Some thoughts from others.

Not sure this is WDFW "stance" after being outed. Likely just their "spin" after being outed. Contains untrue statements. Example that it says it will not replace current commercial fishing. Not true, some commercial quota already set aside from nets for trap experiments. Implies not to take place of fresh water sport fishing, but clearly would be put in front of it. Were it to have a significant impact on pHOS, it would have to take for example Chinook out before exposure to sport fishery. Looks like an ad seeking trappers in fresh water and looking for more suckers to risk capital and help WDFW excuse itself for planting Chinook smolts far in excess of its inability to meet hatchery minimum standards. It belies Hoffman proposal listing exactly how many Chinook AND Coho a trap in lower Naselle can have, thousands of Coho, while claiming location has not been selected. We have seen an HPA permit, for an exact location. Truth may be that tangle nets are not working out as mandatory gillnet replacements for Chinook. Netters in public meetings say this. WDFW refuses to quantify piniped and drop out mortality for tangle nets, or admit major crab mortality. Plantation of 2.2 million Naselle Chinook smolts in excess of official Willapa Salmon Management policy, in face of court decision upholding conservation first, is blowing up in Fish Dept face.

And another.

Gillnets don't fish on "moving fish"? Does she have any sort of clue?

It needs to either above or below the point in the estuary where the Chinook are sensitive to handling. You guys have already shown that. As I said on PP, I think that of the goal is to maximize removal of HORs, minimize impact to NORs (the corollary here is you want to really get a jump in NORs on the grounds) then the trap is the only way to go. Every other method, even rec, kills some NORs. I don't think WDFW has the balls for that but they may be clueless enough to develop the fishery and then get sued into having to use it.