I think that both the State (whole, not just WDFW) and the Feds want to keep the tribes reasonably happy for a couple of reasons.

Boldt said the Tribes had a right to 50% of the harvestable fish. While that normally was confined to WA the Tribes can still file a "All Citizens" suit wherein the fish are shared with all US citizens. AK was/is scared about this.

Let's just say that the Tribes get half the harvestable and that the habitat has to be retained to produce them (Boldt II). If they pushed the issue, and won, then not only would all fish count but the habitat destruction would need changing. Who controls the cross-state and international fisheries? Da Feds. Who controls habitat? Da Feds and da State. They could lose big time and have to pay reparations for lost harvest (past and future) and so on. So, a state that can't fix its roads, educate its students, treat illness, etc. is going to pay for habitat destruction? A Congress that can't even agree as to what day of the week it is is going to meet their obligations? That would put real teeth in treaty obligations.

On the other hand, the Feds and State could win (State argued that the Tribes should have known that we were going to pave over the state). If they did win then any sort of conservation ethic would go by the wayside.

Seems like so many ways to lose and so few to win.