John,
Believe it or not, it isn't the liberal biases of judges that leads to the treaty fishing rights decisions we live with. For example, U.S. District Court Judge George Boldt, whose 1974 decision is pretty well known hereabouts, was known as a most conservative judge who thought the Indians fishing rights case would be a waste of the court's time. Until he heard the case and the findings of fact were made - followed of course, by the findings at law.
The states, of course, are entitled to manage the non-treaty share of the resource as they see fit. There is no legal reason why WDFW couldn't for example, permit recreational gill netting seasons for various species and stocks of fish. However, the non-treaty share would still be only 50% of the harvestable surplus. So the fishing season might only last, say, 30 minutes or so, in some cases.
The treaty share remains 50%, regardless of how the non-treaty sector chooses to take its share of the fish resource (with some certain exceptions). That is the law.
Happy sport gill netting, friends!
P.S. Did you know that Washington state used to issue a sport commercial troll license for ocean fishing? I had a co-worker in those old days who took a month vaction to Westport each summer, fished the allowed 6 rods from his boat, sold the catch - mostly coho, and paid for his vacation doing the fishing that he dearly loved. I doubt we'll ever see those days again.
Sincerely,
Salmo g.