Ultimately it will be the voters who ban these activities. Politicians will never get out in the lead; they can barely follow.

What it would take, though, is the marketplace turning against wild-caught fish. Buy only farmed salmon? Buy only tilapia and catfish; if you eat a salmonid you catch it yourself?

I doubt it since it's a major staple in Northwest Diet and the vast majority of it is ranched just like everything else we eat.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/10/20071020-4.html


Interesting info when George W Bush signed this order giving Red Drum and Striped Bass gamefish status down in the Gulf. Even a Presidential order has no effect on treatys with the tribes and he excluded fish produced by Aqua-Culture.

Dude...... what the fu.ck are you talking about? Drunk again?

Wow! I thought my statement was pretty clear, until I read it through the eyes of one 2many.

Fishy

something...,

you made a great point. 2many has an issue with having too many.... I hope that is his issue. it is either that or he is just a retard posting from the public library.

Funny you should mention the goal. I was confronted by a legislator who said directly thats what xxxx wants to do. It isnt but he was dead set on his opinion. Net ban rhetoric is not helping. Walls go up. Its not going to pass in Olympia and the only other way is an initiative. But you dont like that fundraiser money and if it comes from people you find objectionable like in Oregon, you complain. How about you paying for it? Its going to get interesting when the haters want a certain group to fund it. More than likely, the haters will be bitching because a certain group won't fund a ban on commercial fishing.

you guys with your push for so called selective commercial fishing are actually advocating for more commercial fishing on the columbia and you dont even realize it.

Dude, you're suprised?

What's CCA doing again?

Other that screwing up our fishing on the CR....

Sure wish I could kill all those non-clipped "wild" summer kings that are a healthy stock, thanks again....

Keep up the good work and while you're at it put the red rubber nose away...

Keith

need i say more?

Keith

I'm not sure exactly what the plan should be to get non-tribal commercials out of the Columbia completely...but I do know this:

Helping them develop a fishing technique that will allow them to not only be there, but to harvest even more fish, is not, will not, and never should be part of the plan.

Fish on...

Todd

rules can be changed, but if they end up only in the safe areas, your concern is no longer valid. They are not part of the tribal split. I could expect that it would be closed to sportfishing as well. Then its just sports and the tribes and Boater will lose interest. Keith will just find something else to cut and paste.

The best plan is to marry rich and buy out all the license on the columbia and make sure the law is then changed to close it to commercial fishing. Probably a 100 grand each. Then make sure the boat doesnt go to Alaska early or get the catch limits raised.

easy, huh.

Todd, I'm just trying to get this right.

You have no plan or ideas to put forth your plan to get the commercials out of the LCR?
Yet you are adamantly opposed to making them move to a different area, using a harvest method that may improve "wild" release and take more of the hatchery fish from intermingling with the "wild" fish trying to spawn. I thought these were all things you are an advocate of?

Fishy

do you realy think that selective commercial fishing has the ability to fish the hatchery fish down to levels that the hsrg has set ??, and if so i`d like to see the model that shows that they can.

Increasing selective harvest in local (Washington) marine fisheries and Columbia River freshwater fisheries was in fact part of the overall HSRG solution put forth in their Columbia River review. See their full report for results and model used.

ive read alot of the hsrg recommendations and it`s hatchery science at it`s finest and wont lead to recovery.

The HSRG never said their recommendations would lead to recovery, rather they would lead to improvements in productivity and abundance of many of the Columbia River populations. In other words, a lot better situation than these populations are in now. Another independent science group, the Recovery Implementation Science Team (RIST) agreed, saying:

“Some of the specific thresholds recommended by the HSRG, such as limiting the proportion of hatchery strays from segregated programs to 5-10%, may or may not be sufficiently protective to allow full recovery. However, achieving these proportions ....would be a large improvement over the current situation. Similarly, the "proportionate natural influence" (PNI) goals of 0.5-0.7 for integrated hatchery programs may or may not be sufficiently protective to ultimately contribute fully to recovery of natural populations, although in many cases they too would be an improvement upon the status quo.”

I guess neither group was that interested in your opinion of the science. And I will repeat that increasing selective harvest was in fact part of the HSRG solution, not a solution in and of itself. Whether or not this group wrote a white paper on harvest is inconsequential.

They could also just cut fisheries and releases and achieve the same goal which seems to be the new plan for Lower River.