Take-Down:

We're definitely on the same side but that doesn't mean we have to have exactly the same perspectives although we are pretty close. I believe I sat through all of the pertinent hearings and testified in most. My clear recollection of the process was for WDFW to determine the summer rec catch, add the estimated total season winter rec catch and then subtract from the State's share of the negotiated total harvest. If that resulted in a negative number (meaning getting into the Tribes' share) then there would be no commercial season and any winter rec season would be reduced to keep the total State harvest within its share (that is, a zero or slight positive residual number). If the total summer catch used up all of the State's share then no winter rec nor commercial season; a pretty straight forward approach.

A slight correction to what you wrote - it is when the total State harvest (rec plus commercial) exceeds the State's share that the Tribes have to be compensated - not just when the recreational harvest exceeds the State's share as you wrote.

If my understanding, above, is incorrect please provide me with the specifics and cites which support your position.

As for 2E the initial WDFW posting of the commercial seasons by management areas kept 2E closed pending negotiations with the tribes to increase the total allowable harvest. Since that announcement only addressed the commercial season it was impossible to determine whether there would have been a winter rec season absent the negotiated increase or whether the summer rec catch may have actually exceeded the State's share.

However, the fact that the Department subsequently opened 2E for commercial harvest leaves only one conclusion - that the negotiations were "successful" in increasing the total allowable harvest and, consequently, the State's share thereby allowing for the commercial season.

You are correct that any overharvest of the State's share required/requires a compensation to the Tribes. In the past that has been accomplished after the fact by negotiating an increase in the total harvest (effectively to an amount doubling the State's actual harvest). The appearance this year is that the Department entered into this negotiation before the fact for the purpose of providing enough "head room" for a non-tribal commercial season. The scary parts of this approach are that (1) future annual harvest numbers are derived from a running average of past (5?) years and, (2) if there is an overharvest this year it will have to be paid back by the recreational harvesters either during the winter season or in 2012 possibly by a reduction in the recreational harvest.