No...

Just helping everyone else on the board to understand that as long as the tribes harvest CR upriver spring chinook NON-selectively, there is no getting around the fact that 75% of the hatchery fish will be left in the river.

It doesn't matter one iota that the NON-treaty gillnets become more selective. The number of fish harvested on the NON-treaty side CANNOT increase in any substantive measure because of catch-balancing.

The biggest constraint on recreational opportunity is NON-selective tribal fishing.

Most everyone doing the mathematical mental masturbation on this issue does so within the context of fishing for scraps.... a 2% sized pie. Think outside the box for just a moment folks. What if that NON-treaty pie were able to be enlarged by 2- or even 3-fold?

And no, I didn't just fill my self-prescribed supply of medical marijuana, folks.

Think about it? Why do the tribes get 87% of the ESA impact? To subsidize their NON-selective fishing strategy and still achieve catch balancing.

If they fished with even a modicum of selectivity, catch balancing could be achieved with fewer dead ESA springers than the ridiculous 15% impact allows. Probably enough to double or triple the impact allocation on the NON-treaty side, and actually put MORE wild ESA springers on the gravel.

Imagine how much NON-treaty harvest opportunity expands in an allocation scenario of 10% treaty, 4% NON-treaty, and 1% "bonus" for the gravel.

Hell if I'm gonna dream, may as well dream BIG..... 6% treaty, 6% NON-treaty, 3% "bonus" for the gravel!

Now there's a win-win-win!

How would you like the recreational impact share doubled or tripled? Bet that would buy a lot more days on the water, or perhaps even a 2-fish bag for at least part (all?) of the season?

The status quo leaves 3 out of every 4 hatchery fish unharvested.

If we can't harvest them, what's the point in making them in the first place?