RT,

Yeah, no doubt I missed something somewhere on the allocation business. Some systems are regulated by state/tribal agreements for fishing schedules, which explains the catch disparity on Forks area rivers. But the disparity happens on a lot of fisheries, and I don't know what event, order, or decision modified the court's sharing rule. Understanding that might help alleviate some frustration.

Regarding the Columbia agreement, recall what Guy Norman said about the trade offs. I expect those and the higher priority federal trust for treaty fishing would over rule 50-50 sharing, so I won't be surprised if the tribes get the larger share to harvest again next year. The state lawsuits seem to be the best course of action. That will serve to at least let us know the score about where the non-treaty fishing privilege rates.

I don't know whose head in any agency these secrets are closest to. I doubt it would be Stelle. He's the regional administrator for NMFS and a lawyer by trade. His fish management expertise is less than Jeff Keonings, who actually is a scientist. Stelle's fish management knowledge is probably limited to whatever he's told by his biologists in the fish harvest management divisions. And they would most likely be acting under the advice of agency lawyers' interpretations of the court orders. Sheesh, see why this is so complex? Hey, maybe no one really knows the score. Think that's possible?

I should mention, I have a new email address. Guess I have to see if I can modify my profile on here, in case anyone's been trying to email me. Got a new computer and email service and still trying to figure out how to set it up and use it.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.