Mitchell Act funding pays for a LOT more than just the commercial fisheries...besides the sport fisheries, the Mitchell Act funding on the Columbia River supports virtually the entire CRTFC commercial fisheries, and treaty obligations will keep that money flowing.

It also pays for a lot of steelhead production, which is not part of any non-tribal commercial fishery, just sports and tribal.

Mitchell Act funding contributes greatly to commercial fisheries outside the mouth of the Columbia, too.

There also is a very well-known economic analysis of the fisheries and dollars produced by the various fisheries that result from Mitchell Act funding, and the sports fisheries by far return the most money to the economy, which is a perfectly good reason to keep the money flowing.

All that being said, I wouldn't be too surprised to see some sort of reductions if there were no commercial fisheries, at least in the programs that are mainly there to support commercial fisheries (e.g., SAFE area releases), but overall, unless massive changes were made, the net gains to sportfishing and wild fish recovery will far outweigh any reductions in Mitchell Act funding for the Columbia River.

I daresay that the removal of non-tribal commercial fishing in its entirety from the Columbia River would bode far better for fish and sportfishing than would continuing to throw money at a relic fishery like the non-tribal commercial spring Chinook fishery, which both hurts sportfishing and fish recovery...especially if the "selective commercial" fisheries take place, which will do virtually nothing for fish recovery, will continue to cost lots of money, and will negatively impact sportfishing, perhaps in a very significant way.

Fish on...

Todd