Originally Posted By: FleaFlickr02
Just want to clarify that I'm not for an either/or approach either. IF it comes to that, I stand by my preference for terminal over mixed stock fisheries. I suppose there is question about whether that provides the best opportunity to the most citizens, but I don't think there should be any question that would be the more fish-friendly way to go. Seeing as our fisheries are more or less constrained by ESA impacts, I think it makes sense to protect as many endangered fish as possible, and mixed stock fisheries (even selective ones) fall short of that mark.


One might argue a position that any fishery (to include river fisheries) where both ESA listed and hatchery fish are present represents a mixed stock fishery.

Would it be best for the fish to simply not have any fishing in WA marine waters followed quickly by the closing of hatcheries due to collapse of license revenue stream? Is that where the logic ultimately takes us? Of course, that "logic" ignores a host of other adverse factors.
_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!

It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)