Guys,

It ain't the calculator, and it ain't new math. The problem, as is so often the case, seems to be incomplete information.

There are two legitimate reasons why the treaty share is significantly greater than the recreational share of in-river harvest. First, as others have posted, is the non-treaty commercial catch. Second, the ocean harvest by both recreational and commercial non-treaty fishing. The treaty fisherman don't take any of their share in the ocean, so it stands to reason that their in-river share would be greater than the non-treaty share. Remember, according to the U.S. v. Washington decision, as upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, every fish harvested in U.S. waters counts as part of the treaty and non-treaty shares. Canadian and high seas harvests are excluded from the sharing formula.

I know it's like spitting into a strong headwind, but don't be so quick to jump to hysterical conclusions.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.