Thanks for qualifying the fact that Portland voted the boob in. Hats off to Washington! they have their act together. CCA Oregon is going to have to go some to overcome bias from commissioners, representatives and the gov. I don't understand the stranglehold the salmon chokers have on Oregon. Most of them live in Washington. It's crazy. Even the regular commercial industry looks at the gillwetters as bastard sons. The only reason they stick up for them is it keeps the focus off of the regular fleet.

Why is an industry fighting for a group that makes less than 3% of their income off gillnetting?

Who are the regular cmmercial fishermen?

I'll give ya $100 for it. :-)

Boycotting his business doesn't get the nets off the main stem and doesn't get him off the commission.

donno,

No it doesnt, but everyone needs to stick up for what they believe in when push comes to shove.

Englund has pushed and shoved, I am simply pushing back.

Sykofish I wanted to take the time to clear things up. I like the way you posted the subject. I didn't want to wade in too deep and get my legs chopped off by somebody that's lying in wait. Another words I wasn't going to swear off doing business with Englund's Marine totally. But what the heck I don't really relish paying exorbitant prices. As for selling KoneZone Flashers to them, I haven't received a PO from them for at least three years. The Fax machine isn't exactly burning through reams of paper lately. The decision to put such a blatantly biased individual on the board reeks of political corruption. This can only be laid at the feet of the Oregon voters that chose to elect Sleepy Ted. I had nothing to do with it! The whole state is going to hell in a hand basket and that's an understatement. Pray for the eruption of a brain cell in the majority party or we are all goners. I hope it's not too late. Mike

Just say No to special interest policy makers.

So it's OK to have Commissioner's who are Sport Fishing advocates?

That's the rub, the Oregon Fish Commission is made up of representatives of big timber, big ag, and commercial fishing.
Conspicuously missing is equal representation for sportfishing.

The commission should be made up of biologists.

At this time, the commission is made up of special intrest groups.

Politics dictate our fisheries.........How smart is that?

So, you'll totally support whatever the biologists say is in thebest interests of the resource? Such as only selective fishing, no mixed stock fishing, no stocking of non-native species, and so on?

That would also include removal of most dams, restoration of estuaries, removal of levees so that rivers can flood and channels can move.

What we need is a clearly open and complete dialog. We need the science, but economics, politics, and those other issues need to be part of the discussion. It just needs to be an open discussion, which it certainly isn't now.

Well put Carcassman.

We need to find a balance.

The current commission fails to reconize one.

So how do we find the common ground that some of us are looking for?

We need people who are willing to compromise. I think, from a Washington perspective, that the issues raised in "Saving Puget Sound" by Lombard and "Salmon 2100" are where the discussion needs to begin. I don't think we can change the Commissions, in the short term. Rather, they need to be challenged.

As is being done with Grays Harbor and Hoh management, there needs to be PUBLIC answers to "why". In at least some cases, the reasons why actions are taken are good ones; they are just kept from us.

Not just in resource management, but in all aspects of government, we need more anwers.

So, my short answer is to participate and demand answers. If "they" won't give them, look for help from the press.