Bruce and Board,

You said it well. If you're bleeding from your nose AND your femoral artery, you worry about the artery FIRST. The nets are like arterial bleeding of this state's fisheries. Too much more of it and the patient is dead.

Recreational fishing takes its toll, too, but the major difference is that you can have a SELECTIVE fishery with a hook and line with pretty low mortality rates. And look at the revenue generated for this state from recreational vs. commercial fisheries. There is NO comparison. Florida was able to turn their fisheries around and make a multi-billion-dollar-per-year industry out of it, despite the fact that their environment has seen little improvement due to explosive growth. This state has the potential for doing the same.

MMouse is confused about a great many things. Since I've not seen him post here before, I get the feeling he might be a gillnetter himself trying to turn the tables against BAN using whatever tactics he deems necessary.

It's not surprising that the tribes are leaning against BAN, since 50% of a much smaller catch due to lack of non-tribal nets, means the possibility of reduced catches for them as well. No mystery there. What I find mysterious is the lack of support from taxpayers and consumers, who almost certainly face higher costs for a great many things if severe restrictions and endless beaurocracy face all development, agricultural, and water-use issues facing us if the feds get too heavily involved.

The thing is that nearly all of us here support BAN. The secret is to convince other people to support it, too. Seriously, take some time and write some letters to the editor of you local paper. Someone has to balance the scales against the endless space given to commercial fishing interests. We REALLY need to see this initiative passed. Anyway, just my .02 worth.


Fish on..........