SG Im not dismissing your projection that allocations guidelines would change under specific circumstances. In fact, your projection only validates what I have said on many occasions. I listed the alternatives, to point out that the allocation model is not set in stone. Thanks for helping me make that point.

Establish sustainable harvest policies so they do not continue to undermine other improvements such as habitat hydro and predation. Predators and commercial harvest have one thing in common. No upper limit.

Its certainly not worth the time and money to go thru all the testing, just to save 1% of the impacts. If the Feds had no objective to get the tribes on board, they would not have gone around Koenings and set up the testing with the Colvilles. Its not just about the columbia either. The process is no different than establishing a state law that get adopted by other states and even other countries. Gillnets are getting banned in other countries. Ive never heard of a river in Alaska being netted like the rivers in Washington. If the Squaxin tribe can net in a bay on net pen fish, than so can other tribes and the cowboys. Plenty of changes are possible that would increase the pie, or save money producing the same amount of smolts.

The debate here is driven by the personal agenda. Instead of looking forward to putting more wild fish on the beds, resolving the harvest issues on the Columbia and on other waters, so that other issues like dams, hatcheries, habitat, and predators will get more focus, the focus on harvest reform is being moved around like a shell game.
The opponents attack the position, the people and the outcome. They want to change your goal to their goal. No excuse is too small. When one fails they bring up another. Dividing anglers on the issues is the first priority.