Dave -
I can understand your outrage at allowing impacts on ESA wild steelhead however is that concern just limited commerically caught winter wild steelhead?
You stated: "Why would they want to increase the kill of wild , endangered fish..."

I don't recall a similar resposne when the Methow was open to hatchery only season this fall - this clearly did result in a increased kill of wild, endangered fish. It would seem that your concern is only when those impacts are given to a non-sport fishery.

Don't get me wrong I not a fan of gill net fisheries and I certainly believe that the maximum economic benefit from those fisheries would be in a recreational fishery. It just appears that this "playing of the ESA card" in this allocation debate is another example of using ESA listing to lever benefits other than that for the resource and is a example of the abuse of that law. If one choose to strive for maximum ESA protection the creditable approach is to do so evenly across the board.

I think that the approach put forth in Todd's original posting frames the issue correctly as one of allocation.

Dave - I did not mean to single you out and I understand your reaction but I feel strongly such resposnes lead to a dangerous game in ESA and fisheries management.

Happy Holidays and may the New Year bring you tight lines.
S malma