Letter from John Englund:

[Jennie@ifish]

A few of us met with John Englund today at his new store in Astoria and he shared this letter with us, to share with you.

It's all on one PDF document. It's kind of in the wrong order. I think the letter from John should be read first, but it is second, instead.

The first one in order is a letter from US Distributing to their customers and suppliers (many of whom read ifish) and the second is the letter from Mr. John Englund.

Also included are the charts that Mr. Englund used to come to his decision.

I hope you take the time to really read and comprehend what it says.

I would be happy to send it to any other fishing web sites that are interested. Please PM or e mail me if you know of someone who would like a copy.

Thank you,
Jen

You must have Adobe Acrobat (click here) to read it. It is a free download.

http://www.ifish.net/doc/usd.emis.ODFW_LETTER.pdf

If the server is busy on that one, please try:

http://www.ifish.net/doc/Englund.pdf

[Cool Texan]

Interesting to read his side and to see the other documents. Thanks for posting this Jennie!

[wootersen]

Link isn't working for me, I know I have Adobe Acrobat. :whazzup:

[RizzleTay]

Makes sense, I agree totally.

[Killertraylor]

Outstanding! This is why I've supported Mr. Englund from the get-go. Thank you for posting his point of view and for taking the time to go to Astoria to meet with him.

[BM-FISHER]

Wow was I misinformed. Thanks for sharing.

[Wolf EEL]

ya iknew i was right about the ENGLUND family. hi dean hi mark its wes. we will have to go fishing again. good luck.

[Fshklr]

"Quote England
Here is the truth about the impact allocation. Since 2001, a total of 468,000 Spring Chinook have been harvested below Bonneville Dam. These fish have been caught in the mainstem of the Columbia River, in it's many tributaries, and in select downriver areas where specially released hatchery fish are targeted for capture."

Since when did the tributaries of the Columbia become part of the numbers to make his decision and set allocation???

The Commercial Gillnets have testified numerous times to try and include these numbers, that at this time are said NOT to be a factor on the Mainstem of the Columbia River!

smoke and mirrors...Snake oil salesmen

Thanks for read..I expected no less.

[Fish mojo]

Don't it make you just want to go and hug your local gill netter???
<font color="red"> NOT!!! </font>

[Salmonator]

Um, this changes nothing. I'm assuming that Jon Englund doesn't make the average family wage. Does he have to vote for his pocketbook to make it unethical if he has a few dozen gillnetter friends, possibly some of them close friends? Or if he has a son on the board of a major gillnet lobby? Even if he directly or indirectly does not make one thin dime out of the deal? It is not about his pocketbook and I do not believe it ever was.

His own words from his letter...

" As a commisioner, I am required by statute to represent the public interest and provide for a sustainable utilization of wildlife resources for all user groups ".

In my opinion this is exactly where he failed and he couldn't have worded it any better.

[Plunging Float]

Sorry, this just doesn't change my opinion of that vote. If we are going to count the tributaries in this, lets count the ocean catch too. I would think the commercials percentage would rise substantially with that taken into account. I was under the impression that this was for the Columbia River only. Using sport caught tributary fish is a backdoor justification for him. Like I said before, lets count ALL the fish then, not just the ones that illustrate his side of this issue the best.

[Jacks Tackle]

Responses are always interesting after the decisions are made. I cant help but to notice how we are blamed for viciuos attacks on employees. You make your bed, you gotta lay in it.

I think it is time that the fisherman are just tired of funding everything and then getting the cold shoulder. I have never met Mr Englund, this is in no way an attack on his personality, just an observation.

Rob Brown

[M Botch]

Since when did the tributaries of the Columbia become part of the numbers to make his decision and set allocation???

[Killertraylor]

[quote/]

His own words from his letter...

" As a commisioner, I am required by statute to represent the public interest and provide for a sustainable utilization of wildlife resources for all user groups ".

In my opinion this is exactly where he failed and he couldn't have worded it any better.

[/quote]

This is exactly why you should respect his decision - he did EXACTLY what he believed his charge was as a commissioner. You're just upset at the outcome and can't accept a man's convictions who doesn't vote the way YOU want him to.

[FisherJack]

A few of us met with John Englund today at his new store in Astoria and he shared this letter with us, to share with you. * * * Jen

Jennie - Just curious. How was it that this meeting came to be? And, who is "us"? Thanks.

