Take Down -

Puget Sound salmon management is pretty complex and there is some rationale to Carpenter's thinking. If the State is to pursue its own permit the feds (via Bob Turner's letter) were clear that acquiring a permit would require that non-treaty impacts be at or below 50% for each and every ESA listed Chinook stock. While it is true that in the aggregate the non-treaty impacts are less than that of the tribes there typically there are some Chinook stocks where the non-treaty fishery are exceeding that 50% level. This could be a significant issue for various mixed stock fisheries.

The most common example is the mid-Hood Canal stock where a typical division of the 12% allowed impacts who have the non-treaty fishers using more than 7%. To hold the non-treaty impacts to 50% or less of the allowable there will have to significant reductions in mixed stock fisheries (up to something like 15%). The areas that would take the major hit would likely be MA 7 and MA 9 Chinook fisheries. For some anglers that may not be a problem but for others that could be an issue. As I said things can get pretty complex in a hurry.

I do agree that going down the path of the State acquiring their own permit makes a lot of sense especially if there is an de-emphasis on mixed stock recreational fisheries. Wonder who would scream the loudest if non-treaty impacts use would be shifted from mixed stock fisheries to more terminal fisheries?

Curt