[/quote] NMFS does neither of these things. NMFS determines the overall impact rates and whether a fishery plan meets them or not. Dividing up that impact and catch is a state/tribal matter, not a fed matter. At least for Puget Sound fisheries. [/quote]


I agree. It’s not as linear as I made it sound. NMFS sets the overall incidental take, the State and Tribes divvy up the incidental take to ensure both can take their share, and then NMFS okay’s the overall plan to ensure the incidental take limits are maintained.

But my basic point was that the State and the Tribes are NOT dividing up the allocation. They’re divvying up the incidental take. And that’s NOT a 50/50 split.

Carcassman - Why would the Tribes want to mark fish from their facilities? That would only provide more fish for the recreational anglers and NI commercial fleet. After all, the Tribes are okay with mark-selective fisheries as long as there are no marked fish……. It’s mass marking that they oppose.

Mass-marking only makes sense if you also participate in a mark-selective fishery. If you don’t, mass marking works against you. That why the Tribes don’t mark their fish.

My sense is that if the Tribes could fish selectively, with a similar level of efficiency, they would. But given the nature of their fishery, and their historic reliance on gill nets, they can’t.