Jack

[Riverkeeper]

Jon Englund,

In your letter, you mention:

The commision decision for 2006, which I supported, is projected by ODFW staff to allocate 84.8% of this season's salmon to sport fisherman and 15.2% to the commercial fleet, a minimal change.

Why must gillnets have to use up 43% of the allowable impact on listed fish just to harvest 15.2% of the total catch? Why are sport fisherman able to land 84.8% of the total catch while only using up 57% of the impact to listed fish?

Your graph shows that in the MAIN STEM COLUMBIA RIVER harvest the sports have taken, on average, 66% of the fish with 57% of the impact allocation, and the gillnets have only taken 33% of the harvest with 43% of the allocation. Why do commercial fisherman have to impact so many ESA fish to harvest so few hatchery fish?

In my opinion, it is because the gillnet is an outdated, excessively harmful tool, which causes a higher than acceptable mortality on ESA listed salmon and non-target native winter steelhead in the process of harvesting a relatively few keeper fish.

As a sport fisherman, I am for an equal split of harvestable fish between sport and commercial users. However I feel that this will never happen as long as the mainstem gillnet is the dominant commercial harvest method. Please help us retire the gillnet as a harvest tool, so that both sport AND commercial users can harvest MORE of the hatchery fish, and BOTH groups can stimulate Oregon's economy. We need YOUR help to bring this change that is obviously needed.

Respectfully,

Riverkeeper

[River Ranger]

Will not change my opinoin,will not buy from him again.He will stand to make a good profit from gill net sales,I would think he makes much more money selling gill netting supplies than spring chinook tackle to sporties.

I hope your not being sympathetic towards John Englund just because he is your friend Jen?Would you feel the same if you had no past ties with him?


Greg klepper

[Killertraylor]

Why shouldn't they??? Gillnetters don't net the tribs - these are all sport cought fish...

[wootersen]

Darian, I couldn't have said it better myself.

[drano100]

Interesting the it was made very clear to the commision in Washington by the presenters that the 82% trib catch was not the number to look at as it had nothing to do with the CR impact, it was a question asked of Cindy Lafur by one of the comm. The number (82%) as she put it is fish harvested total and had nothing to do with setting the gillnet season, it was about split of the 2% impact of ESA listed upriver spring chinook not total number harvested. If you want to look at total harvest commerical fisherman land about 110,000 more salmon a year in oregon then the sportman those chart's and numbers are out their too. SPIN SPIN SPIN

[Chromaflage]

Why must gillnets have to use up 43% of the allowable impact on listed fish just to harvest 15.2% of the total catch? Why are sport fisherman able to land 84.8% of the total catch while only using up 57% of the impact to listed fish?

Exactly my question as well. Further, I'd like to know how they came up with 57% of of the impact for sport fishers - that seems a bit high. I dunno, maybe they physically account for the impact the netters have on the allocation and assume the remainder of the impact is attributed to sport fishers.

CrF

[PapaHog]

This letter only confirmed my resolve to never spend another dime with his companies and the companies that do business with him.

Sorry Jen but I believe his vote hurts the fish and helps the gill netter. I believe gill nets have no business in the big C.

While helping and supplying the gill netter he should loose all the business of the sports fisher and everyone else that cares about the fish and the fish habitat. Gill nets are bad for fish habitat. . . . Don't you think?

Ken

[crabbait]

Jennie - Just curious. How was it that this meeting came to be? And, who is "us"? Thanks.

Jack

Jennie was pretty worn out. I believe she went to bed. We (ifish) were invited to attend. I don't know who else was present.

[Fshklr]

Joe, no hard fellings ... but I don't follow the horn you toot for Mr. England ...

The fact is...they are not currently included!..Therefore, they have no basis for the decision, and to put it in his letter is cleary an attempt to CYA.

gotta call a spade a spade

[RizzleTay]

well if all of you care so much then why don't most of you do something about it except pout here on IFISH about it. Ill care when there are more than 80,000 springers. The alocation is close to the same as it has always been. And you will never rid the river of gill nets no matter how much everyone is up-set. By the way, Englund wasn't the only person who voted. There were some other votes. So lets complain some more it really does a lot of good.

