LT,

Although I began this thread on a day off sipping Zin until I felt really good, there are important points that seem to have been overlooked.

I have suggested no buyout of treaty Indian fishing rights. In fact, I encourage treaty fishermen to exercise their rights and heritage to harvest their ceremonial and subsistence needs. For coastal and Puget Sound rivers,I only suggested that we offer to be the buyers of their prospective commercial steelhead harvest. Just that we buy the fish on the conditions that they leave them uncaught in the river. This is not a buyout of treaty rights. I think my suggestion honors and respects the right, yet makes a reasonable business proposal in the form of a purchase of fish at a higher price than presently offered on the market. Just a slightly different form of purchase.

Chuck,

I'm not talking about the state buyout program. It's got the kind of strings attached that design it for failure, along with a limited budget. I'm suggesting going after the larger funding sources at the DSIs and NWPPC. They spend at least $200,000,000 per year on salmon restoration and ain't gettin' much for it. With a fraction of that money in the hands of covert license and boat buyers, more gear will be out of the fishery all the sooner. What if WDFW and ODFW opened a lower C. fishing period and nobody came? Actually, that could happen on a smaller scale. The marginal players in the gillnet fleet probably won't invest in the tangle nets and holding/release tanks. Too much expense for too little return. Of course, I could be wrong on this. Just don't lose sight of the larger picture here. I still think it is a design to produce winners. If people feel respected, treated fairly, and make money, there is a probability of them being interested.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.