AkBill-
Unfortunately the ESA has a provision allowing incidental take of a listed species provided 1) the take is incidental to an otherwise legal activity, and 2) won't appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival of the species.
This provision has allowed nearly all types of fishing, commercial or recreational, over listed stocks that are commingled with healthy stocks.
So long as the healthy ones are targeted and the incidental take of listed ones is negligible, the states of Alaska, Washington, and Oregon usually get incidental take permits covering their fishing seasons and fishermen from incidental takes that would otherwise violate the ESA.
I guess you may notice that the "doesn't appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival" part is pretty nebulous. In fisheries they always say "there is no neutral science". That means there will be fishermen who will hire scientists to say the take will not be bad. Oh, yeah, they have money, too, and political power.
They usually get permits. Not always, but usually.

Bruce-
You're right about the sale of endangered species, or even possession, being illegal. It's a little sketchy, however, if Indians are involved.
First, their fisheries MAY be covered by a state's incidental take permit (see answer to AkBill above).
Second, it is questionable as to whether or not the ESA even applies to Indians. If it does not, no one knows if that means that they can or cannot sell listed animals. It may be OK for them to catch them, but it may be illegal for non-Indians to buy them.
These have yet to be answered definitively by the courts. Hang on, it's coming.

[This message has been edited by Todd (edited 03-17-99).]