In regard to docspuds post, I have this comment:
Treatys are , in concept, similar to a contract. In contract law, what Salmo G posted:
"Would a reasonable person conclude that the Indians were knowingly signing treaties intended to screw them?"
is similar to the 'reasonable person' idea, which dates back to the 1830's. So, what the judges have based their verdicts on has a foundation in law. As an example, many times in years past, easements were granted that did not define the terms of the agreement in the kind of detail, especially as to the location and uses, we see now days. To determine what was intended, the judge will consider what a 'reasonable person' would have expected, considering the circumstances of the situation, including the time at which the easement was granted. I'm in the title and escrow business and I see this often where an easement was created that says "an easement for utilities".
Where? How wide? Overhead or underground? If the user rips up landscaping, do they need to fix it? These are the types of details that get litigated after the fact, the same as the treaty's details have been back in court to determine what was meant when the treaty was signed.
As the concept of owning the land was not within the Indian's experience, the judge's heavily consider that when deciding on their verdict.

The case cited in the article about this lawsuit :
"Summer 1999: Native Americans have brought a class-action suit against the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs for tens of billions of dollars in misused Indian assets. This case is going to trial this summer, and Price-Waterhouse accountants say the particulars line up very nicely in favor of the Indians. Should get ugly."
is Cobell (Blackfeet) vs Salazar(Dept. of Interior), where the Bureau of Indians Affairs was sued because they can not account for money received for grazing, mining, oil and other leases and moneys recieved in trust for the benefit of different tribes on their respective rez land. Wiki link about suit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobell_v._Kempthorne

For the record, I'm a member of the Blackfeet Nation and fish the same as you here in Washington. I do get about $30. a year for my undivided ownership interest in rez grazing land, so I got that going for me.
I don't like the nets either.