I am a dedicated sportfisherman,and a life-long Washingtonian,and I gotta tell you,the crap I been readin' on this page is about knee deep.You guys have got to wake up and see 696 for what it is,an issue about salmon allocation,not an issue about salmon conservation.Sure,I fish the Bay,and it would be great to get a few more chances in the salt,but as far as putting more fish in the rivers,who's tryin' to kid who?The Tribes can,and most probobly will,excersise their right of "foregone opportunity". A 50\50 split(tribal and non-tribal)does not mean that,if non-tribal fishermen don't catch their half,the ours get to come back and spawn.Oh no,if this thing passes,and non-tribal(sports) can't catch their half,then,according to that screwed up ruling in 1974,the user group that CAN harvest them is supposed to have the opportunity to do so.So,as far as saving wild salmon and steelhead,696 is intrisically flawed,since it does absoulutly nothing to stop in-river netting of endangered fish.What needs to be done is to stop managing our fisheries for "Optimum Harvest",and start managing them for "OPTIMUM PRODUCTION"What we don't need to do is single out one user group as more destructive,while allowing another group to continue to use the even more destructive(in-river netting) method of fishing.I'm voting no on 696,and I hope that the general public can see through the half truths,distortions,and outright lies that have been thrown out since last summer.

I and probably everyone else on this board have to disagree. There is not one thing bad in 696 for the salmon. If the indians get to net more salmon than okay, we are back to square one. But then again are we? All the awareness this has brought about to the average fishing and nonfisher "Joe" is a great thing in itself. All you anti-696ers keep on going on about this iniative not saving habitat, but it does not destroy habitat, does it? All this publicity will help get people off their butts and start thinking about what is happening in their own backyards. We already see lots of that on television and in land regulations that are finally being enacted and upheld.
Think about how many bays in the Gig Harbor area alone that are too polluted to grow shellfish for consumption. How can this iniative hurt salmon, or rockfish or any sea creature?
You make absolutely "NO SENSE". I doubt that you are going to get much support from such nonsense here. What do you think "BoB"?

------------------
Steve Ng....The FishNg1
99 F-350 4x4 SD, 18ft Alumaweld Formula Vee Sled, 115 Yamaha.

Mr BigPhish seems to carry a typical attitude seen in the anti's ... if the Indians can keep doing it why can't we???

Quite frankly, I believe if we're (non-tribal) not the ones to make the first step, we can never expect the tribes to do likewise.

I hear lots of whining that it's an allocation issue ... sure, the sporties will have more opportunity in the future if this passes ... but remember BigPhish, we (the sporties) are the ONLY user group that can effecvtively SELECTIVELY harvest ... the days of non-selective harvest must end now period. That's what 696 is all about ... it does ban commercial fishing per se ... only wateful practices ... so quit yer bitchin'.

Interesting you bring up management models ... you're right, they need to change. But do you think for one moment that the commercial industry will ever allow OY models to come into place over MSY ... a big NOT on that one. Only through the passage of 696 will their influence be eliminated and the state will be allowed to manage as the runs dictate, not the pushing and shoving of the commercials.

I was wondering will the commercials past the three mile limit still going to count towards the 50/50 harvest?

It was stated( on one of the boards)that if we decide to reduce our take then the A.G. of Washington says she will defend us. We are not unable to catch our share, we CHOSE not to catch our share.

Allocation? Conservation? Same difference in this case. The commercials readily admit sportsmen can't catch all the fish they
kill(not to mention every other living thing in the sea). Neither the tribes, nor the sportsmen were responsible for the destruction of true cod stocks, the decimation of Cowlitz smelt runs, or the impending ESA listing of many bottomfish species. In those cases, I-696 points the finger of blame right where it belongs-- nontribal netters and past WDFW directors. That's reason enough for me to vote "yes" on I-696. Note:This message was not paid for by Canned Salmon for Washington.

[This message has been edited by CedarR (edited 10-30-1999).]

[This message has been edited by CedarR (edited 10-30-1999).]

Voting yes on I-696 will allow more fish to live , what we do with those fish is the real question and Bob is right, the escapement model needs to be changed from maximum harvest to maximum spawning escapement. Wouldn't it be great if there were so many fish in the rivers that they ran out of room to spawn? VOTE YES ON I-696