Hoh v. Baldridge set the bar, in WA, that the Indians can't be closed for conservation until all NI (at lest under WA control) are closed. In the absence of closures, the Tribes and Feds pushed for "sharing". That is, if the NI too 100 Hoh river fish (incidental to 100 K coho in the ocean) then the Hoh's get 100 in the river regardless of status.

Also, this finding puts ESA to a very high level in planning. NOAA is on record as saying that the SE A fishery does starve out the whales. I can envision (and prefer) a situation where all salmon harvest occurs after it has passed the whales. This would mean that all harvest would be in bays and rivers unless the whales aren't there.

For example, it is September and the whales are playing around in the Straits and San Juans. Salmon fisheries (rec and commercial) could be held in 10, 11, 12, and 13 until the whales move south. That scheme would not require any change in escapement targets, just intensify terminal fisheries.

So, I can see the WA Tribal opposition to elevating ESA to that high of a level. Also, some WA tribes are more mixed-stock oriented than others. They also likely tend to be the ones with the most Legislative and Congressional sponsorships.