I listened again to AAG MIke Grossman's defense of the PSCHMP to the Commission.
One thing he harps on is that the plan must meet the standard:

"mitigation has to be reasonably certain to occur"

Which I guess is a stipulation by NOAA. My question is, and I know this has been covered many times over, how could ANYONE (including NOAA) look at the last 30 years of declines, harvest cuts, more declines, more harvest cuts...then look at the PSCHMP and say:

"yep - more harvest cuts, that's definitely gonna do it this time!"

It's the one thing that we are fairly certain that if deployed on its own, will NOT work.

It definitely and clearly doesn't meet NOAA's standard and it doesn't meet the standard of COMMON SENSE

My point is, we are so deep in the weeds with policy and a a plethora of different bureaucratic agencies (all seemingly driven by a single thing - the fear of litigation), we've completely and totally departed from common sense.

He belabors, "we are doing things that harm chinook". I agree that harvest DOES harm chinook, But it's been verified that the #3 and #4 spots (#1 and #2 being tribal) on the stilly chinook impact list - area 7 summer/winter sport seasons - ACCOUNT FOR ONLY 3.4 FISH

Total departure from reason!

Setting aside all the policy BS and trying to look at it from a macro perspective...if a harvest-cuts-only route were to be taken, logically sportfishing would be the LAST place to look because that would provide the LEAST BENEFIT.

Yeah hands are tied by Boldt, PST, AK, BC blah blah blah. Circular arguments back to why it's sportfishing that has to be the one to suck it up.

And here's where the economic value SHOULD come into play. Is the juice worth the squeeze? What are the measures that will maximize the benefit for fish and minimize the impact on the economy? Once again, sportfishing would logically be the LAST stop because it's the lowest impact and generates the most dollars. Specifically WA sportfishing because it's mark-selective.

So how about some leadership? We need a Ted Stevens of WA
(OK maybe not *exactly* like Ted Stevens, but somebody who can get stuff done instead of quake in fear of getting sued)

I think experts can punch holes in McIsaac's proposal all day long, but even just the skeleton plan he laid out would (seems to me) come ALOT closer to meeting NOAA's standard than the same 'ol harvest cuts. It at least has a precedent.