quote:6. If the state can show that it is necessary for conservation to restrict off-reservation treaty fishing on a threatened run of a species destined for one river, but that other runs of the same species destined for other rivers are abundant enough to permit harvesting by treaty and non-treaty fishermen in accordance with the opinion of the court, may the state restrict the treaty off-reservation fishery on the threatened run even though non-treaty fishermen fishing on mixed runs will incidentally impact [**271] the threatened run? (See F.F. 202)

A. The state would not necessarily be allowed to operate in the manner set forth in the question. Various other factors may be involved. The state must explore alternatives to fishing on mixed stocks, consistent with the goal of full harvest of the resource.

Does this mean that the State could stop all fishing on a stock, if it was not being fished as a "mixed stock" in the name of "conservation? That would also mean no c&r, sport, commercial or tribal fishery. If we truly really wanted to protect and recover a run of wild steelhead, wouldn't the state be able to close the entire fishery to protect those rivers that do not have a mixed stock fishery?