Jacob,

If for every nate not harvested by sport anglers were actually going to give the Indians many more times the nate allocation per that one nate, of course I wouldn't want that. It seems just too absurd to be credible. Even as unfair in favor of the Indians the Treaty rules have been implimented, I just don't see how such a rediculous scenario could be brought forth!

I have heard of this 'foregone opportunity' reason before, to not have C&R regs on nates. Can someone please explain the documentation of such rule, or 'spirit' (excuse) of such a rule if it's not a law, and how that could be pulled off? What actual significants does it carry?

Besides, from so many sources, including the ones the Indians actually keep count of, I keep hearing that they already get more than their mandated 50% share of the fish, and net out of season and keep all they want or can already. If that's the case that needs to be addressed and changed; and it makes it even more important to release the nates that are getting by the nets go spawn. If the above claims are correct, it wouldn't leave any more room for thousands more netted fish if a few hundred aren't harvested by sport fishers.

Also, I cannot imagine the WDFW would propose the nate C&R regs if what you are saying about 'foregone opportunity' were true. Anyone from the WDFW, or in the know, here to address this question?

RT