Salmo,

I can't answer your Q about the 'ground zero' document specific to "foregone opportunity" language and how that affects Indians supposedly getting additional netting oportunity when non-Indian fishers choose to C&R valuable native steelhead spawning stock rather than harvest them. Part of the answer may lay within the complex Dept. of the Interior Secretarial Order #3206. You can access that entire order document at
http://endangered.fws.gov/esatribe.html

Take note in Section 2 that it declares the order will be remain consistent with established law. ... NOT! ... It fly's directly in the face of Treaty law and Federal Court review interpretations pursuant to the stated sharing of harvestable salmon and steelhead equaly, 50/50! I can see why the Indians don't want to go to court again over these issues. I'm not quite clear why the U.S. Government is adverse to going to court. The States of Washington and Oregon sure aren't afraid to - they filed a joint lawsuit against the "Unfair Pair" of the Confederated Tribes of the Columbia Region and the NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) in order to first re-secure our right to fish the Columbia for fall chinook last year and then for negotiating leverage for sportfishing Columbia spring chinook this year. I thought the States backed out of their suit a little too easily when the Indians negotiated allowing sportfishers and non-Indian commercial netters combined to up our ESA impact (on native spring chinook) from 0.5% to 2% if they were allowed to up there ESA impact from a whopppingly unfair 8.5% ESA impact to 13% ESA impact. The States dropped pushing the lawsuit and accepted that "compromise". Some deal, huh? About as insane as this purported 'foregone opportunity' by sportfishers increasing the Indian netting take opportunity. How do these Treaty Tribes have the Feds by the balls so tightly on these ridiculous deals?!?

RT