From the letter above
"• Process – The process that resulted in the moratorium was flawed and not consistent with your normal approach to regulation setting. It appears that a specific interest group had an agenda and used the system to obtain their goal. Their goal was not subjected to public or Co-Manager query and was in conflict with staff recommendations.
• Wild Steelhead Declines in the Strait of Georgia and Puget Sound – The moratorium does not address the problem (cause) and helps hide the symptoms. The WDFW and the Commission should work proactively to complete and implement the new Steelhead Management Plan.
• Sustainable Fisheries Act, 1996 – A goal of the Sustainable Fisheries Act was to ensure sustainable fisheries and permit harvest on healthy species/stocks. A statewide moratorium on wild steelhead retention is counter to the stated goal of the Act, given that the Co-Managers have identified harvestable stocks of wild steelhead, many of which are indigenous to the Olympic Peninsula."

1. from above"Their goal was not subjected to public or Co-Manager query and was in conflict with staff recommendations. " Is this to mean that PSA always is in agreement with WDFW staff recomendations.
2.from above"Wild Steelhead Declines in the Strait of Georgia and Puget Sound – The moratorium does not address the problem (cause) and helps hide the symptoms. How the hell can having more wild fish on the redds "hide the symptoms. It would seem to me that harvesting the fish might hide the symptoms.
3.from above"given that the Co-Managers have identified harvestable stocks of wild steelhead" You mean the trbes and WDFW? The ones that you say are going to use foregone oppOrtunity and net the rivers? Now their advice is good enough?