Aunty,

You're right in that gillnetting is the most cost-effective fishing method for the commercials. They have and will continue to resist change. But that doesn't mean they won't change if they can see profit potential in switching.

In Puget Sound and SE Alaska, purse seining is lots more expensive (capital and labor) than gillnetting, but it's worth it because seining catches more fish than gillnetting. The same could be true on the LCR, altho it remains an unknown for the time being.

Still, this argument among recreational fishermen is the totally wrong discussion to be having. We're acting stupid and might as well be working for the opposition. As freespool posted, and I'm paraphrasing, it's a social and economic disservice to be developing a seining alternative to gillnetting. The only goal of such a plan is to transfer more of the economic benefit of hatchery salmon to the present LCR gillnet fleet.

If the goal truly is selective removal of hatchery salmon to prevent them from mingling with wild salmon on the spawning grounds, the best location to do that is already known and almost completely developed. Sorting facilities and traps could be readily retrofitted to the Bonneville and Willamette fish ladders, and would require even less modification at Cowlitz, Lewis, Kalama, and Clackamas. The sorting and selection would then occur upstream of the LCR recreational spring chinook fishery, maximizing the social, economic, and biological return. And small things, like financing the change, is there for the asking, but the agencies won't ask, being the lap dogs of the gillnet fleet.

The logical alternative is elimination of the LCR gillnet fleet, but avoiding that conversation is like ignoring the elephant standing in the room.

Sg