Pug,

No. All wild and some hatchery spring chinook are already listed as threatened or endangered. The biological assumption, right or wrong, is that every listed run can tolerate some level of mortality without jeopardizing its survival and recovery. Absent that assumption, the Snake/Columbia federal dams would have to shut down whenever listed fish were migrating upstream or downstream, which is most of the year. ESA and biology give way to political reality that the dams will continue operating. Since the "incidental take" by the dams far exceeds the take in any recreational, commercial, or treaty fishery, clearly some small take by fishing is acceptable if take by the dams is acceptable. Follow? The upshot is that as long as the dams are permitted to operate, the tribes will be allowed to fish up to a pre-determined level of incidental take of listed chinook. That amount has been 13% in previous years; I think I read that the tribes' take is limited to something like 9.8% this year. The non-treaty fishing take was 2% last year, but I think it was reduced to 1.5% this year. Anyway, I think you can get the idea from this. If not, ask away, and I'll try to get better answers.

Laterun,

I don't know the details of what has actually been discussed with the tribes. One major issue of departure that I hear about is that the CR tribes assume the hatchery and wild runs to be integrated populations. That is, they don't recognize the same separation of hatchery and wild runs that the agencies do. So they don't see any need to fish selectively for the surplus hatchery fish. Science isn't on their side, but that seems to be the regulatory stale-mate last I heard. If the tribes would agree to some form of selective fishing, yes, I think that would be the best of all possible worlds. Instead it appears they are choosing to continue to be a small part of the problem instead of the solution. They are in a very strong position however, when you consider that the federal gov't owns and operates the major fish killers in the system, and in spite of the billions of $$ spent, the runs continue to decline, and all evidence indicates it's not due to the tribes' fishing.

Keith,

Ceremonial, along with subsistence and commercial harvest is among the federally protected fishing rights. It's very well established in case law. You and I will be stuck on the beach for years before the tribes are finally made to stop fishing. That is very well spelled out in case law in case you were wondering.

JoJo,

Yes, an IFQ model would work, as would other models. That's not the problem. The problem is that people don't want to change, and the state and federal agencies are reluctant to force the issue. If you're looking for leadership, you seldom find it in government. Leadership almost always begins at the grassroots level, and then government follows. Crazy but true.

--------------------------------------
Yes, it looks like the run is a lot weaker than predicted, but it's still a lot better than those many years when the river was closed.

I've been eating some springer the past couple days, and God it is to die for. No finer food has ever existed, I swear.

Sg