[fergy61]

What about locking us out of the river last sept &amp; then letting the gillnets in clear through oct? It isn't just the spring season we get hosed on.
The one that really chaps my butt is they always let the netters in first &amp; they get their quota. Then when the sporty's get their turn the run suddenly is way short of projected numbers so the CR gets closed to sport fishing. But they make sure the ******* get theirs every time.
How fair is that Mr Englund??

[FisherJack]

Jennie was pretty worn out. I believe she went to bed. We (ifish) were invited to attend. I don't know who else was present.

Crabbait - Were all ifishers invited to attend? Maybe there was something posted here that I missed. I would like to have gone. Did you go, crabbait? If so, who else went? Do you know how it happened that this meeting came to be? Thanks.

Jack

[Killertraylor]

Joe, no hard fellings ... but I don't follow the horn you toot for Mr. England ...

The fact is...they are not currently included!..Therefore, they have no basis for the decision, and to put it in his letter is cleary an attempt to CYA.

gotta call a spade a spade

No problem Dan - we're still friends. I can agree to disagree with classy people like yourself who have a basis for your opinion. The fact of the matter is that I've known Mr. Englund for a number of years and believe he followed his convictions exactly how he should have and although I'm not happy with the outcome, I think most of the criticism towards him is totally uninformed and ignorant.

You are still welcome on my boat anytime Dan.

Joe

[PapaHog]

well if all of you care so much then why don't most of you do something about it except pout here on IFISH about it. Ill care when there are more than 80,000 springers. The alocation is close to the same as it has always been. And you will never rid the river of gill nets no matter how much everyone is up-set. By the way, Englund wasn't the only person who voted. There were some other votes. So lets complain some more it really does a lot of good.

How many of the other people who voted make their income from supplying the gill netters. Which side of the bread is his butter on. The gill netters are his bread and butter and he should have not voted.

[First Light Bite]

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, its probably a duck.
Thanks Jennie for this post as it is interesting however to know some of the logic behind his decision. There will always be at least 2 sides to every issue

[Fshklr]

"So lets complain some more it really does a lot of good."

Seems it's got the attention of many including England!! Why else did he invite Ifish to an informal issue of his side to be posted???

Have YOU been reading???? following the numerous posts and threads???...it's been pointed out numerous times, his vote is a conflict of interest...he knows it..he voted anyway.

If he would have just passed on voting all this would have been settled right then, and he wouldn't be in the pickle he's in now!.

[SalmonAddict]

If we don't complain, it will always be status quo. I've heard no one complain about commercial fishing, just the way the harvest when using gillnets. If the commercial fishermen can harvest their fish without the high mortality rate of ESA listed fish, then so be it. But even Mr. Englunds numbers show that gillnets kill alot of protected fish for a limited number of hatchery fish targeted. For my money, that pretty much sums it up.

[crabbait]

A couple of points:

What about locking us out of the river last sept &amp; then letting the gillnets in clear through oct? It isn't just the spring season we get hosed on.

We get an allocation and the nets get an allocation. Complaining that the commercials can fish when we can't is the same as complaining that other boats are still fishing as we hit the dock limited out for the day.

The one that really chaps my butt is they always let the netters in first &amp; they get their quota. Then when the sporty's get their turn the run suddenly is way short of projected numbers so the CR gets closed to sport fishing. But they make sure the ******* get theirs every time.
How fair is that Mr Englund??

A lot of people are angry about that, but it would ne unfair to blame the failed run predictions on the commission or the commercial fishermen.

[PapaHog]

"So lets complain some more it really does a lot of good."

Seems it's got the attention of many including England!! Why else did he invite Ifish to an informal issue of his side to be posted???

Have YOU been reading???? following the numerous posts and threads???...it's been pointed out numourous times, his vote is a conflict of interest...he knows it..he voted anyway.

If he would have just passed on voting all this would have been settled right then, and he wouldn't be in the pickle he's in now!.

[Fshklr]

No problem Dan - we're still friends. I can agree to disagree with classy people like yourself who have a basis for your opinion. The fact of the matter is that I've known Mr. Englund for a number of years and believe he followed his convictions exactly how he should have and although I'm not happy with the outcome, I think most of the criticism towards him is totally uninformed and ignorant.

