I really hope you guys are right. It sounds great. So now I will only play devils advocate with likely to inevitable obstacles to overcome.

I think the buyout and/or legislating out of the commercial netters is a realistic possibility. But as I mentioned, it will come at a very gouged price. Even without higher fish prices now, these prices will pick back up again when the ocean cycle inevitably changes downward (another El Nino is on the way), and the comm. netters know this. And your formula does not account for their joy and heritage of comm. gillnetting - it's there just as strong as it is for the Indians. With that said, I think it ought to be gone after aggressively trying to get it done. They do have a possible new anti-netting ballot initiative to face some day in the future; even though they won big with the first one (not enough people sportfish among the voting populace - and they are easy fodder for inaccurate election commercials). But it is somewhat of a mediocre card to start with. It is also countered by the comm. netting state's mandate to restrict them to tooth tangle nets, making it harder to get them off the river.

As for the Columbia Tribes actually going along with any of this; I just don't see it - despite the good intentioned proposals you've presented. Why? Many complex reasons; only some of which I can reveal publicly and not get blasted by the Tribes or some behind the scenes negotiators. Some I can. For one, the Tribes aren't likely to go for the reduction in hatchery fish guaranteed to them (because of the loss of fish numbers due to decades of dams). For another, the 2 states have now mandated the new and BC proved tooth tangle commercial nets for the non-Indian netters (as I mentioned above), so as to allow some survival of the trapped native fish in them. The states pleaded with the Columbia Tribal Commission to ditch their 'kill all nates that swin into them' gillnets in favor of these better nets. The Indians responded with a total rebuff to that proper request. And they don't have to go along with it. It goes hand in hand with their demand that Columbia system hatcheries stop fin clipping fish for identifying them from native fish! They do not want any non-Indians fishing 'their' river if they can possibly get it to that point. Killing most of the remaining native fish will undoubtedly cut sporties off the river if they get their way on the clipping issue. And since they had zeeero interest in the more selective tooth tangle nets, I would bet my GL3 flyrod they have zeeeeeeeeero interest in harder more work intensive dipnetting or hatchery ladder sorting in place of their easier unattended gillnets. Or loosing their important battle for their netting heritage! (Even if saving nates used to be a big part of that heritage, and gillnets were not). A person close to the state's negotiations (you may know who that is Salmo, via our e-mails) has said off record that he thinks the Col.Tribal.Comm. would not mind seeing all the native fish go extinct and get a multi-billion dollar payoff settlement from BPA and the Federal Government (both ultimately out of our pockets!). And in addition to that, forced increase again of hatchery runs so they can continue with their 'netting heritage' - ya right, netting out of the back of their hord of yachts. Now that's just off the record conjecture - no direct accusations. But can anyone think of why else they would advocate eliminating the adipose fin clipping of hatchery fish? And rebuffing the tooth tangle nets (other than they are a bit more work and attendant intensive). I can't think of any good these agendas would do for the native fish at all! But I can think of some of these other things that could be accomplished for them. And I have to say 'I could be wrong' and hope I am (for disclosure purposes).

Also, when the inevitable decline cycle of fish comes back in the not-to-distant future, even if the comm. netters were out of the picture, the lesser amount of overall fish, and lesser returning native fish for ESA purposes, will bring Sec. Order No. 3206 right back to the front of it all - keeping the Indians last from any fishing restrictions. And with half the hatchery plants you've proposed and declining ocean survival rates, it's highly likely that us sporties get the shaft again. And highly likely the plants go back up for the Indians (if they were to ever go along with that in the first place). That's why I have called for the letter writing campaign to review and reverse No. 3206; which flys in the face of the Federal Court decisions of Judges Belloni and Boldt in the 70's landmark cases. I still see that as the key for us. Especially for the Columbia, but also for the NW Indian netting situation. >

With all those possible scenarios, I still hope you can break down the obstacles to your proposals Salmo. I would cheer and do cartwheels with all the other sporties. ... Can you get some of your colleagues to get after the Dept. of the Interior to rid us of the wrongful 3206? We could use your help there.

Until we can get the comm. netters off the river (before the runs go back into decline and the price per pound goes back up for them), let us know how far anyone gets with the Tribal leaders/lawyers/netters concerning changing their ways. I will remain hopeful. How far we got with the Columbia Tribes is a matter of public record though (we got no where - you can access much of it via the Oregonian archives or oregonlive.com archives or the states records open to the public). I don't expect it likely at all to get the long ways with them the you propose, even in the event the comm. netters go away ...

Importantly, how far has anyone got with some of these ideas with the NW Washington tribes, where the comm. netters are not a factor? Oh. Well, we should still keep trying and remain hopeful.

Excuse me being a bit cynical about this issue - it was brought on by reality. Geeez I hope it all changes for the better somehow. I haven't seen any Native American response on the BB about these ideas yet. A few Indians are members. Others can be contacted to give their responses to these good proposals.

RT