CFM,

I think it may be because I'm using a Mac, but the quoted portions of the text just come out as blue lines...maybe you can just cut and past them rather than using the "quote" function...thanks.

The lower Columbia tangle net fishery is an unqualified disaster...and I think that this year there isn't money out there to have monitoring of the fishery, but they'll still have it.

How in the hell can you have an "experimental" fishery and leave it up to the fishermen to report how successful it is or isn't at being selective? Call me cynical, but I don't forsee any commercial fishermen reporting that their net killed too many listed steelhead, and recommending that the fishery not take place any more.

Even though I can't read the quoted portions, maybe this will clear up my point. I do think that if a law could be passed that required the "tangle net" (i.e., gillnet) fishermen to leave the fish in the water as it is "untangled" (i.e., has the net removed from its gills), then it would be good if they could possibly do it.

However, the reason for passing such a law is NOT because sporties have to do it...the reason is that if they can do it and it works, they should do it. It's not a double standard or fairness issue. It's a biological issue...if they can do it and it helps, then they should do it for the good of the fish, not because we have to do it.

Comparing sport regulations to commercial regulations is comparing apples and oranges. Making regulations that make sense biologically independently for both groups, though, is what should be done. It kind of hurts to see the continuing litany of regulations that we have to put up (mainly good and necessary regulations), while many times the amount of damage is being done by the nets and is not being addressed proportionately, if at all.

Fish on...

Todd.