Has the Foregone Opportunity issue been tested? It seems to me that foregone opportunity can easily be circumvented, as reported by Salmo g and those at the WSC meeting, by simply claiming the sport 50 percent as fishing "opportunity" as oppose to fishing "harvest". Is there any language that states that foregone opportunity applies if other groups do not "harvest" their share of the fish? After all, it would be cheaper for sporties to "harvest" our fish at QFC. Sporties fish for fishing opportunities, taking one home is gravy, and that's what the hatchery run is for.

Another consideration: If the decision to go State-wide C&R is approved, and the foregone opportunity issue lands against sporties and steelhead (which I do not believe), nothing would keep the state from rescinding C&R and going back to C&K business as usual. Faced with no benefit to sport fishing opportunities, no benefit to wild steelhead, and the possible loss of license sales because of lower fishing opportunities, the state would have every incentive to change the decision. And the exercise, under this scenario, wouldn't look too good for the tribes as far as public opinion goes. The State could say "we tried, but didn't get the expected response from the tribes".

Alternatively, the State could make the decision in a moratorium fashion or some other temporary way to determine what the tribes will do and how the courts will react before making a final decision.

It seems to me like a win win situation, so why not try? I'm letting loose these thoughts because its usually the C&K advocates that push the foregone opportunity issue, its in their best interest. But it seems that some C&R folks also believe we will not gain any wild steelhead in the rivers because of this issue. I do not believe this.


[This message has been edited by obsessed (edited 03-26-2001).]