You are still welcome on my boat anytime Dan.

Joe

Thanks Joe..Hoping to do just that this June

[Gun Rod Bow]

And you will never rid the river of gill nets no matter how much everyone is up-set.... By the way, Englund wasn't the only person who voted.

And that's where you are wrong. Gillnets are not effective for SELECTIVE fisheries.

Gillnets have been banned from all other rivers in the state. I think enough heat has been created, that you may well see a serious campaign to ban gillnets altogether from the river. For springers, fall fish, sturgeon, shad, smelt the works. I'll back it!

The gillnetters want to count the tribs in the sport catch, but they don't want to admit that the MAJORITY of salmon caught in Oregon are caught by commercial fishing. TRUTH!

The reason with their actual fish numbers are lower when the allocation is basically split evenly is THEY KILL TOO MANY OF THE WRONG FISH.

By Mr. Englunds prophesing this often used half truth, he shows why we sporties are hot.

We've been saying that the sporties make up more of Oregon than the commercials, and the commercials laughed and said we would just go bowling if we couldn't fish. That sportfishing is not a lifestyle or an industry.

Well, I think the commercials and Mr Englund were sorely mistaken.

Jennie, thanks for listening to his side, I'm glad we got his direct comments. I'm now sure a voluntary ban is justified, and I'm proud of the businesses that started it.

[fish_on]

This only makes me think we got even more short sheeted. I noticed that it said nothing about the ocean caught salmon, but they want to include the tributary fish. :whazzup: I just spend 4K on stuff for the new boat and made sure not 1 thing came from U.S. Distributing or Englund Marine. He made a decision and now he doesn't want to live with the consequences.

[crabbait]

Crabbait - Were all ifishers invited to attend? Maybe there was something posted here that I missed. I would like to have gone. Did you go, crabbait? If so, who else went? Do you know how it happened that this meeting came to be? Thanks.

Jack

No. This was a very small meeting. Jenny and JCMD attended representing ifish. A few others were there I believe.

[Fshklr]

[quote

We've been saying that the sporties make up more of Oregon than the commercials, and the commercials laughed and said we would just go bowling if we couldn't fish. That sportfishing is not a lifestyle or an industry.

Well, I think the commercials and Mr Englund were sorely mistaken.

Jennie, thanks for listening to his side, I'm glad we got his direct comments. I'm now sure a voluntary ban is justified, and I'm proud of the businesses that started it.

[/quote]

[Sweepy]

To have the privilege of knowing Jon Englund is knowing a man of the finest integrity. If you do not know or understand integrity you may not have faith in this letter. For those of you who do know integrity, this fine gentleman did what he thought most equitable to all. A positive outlook came out of this meeting, with Ifish membership having Mr. Englunds attention and respect. Peace

[Uglygreen]

If we are going to count the tributaries in this, lets count the ocean catch too.

Good Point! - Brad

[Gun Rod Bow]

You know. A lot of the lumber barons of this state were fine persons who provided lots of jobs and built roads, schools and hospitals...but one funny looking little owl changed all that.

Times change. Indiscriminant harvest of natural resources is sooo yesterday.

Peace Back

[pearl]

Gill nets kill ESA listed steelhead, wild steelhead and ESA protected chinook and Mr. Englund voted to give the commercial interest( aka non selective fishing methods) a greater chance to kill those fish.

I still believe that vote was made due to his interest in his business and the community he lives in.

Throwing the tributaries in is laughable You should all be aware that this is the tactic that will come up time and time again in the future. We are not talking about Willamette, Sandy, Clackamas, Cowlitz, Lewis, Kalama, Klickatat, Wind or any other river then the one called the Columbia!

Don't be fooled by the bar graphs. Harvest is greater by the recreational fisherman because there are 77,00 that fish vs. approximately 175 commercial gill net boats. The commercial interest will continue to tug at the hearts of the non informed public " he gets more fish then me", “I’m just the little guy trying to scratch out a living” and if we don’t allow more commercial fish our kids suicide rates will increase.


Mr Englund: thanks for the reply buy it doesn’t fix your wrongs. I hope we can talk about it more in detail at the Sportsman Show next week, but I will ask you to step outside your booth because I won’t step inside ever again.

