The Boldt decision gives natives 50% of the allowable harvest and it tells the state that it can't interfere with native harvest practices, except for conservation purposes. That gives us some options if we want to continue to decrease non-selective harvest after 696 passes (I hope). First, like Bob said, re-define what is allowable harvest. This will effect sportsfishing as well as native harvest. It seems that the harvest model used now tries to cut it too close and sometimes fails. An example is last July's "emergency opening" for Chinook on the Hoh. A September snorkel survey by the park found a total of 23 adult Chinook in the lower 13 miles of the south fork. And I'm sure everyone knows of times when the nets were allowed to go in one or more too many times. Second, why can't the state make use of the "for conservation purposes" clause in the decision? There are already dozens of stocks with ESA listings in the region. Do we need more purpose than that?
It would probably help a lot of us if we found out more about how the harvest numbers are calculated in Washington. Does anyone have any sources for this information?