That's a very good question, why do we need gillnets in the CR?
If it were up to me there wouldn't be any, but I'm not a politician, or a lawmaker.
SFS is a compromise, it keeps the gillnet fleet whole, but instead it moves them into the already established SAFE areas.
This is the cheapest most efficient way to neutralize the negative effects of the nets. It also could be implemented in a very short time period. The established net pen areas have been utilized by the commercial fleet for over a decade, and their bycatch and ESA impacts are near zero.
Why not just ban the nets?
Oregon has what is known as the Coastal Caucus, which is made up of Representatives of the Oregon coast, they also represent the commercial fishing industry.
Any attempt to kill off the gillneters will be met with a determined united opposition front.
SFS isn't perfect, it doesn't ban the nets, but rather it neutralizes them.
So although it might not fit everyone's needs, it can be implemented quickly, it's cheap, and it's far better than the status quo.

Correct me if I have misinterpreted your motives, but from my perspective you seem to be attacking the Oregon plan because you don't have one in Washington to support.
I find it odd that you would be so against a plan from another state.
FYI almost every bill passed by the Legislature is the result of some kind of compromise, it's the way they do things.

I think I'm seeing why WA sportsfishers have gotten so shafted over the years.

That's the game? IF there's a disagreement over strategy, you're automatically the enemy?

As posted by a Washinton angler on another site --

"Washougal Fall chinook plants are going from 4 million down to 900,000 and coho from 500,000 to 150,000 with the bulk of those fish headed for Young's Bay and Blind Slough (gillnet Terminal areas). The Lewis contributes 200,000 springers to Deep River and the Elocoman is shutting down all salmon releases and sending them to net pens. There is more but that should do for now."

Folks really aren't getting or understanding the above.

Those WA transfers are happening, regardless, of the SAFEforSalmon legislation. Just those examples are about 3.5-million smolts.

The increased commercial fishing in those areas will happen whether SAFEforSalmon passes or not.

The only question is -- in return for this windfall to the commercial harvesters, will there be a benefit to sports fishers? (Like getting commercial harvest off the mainstem)

IF the commercials get those transfers, AND remain on the mainstem with gillnets or anything else, it will be a double-whammy against sports fishing.

And that is the simple answer of why the commercial lobbyists, love the in-fighting going on. IF they can just keep the status quo, it is an ENORMOUS WIN for their clients. And will strengthen their position going forward.

SAFEforSalmon is focused on reforming Columbia River harvest management.

IF there are other places in WA where you can remove gillnets, I say go-for-it. What's preventing the introduction of legislation to do that?

That's quite a noble attitude there Aunty, so I guess this means your now in favor of removing the four lower Snake River Dams then.
You also might want to check our Save Our Wild Salmon, they also don't care about sportfishers, so you already have something in common.

Well then you probably already know the biggest threat to CR fish recovery are the dams, they kill 85% of run, and particularly the four lower Snake River dams.
I believe I read somewhere that the new administration is putting breaching back on the table.

Did you look at the fall chinook and coho data?
I think you'll find a totally different economic profile.
Sportanglers targeting LCR SAFE chinook and silvers in the B10 fishery could see outstanding fishing.
I'll use last year as an example of the Rogue stock fall chinook impact on sportfishing, those that were lucky enough to be there can attest to this phenomenal fishery.
Another aspect is the summer off shore sport salmon fishery, both the coho and chinook stocks raised in the SAFE areas are South migrating stocks, so ocean anglers have an opportunity as well.

Lame!

Because of the Sacramento and Kalamath collapses the last couple of years, fishing off the south coast has been severaly restricted.

The best thing to do is to ban gillnets period!

The Safe for Salmon plan is a compromise.....Nothing more.

A compromise is not something I am willing to be apart of. It's time to stop the raping of the Columbia!

Just finished my second one on one meeting with my state Representative Jules Bailey, the funny thing is he likes the fact that the SFS plan is a comprise, and he pledged to help fight to make it a law.
I'll be meeting with my state Senator soon.

Freespool, are you from Washington or Oregon, Sorry I don't know all the Representatives. Frankly I would like to email them also with my point of view. Ive found that some of our politicians are like ostriches with their heads in holes in the sand. Its unbelievable that facts carry no weight with them. Could you be Senator Jacobsen in disguise..........Chuck G

Not Jacobsen, he's just from the Soviet Socialist Republic of Portland (Multnomah Cty), they are typically loonie tunes to the left of Che

You might want to drop on by the dark side JohnQ, lots of folks over there I think you might like.
So March 6 is the big day huh? That's when Judge Redden decides how much he likes the CR biop.
I hope he follows through with his threat to incarcerate your boss, seeing him led away in handcuffs would be pure poetic justice.