rattlefish - "Why is this state still using mininum esacpment numbers??"

It's the law! The Boldt Decision and other directives mandate that the co-managers (the state and the tribes) must divide any predicted surplus above agreed upon spawning escapement goals.

The system isn't perfect and they use "optimum", instead of "minimum", escapement numbers. The state is not bound by law to harvest it's half but if an attempt is not made the tribes may take the foregone opportunity.

Fun5Acres - I'm not sure I like the setup myself but I've never known of any suggestion for a better way to devide the fish.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

skydriftin - Thanks for you forthright reply. Bad choice of words on my part where deep or in the throat should have been used instead of stomach.

I must agree that the WSC was originally founded to protect C&R fisheries. Let me add that the driving passion which led to its founding was the result of wrongly blaming over-harvest for the closures of the C&R seasons on the North Sound rivers a couple of years ago.

In truth, the low returns that precipitated those closures were the result of poor egg-hatch or juvenile survival to smolt and even poorer ocean survival of those smolts to returning adults. The returning adults in question were derived from an excellent number of spawning adults four years earlier.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

boater - I've noticed that as well. Most people tend to agree with and grasp upon anything that validates there most passionate and predisposed ideologies. This is called rationalization as compared to analysis.

I suppose you may have also noticed how they transpose their own misconceptions and assumptions about others thereby avoiding the unknown realities that they fear in an attempt to feel correct in their arguments. It is always easier to argue against what you propose the opposing argument to be, thus ignoring the underlying reality.

In this thread I have been accused of having "something against" C&R despite the fact that I release most of the fish that I catch and "angry" because I can't plunk as effectively without bait when, in truth I only intermittently use bait plunking.

Damn! Next thing some dude calls me a liar for admitting that I hook lots of fish in the eye, tongue, gill and throat tossing hardware. Why assume that plunking must kill a greater percentage released fish then tossing hardware when the opposite is obvious to anyone experienced with both methods?

That's simple... Most people tend to agree with and grasp upon anything that validates there most passionate and predisposed ideologies while rejecting that which upsets their comfortable bed of illusion.