Originally Posted By: JustBecause

This gets back to Carcassman's point about marine, mixed stock fisheries vs more terminal fisheries. The Boldt decision says 50:50 on fish returning to the tribe's U&A.

If the graphs only represent fisheries occurring in Puget Sound and does not include catch in the other southern U.S. marine areas 2, 3, and 4, for instance, these catch proportions (on the graphs) might make sense.


I understand the data (or the use of it) can be flawed and biased. BUT I want to try to understand the broader context.

Let's assume for a second that the graphs on page 1 actually represent what they say they represent (Puget Sound) *AND* that the data is accurate (even though it may not actually be).

http://centralpt.com/upload/560/Advocacy/19637_201605-20CoManagementPerspective.PDF

What would be the reasons Tribal harvest is consistently more than 50%? Is it what I think it is...that sporties reach ESA impacts before harvest allocation, thereby leaving extra harvestable fish on the table for the tribes?

Sorry to keep flogging the issue, but I have been hearing this for years (from the recreational side) and I am still not in full understanding of *why* it's true.

IF it's true can come after wink