Hi again RT,

As I indicated in the other thread, I just don't have the expertise to give detailed review or analysis of the questions that Mr. Norman's response prompted. I do bird dog a lot of fish management and conservation and even allocation issues, but this one goes way over my head.

Regarding the inequitable harvests that are not the product of specific agreements or trade offs, like perhaps the recent target fishery on Green River chinook that was suddenly cancelled, I offer this observation. Pre season predictions are not expected to be perfect, and the courts acknowledged that uneven sharing would occur in any given season. But the balance is supposed to be carried over to the next season, so that the party who underharvested in one year would get a greater opportunity and share the next year. This is the method by which equal sharing over the long haul would be accomplished as I understand it. Maybe something's changed and I missed an important court case or order somewhere?

I hope you are able to get more complete explanations from Mr. Norman. The better we can understand complex management issues, then hopefully we can contain at least that level of animosity that is based in ignorance.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.