Can we all stop claiming we want to "put the fish first?" As Carcassman points out, to put the fish first would mean an end to development, the end of all fishing, and tremendous social and economic sacrifices to restore as much habitat as possible. If we're being honest, we need to face the fact that there simply isn't any appetite for the level of changes required to "recover" salmon. Too much money to be made and fun to be had doing things the way we've been doing them.

If you want to argue that selective, recreational fishing is easier on wild fish than what the other guys are doing, I'll agree, 100%. That said, fishing, no matter how it's done, is not in the best interests of the fish, and while it's clear that some stakeholders account for the lion's share of the exploitation, it's the sum of all exploitation that leaves the SRKW and the spawning gravel wanting for more. Thanks largely to open ocean fisheries, recreational fishing accounts for a large percentage of harvest overall. It's those fisheries that are intended to be our "equal opportunity." Heck, the commercial guys travel from Seattle up north every season; why shouldn't we? (I'm being facetious, but ultimately, recs do get our fair share... As long as we have the money to travel to Alaska and pay guides every summer or buy our own ocean boat).

It's easy for us to point fingers at the Tribes, because their take is very visible, right in our faces. What we tend to forget is that 80% of the harvestable salmon have been caught (almost entirely by non-tribals) before their gillnets go in. Frankly, I'd rather see them getting 50% of what's really coming back, because that would leave a whole lot more for the whales, the gravel, and inland sport fishers to share with them.