I think part of the question should focus on the historical facts rather than the present day reality. At the time of the treaty, the tribes were taking 10X salmon and the state 10X salmon, but there were 100X salmon to be taken. I do not think the sound had started any large commercial fisheries and the tribes were mainly subsistence, with some regional trading. Neither side likely anticipated a future where the fish would be exploited at the rate they are. So, what the treaty guaranteed, was the right to 50% of the harvest at that time, not 50% of the fish at that time. As the ability and desire to take more fish occurred, both sides could argue for 50% of the harvest. Now that levels have fallen, the desire for more than the original harvest (rather the original available harvest) is wanted, but not available. Could it not be argued that as long as the Tribes are able to get 50% of the fish available, with a minimum of what was originally intended guaranteed, that is the right for subsistence and minimal trade, we meet the intent and understanding of the treaty. As long as the tribe gets 50% of what was originally intended that should meet the treaty. The tribe's argument must involve an original intent that includes both the intent of 50% of the harvest at that time, plus 50% of all available resources that become available in the future, for economic reasons alone. That seems to me to be a bit too broad of an interpretation.