[stlhdr1]

I too took time out of my day to go down and meet up with Mr. Englund. I felt it necessary to get to the bottom and see the cold hard facts and more or less get past all the accusations that people pull out of thin air. I wanted to get the real picture of Mr. Englund rather than the picture that has been "painted" by many of the board members here on Ifish over the last few weeks.

There were many questions that were asked on this board that have yet to be answered by Mr. Englund... So I thought I'd share a few of the answers that he had.

Q#1. How much of your business is from Commercial fishing?

A#1. (Mr. Englund) Roughly 60% of his business comes from Commercial fishing which included Crabbers, Long-liners, Trollers, a few others and Gill Netters.

Q#2. How much of the business is directly from Gill Netters?

A#2. (Mr. Englund) I would guess somewhere around 5% of my business is from Columbia River Gill Netters.


It's pretty simple. Mr. Englund took the statistical data he was provided from ODFW which clearly concluded that since 2001 70.8% was taken by Recreational Fisherman and 29.2% by the Commercial fisherman in the Columbia River. When including tributaries there was a 82.6% Recreational take and 17.4% by Commercial...

In my opinion Mr. Englund voted upon the stats that were available. It's that simple. He's no more pro-gillnet than he is pro-sportfisherman. It was not his decision whether gill nets would be used in the river or not, his only play was the %'s of allocation to each party....

On another note, I'm not suggesting I support gillnets, do to the lack of selective ability between wild fish and hatchery.....



Just my

Keith :grin:

[Riverkeeper]

Times change. Indiscriminant harvest of natural resources is sooo yesterday.

Dude that is like SO RIGHT ON! :grin:

A point has been made. We need to start looking for a positive way out of this impasse. Sportfishers, commerical fishers, related companies, and the public in general need to work together for COMMERCIAL HARVEST REFORM on the mainstem Columbia!

I really think we can come up with a new model that will be better for EVERYONE than the current situation.

[ibeanfishin]

DIDDO!

GENE LADDUSAW

[Catching Nemo]

Explaining his vote and showing the data is not relevant, to me, since that wasn't my issue with Mr. Englund (although including trib's but not the ocean and other economic factors doesn't seem fair and balanced).

1. He should not have been nominated to the Commission.

2. He should not have accepted the nomination because of a conflict of interest (both because of type of business and/ or because other family members are part of a gillnet lobby.

3. With regards to the sports fishermen's side of the business. It may well be a large percentage of the overall business. However, that percentage of sports fishermen is heavily weighted towards ocean and coastal trib's and not mainstem Columbia River fishermen. The Columbia River fishermen, that do shop at Englund's, comprise a extremely small percentage of the total number. It is doubtful, that people are driving into Astoria, to shop at Englund's, if Bob's in Longview or Fisherman's in Portland are closer. What about the people who live up in Hood River, or the Dalles, or even further upriver? Sorry, Mr. Englund, but that arguement doesn't cut it.

I don't know if the vote would have been any different with an alternate member. The Commercial Lobby is very well organized and the studies are lacking in providing the whole picture. However, Mr. Englund's participation, on the commission, is a conflict of interest. I would not support the President of North River, nor Fisherman's, on this commission because there is too much of a financial stake at risk. Whether any impropriety occurs or not - it is the "perception" that it could which diminishes the respect and/or validity of a vote cast either way.

[Gun Rod Bow]

Q#2. How much of the business is directly from Gill Netters?

A#2. (Mr. Englund) I would guess somewhere around 5% of my business is from Columbia River Gill Netters.

Timeout...I see this as more of a missleading factoid.

Sure maybe 5% of the nets he sells are used on Columbia River Spring Chinook. But 100% of those license holders also fish other fisheries, like Alaska.

His vote galvanized ALL commercial fisherman. They are as firmly with him as I/we are against. Do you think a commercial troller will by from Englund's or Fisherman's Marine?

Thanks for the info Keith and taking the time, I just don't think it's the whole story.

[Killertraylor]

Keith - I TOTALLY APPLAUD YOU!!!

You were one of the more vehement posters against Mr. Englund and an avid supporter of wild steelhead, which I admire - yet you took the time to discover the FACTS and, just like me - you are disappointed with the outcome, but after the meeting, you understand that Mr. Englund's vote wasn't financially motivated - thank you for having an open mind - I think that is incredibly admirable and took a lot of guts to post.

