i'm truly disappointed in TU, the northwest sportfishing industry group, and the westport charter boat guys, although the westport charter guys were against the wild salmonid policy too, just to give some background on their views.

the idea that habitat despoilers will use this to not do anything might be valid, but there's another side to that too. as long as we have nets and high non-selective harvest in our waters the habitat damagers will continue to harp on overharvest. if we stop the overharvest, habitat damage will stand out even more than it does now, because there will be no whipping boys for them to go after .

the idea that we shouldn't support a net ban because we won't be able to get bait is crazy. personally, i would much rather have the salmon and bottomfish eating those herring than supporting net fisheries salmon feed. if we overharvest the bottom rungs of the food chain, how can we expect the upper levels of that chain to prosper.

is BAN perfect, i wouldn't go that far (i still think 640 was perfect) but it's a start.

buying back 40% of the fraser sockeye fleet is an idea i support, but will not stop other forms of netting. hood canal coho and chinook will continue to just be by-catch trash in chum fisheries. bottom trawlers will continue to tear up the marine environment and destroy bottomfish populations. this ban is not just about salmon. it will help restore many marine species not dependant on freshwater habitat, and help restore all levels of the marine ecosystem.

TU and the other groups are off base on this one, and imo on this issue will help kill the initiative and that will not help either. siding with commercials will not help one bit. i think the police should stop murders by siding with serial killers too <G>.

chris