Remember that recreational anglers are State regulated, and we have the privilege to fish because the State allows it. So we have to be represented by the State in negotiations with the Tribes or the Feds. We can't represent ourselves since we don't regulate ourselves. We can represent ourselves if we have a dispute with the State over State-imposed regulations (as happened with crabs). But we can't go to court against the Tribes if the State doesn't also. Conversely, if the State settles with the Tribes, and if we don't like it, we can take the State to court. But we can't sue the Tribes if the State has already settled on a position.

Carcass is correct is his assessment of the international implications of Tribal fisheries. The Columbia River Tribes have always made the same argument for decades. That is, the ocean fisheries must count on the non-treaty side of the 50% allocation. And both Canada and Alaska don't really care. They will take what they think they can take. And the Tribes will demand their share. It surprises me if there is anything left for recreational angling, but there usually is.

But I also wonder whether there is any adults for spawning, beyond just what returns to the hatcheries. Sadly, the number of wild adults spawning in the wild is hardly enough to replenish themselves. But that seems to be a secondary concern for everyone. Their first concern is getting what they believe is their share. And on that point, everyone is in the same boat (Tribes, recreational anglers, commercial fishermen, etc). Me first! Everything else is secondary, including the fish.