AK, actually Jeff Koenings when he worked there, made the claim that they owned/deserved the fish that reared off of AK because their laws protected the ocean habitat. This was in response to a BC claim against AK low-holing that said since we protect the freshwater habitat we should get the fish.

It was actually part of the US/Canada Treaty (at least the first iteration) that whoever takes an action that increases escapement/improves habitat reaps all the benefits of the increased production.

We had one really good example of how it worked. One of the Fraser sockeye stocks came in stronger. There was the opportunity to add 100K or so to the escapement and still have the fisheries that had been planned and then some. Canada proposed that both sides put 50K on the grounds. The US, lead by a WDFW Panel Member, was opposed . The US technical staff finally convinced the US Panel to think first, but it took an additional week to hold the day-long meeting and make them see the value of not killing 50K now and take a 100K or more in 4 years. Back at the bi-lateral meeting the US we would agree and Canada said that "Thanks, but we'll put them on the grounds from our share and take the benefits ourselves".

That concept of if you pay for enhancement/habitat protection, habitat restoration you should reap the benefits should be put in place in WA.