Coho angler,
The problem I see with the Tribes argument is while they are taking less salmon than in the 70's, they have expanded their take of Crab, clams, sea urchins, whiting, halibut, sea cucumbers, Geoducks, and other species. Many of these probably were not even available to them, or available in limited quantities. It seems they want to say the treaty guaranteed them 50% of historical takes when it comes to Salmon, but 50% of all harvest when it comes to other species. My guess is that the income from other species that were not historically available or taken in large numbers more than make up for the loss of income from Salmon. I would argue that the tribes need to make up their mind. Do they want a strict interpretation or a loose interpretation?