Keta, the quote of Don Sampson:



Is this why the media reported more than once this year the Columbia Inter-Tribal Fish Commission included in their planning and allocation negotiations that they want all hatchery finclipping of Columbia salmon and steelhead stopped right away? Maybe to a small degree. Maybe not at all. This is, at the least, inconsistent with the Sampson quote above; if not outright counterdictive.

There has been credible strong speculation that they don't want anymore finclipping because that has allowed non-Indians to partake in a small allocation of spring chinooks for the first time this year in nearly 3 decades. This was predicated on sportfishers having to release non-clipped fish. No clipping = no sportfishermen to share the ESA harvest allocation with. And greater numbers of fish considered to be wild fish so as to get even higher ESA allocation numbers. Seems to fit their pattern. They have also tried to take away the Columbia fall chinook sport fishery without due basis.

And they continue to push for higher percentages of ESA impacts on netted native fish. And refused the urgent request of the states to switch to the new tooth tangle nets which are more selective in allowing live release of the small % of native fish. I don't see a pattern of true care about maximizing native fish protection and restoration by that Commission! I see maximum yield motives for themselves, while trying to elimiate sportfishing. How about that "bottleneck" Mr. Sampson?

So, in line with the topic of this thread, is the Judge Hogan Decision now going to help these Indian fishing agendas? And how will that effect sportfishing, beyond what the Indians would have it be?

RT

[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: RT i ]