Originally Posted By: AP a.k.a. Kaiser D
Originally Posted By: boater
i agree and this issue needs to be better understood instead of just jumping on the selective fishing will cure all bandwagon.

I certainly agree with you there.


Originally Posted By: StinkingWaters
If the fishery is limited based on a hatchery harvest quota would less wild fish die in the process of reaching the quota using selective gear as opposed to gillnets?

But it ISN'T based on that!!! They WANT the hatchery fish out so there is no desire by anyone (with power) to stop the harvest simply because a set amount of hatchery fish have been caught.



I believe your reference to "it" is the CR correct? I imagine that all commercial in-river fisheries are not based on an ESA take quota correct? None of my above posts have been about any specific fishery.

My larger point KD is why do we focus our energy on selective vs. non-selective when the ESA policies and regulations (or lack of adherance to) seem to be a major obstacle to recovery?

Many of you seem to think that eliminating the non-treaty commercial fishing industry will solve these problems. As someone already noted above, do you think that treaty tribes are just going to let those fish available for harvest swim upstream? Especially when there is a market for the product? IMO you guys are dreaming.
_________________________
On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.