I apologize if I seem argumentative; I had hoped to provoke thoughtful consideration. It doesn't seem like intelligent fiscal or natural resource policy to expend public funds to create waste, which is what the present level of Hoodsport chum production appears to be. The level of production could be scaled back appreciably and still maintain a large enough return to meet broodstock requirements and a valuable recreational fishery plus some level of treaty fishery. That's why I said the recreational fishery times two. The treaty Indian fishery legally is 50% of the harvestable surplus. The state has no obligation to maintain that surplus at any specific level, particularly if it serves mainly to create and perpetuate a "waste" fishery. There ought to be room for common sense and law somewhere in this equation.

Scaling back chum production at Hoodsport does not increase the treaty allocation in any other fishery as compensation. The treaty fishing right is what it is: 50% of the harvestable surplus, unless specifically adjudicated otherwise (like Quillayute, I believe). If Hoodsport chum production were lower, the treaty allocation would also be lower. I would have to see compelling evidence that the state is obligated by law to fund a fishery that is noted primarily for the waste it generates.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.