SBD,

You've mentioned several times about treaty tribes fishing downstream of Bonneville. However, none of the treaty tribes have adjudicated U&A downstream of Bonneville as far as I know. Why would WA or OR allow unadjudicated treaty fishing? If you know something else, give it up.

Sg

Not sure Salmo... But I haven't seen the tribes ever lose a case when it comes to Bolt Decision..Maybe the sportsfisherman want to test this water..My guess is they get scalded bad, and the tribes don't forget.

Ive never met so many people who bitch about 25 dollars. Where can you buy an attorney and two lobbyists for $25 at the federal level.

I guess I have more faith in NMFS than most when they say we can use x number of impacts and not hurt the recovery effort..All the rest like this bill is just an allocation issue, even though its title says Salmon Protection Act.. It never explains how it will protect the fish other than passing the burden to the next user group above them, and with all the fine print it reaks of something else..Kinda of a rotten egg smell

What the hell is your problem? You sit back and judge the first organization that comes along and makes some real progress in a relatve short time, has a resume of accomplishments, longer than your arm and you refer to them as the LNG crowd? Now you light a fire for some redneck to jump on and watch the fire take off? You a commercial or just a pouty angry old man? Even the PSA members around here recognized a winner. Doesnt stop them from getting involved, in fact, their situation and influence is improved, because they support cca.

Im getting a little tired of the whining about springer allocation, when the entire state is involved. This process will be played out over and over for a variety of improvements to the fish, habitat, harvest, hydro, predators etc over the next ten years or more. Its akin to not setting up a retirement account, cause you cant buy enough tackle. Man up! Its one thing to be a starving college student, but hanging on to the free ride attitude, is exactly what got us to this point. Ive never met so many people who bitch about 25 dollars. Where can you buy an attorney and two lobbyists for $25 at the federal level. You want better fishing. Its not free. You want to defeat the commercial overharvest and the processors? Its not free. You want to sue the ........ its not free. You have hatcheries because of great lobbying and lousy mgt. You want to catch wild fish? Then protect the fish we have.

Todd would be the one to update you on Tribal Laws he's been right on so far...Yes all the rest is theory, but the lightly attended LNG meeting I attended the main concern came from the sports side..1000ft LNG tankers with 1500ft no travel zones around them twice a week and bouy 10 don't work together, the skipanon river would close for 48hours.. Shutting down the terminal fisherys and 3 mitchell act hatcheries that feed it and taking the smolts far upriver would fix that. Just rename the fishery the St Helens Derby, everybodys happy and CCA is king, look what they did for us.. One thing that did come up would be the need to remove some dikes for mitigation and there was some in the Youngs Bay area..It would fix that problem too..and the worst problem is I'm not against it because I hate whats going on in the middleast and would sell my soul to the devil to get us out of there..Its just that I think some other people all ready beat me to it

After approximately four seconds of thought, I nominate the above quote for "dumbest fukin post in a 28 page thread"...congratulations.

Fish on...

Todd

The CCA is first and foremost a conservation group. They want to conserve fish. The ability to fish for them is also important, but waging an allocation battle is NOT a primary concern.

Doc's right and I hope the CCA membership will educate themselves, or they won't have anything left to fish for.