I was napping away on the couch last night watching the news on Kiro and they reported that candidate John Carlson had a solution to salmon recovery in Washington. I prepared myself to here the same yadda, yadda, habitat, yadda, yadda, urban sprawl, yadda, etc. The reporter stated that Mr. Carlson believes that the first step to salmon recovery is to ban all Tribal and Non-Tribal commercial net fishing in Washington! I about fell off the couch in astonishment! What a politician who has finally seen the light? A politician who isn't afraid to state the truth? A Washington politician who doesn't have his pockets stuffed with money from the commercial fishing industry?

Alright this man needs are support. I'm a little embarassed though, because I have no idea what office he is running for or who are his oponnents? Can someone out there fill in the blanks and maybe even set up a e-mail link to so that I (or we) can send Mr. Carlson some words of support!

Carlson is campaining to be Govenor.Funny how he is now against nets when he vigorously campained against the net ban anitiative.

I also about fell out of my seat when I heard that!! But a little later on he said that he would leave that decision on how to save the salmon to the local communities. I will watch with great interest as he addresses this issue further. I will say that I have never liked Mr. Carlson, but he is looking better.

Peace

Carlson had two opportunities to support net ban initiatives in recent years. Both times he chose to openly oppose them. Now, during his campaign, he talks about wanting to ban nets. Of course, as a state governor, he can't do anything about tribal netting and he knows it. He sounds exactly like a politician to me! Let's let local communities decide this issue... how do you think Westport, Illwaco, and Bellingham, and Ballard will vote? I don't think we've got a choice for governor, yet.

I saw this while reading the paper this morning and in away I was not surprised. Its just political rhetoric...BULL****!!
The basisis for Carlson's plan to ban all nets is to gain the sportsmen and maybe even the conservation vote while not losing the vote of the big industries i.e. logging and devolpment.
Like Locke, Carlson is OPPOSED to dam removal and Carlson believes that banning all nets is the magical fix we have all been looking for. Well anyone with have a brain knows that there is not a one-stop magical fix for the problems that face native salmonids. This just shows how big of idiot he is...and I sure hope he doesnt believe he can actually ban the indian's nets because HE CAN NOT!!
Word to the wise...he is promoting this because he can afford to lose the commercial fishing vote but can not afford to lose the development, logging and big corporate polluter vote (all areas that are massive leaders in the demise of our salmonids) and at the same time he is hoping to gain OUR vote. DO NOT FALL FOR IT!!
I am not saying vote for Locke but in the primaries DO NOT vote for Carlson.


...besides I wouldnt be surprised if he got into office and did not make a single effort to ban the nets!

Whoa!!!!
I just saw the news report on Kiro about the plan. I have previously stated we need to buy out the nets and this is what his plan is about!!! If we can get behind him some, Locke may change his position and help get the buy out into motion!!!

I am in full favor with living with this guy no matter what anybody says if he can pull this off.
What intelligent person would turn down the opportunity to enhance the fishery if the down side of lack of income was gone?
The only way we can afford to buy the nets out is to have the backing of the government or a very deep pocketed Billionaire.

This Is a good thing!!!! The right first step!!!


------------------
Marty
Steelheader.net marty@steelheader.net

He is going to get my vote, even though my parents don't like him...

King 5 news had a clip last night about Carlson's news conference down at the Ballard Locks yesterday over his salmon recovery plan.

Carlson stated that "It makes no sense to regulate salmon habitat on land while allowing thousands of yards of gillnets to be stretched across salmon habitat in the water" Amen!!! Gary Loche's rebuttal to Carlson was the comment: "What John Carlson doesn't understand is that the Puget Sound Commercial net fisheries target hatchery salmon only!" What the hell is Gary Loche on? Or does he put scuba gear on dive under and hold up a sign in front of the nets saying "Hatchery Fish Only Please!" Someone wake are governor up or take the commercial fishing money out of his pockets!

I have never voted Republican, but if it means sleeping with the enemy to get rid off the nets, nighty night.

One other thought, Carlson said he would seek Fed. money to buy out Indian and Non-Indian Commercial fishing licenses. People say that the Tribes can't be shut down. Don't be to sure about this one. The Tribes are Federal Agencies and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is a Federal Act. They can be shut down under the auspices of the ESA just like everyone else! The Tribes are not invicible to the ESA.

[This message has been edited by Bobber Down (edited 09-08-2000).]

Hey great but I fear its just another politician saying "why should we save habitat when.......!" Its probably a moot point at this late date the timber bill that was passed last session can't even remotley do what it was intended to do (protect riparian zones)
Close to six hundred logging permits were granted under the old rules and one hell of alot of stream side logging took place in a big rush during the time the bill was being marked up and debated. But thats all water down the ditch and the only recourse will be when the Fed under ESA comes in and puts even more outside controls on the little bit of habitat that will be left and of course call on all harvesters (including us) to give up everything. In a last ditch effort to ward off extinction.
Of course you that want to will probably be able to crowd into a combat fishing area and harvest fin clipped fish that wont bite and that point snagging will not only be legal but it will be accepted as the way of doing bussiness.
Now aint that a cheery forecast.

