My guess is that it boils down to money changing hands, plain and simple.

Large Eddie, are you implying that the Commissioners are on the take?

Only guessing here....kind of like guessing Inslee thinks he's deserving of WSP detail while he's on his presidential campaign trail. Of course, that's just another guess, I guess.

They may not be on the take, but there sure as hell something not right on how they sold out on the CR gill nets. Something stinks really bad and I’m not talking about that herring that got left in the boat. There’s something we are missing here. Aren’t the deals of the Commission supposed to be transparent and represent the will of the stakeholders?
They did the exact opposite! And left the stakeholders in the dark. Question is, to who’s bidding?

Who are the Stakeholders and what laws are actually in place to guide what they do?

The law establishing the agency says something like preserve, protect, and enhance the (animal) resources of WA. Then, they are supposed to provide appropriate harvest while maintaining the industry. It can be argued that destroying the CR gill nets is destroying (not maintaining) that industry. It can also be argued ( and has been successfully with crab) that recreational harvest is also "industry".

In most places, with Willapa and the CR being exceptions, the Indian commercial fleet is probably capable of taking any necessary salmon harvest. With ESA constraints it is not likely that full harvest of at least the CR stocks (especially when enhanced) can be taken by recs.

There needs to be, I believe, a third party review of Washington's salmon fisheries that looks at current status, likely future, and what the optimum harvest strategy would be. Definitely 3rd party as whoever does can't have any sort of horse in the race.

Carcassman,
By saying "
With ESA constraints it is not likely that full harvest of at least the CR stocks (especially when enhanced) can be taken by recs. "

I am probably wrong, but it would appears that you are implying that the Gill netters take less of the ESA impacts and allow a greater overall harvest and that main stream netting is needed to maximize harvest.

No. The GN take a lot of hatchery fish after the separate from the wilds. They can take a lot of fish in a short time.

My suspicion is the Tribes fought the gill net ban harder than the cowboys. It being seen as a domino.. If NT gill nets are banned, then the Tribes would look pretty darn hypocritical as "environmental leaders" being the only one's still employing non-selective gear.

I find it interesting, that in reading about the history of native peoples traditional fishing methods, gill nets are near non existent. As a matter of fact, fishing was a community effort, where the entire community gathered to "build fish weirs and traps". Far cry from what we see today.

Point is, Gill nets are NOT selective and KILL ESA listed fish. It's dumb to continue to point out statistics that sportsmen kill just as many using selective gear, when in reality it is all just guesswork.

Everyone who harvests fish should abide by the same laws. If a water is designated as "selective gear" for one group, then it should be equally designated for ALL!

Another point about treaty shares, at least through the second trip to Supremes and before we got deep into co-management was that the sharing was 50:50 I and NI. Conceivably, the tribal trollers and those tribes that fished Fraser stocks (essentially the marine mixed stock) could take all the tribal harvest and leave none for the inside tribes. WDF was called, more than once, by an upstream tribe asking WDF to close the downstream tribe so they could get some fish. Couldn't do it.

As others have noted here, the Tribes have been very opposed to taking fish at traps (Baker, for example) where by catch kill could be eliminated, the run could be updated, etc. They, like the NI, are all independent businessmen now. The Tribes were once communal (socialist) and now have gone capitalist. All the MAGA folks should support that.