Originally Posted By: Salmo g.


Next, the ESA allowable take is just that, allowed, and it will be taken, so no additional wild chinook will reach the spawning grounds. So this is not a conservation conflict as no conservation will occur.


I believe you missed the point I was trying to make. There is a calculated "paper fish" impact inflicted by the gillnets. The rub is that it's at least an order of magnitude greater than stated when one looks at actual fish of the free-swimming variety.... or in this case dead fish of the non-swimming variety.

The actual gillnet impact is GROSSLY understated when they say they have consumed their 0.8% of the 2%. I'd wager they kill at the very least 10 times the stated paper impact. Those wild fish will never see the gravel, yet on paper, their seed is considered FDIC-insured, safe in the gravel.

The conservation benefit of eliminating gillnets cannot be denied.

You may not think it's much, but it is most emphatically there.
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey)

"If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman)


The Keen Eye MD
Long Live the Kings!