Sparky -
Of course I understand you can easily cope with my "shots", that's one of the aspects that make our discussions enjoyable.

However, if one is concern with the impacts of the taking of the chinook on the menu why not the beef. After all the damage that grazing cattle have on the range lands, the water needed to raise the corn and hay used on feed lots, the trampling of the stream banks all potentially have as great of impacts on listed chinook as any commerical or other fishery. Since the affair was to honor work in the conservation of wildlife prehaps the consideration of the impacts on sage grouse, pygmy rabbits, etc caused by the loss of our native sage and steppe lands from grazing and conversion to crop lands should be just as large of a focus of the discussion. Of course to us fishers such land base issues tend not to be noticed.

Posh -
The fish could just as easily be troll caught(hook and lined) as netted. Is your arguement that chinook should not be taken in commerical fisheries? I can whole heartly agree that chinook are more valuable in a recreational fishery rather than a commerical one. However that is an interesting social debate but doesn't really make much difference to the chinook resource. What does make a huge difference is the total number of fish killed. Believe it or not the fish don't care whether they are taken in a net or other commerical fishery or one of the many recreational fisheries. The cummulative impacts of all fishing need to be considered.

Tight lines
Smalma