A couple of quick comments. I am not trying to take a side in any personal arguments. My comments on CNR were based on reports in the scientific literature. In addition Russian scientists are looking at the effects on reproductive success of salmon with seal bites, another kind of CNR. UW scientists are studying sockeye in bristol Bay drainages that have net marks, dropouts from the gill net fishery, and comparing them to unmarked fish in the same spawning areas. All fishes share a basic endocrine system so studies on one species can be inferred to apply to other species. Stress on broodstock is a big concern in aquaculture operations but with sufficient broodstock it is compensated. With healthy fish populations CNR is not an immediate concern.

This morning I had the opportunity to hear a talk by the leader of the Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. Of the 150 species of fish in the desert southwest 130 are listed as threatened or endangered. The approach to recovery is to look at the species life history, its environment, and ecology; identify areas of greatest impacts and work to improve those areas if improvement is possible. That may not be so difficult were an entire species is in a small spring and the entire population can be contained in a 5 gallon bucket. Steelhead which utilize the entire north Pacific and freshwater from the estuaries to small tributaries are a different story. It is difficult to identify area of concerns that can be realistically dealt with. Tribal netting is a good example, it is a problem area, but not one that can be eliminated in the name of recovery. Sport fishing is the same, without some sport fishery the recovery effort suffers. We need to identify areas where meaningful steps can be taken and push to have them implemented.