chromefish,

I feel your pain...if this is what it looks like, a trade of steelhead (that cannot be fished commercially by non-tribal fishermen...it is illegal) to treaty fishermen so that the non-treaty fishermen can commercially net more salmon, then this is at worst illegal, as it commercializes the steelhead, in spite of the law against it, and at best, a sellout of sportfishing interests for commercial interests, yet again.

On the subject of broodstock fish, though...

The tribes have a treaty right to half of the harvestable portion of fish runs, whether they be wild or hatchery fish.

When you set out to create a viable broodstock steelhead fishery, and accomplished the goal by establishing a reliable run of those fish, did you think that the tribes would not want to fish for them?

They have every legal right to do so.

Additionally, those broodstock fish return in February, March and April. If the treaty fishermen are going to net for those broodstock fish that are now plentiful enough to have a net fishery for, what else are they going to be catching in the net?

That's right, the native steelhead...native steelhead that they otherwise wouldn't be netting, but are catching now because of the presence of harvestable broodstock hatchery fish.

Keep that in mind...it has, and will continue to be, my main objection anytime someone brings up what a great idea it would be to start a broodstock program on the Skagit system.

Besides the dubious proposition that it would return more fish (more harvestable fish? Yes. More fish overall? No. They generally take wild fish out of the gene pool, spawn them, clip them, and return the same or less amount of fish than if the wild fish were just left alone...but now they can be harvested), it would most certainly lead to a tribal net fishery to catch their half...a net fishery that would also catch the wild fish.

Fish on...

Todd