As I've already said, a gillnet ban on the CR reaches far beyond a single stock.

Fewer ESA-listed wild winter steelhead die.

Fewer of the river's depleted white sturgeon die.

Some have rebutted, "So what? We're talking about salmon here, not steelhead and sturgeon. Besides it's not about the fish.... we just wanna go fishing for our fair share."

Let's look a little closer....

In the past, when the gillnets have exceeded their ESA impact for spring chinook, it has caused the sportfishery for springers to shut down early. Pissed a lot of folks off that they never got a chance... you know, to go fishing for their "fair" share.

It has also caused a delay in opening the mainstem CR for summer steelhead. Just ask slabhunter.

I believe it has also caused a delay in the opener for summer chinook (someone correct me if I'm having a memory lapse here).

In the past, so many lower river kings were taken by fall gillnets targeting abundant hatchery coho that sports were left to hold the bag for conservation. SW WA tribs were all closed to chinook in-season.... maybe Keith remembers that one. Displaced chinook anglers descended on Grays Harbor like the plague looking to bonk a king.

So don't be distracted by the one-dimensional "less for us" argument being waged in the CR spring chinook fishery. It's just one tree in a mighty big forest.

Thinking BIG picture, those gillnets have cost the recreational community far more disruption and lost opportunities than most can imagine.

A lower CR free of gillnets will be a much more hospitable place for migratory wild salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon river-wide.

The head of NOAA-F is on record stating we must neither "carelessly hatch nor carelessly catch" the fish we mass-produce for the CR.

HSRG hatchery reform is already kicking into high gear. While harvest reform is just getting jump-started, once the wheels start turning, it'll be full steam ahead. It's a mighty big bus, folks.... so either get on board or get out of the way. Be a shame to get run over.