, when they have much better access to income through Goeducks, casino payouts, or Salmon fishing.
http://www.ccrh.org/comm/river/legal/boldt.htmThanks for the correction. I forgot about Dwyer, even though I shouldn't have, I held a civil court judgement against his low-life son-in-law.
You don't sound racist to folks who've seen the Sinclair Inlet being netted by the tribes. I said they only show up when they wish to flex their muscles.
I don't remember, wasn't the commercial shellfish bed owners exempted from the settlement? Isn't there a case pending concerning the allotment? I seem to recall the growers were claiming, (rightfully so), there are no true native oysters and clams since farming began and because of that fact, the decision should be voided.