Although neither side is "entitled" to more than 50% the implementation of Boldt, court orders, etc. allow for one side or the other to take more than 50% to prevent wastage. Both sides agree that one fish above the escapement goal is wasted and the Boldt Court allowed "foregone opportunity" to ensure that harvestable fish were not wasted. Initially, this was used by the State when tribal fisheries were unable, due to lack of fishing power, to take their share. Even into the late 80s/early 90s there were claims of "foregone opportunity" on both sides that were allowed to proceed.

One of the reasons for a foregone opportunity claim was that if one side exceeded their share they "owed" these fish as an "equitable adjustment". This could create the situation where, if one side didn't fish on harvestable fish the other side would "owe" playback since they fished.

If memory serves, though. equitable adjustment and foregone opportunity did not, by court order, apply to steelhead.