Todd,

Many feel your pain. However, without an agreed to plan, the possibility is very real that NMFS would select the status quo. Nobody fishes; it's just so easy, and ESA listings provide the cover.

Bent Metal,

Carcassman is right. On certain rivers the encounter rate can be extremely high. For this example, you might as well assume the numbers are perfect, because management decisions are made on the "best available data" however good that is.

AP,

I thought about including some kind of draw or lottery system, but wanted to see what the PP crowd suggests.

Eyefish,

PNW salmon and steelhead fishermen are decidedly "anti" anything European when it comes to a lot more than just fish management. An easy out would be to just auction off 250 non-treaty permits to the highest bidders, but managers would prefer the status quo over the hell that would break out with that alternative.

Coley,

Fly fishing only works for some of us, but I didn't make it as a serious proposal because Stam would just come back with some anti-government worker retort. As for closing the river a while longer, in this example, it's already been closed 20 years, but let's make it 30, still no difference. The productivity is what it is. The choice is how to deal with it.

Dwatkins,

The above example is coming to a coastal river near you. It's not a matter of "if" but "when."

Sg