editing this. I'm new and just found out there is already a guy named sockeye on this board so I changed mine from Sock Eye to Slime de Boat.

Dear members;
I have a confession to make. I am what some of you call a lurker. That's right a swing shift working fishing website lurker that checks for reports and fishes in mornings. So I guess it was time to add my .o2 on the board here. On some of the things debated here I disagree with some not. the one about the new less killing nets is a good idea! How could you not want those instead of gillnets. Like my handle says I love sockeye salmon the best. It has the reddest meat of any fish and is just damn great. I can't fish for them near here so I am glad to be able to get some because of commercial fishermen. Dont blame me for that. I think they have a right to fish and people who cant get out can eat good fish because of them. I also am a sportfiherman. so I can understand you not likely the nets. I dont either when it affects my fishing I supose. But they have there right. Has anyone heard about maybe lake Washington having a sockeye fishing again next year? man I love those sockers!

[ 04-19-2001: Message edited by: Slime de Boat ]

If there has to be netting then the new tangle ones do sound better. But it's high time to ban all netting in rivers!

Sock eye,

I also believe commercial fishing has its place. However, I disagree that anyone "has a right to commercially fish." No such right exist at law and certainly isn't in the state or federal constitutions. Many rights, including non-existant sport fishing rights, are alledged on this BB. But alledging a right and having it be so are clearly not the same thing.

Non-treaty commercial fishing is a regulated privilege. So is non-treaty sport fishing. Treaty fishing is a guaranteed right to treaty tribes, although commercial fishing is not specifically described. The tribes have the descretion to regulate treaty commercial fishing, just as the state has the right under law to regulate non-treaty commercial fishing.

This otherwise small point about rights is relavent here because of the many BB discussions about fishing rights and privileges. I'm just hoping to minimize the confusion.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo, I agree with you about the commercial fishermen. I have never understood the concept that among non-Treaty fishers that a small minority of them among us have a 'special right' gift handed to them to mass fish dwindling runs because a relative did or a rare "license to kill" became for sale. It's a bizzare concept to me. And when you consider that none of them make a true living on them on the Columbia, and I've been told by reliable sources within that old fashioned industry that most of them do it because they 'get off' (actually enjoy) killing and taking large numbers of fish. UGLY! Why can't the states see the picture there and do away with that crap?!? As for sportfishing being a privilage, perhaps; but we pay dearly for the relatively few fish we take to have a more enjoyable lifestyle!

RT