Lead Bouncer -
Thanks for the clarification about the origin of the "issues" posted by FnP. You are correct I should have directed my questions to CCA rather than the FnP.

My comments to Don were in direct response to his comments and I think appropriate.

Just a couple of observations about the positions/issues from PNWCCA as expressed in the original post.

It definitely has a Columbia flavor. Issue # 1 is an example of that slant -
to quote -"Promote and advance harvest reforms that mandate the use of truly selective techniques" - I can certainly support that position for Chinook and even coho howver there are number of popular fisheries targeting species where selective techiniques are hardly practical - species such as pink, chum and sockeye salmon, halibut and ling cod.

Parts of issue #5 and #6 are in direct conflict. #5 calls for "...the available harvestable surpluses of a commonly held public resource should be distributed to maximize economic benefits to ALL citizens." Maximizing for economic benefirt means that the runs are being managed for MSY. That is not necessarily a bad thing however that is in direct confluct with the state objective in # 6; that is "Maximize the delivery of marine-derived nutrients into riverine ecosystems by 1) setting greater escapement goals for wild-spawning fish..."

I would be interested in how one can manage for maximum economic benefits (MSY) and increased ecosystem benefits from increased escapement.

While individually the issues sound pretty good it is clear that they are not full developed yet - hopefully that will come as the organization matures and becomes more familar with the complexities of some of this issue in different parts of the State. However as currently written some have concerns about the potential impacts to the recreational angler.

Tight lines
Curt