That is very funny. Sad but funny. Irony.


LuckyLouie, there is always something different brought to light when this thread repeats itself. When I first got on this list, at least 5 or 6 people would be cursing and spitting by now, and this time around people are challenging the ideas and not the individual. That's progress for us.
We are a little like sand paper, rubbing off some of the rough edges with each encounter.

Toddster, I understand the argument about how selective methods commercially would lead to more hatchery catch and potentially less for sporties. I think that allocation method is flawed given the changed dynamics of the fishery. We have to do better. Precedence is one thing, engaged decision is another.

SalmoG, Part of the problem, a big part, is that we don't have any clear indication of intermediate and long term plans by WDFW as to how the state actions would change given various outcomes of selective methods research. Yes, the stated intent is to increase harvest of hatchery fish via selective methods, but what is the planning for the numbers of hatchery fish released in the future depending on the outcomes? This is not a transparent process.

It is clearly not "fair" that sporties and general public taxpayers foot the bill and sporties contribute greatly to the financial weal of the state, and that commercial interests are "subsidized" by that. Yes, the public benefits by being able to eat caught fish, but the financial costs are carried by many and the benefits go to the few.

Not really a "free" market.