A long time ago Sam Wright opined that non-Indian habitat destruction could be considered as a type of harvest. Society makes a choice to take water out of streams to drink rather than grow fish. The fish are still just as dead. It is the same when we debate nest vs. hook and line vs. subsistence , etc. To the fish, and the ecosystem, they are still dead and don't spawn. So, as Smalma said, we can choose to take our share of dead fish as development.

Removing the taxpayers and license buyers from the equation of direct harvest would probably decrease interest in having the fish around but I suspect there are many in overall society who would see justice in giving the harvest back to the Indians.

And, regarding habitat, until we deal with actually dealing with human population on a local, state, national, and international basis the wild resources will lose. Just how well are wild native salmonids doing in most of Europe, Asia, and the Eastern coast of North America? If you're unsure, read Dave Montgomery's "King of Fish".