I think one thing that should be addressed, is the tribes ability to link the treaty rights with only salmon. While the ability to harvest Salmon has diminished, the tribes have expanded the original intent of the treaty to include expanded crab fisheries, sea cucumbers, whiting, deep water gooey duc harvesting and much, much more. To insist that the treaty be strictly interpreted should bring in to question many of these fisheries that did not exist at the time of the treaty signing. By using the elasticity of the treaty to include harvests that were not anticipated, I think they limit their ability to try to insist on historical levels of Salmon. In other words, they used to harvest 100 units of salmon and 10 units of other sea life. Now they harvest 20 units of salmon and 2000 units of other sea life with an overall value 100x the original value. To say the treaty is meaningless without the 100 units of Salmon is to ignore the other expansions that should more than make up for the loss.