Well kind of inconsistent. I'm not aware of any targeted fisheries on these on threatened populations of steelhead. There are incedental impacts from fisheries trargeted at other species. So, there is a distinction that is meaningful to the Feds, but when it comes down to it, it still translates to impacts. There is a lot of support for allowing incedental take in order to sustain harvest on heathy populations. And, even if they don't end up meeting escapement, the pre-season forecast might have indicated differently, and that's what the based a opening decision on. The probelm for us is that DFW doesn't value C&R. They go to great effort and allocate portions of allowable take in order to allow people to exploit (bonk) 'harvestable surplus' of healthier species. But, they won't make the effort to allocate additional impacts to c&r. Just doesn't rank high enough on their priority list/constituent give away hierarchy.