Originally Posted By: FleaFlickr02
We all want the same thing. Why are so many people hung up on the fact that this solution isn't perfect yet? At the very least, one argument I can safely make is that wild fish are certainly no worse off for this development. If all commercial fishing were going to continue with gillnets, I could not confidently say the same.

We all agree that gillnets need to go, right? If that's true, then we should all be celebrating the fact that successful test runs of this alternative gear will spell the beginning of the end for walls of death. True, sports fishing may suffer in the short term, but haven't we all got enough life experience to know that an elephant needs to be eaten one bite at a time?

Let's get the gillnets out of the river while we can and use the political power we DO have (provided we stand together) to take the next step and get the allowable ESA impact levels reduced. The issues surrounding salmon and steelhead recovery are far too numerous and complex to be dealt with in a single piece of legislation. Let's grab whatever momentum this gives us and build on it.


I can appreciate what you are saying, but all sports and conservation organizations aren’t created equal. Some wouldn’t have a snowballs chance in Hades to even think about removing gill nets let alone attempting to ban them. There are diverse coalitions that range from sports and conservation orgs.,to gill netters, purse seiners, and commercial trawlers that are partners all rolled into one coalition. What appears to be sports bickering on the outside really could be something different all together.


Edited by Lucky Louie (08/13/10 12:23 PM)
_________________________
The world will not be destroyed by those that are evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.- Albert Einstein

No you can’t have my rights---I’m still using them