That's correct it was closed because the gillnetters went over the allotment, but that was when we used a 10% buffer, todays 30% plus buffers guarantees this won't be happening again.

Yes, but the same amount of wild fish die.

I'd be interested in seeing some science that indicates harvesting more hatchery fish will allow for higher hatchery production.

Science is in the results, to prove that hatchery fish are not spawning with increase numbers of wild fish. But killing off the last wild fish, doesnt bother you or gillnetters.


This theory just doesn't pass my smell test, it would seem logical that is you want less hatchery fish on the spawning beds, then just produce fewer hatchery fish in the first place.

Untrue, more divide and conquer Bull crap.

Perhaps it's time to look at the real problem, which is lack of wild fish spawning naturally.
The only way to increase wild fish production is address habitat roadblocks and increase the river's carry capacity.

So, the base number we need to start with, is the number of wild fish spawing after the last dam was built. The only way to get to the base number is let more wild fish get there. These wild fish could be tagged and followed or counted later.

Harvest reform does nothing to increase wild fish populations, but it does seem to indicate that the supports feel that the habitat isn't that bad off, nothing could be further from the truth.


Then why do you support Safe for Salmon, if the wild fish will not increase wild fish production? Your statement is untrue. If the Fish first approach worked, we would still be doing it and more of it.

Your retirement account wont grow, if you dont put money in it. If you carry your retirement money in a sack with a
hole in it, is will eventually be lost.

Perhaps safe sex would be a better comparison. How many swimmers get past the condom?



Edited by Lead Bouncer (01/08/10 07:47 PM)