Thanks for the clarification of the commercial industry and how it affects the runs locally. However, the point is more towards the theory of it and not so much the actual industry itself. The elimination of all the variables that negatively affect the salmon population is more the point. While I do appreciate the data that is, there are alot of emotions pointed toward the salmon and if you take away all the access to the fish then there is no one that can gripe over any one group getting access to the harvesting of the fish. This way there is no one or anything that can affect the fish but the habitat itself. So aside from good old fashioned natural selection there wont be anything that can be a contruibuting factor to the degradation of populations. This is something that is aimed at the whole of the problem and not just the Stilly.

Think of this more as an idea to the solution. I am not actually suggesting that this is what needs to be done. Just a thought really. It is nice to get input back on the matter though. As you have suggested, or rather stated, the habitat is the prime issue. I think that we can all, atleast most of us, agree that there inlies the issues. By not allowing that access to the fish by ANYONE then we can be allowed to focus on the one serious issue at hand that is the one singular contributing factor to the degradation of the salmon populations. That means noone and I mean noone gets access to the areas. No logging companies, who seem to be a huge factor in the destroying of habitat with all the slides and silt deposits in the streams as a result of logging practices, commercial fishing, which is obviously not as big a factor as the habitat, both tribal and non-tribal. Recreational fishermen and women to be included in the group of unallowable users too. These would be considered extreme measures by many, but sometimes extreme cases require extreme measures.