Aunty - We don't disagree that much.

I agree that the State will decide how to use any "savings" that might accrue from the reduced mortality from the gill nets. They could re-allocate it to other users or they could apply it to conservation. But the point remains that niether ballot initiative in Oregon nor the Gov's proposal discuss reallocation; and the State (OR/WA) retains the right to decide. I think we agree on that.

My point in mentioning the Tribes is just to point out that they will likely seek to negotiate some of those savings. If the pre-season forecast was close to perfect, and the Tribes always got their 50% allocation, they would not have a "leg to stand on" in any negotiations. But that's not the case. The past several years, the Tribes got less than the State managed fisheries (commercial/recreational). They got squeezed between the ESA impact limit, a inaccurate pre-season forecast, and a highly (?) efficient recreational/commercial fishery in the Lower C. As such, the Tribes had to cease fishing for springers because if they did, they would exceed the NMFS ESA limits. As such they didn't get their share. In other words, "catch-balancing" didn't work. The Tribes were, and still are, livid. They will not let this happen again.

My guess (and that's all it is) is that they will try to negotiate some of the savings to ensure they get their 50%. I'm not saying they would try to re-allocate the fishery in their favor; but rather, they would seek to guarantee what they're supposed to get (50%). And given the difficulties of getting an accurate pre-season forecast, they have a good point.....