Coho, thanks for the explanation, it does clarify things. I am exasperated that a similar response was not given to RT in his letter to ODFW, particularly when it was a well written, intelligent request for a complete explanation. Just makes the relationship between sporties and the agencies worse.

I don't get the basis for why the tribes would get their 50 percent share before ESA regulations, particularly since recreational fisheries can do a better job of harvesting fewer of the ESA incidental take fish. Assuming 100 percent release of ESA fish, you would just apply a hooking mortality figure. I recall recent studies on hooking mortality of chinook conducted at Willamette Falls showed the figures to be quite low--around 3 percent. At these rates, it seems quite unlikely that sport catch would even approach the 31 percent incidental take figure.

Even without the number crunching, I don't see a legal basis for allowing tribal fisheries first. In most all other fisheries, tribal and sport fisheries occur concurrently until the surplus over escapement is harvested. Am I missing something here? If this is the Feds doing, because of ESA issues, the States should mount a legal challenge. If I've kept up with the posts over the past few months, this is indeed in the works--Is this correct?

But now I wonder if the States are serious about mounting a challenge to the Federal interpretation given the vague response to RTs letter. Sounds like they think its a done deal.

Gotta wear you chest waders to walk through this.