Wrong!!!!!! they will get more fish because they will claim forgone opportunity( IF THE ARE SURPLUS FISH THEY WILL TRY AND GET THEM) and get additional fish. The reason is becuase the harvest is managed to MSY ( maximun sustainable yield)of a given river.
I still am in strong support of 696 becuase we have to start somewhere. The tribes don't want it becuase they will be the only ones harvesting non-selectively and with fin clipping they will be forced to use other harvest methods. Fish traps, wheels and whatever. If we don't stop netting the they sure won't!

Let our commercials develop selective methods of take. We have many examples of things that don't work like the continued decline of upper columbia wild steelhead were sportsman release all wild fish and Indians and commercial nets continue to kill wild fish. Instead of crying about the tribes getting more, the fishing industry should be busy developing methods to selectively harvest! Then hatchery fish could be harvested with out worring about the ESO.

It's hard to believe the Indians are only taking 50% now I mean ,Bob, do you think white guys in Washington get half the fish out of the Hoh? I mean correct me if I am wrong. Also i saw your post at another site and I am wondering how we could find out which catfood companies buy fish from Indians. I think all it would take is a couple of protests in front of some yuppie supermarkets and they wouldnt buy from them anymore. As a matter of fact if you or anyone knows any distributors who buy indian caught wild fish myself and some friends would be more then happy to know this information. If I696 passes it will probably be best to make an attempt to circumnavigate the government if at all possible. Chuck

takedown, I don't know where you got this idea that the natives will have to change there fishing methods. It won't happen because we'll have no authority to make them. They would laugh at this. You must remember that clipping fish is there option. They don't have to if they don't want to. Please keep in mind there hatchery prodgets are growing while ours is getting smaller.

Hatcheries arent going to save wild fish. Open a big hatchery on a river and you can net more. Nets dont catch only hatchery fish. Chuck

The bottom line is we need more wild fish to reach the spawning grounds. I would love to know how many anadromous fish populations have actually met escapement goals for the last year, let alone the last decade. How anyone can justify fishing until escapement goals are met are beyond my comprehension. I-696 will remove one sector from the harvest management table. This should remove a large portion of politics which will hopefully be replaced by science and put those fish back on the spawning beds rather than a few bucks in a guys pocket or filler for the pet food company or caviar for the Japanese or lost and forgotten in sombody's freezer or ground up for fertilizer or...

Hi, everyone. Long time no speak.

If I-696 passes, it will likely increase the tribal catch. It will also increase the sport catch, and the escapement.

"Foregone opportunity" is the term that applies to one user group's inability to harvest their half of the fish that are available. If the non-tribal fishermen can't harvest their half of the "extra" fish, then to avoid "wasting" them, the tribes get to fish more and catch those extra wasted fish.

Sport fishermen probably cannot catch as many fish as the commercials. However, hopefully we will be given an opportunity to do so, i.e., longer seasons to fish. The attorney general's office and WDFW are also trying to legally establish that purposefully leaving a portion of the catch in the river for C&R and for extra escapement is a valid "use" that would preclude the tribes from exercising the "foregone opportunity" clause.

I know it's getting to crunch time, but I went down to the BAN office in Renton and told them I wanted some signs. Within five minutes three guys had placed about 200 of them in the back of my pickup. They're all out on the sides of roads now. They probably have more available.

Get out and vote. After voting yes for BAN, how about voting a big fat no for 695? What a joke.

Later.

Todd.

Since I don't know, maybee someone can tell me. Does the commercials catch past the three mile limit still count towards the 50% harvest? The wondering Duck.

Yes if the fish are "landed" in Washington. To be legally landed in Washington waters they must be legally caught. The only legal means after I-696passes will be by troll fishing with hook and line, the way it was done for many years befor the net fleet came to our waters and killed the fish to the point of extinction. To "land" fish in Washington waters you must fish by legal means and after I-696 passes the only legal means will be by hook and line. The catch will count for the 50% along with sports catch. When the net fishery is eliminated from Washington waters we as the fishing public must take the initative and have the model changed to maximize the escapement not the kill. This iss what we all want for the long haul. More fish to spawn not more to kill. The comercial fishers have been trying to keep the harvest at maximum, we need to think about the fish and try to reach maximum escapement. Get more fish on the reds. This will mean more fish for everyone. VOTE YES ON I-696.