Not sure I agree SB. To frame it right one has to factor in that the Chinook hatchery production is of broodstocked parents and most returning adult from that program spawn naturally. Same with the Hump and on average near 50% of the Humptulips Chinook are from hatchery origin parents. So the wild / hatchery separation is bogus as well the separation of wild / hatchery being very misleading. In fact WDF&W does not distinguish any difference in Chum at ......... all H or W same fish. Something I strongly disagree with by the way.

So we have in the Chehalis 3392 Chinook to harvest and Hump 5641 for a total of 9033 available for harvest. Now the Chehalis with the QIN in the model show 3370 QIN harvested Chinook or 20 left for the non treaty. Now on the Hump after QIN harvest 4378 are available for harvest AFTER the QIN have their seasons.

Then comes the moment of truth. The QIN know full well the state impact numbers are pure BS. It has been up on this BB and others including in writing to the Commission. The bay impacts are WAY under modeled, the NT Nets WAY under modeled and the inriver well you poor suckers will get about half what it says. Add to the huge hatchery cuts that gutted the Hump Tribal Coho fishery and does anyone really think they should believe anything WDF&W says? Be willing to compromise? I think not.

From designing a separate management plan to posting state seasons in March ( before meeting with the QIN ) to just plain fabricating harvest impacts WDF&W created this mess. While I do not agree with many many current QIN policies I certainly understand why they view things as they do. The QIN did not create this mess and it appears they have grown tired of dealing with a duplistic right close to dishonest R 6 staff.