OTC,

We're on the same side. 9,000 members is a good start. The vast majority, like myself, send a check and don't actively participate. As membership grows, the number who participate in policy setting increases, and CCA action will shift toward the majority opinion, which is always subject to change.

An unfortunate reality, not acknowledged by all, is that allocation battles ARE the future of salmon fishing, forevermore. Even if CCA is misguided at this time on LCR selective fishing, I still think it's the best mechanism to make improvements to recreational fishing opportunity.

LB,

Boater can be a pita, but that doesn't make him wrong on the LCR chinook allocation issue. Under present law, regulation, and policy I'm sure he is right. Selective non-treaty commercial fishing on the LCR will reduce sport harvest of spring chinook. It is a point of contention, but it's not arrogance to try to make the argument. CCA may not want to get in an allocation battle, but they will find themselves in it nonetheless as the recreational share is reduced. You say that selective fishing will save wild fish; you do you reach this conclusion? I ask because you are wrong. I'm happy to discuss this at length with you if you like.

FR,

This is not a conservation issue. It is an allocation issue. NMFS has determined that it is OK to harvest up to 15% of wild CR spring chinook. You can bet the states and tribes will do everything in their power to harvest them. No party with authority is going to try to put any part of those 15% wild chinook on the spawning grounds. They are available for incidental mortality while fishing for the much greater number of hatchery chinook. The only question regarding this issue is who is going to "take" those 15% wild chinook, treaty tribes get 13%, with non-treaty commercial and sport splitting the remaining 2%.

AuntyM,

Some people think I'm a PollyAnna, not a chicken little. Here's something you need to know. The states do not fund CR hatcheries. They are federally funded under the Mitchell Act and Lower Snake Compensation Act to mitigate fish losses caused by the federal dams on the Snake and Columbia Rivers. While the original emphasis was commercial fishing, because sport fishing accounted for a small part of the CR salmon harvest. Further, the major part of the salmon harvest will continue to be commercial harvest - by treaty tribes - even if the non-treaty commercial sector disappeared tomorrow. The federal funding of the hatcheries will continue to mitigate dam-caused losses without the non-treaty fishery because of the treaty fishery obligations and the social and economic benefits of the recreational fishery.

I support selective fishing, but I don't support selective commercial fishing as a means to justify a commercial fishery that has become an historical anachronism or to increase the commercial harvest at the direct expense of sport harvest. Remember, the treaty fishery assures that 86% of the spring chinook will be commercially harvested anyway. Why share any more of the run with commercial fishing to keep the LCR hobby commercial fishery in business?

LB & Aunty,

Having your squabble here only serves the interests of those who would divide sport fishers, and we ain't gonna' improve sport fishing by your having it here. Please take it off forum.

Sg