Right. You can't have it both ways... unless you happen to be a Washington treaty tribe, in which case you can have it as many ways as you like. It's like they have a See and Say that spits out excuses for closing non-tribal fisheries when you pull the string. I imagine the voice tracks sounding something like Tonto, with a steady beat on the tom-toms in the background....

To be a little fair, the Tribal fishers did get screwed over by the glutted market, and it was entirely non-tribal fishers and retailers that created that market. From that angle, I'm good with them getting hardship money. That said, we (and the salmon) could do without all the guilt trips and Draconian "requests" to close our fisheries when they can't sufficiently profit from theirs. Indeed, I think the truth would have been a much more compelling (and potentially productive) case for them to make. That the market crashed the way it did proves that too many fish were taken in last year's non-tribal commercial fisheries. Sounds like solid justification for the Tribes to seek reductions in those fisheries, to ensure less waste of precious salmon and reasonable ex-vessel prices for all fishers. Instead, of course, they borrowed that favorite page from WDFW's playbook and put the burden squarely on the in-river recs. Such BS, and a wasted opportunity to make real, positive change to boot.