That rationale perpetuates a chosen method (non-selective gillnet) rather than the ONLY method which could be utilized by the tribes to achieve their 50% harvest. Looking at this from a different angle accepting that rationale penalizes recreational fishers for the pro-active steps they have taken to reduce impacts such as mass-marking of hatchery releases and marked selective fishing, use of single barbless hooks, closures of winter fisheries where excessive sub-adults are being encountered etc., etc.

A State argument could well be that non-tribal fisheries have already been restricted
for conservation purposes and any tribal restrictions would be to impose corresponding conservation measures (and impact reductions) on the tribes.