Todd,

I'd like to propose a truce. I see no point to continue the back and forth about selective harvest. The results could influence personal relationships, because there are many engaged and invested in this process. Tough love, isnt the answer. You can say you told us so, after the results are in. Plus, we already have a bill in the hopper.

A lot of sportsmen would like to elminate non tribal commercial harvest from the columbia. We dont know what will follow up, in the way of harvest reform in PS or off the coast. One such example might be to transfer all offshore harvest to the mouth of the rivers. Those types of changes could potentially make sense if combined with selective harvest. Regardless of how farfetched the example, this debate only serves to divide sportsmen and demonize the supporting organization. It also happened last year in Oregon and it wasnt productive. I suspect the prospect of passing a jobs killer bill in Washington is next to nil. Lets not forget, there are many more jobs involved, than the man pulling in the net. However, people are welcome to submit that legislation. If SFS comes to Washington, we have another player to fight with. SFS could be lobbied for, again in Oregon. We dont know what legislation will submitted, including amendments to 2266.

The recent selective harvest tests were conducted in daylight. Thats an important change, since we probably wont ban commercial fishing anytime soon. People who are concerned about less hatchery fish, wont have that long, since another hatchery is going to be built by the tribes for the columbia. Depending on your perspective, a half a loaf is better than nothing. If selective harvest isnt enough, then we go back to the legislature with more data and another plan. Or, each side could pound the table harder, divide sportsmen even more and start from ground zero next year. Failure to pass harvest reform in 2010 is unacceptable.