Noticed you failed to address where is your science behind saying the run is healthy and can handle a 75% harvest rate. You asked me a question to give you example of where the science if flawed I can't because there isn't ANY SCIENCE TO SUPPORT EITHER WAY. If there own biologist says that it isn't sustainable then no evidence will convince you.

So majority rules seems to be your idea of good fishery management. So if there is more support via letters, testimony, etc for CnR then you are OK with that being the law of the land?

Who was the one person that pushed this? THere were multiple individuals that supported this, multiple fishing and fish groups that support, support of many local guides. Etc.

Please show us the science that says this a good thing?