The net ban failed for several reasons. The primary one being the inability to raise sufficent funds for a tv campaign just before election day as the commercial group did. The major "conservation" groups' failure to back the net ban is also based on money. With plenty of salmon coming back to the rivers, a major fund raising strategy is eliminated. It is not in the best interest of the career (ie. salaried) conservation group hierarchy to see salmon restored to historic levels by means of something as simple and quick as a net ban. Their troops would not be in the middle a long ongoing solution which would help perpetuate their paycheck. On the subject of paychecks, I doubt that there is more than a dozen fishermen that depend on gill netting for a livelyhood in Washington. If there is a buy out, it should be at a very nominal amount ($1,000 - 5,000). No one offered to buy out my hardhat and steel toed boots when I was put out of work due to a changing economy. How many are school teachers, off duty firemen, someone looking for a tax deduction, or fishermen looking to cover fuel expenses in getting their boat to Alaska where they earn their living. Also how many people lost jobs because of the damage caused by netting. Look at what happened to Sekiu. I'm sure that most people on this board are well aware of the economic benefits of sport fishing versus commercial fishing. A sport caught salmon is worth 28 times a commercially caught salmon in value to the state economy. Leathal netting practices should not have a place in modern fish management if they might impact wild or depressed stocks of salmon or steelhead.

Deepwater