I was at the meeting, the private session was for all sportsman in attendance to speak their mind without WDFD or the tribes sitting in. It didn't last long, just long enough to say we weren't going to offer up any more cuts on impact on our end. As mentioned, the tribal impact was 74% and ours was 26%, if we (sportsman) shut down our entire fishery in Puget sound it wouldn't have a huge reduction in impact.

It wasn't a hostile meeting, it was more frustration on the sportsman's side as to the disparity in impact and still being asked to give more.

The tribes need to figure out a way to reduce it on their end too.

The reason for stopping the in-season management was because after collecting all the data for many years it showed that the sportsman's influence on impact was so low that it didn't make a difference. Plus it cost a great deal of money to manage and track it, which could be better spent elsewhere.


No body wants this to go to court, the last time a judge made a ruling it stated that the first priority was conservation of the salmon, next was tribal ceremonial catch, then tribal netting, then non tribal netting, last was sport fishing. So going to court is costly and risky. If a court needs to determine what user group gets fish, we may be left out.