Smalma:

Your point is a good one and I can see why you would raise it. However, I believe my concern would be nearly as high if the same proposal were made in order to dramatically increase the sport season.

Like you, I am no fan of the nets. I believe we need to get rid of them. But I recognize that we sports fishermen kill endangered fish when we engage in C&R fisheries. How many we kill is, of course, a matter for discussion.

My thought is that we need to always look to a balance n between economic opportunity, recreational opportunity and conservation. If you follow my writing I'm sure you know that I think we all too often err on the side of the people not the fish. I have often been criticized by sports anglers for my willingness to close fisheries to protect endangered fish.

I believe that in this case the netters are doing a lot of damage, to the benefit of relatively few people. While the sporties are doing considerably less damage while benefiting many people.

I do not pretend to know what level of incidental kill is acceptable. But I am willing to go with the two percent originally used. Instinctively, it seems a reasonable approach. I absolutely would NOT support a tripling of mortality in order to extend the sports season and I would be willing curtail the sports season if that was what was necessary to protect the steelhead.

I always appreciate your posts. You make us
think, and that's a good thing.

Here is a bit more food for thought. Will the steelhead be able to rebuild if we stay at the two percent level? Would they rebuild, given the other problems they face, even if we entirely close all sport and commercial seasons on the Columbia River springer run?