Have the guys here fill you in on "foregone opportunity" and all of a sudden things will get mucho more complicated.
I wish there was a simple close it down to take solution but theres other hands in the pot... more powerful ones at that.
As posted prior the issue is dependent on which watershed being discussed. So lets do GH & QIN. Once PFMC agrees to the preseason forecast and sets the Ocean harvest it is " at the bar " coming in numbers. The QIN work to all paper fish must die and "foregone opportunity" is if the state passes on its share at which time the QIN will gladly accept the additional harvest. Now the QIN cannot set a season that would violate court agreed to escapement goals or one that would infringe on the ability for the state fishers to get its share but they do accept donations to their harvest. A glaring example is state C&R for Steelhead which simply did little for the fish in GH but rather simply took the pressure off eliminating the impacts of one harvester. Much easier to manage harvest with a 40% pad.
Many try to impose their views of harvest and the mechanics of harvest rather than fully understand how the courts decisions work. ( US V Washington & Boldt ) In GH the QIN has access for harvest to H + W + Summerrun Steelhead divide by two. In other words they take their share of Summerrun in the winter harvest. Salmon is more complicated due to multiple harvesters ( three ) on the states side but it tracks pretty much the same.
To the courts a Steelhead has the same protection as a Salmon or ANY other living creature and ESA works the same way. To the QIN a Steelhead is just a fish just as Chinook, Chum, Coho are fish, no difference and that is exactly how the courts view it.