Long but good day at work. Now to read the fun stuff.


Besides the Mitchell Act, can anyone reference the administrative/regulatory law that is pertinent here?

I recall that part of the background behind the CCA Oregon proposal hinged around the legal requirements in Oregon to provide for commercial harvest. Thus, no wording to ban all commercial fishing. Also, there had been a previous attempt to do so which flopped. Another attempt to do so seemed doomed.

I have read and thought about the positions, and still think that selective fishing is a practical first step.

I am not a fisheries expert, but I am a reasonable and reasonably smart guy, probably like most of us here. If an explanation is so complicated that I can't follow it, despite trying, then others will get left behind as well.

So far, I think the arguments against selective fishing are thoughtful, but assume too much and are adversarily oriented. I think the arguments get pretty skinny. Doesn't mean they are wrong, but the logic is not clear and more evidence would help. Doc's algorithms seem more enlightening. Numbers work for me.

It is worthwhile to slice and dice these arguments, but I think it is a waste of our time to read personal attacks, and lowers the value of the arguments. This isn't a battle, and most here are trying to find the closest approximation to the truth.

Thank you to all who are working to move this along.