Boy, I think many of this board's participants are missing the point when it comes to fishing rights and co-management between the State and the Tribes. It is very simple, really. A given resource either has harvestable numbers or it does not. You can argue all you want about what constitutes "harvestable" and/or "conservation" and what does not. You can argue all you want about what resource is "healthy" and what is not. Currently, MSY is the approach used. It is admirable that we have highly educated people devoted to educating us about new approaches. Perhaps, one day we will change. For now, we define what is harvestable using MSY techniques.

Once the harvestable portion of a given return is determined, assuming we are talking about a system within the Boldt Case Area, the Tribes can harvest half the harvestable and the State can harvest the other half. Management plans are agreed to and thats that. Methods chosen to harvest each share are typically included in the plans. There is little use arguing over what one side's harvest methods are vs. the other. A dead fish is a dead fish.

For example, if a "catch and release" or a "mark selective" recreational fishery is in place, there will be mortality associated with that fishery; hatchery and wild mortality. The best available data is used to calculate that mortality. There will also be mortality in the Tribal fisheries; whether in river net fisheries or guided sport fisheries. Fishing moratlity data from both Tribal and State managed fisheries all count towards the "harvestable" amount.

Arguing about how "the other side" harvests its share of the resource is pointless.