At least Todd is still inconsistent with his arguements.

Didnt NOAA come up with the selective live capture program?
They know how it works. Its policy. How they get there is Algebra. If you no longer need the policy you change the equation.
As has been argued before, they have to change the policy. You keep leaving out future tribal gear switches to selective gear, which BPA will pay for. You also keep running an old argument. CCA is supporting safe areas now along with several others. No main stem.
The amount of money already spent on selective testing would make every current gillnetter retire. It would have been simple to buy them out with that money. Just as simple as buying the tribes out of their lawsuit. But a buyout of cowboys doesnt fulfill the interest in reducing wild mortality. Thus they would still have to test to persuade the tribes to adopt it.

The rewrite of the Oregon initiative will shed some light on other changes. It includes set allocations.

Safe areas- wild fish saved incidental bycatch-saved. Apparently at a much greater rate than you predicted.
Barbless hooks- more wild fish saved
Tribal live capture- wild fish saved

It does not matter to Todd that wild steelhead and sturgeon will benefit from non tribal selective gear and put the tribes in the position of releasing them from the seine nets. Perhaps they have an interest now, but the gillnets do not allow it.

Your approach on the other hand relies on the continuation of wild fish being killed by gillnets, until NOAA, BPA, congress offer the gillnetters a healthy "buyout" Then, the remainder of wild fish can no longer stand 5-10% sport mortality and the possibility of a complete river closure will exist, like it did in the past. Nice plan! If they bought out the gillnetters TODAY, the wild fish would still die on the hook and in tribal gillnets, just farther up river. We get 2% they get the 13%. No savings. Sports would be the next casualty of the CR.

All you see is today. You cant look beyond current law. In the mean time, you would allow more sturgeon and wild and hatchery steelhead to die in gillnets and tangle nets, while waiting for your plan to work. It only works if dead fish rise from the dead and the Columbia is not closed to sportfishing.

Purse seiner in action, catching salmon.



Yeah, that looks like it is pretty easy on the fish.

You like to ignore the facts. You saw the video and you already know its not being done like that. I dont like that process anymore than you do, but whether that is a Puget Sound chum fishery or an alaskan fishery, they keep it all with the permission of the DFW.

where is that available to read ?

Todd,

I'm not surprised at all that an area of psychology studies how people confuse or undermine their interests in the name of defending their positions. I saw this play out in the relicensing of a certain hydro project where unnamed parties who stood to gain much, ended up with nothing because they were so focused on their positions, they lost sight of their interest. And yes, the LCR/CCA/gillnet/safe area/selective gear issues would be a classic study.

LB,

I appreciate your interest and passion, but you continue to be wrong about so much more than you're right. A lot of CCA potential isn't being realized, and won't be in the foreseeable future.

Sg

How long is foreseeable? I look at the 15 states with considerable experience in matters similar to ours. It shows what is possible. It doesnt tell you how hard it was to add another line to the list. I suppose we could have racked up a lot of lines on the page, if we had not made harvest reform our first priority. It would have been great PR and built up a lot of political capital, but in the end, the cowboys would never admit to being part of the problem. When you cant get "the environmental party" to require reporting of lost gillnets in Puget Sound, it becomes clear, they dont walk the talk in Olympia. Not enough of the public know about it and so its not a big enough pain in the neck. Im going to help change that. I dont think we had a choice when it comes down to moving the harvest reform forward. It is however, keeping a lot of other issues off the front burner.

"It is however, keeping a lot of other issues off the front burner."




Somehow I get the feeling thats CCA's true mission in the PNW.

Try thinking instead of "feeling".

We determine our own course.

KK please try to show some empathy, it's not easy being the "Joe Dirt" of salmon advocacy.

ssf, like I said, if getting gillnets out of the LCR is your interest, then you are spot on with your position...they serve each other perfectly.

If you think this will help fish or fishing, though, then you are greatly mistaken.

LB, I really do appreciate your passion, honestly...I wish more fishermen would grow some passion about protecting the resource and our recreation and act accordingly, and I give you kudos for doing so...but I've said it before, and I'll say it again...

You should not be advocating in public, because your grasp of the most basic tenets of fish and fish politics is tenuous at best, and flat out ridiculous most the time. You are not helping the fish or the fishing, and you are making the CCA look dumber and dumber all the time the more you tie your lack of basic knowledge in with what the CCA is doing.

If you really care about fish, fishing, and the CCA...then you should really consider this; stop talking in public about anything involving the CCA, fisheries, or fisheries politics. You are making anyone you support look dumb by association.

Something tells me you will keep forging forward...so I'll recommend you read up more on the "Interest vs. Position" and "Backfire Effect" stuff I put up above...all the while, I know that every time I try to give you a tidbit of fact, the Backfire Effect just kicks into high gear.

Just make sure you get that list of bigots and gillnetters all shined up so you have someone else to blame when your "plans" go in the schitter.

Fish on...

Todd

Enough of this one, too.