Occasionally you make a telling statement, contrary to previous posts. We have just made a big step in the debate. Todd has amended his position, so that when extra fish are added to the overall return and sportsmen do not catch less fish, he can say "I told you so" . There are plenty of factors that could require adjustments including Political positions and advocacy of sportfishing groups. The primary objective of this policy is to save (not kill) as many wild fish as possible and still allow a sportfishery and the entrenched commercial fishery. If it was not the true objective, the plea from the director to use single barbless hooks would have no value.

The reduction of wild fish mortality is small in comparison, to the tribal impacts. Its easy to overlook what it means for a single tribe, who currently practice non targeted fish release in a successful manner and how it will be promoted to the other tribes. The really simple math would indicate that the 13% is the real objective and the rest of it is just building the trail to get there. Granted its expensive, unpredictable and has no guarantees, but to date NO ONE else has made a dent in the process. We collectively debated selective gear vs safe areas for more than a year and the answer may in fact be a combination of both. If it gets the cowboys out of the main stem and it provides a path for tribal selective harvest, then its a win for the fish, however small in the overall issue of recovery. If it reduces bycatch and allows for throwback after the implied or stated quota is reached, then its another benefit. Anglers should not just roll over and let the written word of the department be the final word. Sportsmen were actually not rewarded for being more selective. Being more selective kept the season open longer, because the impacts of the gillnet harvest could be reached very quickly, thus leaving too many hatchery fish in the river. The coincides with the position of NMFS who told several of the gillnetters they will either fish with selective gear or the plants will be cut back, which is the alternative method to reduce hatchery fish on the beds. At the very least, the fish that make it past the nets and sport fleet, shall allow another shot in the tributaries. Angler success will help protect the fish plants and the wild fish.

After reading your statements about gillnets and tanglenets which you hate just as much and how gillnets Kill most everything they catch? I find it interesting that you bothered to now redefine the word selective harvest for all of us. We get that you dont like the idea and we get that you dont think it will work as well as promoted. In fact, whatever you think about it does not matter because the language has been in the public domain for probably a decade. Feel free to waste your time with redefining something written into policy.