CAB: I don't blame you; I'd sure rather fish, too! I'll look into the retention issue. The chapter's just newly resurrected,and still the east Peninsula group, but we'll get more involved w. the coastal rivers as we grow.
Wheeler: My apologies for misreading your post! Guess I saw it as missing the stronger points of the letter, which most board readers can't see. Like the US/Canada Treaty implications, and the part about the Florida sportfish being very different (non-migratory, etc.), and the loss of funding for the Reg'l Fisheries Enhancement Groups (whose other funding, besides license fees, was just cut to hell by the Senate this week). In an earlier letter, there was concern over tribal take of the "saved" fish under the "foregone opportunity" clause, in some areas.
Surely there can't be a more complex issue than our NW salmon/steelhead situation. I eat, sleep and live fish, but even I can't stay up with all the puzzle parts! So I welcome letters like this, from leaders I trust and who are even more devoted,to give me all the possible angles so I can make my own best decision. As for middle ground, maybe I was unclear, but was trying to say that the state council (TU) does NOT want to take that position -- the cop-out way -- and I think you'll see that they ultimately don't! It's that fortitude that has caused major problems in membership, but they've stuck with their consciences, or with the judgment of the state members. That still remains to be seen, likely by May.
Peace!