I understand that as an outsider you are trying to dictate what CCA Oregon is doing and what we do here in WA. Sounds like your not a member and that we should align behind whatever you think is right and fund that.
Well you welcome to fund your plans,initiatives and legislation.

If you ever do become a member take it up with your chapter Pres, just like you do with WSC.

Fishy

what part of "i want more fish for sportsman and not for the commercials" dont you understand ?

I understand that releasing more of the ESA listed fish will provide for a longer season as the FEDS won't have to close it down and what sportsman wouldn't want more fish, we just differ on how to get there.

Nice try sparky.


Fishy

longer season for who ?

Putting some seasonal limits back in place would help, you would be surprised how many are catching a few and how few are catching many. Glad were not managing elk and deer this way.

Correct term would be" for whom"

I'm not in the WDFW so I can't say, but neither can you.


Fishy

even though it says,

The use of gear that causes little mortality would allow the harvest of more hatchery fish within the ESA impact limits and help control the number of hatchery fish that inevitably stray onto spawning grounds

in that writeup you still dont know who would get a longer season ?, i could post more write ups that say the same thing if you want.

do you know the difference between release mortality and esa take ?

They`re one and the same, if we{sports} release more wild fish then our ESA take will go up no matter how carefull we are. When wild fish are all that`s left for us what will our ESA take be? Bill

copy and paste all you want it still does not make your case.

Yes I do.

Fishy

well all i can say is i`m glad there are a few of us that know whats going on.

In truth, with spring chinook, which so much of this controversy revolves around, the "catch balancing" provisions with the above-Bonneville Tribes as stipulated in the current US-v-Oregon agreement will be the limiting factor. NOT the FEDS "closing it down".

Without a cap on commercial harvest, low-impact alternatives move a greater percentage of a fixed harvest amount over to the commercial side. There is no "surplus" for us to draw additional spring chinook from when we're talking about springers destined for above-Bonneville.

This initiative, as written, will not provide additional sport opportunity. Period.

I wish I were wrong, but the facts say otherwise.

Additionally, all anglers and CCA members in particular ought to be asking about those $2 Oregon license surcharges. Those surcharges now fund pro-fishing activities. What projects/programs will have to be axed if this initiative passes and those surcharges are re-directed to subsidizing the commercial gillnetters?

Like I said earlier, there are much better solutions.

your delusional,

Fishy

In truth, with spring chinook, which so much of this controversy revolves around, the "catch balancing" provisions with the above-Bonneville Tribes as stipulated in the current US-v-Oregon agreement will be the limiting factor. NOT the FEDS "closing it down".

Us-v-Oregon= Feds

A modification of commercial fishing method only stipulates selective harvest, while the fish managers dictate harvester shares. Nothing is a foregone conclusion.

How's that status quo working for you?

Fishy

no, i`m "factual"

(b) Continue to provide opportunities and resources to further develop selective commercial fishing techniques with a goal of reducing mortality of listed fish and increasing access to hatchery fish.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/policies/c3617_attch1.pdf

Neither of us is in charge of setting seasons.

Nice try again sparky,


Fishy

care to post that rcw ?

I think that I will just agree to disagree, cause other things are getting in the way of this pointless conversation with you, like life.


Adieu,


Fishy

Boater - you sure you ain't "pokermonkey" in disguise?

Just wait intill the tribe's are having there ceremonial fishing out of Cathlamet and take to much, shutting down the sports fishery above them. But what's a Columbia salmon season without someone bellyaching about getting screwed, it's been going on for a 120 years.