Chasin' Baitman,

I think a big part of what divides WDFW and the treaty tribes is values or policy based and not science based. I have heard that some, maybe many, tribal representatives argue against mark selective recreational fishing because that involves releasing unmarked fish, and that has an incidental mortality rate. Some tribal reps suggest that the incidental mortality be calculated as 100%. Obviously that would be a policy determination and not a science based determination. Mortality rate varies according to species, time and place of catch, gear type, handling, and most importantly, the variable of hooking location. While not stated, it's more than obvious that the tribes are opposed to mark selective fishing because the way that they choose to fish cannot fit with mark selective fishing. Pretty much all fish caught by conventional gillnetting die. I think they have a values based approach against their fishing being tagged with 100% mortality of unmarked fish while non-treaty sport is assigned a significantly lower level of incidental mortality.

With those values it's easier to understand that they would oppose sport fishign in PS that will catch a mix of marked and unmarked (ESA protected) Chinook and possibly some unlisted but vulnerable coho come August. Yet they have no problem saying that they will have some conventional fishing (gillnet) in select terminal areas where hatchery coho are expected to be abundant. What they leave unsaid is that there is virtually no place in PS where hatchery coho will be abundant that doesn't also have a complement of wild coho needing protection, and those wild coho will also be caught in unselective treaty gillnets.

With disparate values like this, the only way for an agreement to happen is for WDFW to capitulate, which fortunately so far, hasn't.

Sg