There are some very interesting parts to the proposal. It's very well thought through and a useful contribution. However, two consequences of widely implemented selective fisheries were left out. The first is that with selective fisheries in place, conservation of hatchery stocks now becomes a concern. In other words, it is possible to overharvest hatchery runs below their escapement goals even when strong conservation measures for wild stocks are in place and working. The second is that, at least a few places where I have looked, widely implemented selective fisheries have already resulted in harvest sharing favoring the non-treaty side, i.e. non-treaty harvesting more than treaty from a given allocation unit in a given year. It's my sense that both the state and tribal managers have so far been ignoring the evidence of both of these phenomena that is available through careful analysis of the runs from the revised FRAM model. I believe this is because managers' focus is still on wild stocks even though the focus of fisheries has been on hatchery stocks for a long time.