Todd your take is very intriguing. Although, thinking about it nearly caused an overload for my small brain. I do however want to add my $.02. Is using the term "legally" a bit premature? Have there been court decisions interpreting the Boldt decision and deciding that hooking mortality caused by C&R equals harvest?

Also, it would be ironic because, if option 1 is implemented, when the tribes claim foregone opportunity on the C&R season wouldn't it benefit them to claim a low hooking mortality percentage in order to increase their allocations? C&R advocates have been touting 3%-7%, but will this mean the tribes get 93%-97% of the total harvest? I sure hope not!

IMHO option 1 is an inevitability. But us sporties will be holding our a$$es until the tribes decide what to do. The ball will in their court. This will be especially true on the OP, where our managers have deemed the wild runs relatively healthy and capable of supporting harvest as per MSY. I personally wouldn't mind seeing C&R seasons in tandem with a small increase (5%-10%) in tribal allocations to satisfy foregone opportunity. In theory this would put about 30% more fish on the beds above escapement.

peace out............

-----------------------------------------------

a.k.a. "The Most Recognized Steelheader"