Originally Posted By: rojoband

Look back at yelloweye's post, both of you guys need to educate yourselves a bit more. 1) It’s spelled Fraser not Frazier and 2) the trade that occurred last time they negotiated a sockeye annex (1999 or thereabouts) was for a $30 million chunk of change from Canada that went towards a buy back of a bunch of our Puget Sound commercial purse seine and gillnet permits and the US also gave away about 30% of the sockeye share in exchange for Canada reducing its catch on US bound coho and Chinook. So the US gave up a bunch of commercial share to get a bunch of sport share.


So what are you really arguing about?

You just described EXACTLY the scenario we were discussing... salmon brokers trading multi-species stocks across basins and borders. That's the only point we were trying to make... the specifics are dwarfed by the broader picture. And that broader picture tells us that catching the other guys fish is stupid and we need to stop making deals to come up with some convoluted equalizing judgment to balance it all out on paper.

Bottom line.... the fish aren't made of paper, and the deals made on the allocation table don't always unfold as planned. There are always winners and losers. But one thing's for sure.... the fish have historically taken the hit time after time.

Thankfully, the trade you described is actually a step in the right direction of rightfully getting fish back to the basin of origin. But as for the notion about the US giving up a bunch of commercial share for sport share, YGTBFK, right?

You really think the bulk of those US-born coho and chinook they traded for are actually intended for our hooks/lines? Think again.
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey)

"If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman)


The Keen Eye MD
Long Live the Kings!