CB,

The first question I have is what is represented in the shown graphs.

For instance, is it the harvest of Puget Sound Chinook and coho, wherever they are harvested in Southern U.S. waters, or is it only Chinook and coho harvested in Puget Sound marine and freshwater areas?

This gets back to Carcassman's point about marine, mixed stock fisheries vs more terminal fisheries. The Boldt decision says 50:50 on fish returning to the tribe's U&A.

If the graphs only represent fisheries occurring in Puget Sound and does not include catch in the other southern U.S. marine areas 2, 3, and 4, for instance, these catch proportions (on the graphs) might make sense.

I've already discussed (way back in this thread, I think) the way that the total catch vs impacts arguments are misconstrued, sometimes it seems purposefully so.

As far as Treaty v ESA. Both are the Supreme Law of the Land: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

I think Carc is right, nobody should want this to be decided...

They can't both be supreme law. One has to be #1, the other #2. Because, at some point either the fishery stops (ESA) or it doesn't (treaty).