Originally Posted By: Carcassman
The problem with those northern interceptions is that you are dealing with two more countries. Alaska is the Big Dog, politically. Plus, nobody catches their fish. The lower 48 and Canada have no hammers to compel a change.

Now, Canada takes Lower 48 fish, and we take theirs. Wilkerson, in the first US-Canada treaty (80s) allowed their take of coho to numerically match the expected US share of Fraser sockeye. If we want Canada off "our" fish, we just need to stay off theirs. That would still leave Canada in a pissing match with AK because they take Canadian fish up north. As I recall, Canada was hoping that the other 49 states would exert some control on AK.


Politically, it may be difficult and would require some leadership up the food chain. But, WDFW could and should push back in a number of ways. Let's think outside the box for a minute.

How about our beloved ESA listed killer whales? They are starving to death because the feds OK a taking of too many ESA listed Chinook. Pick an over exploited ESA stock and push the issue. What would the effect be if we managed to curtail the mixed stock intercept fishery in the great north that systematically harvests our immature ESA Chinook and thereby kills our ESA orcas? How many Washingtonians would be in support of stopping the killing off of our whales to feed some far off commercial interest?

Even more simply, how about WDFW stop being a doormat? Why not insist that NOAA take into account the vast amount of harvest that occurs in Alaska instead of agreeing to a 30% reduction in our fishing?

Honest question: what would the feds do if WDFW said we aren't agreeing to reducing our impact until you stop others from killing all our fish, and, if you don't, we'll see what a judge says? What does WDFW have to lose?