All good points, as usual, Curt. Catch sharing is not the same as allocation, for sure, so an imbalance does not necessarily mean a problem or a violation of allocation principles. However, it is clear from the analysis that I've done that the move to selective fisheries has achieved the objective of increasing non-treaty opportunity in their preferred mode of mixed-stock hook-and-line fisheries. I do think that there have been some problems with hatchery escapement shortfalls outside of Samish, although there is certainly surplus escapement often as well. I also think that both state and tribal managers have not done the work to comprehensively look at how catch sharing has changed since selective fisheries were widely implemented. Basically, more harvest has gone to the non-treaty side, and, in some cases, more than half. So, selective fisheries are working, from that perspective. I'm just surprised that, with all the rancor, managers aren't paying more attention to the actual numbers. They are so focused on management objectives for wild fish that they ignore the allocation (and conservation) of the hatchery fish they are actually harvesting. Of course, they are also ignoring the habitat problems that are the real key to restoring the wild stocks.