Ramon....In the latest press releases made jointly on behalf of Directors Koenings and Ball there is strong reference to adhering to the 2% benchmark. They took so much heat for the letters asking for 7% or triple the kill of ESA fish that I think they would be crazy to go back to the table and ask for that again. Especially in light of statements being made lately they would look not just hypocritical but downright criminal in so doing.

I would like to see the exact text of the biological justification for a threefold increase in motality. But then again I would like to see the same biological justification for the mortality rates sanctioned for the tribes. The tribes are at something over 13% or almost 7 TIMES the sensible level set as the current benchmark.

Ramon..Your efforts in this area are appreciated. I am sure that you and your organization are not pleased to see such a reckless policy as increased kills of ESA fish when so many people are working so hard to improve conditions for these fish. So many billions of dollars are being spent to save the same fish that would be lost to higher allowed mortality. For What? For an increased commercial harvest? So a tiny minority of commercial harvesters can enrich themselves? You tell me what sense any of this makes.