... try this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-ADN0oWQkQ

But...but...they drew a cute little heart with the net at the end....

Can't you see....it's all about love and conservation.

I absolutely agree with their assertion that terminal fisheries are better for conservation than mixed stock fisheries. The rest was a fairly typical mix of lies and half-truths about gillnetting and habitat, so overall, thumbs down.

Interesting to see open ocean fisheries being mentioned as a problem for conservation. I have often wondered why the Tribes have seemingly never gone after those fisheries, which are clearly the ones that take the lion's share of what should be their fish. Perhaps the game is now so much in their favor that they are ready to take off the kid gloves and throw a few haymakers at the big boys. I'd take an honest 50% Tribal harvest on ALL WA salmon over what we have today in a heartbeat.

The Makahs might have something to say about banning ocean mixed stock fisheries ;-)

Fish on...

Todd

They encourage those open ocean fisheries by the non-Indians, under Hoh v. Baldridge, so that they can then fish inside unimpeded. If the ocean takes 1000 Hoh fish, the tribe gets 1000 inside.

The essence of that decision was that the tribes can't be shut down for conservation until all the NI is shut. So, the tribes balance catches. That is another eason why they fish inside an the sporties are closed.

Plus, as Todd says, there are tribes that troll and they would not want to have to be concerned about conservation. Remember the winter troll fishery by Makah a while back???

Sounds like they only mentioned ocean fisheries to further deflect the conservation burden away from themselves. Bummer.

They point at mixed stock vs. terminal. We point at mark selective vs. gillnetting.

In the end if the impacts are reasonably modeled, and split fairly, then it shouldn't matter how we all fish.

The problem is that the impacts are clearly NOT SPLIT EVENLY, and no heart-shaped gill-net ending is going to prove otherwise.