Carlsons overall goal of banning tribal and non-tribal gill-nets sounds like music to my ears. Sorry Locke, you had your chance.

Buy those folks out of their net licenses. Its about time the state started spending money on something like this instead of making it disappear.

Buy them out. Vote them out, whatever. Atleast its something. He's got my vote for sure.

Gov. has done nothing for the state of WA. His whole political agenda is just to not tick anyone off and he should get re-elected. What has he done for Salmon restoration. Nothing. Where was he during WTO, Not involved. Our state needs someone to stand up for our state and quit worrying(sp) about being the Democratic posterboy. John Carlson may not have all the answers but he is an upgrade.

For those interested in this subject there was an article in the Seattle P-I newspaper yesterday that talked about Carlson's proposal and some of the negative reaction to it coming from commercials and other gov agencies as well as Locke's reaction: http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/local/salm081.shtml
There is a pretty informative response to the article from Robert Crocker at: http://www.gamefishin.com/cgi-bin/forum/index.cgi?read=12423
(hope its OK to post this type of message here)



[This message has been edited by Chaps (edited 09-09-2000).]

Oh boy this is just great I read the PI article and I was right it is another [Bleeeeep!] head politician wanting to shut down fishing in order to get around enviromental concerns re logging farming and hydro. Go ahead throw your lot in with him fight the other fishers and then you can all go golfing all the time. Netting fish is not a good thing but stopping all fishing will do just that Stop All including us.

In the speech Carlson said ". . . we can make Washington state what it used to be . . . the cold-water fishing capital of the United States. . . "

Native son I appreciate and respect your opinion but when was the last time you heard an upper echelon (Governor or higher) politician say something like that? I think John knows what a strong recreational fishery means to the economy of this state and we have to elect someone anyway - I'll take my chances with Carlson

The tribes will never, repeat never, sell out their rights to fish.
Chris: your parents are right!

No offense but I think hes full of ****. I would be very surprised if Mr. Carlson even knew what a cold water fishery is. Maybe we need to take a chance with him because atleast hes talking the issues even if its just because hes being advised to.
I just wouldnt be surprisedif he gets into office and everything hes talked about is a big lie.

Hey, I'll fess up, I was going to vote for Carlson even before I heard that he was in favor of a net ban. Locke is a decent guy too but John has a way of making things happen (three strikes your out, got rid of that ridiculous affirmative action thing, etc). He has refused campaign contributions from the commercial fish lobbyists and has IMO kind of stuck his neck out on this net-ban deal so I think that sport fishers ought to either support him or pressure Locke to match the policy. What else we got?

Hi folks...

Here is a snip from Carlsons home page and a link FYI http://www.johncarlson.org/issues/environment.asp

John supports the Salmon Recovery Planning Act (SB 5595) that the legislature passed in 1999 which deals with the restoration of habitat: one river, one creek, and one watershed at a time by establishing numerous watershed councils. It is a bottom-up solution to rescuing watersheds, rather than a top-down bureaucratic solution. We do not need to build a huge salmon bureaucracy. Most ofthe money should go directly for habitat through the Salmon Recovery Funding Board. Funded projects must include landowner's input and must be community based. This decentralization approach to salmon recovery has proven to be effective and should be our model.

John believes that in addition to habitat, we need to focus on harvest. John is calling for saving endangered salmon and restoring family fishing by removing all nets, commercial and tribal, from our waters (the ocean, rivers, streams, etc). This could be done under a provision of the Boldt Decision called a "Boldt Closure" which stops all harvest until harvestable levels are achieved. The state would then compensate netters for lost income and licenses. John suggests compensating tribes and commercial fisherman for lost business by giving them a portion of fishing licenses revenue to give them a financial stake in growth of family/sport fishing.

The question that the Governor and the Department of Fish and Wildlife cannot answer is when do we know when we are successful?

How many more salmon do we need under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)? When can we claimsuccess? And that is different to how many we need for commercial fishing purposes. Unlike salmon, a goal was set for the bald eagle and we knew when to claim victory in saving them? We need to set goals. Do we include hatchery fish, which the government does not like, but they also cannot tell them apart? * These are questions that are not even being asked by the Governor that John will ask and find answers so we can save them in the most effective manner. Putting the salmon on the endangered list has been a policy decision and it is not based on science.

Wow! Ban commerical netting! Ban indian netting!! Someone wake me up....I must be dreaming. This sounds like a much too logical solution to a problem that has been so overly politised. I am going to wake-up just long enought to vote CARLSON!!

Seeing that the PRO posts are from a member who has posted a whopping 5 times and another member who has posted a grand total of ONE I'd say we have a few of the Carlson campaigners new to the board. After the election is over you think they will keep posting?