Fish counters on site during the 1997 sockeye fishery said the chinook bycatch was closer to 80,000 fish. This figure was unacceptable to all concerned, so a lower count was released. From what I've read, this is a common practice in the fishing industry. The only debate is whose numbers are more bogus- the DFW's or those of NMFS. MMouse, you claim seiners had to "release" bycaught chinook in 1998. The mortality rate from that practice must make hook and line release mortality insignificant by comparison. While you were at it, you should have asked for the number of blackmouth, also chinook, and early-run steelhead taken during the late fall net fishery for chum salmon. I asked a DFW assistant director about that and he admitted it was a "problem", but spared me the bogus numbers. I raised the question when I noticed a tremendous drop in the number of bright fish I was seeing on the bank during the mid-Nov. to mid-Dec period. Sport anglers on the Sound reported the bottom dropping out of their blackmouth fishery as soon as the chum nets went in. Sportanglers paid the enhancement fee; commercials got the fish. Taxpayers foot the hatchery budget and then, if they can afford it, they get to buy their fish back from the netters. BAN(I-696) isn't about beating a dead horse, it's about corraling a "cash cow". It's not the complete answer, but it is the only hope. When I was gathering signatures for the initiative, the most frequent comments I heard were- It's about time! Where do I sign? and Can I sign twice?

[This message has been edited by CedarR (edited 08-30-1999).]