Aunty -
There you go attmepting to put words in my mouth. No where and at no time I have said that I'm unwilling to make personal sacrifices for the sake of recovery.

Just this morning on this thread I said - "Rather I support a holistic approach to recovery efforts that stress all the Hs with each shouldering equitable and reasonable shares of the burden of those efforts."

I have consistently argued is that in the case of the Puget Sound fisheries (listed Chinook and steelhead) that the harvest piece of the 4 hs has made substantial sacrifices. Further it is unreasonable and unfair to expect them to end fsihing if the other Hs are willing to match their efforts. In the case of the PS Chinook as we have discussed the fishers have reduced their impacts by 30 to 50% while the over impacts in the habitat arena has in all probability increased. If they were to even come close to match the sacrifices made by the fishers we collectively be near recovery.

Yet you continue to demand that all fishing end. Is it your position that there should be no fishing that imapcts the listed fish until they recovery?

Regarding WN1A points -
Please note that I have consistently talked about all impacts related to fishing in assess the ESA impacts of the fishing. Yes we know that CnR or other fishing activities have some non-landed impacts on the resource. To the extent that such impacts are known they should be incorporated in the sum of total fishing impacts. I'm all for total accounting of such things. If fact if you read the co-manager's fisheries management plan for Puget Sound Chinook they said the same thing (of course one must know the impacts to account for them).

However in the interest of total accounting it remains my position that the other Hs are also accountable and need to shoulder an equitable share of the burden of recovery efforts.

Tight lines
Curt