Native Son,

The dams in question are of questionable economic value. The case made to keep them intact is not strong enough to outweigh the damage they do to the fish, in my opinion. And the Elwha dam issue is laughable. Yeah, let's throw up a dam to power a pulp mill and wipe out a run of some of the largest Chinook in N. America. And once the fish are on the brink of extinction, let's refuse to admit our mistake, for fear that someone might accuse us of being an "environmentalist" GASP!!! Sorry if you don't see it that way, but I do. Tell you what, why don't you just head to the polls and cancel out my vote for whomever or whatever is running against Slade? That's how it's done, so we'll see in November.

And as for the nets, here's my opinion for you. The Native comercial harvest is provided in the treaties and isn't even a factor here. Every returning fish has already survived the dams, habitat degradation, ocean conditions, bids, etc. Now it's a question of how much of the pie goes to sports anglers and non-Tribal commercial netters. In the past and in this case the netters pay least and take most. I want sport fishing to get more at the expense of NON-TRIBAL COMMERCIAL NETS. Is that clear enough? Nets, dams, anglers, habitat all have something to do with it. I'm addressing just two of the issues here. They just happen to be the two issues that are easiest to address. Unless, Native Son, you have a proposal to regulate: urban growth and devlopment, water usage, high seas dumping of chemical waste, bird predation, transportation, nuclear waste storage, logging, road building, farming, and everything else facing these fish runs.

Fish on........

[This message has been edited by Dan S. (edited 07-19-2000).]