I think it could be argued that the sub legal mortality is a consequence of our choice of fishing. Yes our take is larger, but then we are greatly limited by the wild component taken by the tribes due to their method of take. It likely could be argued that if the tribes used a selective fishing method, our take of sub-legals would not effect the total take. Our method of fishing has some drawbacks, but overall I believe it still has less of an impact as does the non-selective method of take.
Lets say there are 16000 hatchery fish available for take but only impacts for 500 wild fish. If we fished selectively, we may be able to get our 50% without taking over 250 of the wild fish. Since the tribes may need 800 to get their 50%, there is no way to get the mandated 50% for each side without some adjustments, The non-treaty take may be knocked down from the 8000 available to 4 or 5 thousand or less to get to the equal harvest. Now, it could easily be argued that the sub legal take should be treated the same way. If only so many sub legals are allowed, then the quotas of adult fish allowed to each side should be adjusted to allow us to get our 50%. If we are only allowed 3000 sub legals, the return on this number would be much lower. It is very likely that this number is still below the lost opportunity we face due to the tribes not fishing selectively. I would love to see how the numbers play out in real life. Anybody know?