I was completey surprised thrown off by the reaction of many students at the UW School of Fisheries.
Being a student at the SOF, I am part of an email discusion group and the moderator who is a member of the faculty asked for the students opions of I696 and how she should vote.
I replied with my arguement for pro 696 and covered all the basic pros for it and defended the anti696 comments I expected to get.
It got nasty. I was labeled by many to be uneducated about the subject and that I was just another sportsmen who wanted to kill more fish, thus I was in support of 696.
No matter what I said they would not listen and just lable me illeterate and then told me that I should not particapate in a discussion group when I am dealing with educate people.
I tried my best to convince them that many sportsmen in favor of 696 do not want to kill more fish but in fact many are in favor of C&R on wild salmoninds. They either totally denied this arguement or then said they have studies that proved C&R killed most of the fish that were realeased.
I was just completely thrown off, not by their anti-696 views but more on their reaction to the sportsmen arguement and labeling me undecuated and saying that I should "read up on the subject next time I enter an acedemic forum."
There really is no point to this post I guess, I just needed to someone to rant and rave to and see if anyone has any reactions because from what I have been told that through the years the SOF is a majority of fisherman who want to take their love of fish just beyond fishing.
Tight Lines
Ryan

You should maybe pass this along to Dennis Dickson. He's a fly fishing guide and former fish biologist. I think he graduated from SOF and would probably be interested in hearing about it. His site is at http://www.flyfishsteelhead.com.

Sounds like you got jumped by a bunch of self-righteous academics who think their opinion is the only one that really matters. Sounds typical of a lot of academia "discussions". Anyone who espouses a view outside of the academy is labeled as uneducated. Sorry it turned out that way. If Dennis is any indication, not all the guys in green shirts are that way.

I attend the UW, in the graduate program in the ME department. Usually an academic discussion group is mediated by a professor, and sometimes only ideas deemed correct by the mediator are permitted to be aired. It sounds as if your discussion group wasn't a place to freely air certain thoughts. I wonder how much outside FOS funding comes from commercial fishing?
I can't believe I-696 failed, and with all the new edangered/threatened listings. No on else seems to be offering any solutions. I guess the fishery has to totally collapse before drastic changes are made. Commercial fisherman are the whalers of the 90s.--mike

For what it is worth we can always say we told you so. Maybe next time this comes up on the ballot we will all give our best and most. I can only hope that it isn't too late for the fish. Remember to write the gov and the WDFW commission to get the escapement model changed for maximum escapement not max. harvest. Also tell them to remove Lisa Pelly and Will Roehl from the commission. Call write and send e-mail.

[This message has been edited by stever in everett (edited 11-04-1999).]

I think you've run afoul of the same problem that plagues disciplines like forestry. Where are all the jobs? Most graduates of the School of Fisheries will wind up, like their colleagues in forestry, working for businesses whose sole purpose is to extract as much of the resource as possible. It's no coincidence that the policy of "maximum sustained yield" is common to both.