just say you dont know.

Why didnt Koenings do this? Why did he turn down the 430,000 dollar BPA grant for selective harvest gear to test back in 2007. If this was great for commercial fisherman, based on wild exaggerations of hatchery harvest, why are they fighting it?

Boater, if you are not a commercial fisherman, you are tied to the industry through relatives. Either that, or you have too much time on your hands and not enough porn under your mattress.

probably because hatchery funding wasn't as big of an issue as it is now

does me saying that i`d like to see the LCR gillnet fleet eliminated and make the LCR a sportfishing destination make you think that ?

On that basis, for you, its all or nothing. You completely ignore the entire commercial industry, that does provide a source of food. In almost every commercial fishery, they overharvest and they all end up in the crapper. It doesnt stop the demand. Good management is necessary and sportfishing is a worthwhile activity for kids and families.
The organization from texas has done more for sport fishing than any other organization, Ive heard of. Take care of the resource and it will take care of you.

It will be interesting to see what you fight, when the organization tries to fix something else in the future. No, I dont know, so dont ask.
You clowns could tear down every dam on the columbia and the netters would still kill more and more wild fish. Its the method. They killed 27,000,000 salmon in 24 years and the hatcheries could not keep up, let alone mother nature.

CR dams, and their associated operations kill more than 80% of the rivers salmon and steelhead potential.
So how is increasing the harvest of hatchery fish going to reverse this fact?
And the 80% can be classified as habitat derogation, I just don't see how increasing the harvest of hatchery fish helping anyone but the commercials and the dam operators.
The last time Oregon saw a ballot measure to remove commercial gillnets from the CR it went down like the Titanic, in spite of the fact it was well written and well thought out.
It went down in defeat because of lack of funding, and the in ability to get the 10 second sound bite to the voters.
Now we have a poorly written measure, which as is might not even make the ballot.

well it sounds like you and boater can get on the gill net boat and testify for the gill netters and then explain how gill netting the rivers will enhance and recover all those wild fish. Let me know when your done with the advertisement for the commercials so that I can see it.


Fishy

time to put the KoolAid back in the cooler.

CCA Theme Song

Gather round with a big ole glass of Koolade

http://www.woodyguthrie.org/Lyrics/Talking_Columbia.htm

Sure and you guys aren't drinking your own brand.

Kettle=black



Fishy

Stop feeding the trolls.

ok.

And WSC theme song would be If I only had a fin (adipose) sung by the scarecrow on Wizard of OZ.

After getting more and more involved with CR fisheries over the past 10 years, and watching the gillnet lobbyists in all the various meetings, I think there's likely two reasons:

1. The gillnetters will not budge an inch, not a millimeter because they are holding out for the biggest buy-out price or the sweetest possible deal. They've taken the position of zero compromise.

2. Any new harvest method that has increased oversight (i.e. taking the salmon at the fish ladders; the SAFE for Salmon plan; or CCA's initiative) will decrease the gillnetters undeclared, untaxed, under the table income.

The industry is thoroughly corrupt, which makes CCA's bending over backwards to keep them on the river so painful to accept.

Good Lord!

The commercial fleet harvests the salmon throughout the entire North Pacific. Once they're above Bonneville, the Tribes are supplying tonnage to the market. And the fish processors are investing in infrastructure up there to assist

Interesting reasons.


They will be made to look evil, no matter what. From day one, it was all about selective harvest. As long as the tribes fish, it will be a fairness issue. Its one of the reasons, Ban all nets, failed. One talk radio host, gave the promoter about half of one segment and then tossed him out. After he left, the host said, If its not going to apply to the tribes, Im not going to support it.

Then, he ran for governor, and he got crushed by a pro gillnet governor.

Ya so?

the tribes in this state harvest 50 plus percent of the available harvest and sell about 99 percent to the public, the other 50 percent is split between non-tribal commercial fisherman and sports fisherman, doesnt that mean that 75 percent of the catch goes to the market and sports gets 25 percent ?, why do you think i`m greedy for wanting more for sport fisherman ?

Pull back the curtain a little and now everyone can see the true Kool Aid drinkers.

Fishy