Not disagreeing with you there brother, but the likelihood of eliminating the comm fishery from the lower river is close to ZERO. Not playing commie apologist here... it is what it is.... esp so when the managing agencies are charged to ensure that viable commercial opportunities be made available. While I would personally love to see them go, I ain't holdin' my breath waitin'... [/quote]

Doc, I am not nearly pessimistic for a few reasons:
(This is strictly about the Columbia River)


1. Look back, through the 1990's WA invested millions in a series buybacks of gillnet permits.

2. When the Select Areas were expanded outside of Youngs Bay, NOAA fisheries is quoted as saying the goal of these areas is to get the gillnetters off the main river. A year was even stated as a goal by which gillnetting would be ended on the main river(I think it was 2003 but I have to doublecheck).

3. Oregon is continuing with their efforts to shift commercial springer harvest off the mainstem by re-programing springer smolts into the SAFE areas (and this has zero to to with HSRG)

4. Under HSRG, Washington is making huge production shifts, particularly Fall Chinook, into the SAFE areas. With that sort of expansion, there IS NO REASON to keep the commercials on the mainstem.

The current statutes of OR and WA are fully satisfied by allowing the commercials to take their fish from Select Area fisheries.

5. All factors considered, I expect an effort to reclassify sturgeon as a "game fish", removing them from commercial harvest. The incidental allowed sturgeon catch, is all that makes some of the gillnet fisheries profitable.

The CCA Oregon initiative which will further entrench commercial fishing is contrary to all these trends. And promises to worsen the conflict between sports and commercials.

This isn't bashing an organization. It's about recognizing and evaluating a very problematic policy and alternatives to it.