A couple of links. The first is to the Lacey Act. The second is a historical summary of federal statutes

Lacey Act

https://www.fws.gov/international/laws-treaties-agreements/us-conservation-laws/lacey-act.html

https://training.fws.gov/History/TimelinesLawEnforcement.html

I think making it illegal to buy ESA listed fish would be possible?
Even if the tribes could still buy them, it might do something.

The State can regulate its citizens. So, they could make the possession of ESA species illegal. But, they would have to define listed species. Say they made it illegal to possess an ESA listed species. How would you prove that the Chinook or steelhead in your possession is not part of an ESU? Especially if you bring that fish in from Canada, Alaska, Oregon, California, or Idaho.

The fun part would be that you could buy a listed animal on reservation (legally) but then couldn't leave the reservation with it.

Mebbe time to put OP steel on the ESA list?

And what would it change? The Tribes would still chase the hatchery fish and have an incidental harvest.

There are others on here far more versed in the Lacey Act than am I so if anything following is in error please gently correct me. That said, it is my understanding that the Lacey Act makes it a Federal crime to sell illegally harvested wildlife (fish, game, shellfish etc).

Just because a species is ESA listed does not necessarily make its harvest and commercial sale illegal; that is where NOAA/NMFS (for marine species) permitting comes into play.

From a different angle the Lacey Act is not limited to illegal harvest and sale of ESA listed species. It does apply to the sale of all illegally harvested wildlife to include but not limited to salmon, crab and geoduck.

One final aspect is that the Lacey Act also covers illegal harvest/sale by tribal members.

So when will NOAA/NMFS law enforcement and Federal prosecutors step in on what is reported to be massive illegal harvest and sale of WA wildlife? Your area of responsibility Mr. Thom! What are you going to do about it????

At a fixed ESA impact of say 10-15%, would that not be considerably less than the current kill rate on wild steel?

Or do we just play it smart like the Canadians and wait til we're down to 177 fish and try to fast-track the protections at that juncture?

As the run declines, the co-managers will be able to demonstrate that the habitat capacity has been reduced so that the current population is at carrying capacity. Steelhead are just to complex, too interrelated with salmon, and just too difficult to manage.

Even if you set the annual exploitation rate at X, the real rate is higher because some fraction of the fish harvested in year 1 would have returned in year 2, 3, etc. Those are mostly females and significantly more fecund so the true impact is even higher.

In the last century, when I last worked Lacey Act violations, it would come to the forefront when the illegally taken wildlife had crossed a state or federal boundary.

It could be argued that crossing a reservation boundary commits the Federal violation even within the state. Same for crossing a BLM, NP, or USFS boundary. An in-state violation is a bit of a reach and probably not too many Federal prosecutors would go down that road. When crossing a state or international boundary, that becomes a stronger case. Even better when multiple states are crossed as each would/could add to the progression of the case.

We did a lot of interstate joint state/federal check stations. Most states have what could be termed a "mini-Lacey" act where the possession of wildlife, taken illegally in another state, is illegal in the state where the violation was discovered. I have a fond memory of a check station on I-70 in Nebraska one year. Generally speaking, the violation was handled by the host state, in this case NE. The suspect had taken a deer illegally in UT, passed through CO, and hit the check station in NE. Turned out it was a UT officer canine team that detected the deer hidden in the trailer. The violator was advised that he had committed violations in UT, CO (possession and transportation across state lines), NE (same as CO), and then was advised of his options - NE, CO, UT or a Lacey Act. He lit up like a marlin hitting a bait and told us in no uncertain terms that if he was home in Texas he wouldn't be treated in such a manner. The TX officer assigned to the check station (we tried to bring in officers from surrounding states where hunting season were going on or just ending plus an invitation was extended to officers from destination states where the hunters lived),who had listened to the whole discussion then stepped up, identified himself as a TX warden and kindly said something to the effect of "Son, you would have the same problems in TX, now which agency would you like to deal with." As I recall, the NE ticket was chosen because it was the lowest fine amount. The deer was seized, went to a local food bank, and the violator went on down the road.