Steve Herman:
>And finally, where are the data and where
>is the reasoning that support the statement that "Not one salmon will be
>saved". Huh?

This last one is easy, unless I totally misunderstand the measure.

Currently the annual allocation goes 50% Indian (via treaty rights,
who will still be gillnetting even if 640 passes) and the rest
split between non-Indian commercial and sports fishers.

Remove the commercial fishermen, and it becomes 50% Indian and
50% sportsfishermen. It's been nearly 20 years since I earned
my BS in Mathematics, but I believe 50% and 50% still add up
to 100%. Correct me if I'm wrong.

In other words, harvest levels won't drop.

I might be wrong about this, but the post on rec.birds in favor
of the measure would seem to support my interpretation of the
proposal.

And, as Jon Anderson points out (private communication), the sports
fishermen have their own bird-death problems, as birds get hooked
fairly frequently (many of have, I'm sure, seen dead birds entangled in
fishing monofilament on the beach). Sportsfishermen, who scream
about birds killed by gillnets, are strangely silent about birds
killed by hook-and-line.

You may be upset by the stand taken by conservation groups, but
keep in mind that they may well have simply decided that this
bill simply favors one special interest group over another, with
no real conservation benefit as a result.

Birders for dead murres? Without data on bird fatalities in the
sports fishery by hook and line, I'd say it's simply an effort
to shift the catch to them by hook or crook! Perhaps it's a
case of birders not convinced the bill addresses the problem
fairly. Jon mentioned some interesting estimates of the scope
of the problem with the sports fishery.

He's reluctant to talk about the stuff openly due to his state
job, which is why I'm being vague (and I hope he doesn't mind
my giving a hint as to why this isn't as black and white as
some might think).

Regarding timber's support, I got this second hand via the post
talking about debate within (I believe?) Seattle Audubon. The
article you mention listed major financial supporters. It may
be possible that the timber industry didn't provide financial
support, but has restrained itself to simply making statements
favoring it. Or perhaps we're misinformed.

I do know that Big Timber in Oregon has publicly stated that
gillnetting is a far bigger cause of salmon decline than timber
practices and has stated that commercial fishing should be halted
before any decisions to improve harvest practices near salmon
streams are made.


- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>