By the way, Alaska should have no problem going to this paradigm; they would certainly have the best runs and get the most fish.

I suspect a big part of why Alaska's fisheries get so much of Washington's catchable quota is that the majority of people operating in that commercial market hail from Seattle. Washingtonians arguing for access to more Washington salmon sounds pretty ideal on the surface, right?

Alaska will never go with a "catch only your own fish" paradigm. Nobody else catches AK salmon, at least not in any sort of numbers. They would give up BC, WA, OR, CA fish for what?

Hows about cash? As in not having to defend themselves in a protracted court battle from a combined lawsuit from BC, CA, OR, WA, ID.

This has got to be a law firms dream. Years of high paid employment. Think of the billable hours?

And the justification for the lawsuit is???

We produced the fish, we get them? Apply that one to , say, ducks and geese.

AK has already made the argument (remember Jeff Koenings?) that they deserve a share of southern fish because AK protects and manages the oceanic habitat they grow in.

As for cash, WA (among other gubmints) won't pay for education, infrastructure, public safety, mental health, and a long list of other things that voters probably support before fish.

I think any first year law student knows enough to holler OBJECTION! when ducks and geese get mentioned in a fish lawsuit.
Remind me again, how much of a share do they deserve?

Not saying they deserve but AK and Canada produce (spawn, incubate, rear) most of the NA waterfowl. It then migrates to the south where we shoot them. Same concept as the fish.

Since fish are a "common" resource I don't think the deserve argument will get very far.

We don’t selectively harvest Alaska’s waterfowl.

They don't selectively harvest our salmon. They do, other other hand, specifically target some Canadian stocks.

And in turn Canada harvests WA and OR fishes to compensate for the allowed take by Alaska...

We are basicly fishing out of escapement. The co-management harvest is 50% of returns to WA waters since the Boldt decision. WDFW Staff at Harvest Management is limiting any chance of recovery by ensuring the take North of the border..

The co-management shares are 50:50 of the harvestable fish returning to WA waters. Legally, even according to Boldt, they can't fish into the MSY goal, which mis sort of enshrined in the Orders. What is taken up north has nothing to do with the sharing, although the Tribes have threatened to sue to include AK catches of Case Area fish.

Recovery could occur without including AK and BC but it would mean WE cut back and that is not possible politically. The politics of the fish will end up killing them off.

Not only can they use acoustic technology to target marked fish, they also can tell where they are from before they get them aboard in some cases.
Since the majority of mass marked fish are from south stocks, why would they not use this to target our hatchery fish?

If our wild fish hang out with our hatchery fish, they get caught also.

The only way we have any way of knowing about this is getting the wanded heads to the dock...
I doubt they all make it.

Good ! Those are eyesores.