I think that the tribes and WDFW submit a single List of Agreed Fisheries, with the tribes as the driver so that they can use the dubious strategy that cohoangler outlined above.

This has a great benefit of relieving the WDFW from the necessity of justifying their fisheries under the ESA's 4(D) rules...but comes with the great detriment of in essence needing the tribes to sign off on any fishery you'd like to prosecute, or it won't get in the LOAF, and won't have ESA coverage.

Were co-management not so broken this would be a great management route to put together fisheries and have them approved; they are virtually rubber stamped under this process. As it stands now, the tribes use this to their advantage to pretty much tell the State what fisheries it can and cannot prosecute.

If someone wanted to blow up the whole shebang and make the tribes and State follow the law, and perhaps get their own permits, well...attacking this lame Sec. 7 process is a pretty good route.

Be aware, however, that the State would get to craft its own fisheries without the tribes having to sign off on them, but would also have to conduct and defend its own ESA analysis of the fisheries. Things like shutting down our PS coho fishery a few years ago and then putting out gillnets wouldn't happen so easily, but other fisheries that we conduct that have dubious scientific underpinnings for ESA purposes will get far more scrutiny.

Fish on...

Todd