FishDoc - I won't quibble about eye surgery or Medicare payments, but your second post in the thread needs some clarification.

You stated that "Treaty right to fish pre-dates and therefor supersedes ESA."

That's not quite right. Tribal treaty rights are the "law of the land" but so is the ESA. The Federal agencies (National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) have stated many times that their job is to uphold both Tribal Treaty Rights and Federal law (e.g., the ESA). Neither supersedes the other.

This is the operating principle under the U.S. v Oregon and U.S. v Washington Fisheries Management Agreements. The Tribes would certainly prefer to have their Treaty rights supersede other Federal laws (the ESA and beyond), but they are cautious about trying to test that in court. I don't blame them. An adverse ruling might have serious repercussions for Tribal rights nationwide. So the States, the Tribes, and the Feds try to work together to avoid lawsuit where, in most instances, someone wins and someone loses.

The steelhead situation on the OP appears dire, and likely falls squarely within the ESA. Ideally, the Tribes, WDFW, and NMFS can reach agreement on how to proceed if an ESA listing is warranted. That might be possible given the recreational harvest restrictions implemented by WDFW, and low incidence of steelhead mortality in the State-sanctioned commercial fisheries.