I hope everyone had a most enjoyable Christmas.
So where was I? Oh yah.

b. Long Term:

i. in general.

(d) Continue moving away from allocation-based fishery management to objective-based fishery management. This shift allows solutions that may improve both fisheries, rather than improving one fishery at the expense of another. This approach will require both sides to concede some ground on their stated positions in order to gain actual improvements in their fisheries. It will also require investment of additional resources in commercial fishery infrastructure and several years’ patience to implement changes.

We have seen additional resources going into commercial selective live capture tests since this was written a couple of years ago, This says that the long term goal is to shift allocation to objective fishery management and by doing so that may improve both commercial and sport fisheries. Preliminary results coming in this last year indicate that the improvement to both commercials and sport fisheries should be upgraded from may improve to will improve considering the possibility of upwards to 12X +/-more fish to catch. It also states that compromise will need to be part of the equation for improvement of both parties. Good time to work out other pertinent details like who fishes when ,where, location, and basic dates.

Todd used 10X earlier in this thread to illustrate a point so let’s use that.
Using the 2% incidental impact, Selective live capture would be able to harvest 10X more salmon than Gill nets killing the same ESA listed( of course the pending mortality rate from future tests will determine exactly if it will be 10X +or-)

The tribes are going to want their 50% because in 1974 Judge George Boldt decided in United States v. Washington (384 F. Supp. 312) that Belloni's "fair and equitable share" was, in fact, 50 percent of all the harvestable fish destined for the tribes' traditional fishing places. The following year, Judge Belloni applied the 50/50 standard to U.S. v. Oregon and the Columbia River.

The folks on here that don’t believe that this won’t be under the jurisdiction of US v Oregon management agreement meaning that the tribes and Idaho aren’t part of the process are dreamin.
For giggles and grins let’s say this is a hearing and here is your chance to present why the tribe should not be entitled to their share. Here is your chance to present an iron clad case connecting the dots between all your pertinent information for a slam dunk case. I’m not sure if anybody has wrestled 50% away from the tribes recently but Good luck trying.

Should when you lose--- that would be a win for the ESA wild listed because now that represents 50% that would normally have died in the gill nets will now live and continue their journey up river while 5X more fish are available to be shared by sport and commercial harvest in the LCR. Keith that should make you feel about 2 ½ X less frustrated. Ten year avg. sports have access to 18,488 harvestable salmon X2 ½ =46,220 for sports a considerable amount more fish to catch considering the future success of commercial selective live capture. We also have to consider that some years the maximum fish available to harvest wasn’t achieved due to fishery closures because of high incidental impact being hit to early.

Why anybody would want gill nets over selective live capture gear just doesn’t understand the benefits.

In addition to these benefits above thousand upon thousand of steelhead saved by not throwing them away dead in the up to 66% mortality rate of gill nets and save countless sturgeon from bycatch mortality also.
_________________________
The world will not be destroyed by those that are evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.- Albert Einstein

No you can’t have my rights---I’m still using them