I think it's time for us to come together with a common voice of solidarity on some key issues if the recreational community is gonna come out of that meeting with an acceptable fishing package.

Think about what's REALLY important to the recreational community as a whole.

Please don't try to kill your brother's fishery... instead think about where you share common ground, and let that commonality strengthen your position to maximize access to the harvestable fish in the basin.... even if it doesn't EXACTLY fit your pet style of fishing.

Bottom line, opportunity is ultimately limited by the available surpluses/impacts the forecasts say are available for the taking. WDFW's brand of conservation is a ZERO sum game that's played til every last paper fish on the allocation table is dead. Sorry to be blunt, but after being in the game for as long as I have, that's simply the way it's played. It ain't always pretty, but it is what it is.

Once "conservation" has been carved out of the pie (think of it as allocation to the gravel), the available impacts/surpluses define how big the recreational allocation could potentially be. How much of that potential allocation we as a community can realize rides on how we conduct ourselves at this meeting and what priorities we place on our "wish list". We could end up with maximum potential or we could end up squandering a significant chunk of that potential. Just remember that the way the impacts are stacking up in the two sub-basins, the gillnet fleet will be horribly constrained by incidental impacts to chinook on the Chehalis side where nearly half of the chinook encounters will count toward their impact (45% release mortality on chinook) -AND- wild coho impacts on the Hump side where every wild coho encounter counts 100% toward their impact (those fish will NOT be released). That COULD spell a tremendous windfall for the recreational community that is much more able to selectively harvest with much smaller impacts.

Moreover, the plan is written with a sport priority at Tier 1 run-sizes. That means impacts to the gillnetters are provided only to the extent that recreational opprtunity is NOT reduced. This is a point that I will be hammering home at every stage of the gillnet discussion. I would appreciate your collective support.

Where am I going with this?

Think about it folks, recreational opportunity begins with access to the fish.... if we're not even allowed on the water, what's the point?

The priority should first and foremost be to maximize recreational time on the water... more time = more opportunity.

The second priority is to maximize available area. More area = more opportunity. It also helps to spread out the effort which enhances the quality of the experience while afield.

Anybody who can't agree with those two points should not even bother attending the meeting... you will only hurt the cause! Fair enough?

Last priority is fishing "style". And while that wonderful diversity is what makes sport-fishing such an all-consuming passion for so many of us, it's also what we probably spend the most time arguing about as a community. Boat guys vs bank guys. Gear guys vs fly guys. Salt guys vs river guys. Lure guys vs bait guys. C&R guys vs whack'em-stack'em guys. Can't we all just get along?

Within the constraints of conservation, let's just do what we can to make as many possible fisheries happen as we can, for as long as we can, for as wide as we can. Please don't sweat the petty differences. The more energy you spend on those differences, the less we can collectively muster to advance the recreational agenda at large.

AGREED?