Here is the operative thinking from the opinion of Mark Cedargreen in the above editorial link:

Third, I would propose a more sensible alternative to a sport fishing priority policy. I have been party to many endeavors where the allocation combatants have joined together to work toward increasing the size of the “pie” rather that battling over diminishing opportunity. The success of a campaign to produce more resource, which is an attainable goal, is maximized when fishery resource harvesters unite to enhance the resource for everyone as opposed to the strife of an allocation battle. Higher resource abundance tends to dampen debate over who gets to catch it. I’ve always wondered how the outcome of a quest to fully fund fish production, engaged in by those who are usually at odds with each other, would be received by those who control the purse strings. Maybe we’ll never know.

I find it interesting that people seem to forget failed approaches from the past. For instance, this was exactly the approach that was taken after US v. Washington. Instead of actually trying to control harvest as defined by the court, the answer was to "raise the pie" so that the existing sport and commercial non-Indian fishery would remain the same as well as accommodate the new Indian fishery. Raising the pie, in the late 1970's and today simply meant/means increasing hatchery production without concern for impact on natural populations. To make this seem sensible of course, we had to write off a bunch of natural populations based on the fact they they could not, on their own, provide the amount of harvest that we all needed.

It seems to me that we tried Mr. Cedargreen's approach once to get ourselves out of a hole that we dug for ourselves. I don't think we need to try it again.