http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...salmon26m.html


Talk about a dilema.

Somebody's ox is going to wind up gored before this settles down, but
it is important to preserve the species.

Let's hope the legal eagles in DC recognize that sport fishing
generates more economic activity per salmon killed than does commercial
or tribal fishing, as sport fishermen probably have the least organized
lobby for grea$ing the $kids during the legi$lative proce$$

While it's important to feed hungry people and make corporate profits
in the present, it's also important to feed people and make profit in
the future.

Glad it isn't up to me to figure this out.......I'd be as clueless as
the present policy makers appear to be. One tough problem, IMO, and
each of the various solutions proposed seems pretty heavily biased
toward one special interest group or another.

On 26 Jan 2006 09:50:04 -0800, wrote:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...salmon26m.html


Talk about a dilema.

Somebody's ox is going to wind up gored before this settles down, but
it is important to preserve the species.

Let's hope the legal eagles in DC recognize that sport fishing
generates more economic activity per salmon killed than does commercial
or tribal fishing, as sport fishermen probably have the least organized
lobby for grea$ing the $kids during the legi$lative proce$$

While it's important to feed hungry people and make corporate profits
in the present, it's also important to feed people and make profit in
the future.

Glad it isn't up to me to figure this out.......I'd be as clueless as
the present policy makers appear to be. One tough problem, IMO, and
each of the various solutions proposed seems pretty heavily biased
toward one special interest group or another.

"Millions of salmon are caught annually by commercial and sport fishermen
in the Columbia River and off the Pacific Coast."

Sentences like that make it sound as though half the salmon are caught by
sport fishermen.

Here in the Bay, the over fishing of menhaden by the commercial folks is a
big problem, not just for the fish which feed on them but also for the
water quality which gets worse every year. However, the Menhaden Management
Board had a meeting last August and did a good deed.

They capped the harvest in the Bay at 106,000 metric tons. This was
significant, in that it was a first.

It lost some of its significance when folks found out that the 'cap' was
greater than the actual harvest had been running!
--
John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

JohnH wrote:
On 26 Jan 2006 09:50:04 -0800, wrote:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...salmon26m.html


Talk about a dilema.

Somebody's ox is going to wind up gored before this settles down, but
it is important to preserve the species.

Let's hope the legal eagles in DC recognize that sport fishing
generates more economic activity per salmon killed than does commercial
or tribal fishing, as sport fishermen probably have the least organized
lobby for grea$ing the $kids during the legi$lative proce$$

While it's important to feed hungry people and make corporate profits
in the present, it's also important to feed people and make profit in
the future.

Glad it isn't up to me to figure this out.......I'd be as clueless as
the present policy makers appear to be. One tough problem, IMO, and
each of the various solutions proposed seems pretty heavily biased
toward one special interest group or another.

"Millions of salmon are caught annually by commercial and sport fishermen
in the Columbia River and off the Pacific Coast."

Sentences like that make it sound as though half the salmon are caught by
sport fishermen.

Here in the Bay, the over fishing of menhaden by the commercial folks is a
big problem, not just for the fish which feed on them but also for the
water quality which gets worse every year. However, the Menhaden Management
Board had a meeting last August and did a good deed.

They capped the harvest in the Bay at 106,000 metric tons. This was
significant, in that it was a first.

It lost some of its significance when folks found out that the 'cap' was
greater than the actual harvest had been running!
--
John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************


The first nations up this way had a pretty good plan. They built fish
traps and other very highly efficient systems in the salmon spawning
streams, and when they were using them very few fish got through to
spawn. The first nations would only operate their nets and traps for
about 50% of the time the salmon were running, and then open up the
river so the rest of the fish could spawn.

Maybe we could do the same thing today, but in reverse.
Under the reverse plan, *nobody* would fish a run until a sufficient
spawning stock had entered the rivers. Once there were enough fish
upstream to guarantee a strong spawn, then every manjack with an
outboard and a fishing rod, every commercial netter, and every tribal
fisherman could just have after the remaining fish, without much
restriction, and the season would end when the last fish had gone
upstream or been killed in the fishery.

I'm sure there are lots of reasons such a plan wouldn't work- and
that's why I am glad it isn't up to me to figure this out. :-)