Grandpa: Why the post about hemp? I have been tryint to figure it out and decided it must be for one of the following reasons:

1. If we all ate more hemp products we would argue less.

2. If we all smoked more hemp products we would fish less and therefore save more wild fish.

3. If we ate more hemp poducts we would all have the munchies so bad we wouldn't care if it was a wild or hatchery fish as long as we could eat it.

4. You think anyone who doesn't agree with you is smoking hemp.

What the heck WAS your reason?

Kanektok Kid

Didn't mean to nail you, but let's just say we can disagree with each other opinion without trying to put each other down. Fair enough?

Dave, grandpa lost me too on that one, and that hard to do!

Cowlitzfisherman

DV,

I think the reason for the hemp article was...uh...umm...it was...umm...yeah, the hemp article, right?

Oh, yeah! The reason was, umm...Hey! Dave! Pass me the Cheetos, would ya?

Now, where was I? Umm...ummm....oh, yeah, the hemp article. What was your question about it again?

Let's see...(munch, munch)...umm...uhhh...the reason was...umm...ummm...

Hey! Somebody fix the CD player...it's skipping again. It's not? Oh.

Anyway...where'd the Cheetos go?

Hemp article. Hmmm. What hemp article?

Oh, that one. Didn't I already answer your question? No? Ok...what was your question again?

....truckin', got my chips cashed in, truckin'..da da da da dum...(with the music)...Oh, yeah...hemp article.

Well, I hope that clears things up.

Where are those Cheetos?

Fish on...

Todd

You guys who think this is anything but bad for fishing are nuts. Whether you are a fly-fishing C&R elitest or a fish bonking plunker this is bad news.

You may have issues with a lot of the things groups like Washington Trout support, but this is one issue where you should be glad they have the resources and shyster lawers to fight this kind of coporate greed.

I think most of us can agree that habitat is one of the most important factors in having successful fishing. If the Pacific Legal Foundation has its way you can kiss that good-bye.

All those involved are so because of their own interests. I'm not a stealhead fisher, so I've not commented on any of these threads. But there seems to be a strong sentiment from the Feds to squash biased local policies. I think we will all benefit from the spirit of this decision. Local agencies often try to circumvent the actual mandate, to suit their own interests. And in a court of law (a real court of law) that doesn't fly. I hope this sends a clear message to our agencies. If you don't support your policies with science, you will not succeed. If what you propose contradicts science, you will not succeed. I hope this means the courts are not going to sit still for special interests, no matter which one.

Dave the hemp article was simply another 9th circuit court of schlameels ruling. Just to throw you off topic for a second.

The list of the plaintiffs was a list of people who no doubt make lots of money and probably don't care much about fishing or fish.

Last but not least I don't know the background of this case and therefore need to look into it some more before making any knee-jerk and/or insulting remarks. I am all over protecting fish but I also like my property rights and have to admit I like to make money alot and keep it too.

A wise old sage once said: "If at first you don't succeed, keep on suckin til you do suck seed."
Tell me who said that and I will send you a genuine autographed foil helmut...guaranteed to deflect the damaging karma emitting from lawyers.

Steeliegreg: This is what you said:

"This is good news if you are a simple minded, ignorant jackass."

Oh the irony in that statement!

So many clowns...so few circuses.....sigh

Curly Howard of the Three Stooges.

Make that triple thick grampa.

Plunker.....Grandpa will have to follow through on his promise and send you the official foil helmut. You are correct. Send me an email with your address.

Here is some more info on this subject.
http://oia.org/salmonnewsletter.htm

Todd you might want to read this closely.

This is BAD!

Why is it that both sides are so afraid to hear the other side's views, and then debate the merits of what each other opinions are? What are people afraid of? It's great to see "both sides of any issue, before each of us make up our mind!

Who what that great person who once said:

"There is nothing to fear, but fear itself" what are you guys fearing? ?

So if hatchery fish replace the wild fish, what is going to happen when budget cuts start eliminating hatchery production?

Exactly CFM!!
Im sure both sides have biased information of some kind.And its best to look at both sides on an issue.But it seems the some people may indeed be afraid of what they may learn.

I belong to that group that Duroboat calls elitist (Wild Steelhead Coalition) and we used some biased information to push for the moritorium. We got our information for our charts that show a steady decline in wild fish numbers over a 20 year average from one agency. WDFW. WE used there own data to show the decline, hows that for biased information!!

Actual data on Oregon Coastal wild coho are provided at this web site.
http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/ODFW/spawn/coho.htm

It shows Oregon Coast coho spawners were about 250,000 the last couple years and about 98 % wild. It also shows they have increased greatly in recent years.

These fish could come off the endangered species list soon -because there are abundant wild fish, not because of hatchery fish.

I was hoping to hear duroboats opinion about the biased data used by WSC?