NWP,

No offense intended, but when you say, "I think," please understand how different that can be from saying, "I know."

In previous threads, I've laid out a hypothetical case of harvest allocation. Doc did so in this thread. These allocations are based on the present regulations and policies and case law governing the LCR spring chinook fishery. So you "think" it will be different. Please take the necessary time to analyze a hypothetical case, and show your work. That is, if you reach a different conclusion, show what rule or policy causes your example to work out differently.

I'm a CCA member. Not because CCA is correct on the LCR selective commercial fishing issue. But because CCA brings important infrastructure and massive numbers that other organizations haven't been able to deliver. Make no mistake, CCA is wrong regarding the potential effects of its actions on the LCR springer fishery. But a course correction is possible, and I will support that. I don't bash you and the other CCA desciples for being wrong in these threads because it would not be constructive. Another thing, just because you think Todd pontificates about this subject doesn't make him wrong, or you right. The only reason Todd is correct and you aren't is because an objective analysis of the available facts reveal that conclusion. So don't change your thinking because some CCA opponents bash you. Do the objective analysis; seek the truth, and go where it leads.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.