You know I've been biting my tongue long enough....

The myths spread by the haters is just getting out of hand.... as if saying them over and over again somehow will make them true.

I think regulars on this board fully realize that I don't knowingly post any "bull" apart from posts clearly made in jest. This ain't one of 'em. I think it's time to set the record straight on some of these ridiculous assertions.

"Selective fishing and the elimination of gillnets has nothing to do with conservation.... it does NOTHING for the fish"
BULL!

It saves wild steelhead, sturgeon, AND wild ESA-listed spring chinook. I repeat.... AND wild ESA-listed spring chinook. Anyone who actually believes the states' published gillnet release mortalities is living in a fantasyland of paper fish. The long term mortality from dropouts and releases from the gillnets is NOT legitimately accounted for.... the vast majority of those fish are good as DEAD. They are so badly damaged that even when they "survive", the odds of successfully spawning after another 4-5 months in a scorching fungus-laden Columbia River are nil. Transitioning to live capture methods that leave the fish essentially intact is the ONLY logical choice.

"Selective fishing with reduced impact will only allow the commercials to wipe out the hatchery fish eliminating recreational opportunity to catch the same fish."

BULL!

The boogeyman is NOT going to steal all your fish, folks! Whatever catch increases the commies achieve thru fishing "softer" will be constrained by catch-balancing with the tribes. As I've said before, until the tribe goes selective, this is a NON-issue. Remember that catch-balancing leaves 75% of the hatch fish in the river UNCAUGHT! Commercials currently take only 3% of the available hatch fish. Even if the commercial catch were to double, triple, or even quadruple (which won't happen due to catch-balancing mandate) it makes no substantive difference in the amount of hatchery fish left in the river for you and I to catch. You really think the "hot bite" fishing on 90% of the available hatch fish is gonna look much different than fishing over 97% of them. JFC.... who f'n cares when the sports are only gonna touch 10% of 'em.... TOPS! Regardless of how the commercals fish, by law we have to let the other 80-87% swim by our hooks and lines for the tribes.

***

And to rojoband for calling me out....

The ONLY rationale for the extremely lopsided tribal impact allocation IS catch balancing.... ensuring that they ALWAYS get theirs, and that ours NEVER exceeds theirs. I said nothing more and nothing less..... so I can't figure out what you think is so "wrong"... it is what it is. I could give a rat's ass about HOW we got there because it's irrelevant to the point of ensuring their take and making sure ours never exceeds it. Not sure why you needed to create another entirely worthless personal argument to further divide the board.

As you pointed out, the parties were given the option work out an impact sharing agreement themselves. "So based on this the states went into a room and negotiated the sharing impacts with the tribes. Hence the current rate of 2% we get, as that's what we negotiated."

And if as you assert, the case was never ruled on by a judge, that just affirms the possibility that said agreement could be re-negotiated to maximize conservation, ensure treaty fishing rights to the maximum harvestable catch for ceremonial/subsistence/commercial purposes.... AND.... still squeeze out even greater harvest opportunities for NON-treaty users. It's just a matter of how small a narrow-minded box the stakeholders want to constrain themselves.... or do they want to think outside that box to fully realize the potential benefits to all parties, the fish included.

The haters want folks to believe that a more responsible, fish-friendly harvest method is somehow going to be BAD for the resource. Say it to yourself a couple dozen times. JFC.... it sounds pretty GD stupid doesn't it. The only thing driving that camp's ridiculous position is GREED..... the perception that somehow their piece of the action will be threatened by doing something good for the fish. From a more global perspective, the same selfish and obstinate mentality among every camp that takes a piece of the run ANYWHERE is what's killing the fish at every life stage! Nobody wants to make the sacrifices that are good for the fish for fear that it might cost them, or somehow benefit someone else more than it benefits themselves.

Sad isn't it.... and a GD sorry shame at that.

Selective fishing is coming folks, whether you like it or not. Don't be deceived by the haters.... it's good for the resource whether it's about CR springers, OP steelhead, Puget Sound chinook. It has been endorsed by the commission, embraced by WDFW, and is getting the attention of legislators. Get with the program or get out of the way.

Instead of fighting it, use your collective energy to come up with innovative ways to maximally apply the strategy for the betterment of the sport and the fish it depends on.

This is eyeFISH and I approve this message.