Originally Posted By: Salmo g.

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.


Yes, it seems like these "values" can usually be traced back to something a little less pure.

Originally Posted By: Salmo g.

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.


They can't have it both ways. Perhaps this is an exploitable loophole in their demands.

Originally Posted By: Salmo g.

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.


This is a great point. On all the rivers I fish from the N sound up to the BC border, I've caught wild coho when fishing hatchery areas. So I'd love to know where these strictly terminal areas are they're planning to net for coho.

Originally Posted By: Salmo g.

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


What surprises me is that it's taken this long for the tribes to be steadfast about a "no sportfishing in the sound" demand. Why have they ever negotiated with the state when doing so only results in fewer fish in their nets?