Why is it the gillnetters can run around pretending to be anglers and members of sportfishing organizations. Its much easier to divide anglers first real opportunity to get rid of gillnets and change the focus of the WDFW from harvest to conservation.

Its not enough to attack the proposed gear. They must attack the organization and its members, thru any means necessary. Yet their true identities remain unknown.

When is the last time, a Governor, the Commission and the WDFW were all in favor of selective harvest and conservation?

As the use of selective gear makes its way into the tribal and non tribal harvest, more wild fish will be allowed to spawn. Nothing in the often quoted article about the WDFW, specifies, where the extra hatchery fish will come from. More hatchery plants could be put in the river and hatchery facilities could be used to produce fish for commercial harvest in other locations.

One of the posters here, works for the tribal commission? and he told me, the tribes, as co-managers are required to reduce their ESA mortality. Perhaps, he will chime in.

Years ago WDFW reportedly proposed and testified for increasing the ESA of wild steelhead years ago, from 2%--6% . It would follow, that if the percentage can be raised, it can also be lowered.

I have little doubt, the subject of ESA mortality will come up and any wild fish proponent worth its salt, would not support moving the ESA mortality from the river to the salt. Of course, if the wild fish were allowed to be precaught in the salt, the river harvest would be closed down sooner, not later, as the current opponents of the legislation have argued. Ocean mortaility of released fish has been argued to be higher than the mortality of fish in the river.

If gillnets can be selective based on run timing, so can sport harvest. Raising catch limits could more than offset, an unknown quanitity of fishing days.

Often forgotten, language has been changed in this legislation that would change the focus of commercial fishing industry, to include sportfishing.
Read the bill. The language that so often favored the commercial harvest will be removed or amended.

History has shown, the Gillnetters protective union tried for several years (7) before they successfully outlawed, Fish traps in the Columbia. (1890 Congress) It took many more years to outlaw beach seine nets and fish wheels. In 1950 the only legal gear on the Columbia was gillnets. They took one bite of the elephant and then another. This is no different, than the strategy used to remove guns from citizens. What legislature wants to get thousand of constituent letters, complaining that the DFW wont let their kids go fishing. The same people who claim to want to ban gillnets and LCR fishing, apparently think, thats an easier campaign, than it would be to increase hatchery production, which would certainly benefit commercial harvest and tribal harvest.