This is what I'm getting at, and I think there may be a basis in the Treaty and associated law for this result. Basically, if there are so few wild fish that there is no harvestable surplus, then any incidental take (while fishing for their share of harvestable hatchery fish) is going beyond that they are entitled to under the treaty w/r/t unharvestable wild fish.

Or, alternatively, if the harvestable surplus of wild fish is so low that they would need to take more than 50% of the harvestable surplus of wild fish to get their 50% allocation of non-wild fish (due to their choice of fishing methods), then I think the 50% of harvestable wild fish should act as a limiting factor on take of harvestable non-wild fish. If they can't get to 50% of the hatchery allocation without going over their 50% of the wild allocation, tough cookies.

I'm using "harvestable surplus" because I think you can get to this result without applying the ESA. It gets trickier if you say there is no harvestable surplus of wild fish *BUT* we are going to allow a certain amount of impacts on the wild fish.