Boldt Decision Analysis

Why is it fair that the Indians get to have 50% of the fish population in Washington when they only make less than 2% of Washington’s population? This is called the Boldt decision which was passed on February 12th of 1974, giving all indians in the northwest the right of having 50% of Washington’s harvestable fish. This made other non-tribal fishermen enraged at both the tribes for getting these “rights” and judge Boldt. Since then there has been arguments about the unvarying of the ruling. Although the rules say that the natives get half of Washington's harvest, it is greatly needed to find out the reasons how this decision has affected fish populations and how it’s affected everyone not just one group of people. It would be nice to know how the Boldt decision could be revised or looked to improve modern harvest rates for everyone.
The ways that the decision has been affecting people is that non-tribal fishermen feel as if the decision is very unfair as a whole. Senator Henry Jackson had said “ The foolishness of the Boldt decision is that a tribe of 10 indians would be entitled to 50 percent of the fish”. This is saying
Ultimately the Boldt Decision created peace between the non-tribals and the tribals, this kept the individual rights that the Indians were in a gray area of having. Before the decision Indians didn’t have their rights as a U.S. citizen but when the ruling was passed it gave all the rights back to them and some more. Somethings are reported back to the state so there are number but not everything. Non-tribal people would say that Indians were only sharing fisheries for the money of the tribe. No matter what anyone says it was a huge part of the Native Americans to get their rights back from state. The early 1970’s is when “fish-ins” which was the tribes way of protesting eventually got the notice of the governments and made everything turn around for