[Sweepy]

Let's have faith in the Ifish board. The people that keep kicking sand in Mr. Englunds face, may wind up with egg on theirs. Peace

[Killertraylor]

C'mon - how can you say his vote was financially motivated (maybe you didn't - sorry if I misinterpreted) - he was STRICTLY voting on Columbia River Spring Chinook allocation - if only 5% of his profits come from CR Spring Chinook gillnetters, how can you continue to insinuate that he was simply looking out for himself. His vote was fair, informed, and if anything, his conflict of interest with respect to the spring chinook fishery was on the side of sportfishermen and he voted against them.

[stlhdr1]

Keith - I TOTALLY APPLAUD YOU!!!

You were one of the more vehement posters against Mr. Englund and an avid supporter of wild steelhead, which I admire - yet you took the time to discover the FACTS and, just like me - you are disappointed with the outcome, but after the meeting, you understand that Mr. Englund's vote wasn't financially motivated - thank you for having an open mind - I think that is incredibly admirable and took a lot of guts to post.

In all honesty, my integrity isn't on the hot seat. It's Mr. Englund, his business and many family's that work for him.

Do I like to see Gill-nets in the Columbia?? HECK NO! I cringe every day at the fact that another ESA listed Steelhead or Salmon will die to a net.

Keith

[BM-FISHER]

RiverKeeper well very said. I hope you get a response back from him in some way. Are you going to send that massage to him directly.

[Gun Rod Bow]

C'mon - how can you say his vote was financially motivated (maybe you didn't - sorry if I misinterpreted)

Re-read my post, I think I am saying that. Even if it wasn't, his heart is with commercial fishing. His son is an officer of Salmon For All.

He is a pro commercial member. Appointed by a governor who knew that. He did what everyone expected. He just didn't expect it to get so much notice.

I have never attacked him personally or his integrity. Anymore than I would question the integrity of Dan Grogan, Brian Brush or Paige Stevens. They are all doing what they think is right and I think they all are good guys.

I just don't think gillnets belong in ANY of Oregons rivers anymore.

My integrity tells me that if I believe that, I should paticipate in the process, be informed and try to make changes I think are right for the fish.

Double at yah

[Catching Nemo]

Keith - I TOTALLY APPLAUD YOU!!!

You were one of the more vehement posters against Mr. Englund and an avid supporter of wild steelhead, which I admire - yet you took the time to discover the FACTS and, just like me - you are disappointed with the outcome, but after the meeting, you understand that Mr. Englund's vote wasn't financially motivated - thank you for having an open mind - I think that is incredibly admirable and took a lot of guts to post.

Killertraylor,

Please look at my point #3 (posted above). I would like your take on how this portion of the business is comprised. Was any "sports" business really at risk (discounting US Dist. which is biz to biz)? Assuming also, at this point in time, that no commercial business was ever in jeopardy.

Finally, I would like to state that I do not wish to see the Englund's stores, or their employees, get hurt by any of this. There are enough unemployed people in Oregon and we do not need to add to that misery. However, a message was sent. My portion, of that message, was that Mr. Englund should not have been on the commission at all. It has absolutely nothing to do with the data he used to make his decision.

I believe he should resign from the post and I also believe that people, and businesses, should once again do business with Englund's when that is done.

[RizzleTay]

oh wait, yep i heard more crying. He makes more money off of sport fisherman. And who cares. I hope they shut it down completely and everyone has to figure out how to catch them some other way.

[crabbait]

Let's have faith in the Ifish board guiding the membership...

We don't see our role as "guiding the membership". Ifish is about fish and the love of fishing. We want people to have good information from a variety of sources and we want them to have the ability to freely exchange opinions and ideas (within our stated boundaries).

Overall, we are for working together for healthy fish runs.

[pnwcoast]

Sweepy, what proposal?
Care to toss me an egg :grin:

[Gun Rod Bow]

oh wait, yep i heard more crying. He makes more money off of sport fisherman. And who cares. I hope they shut it down completely and everyone has to figure out how to catch them some other way.

Is natural resource preservation about money and jobs??

Ask a logger, a small mill owner, a worker at an aluminum reduction plant, or a rate payer that is paying higher elctrical rates.

At some point, it goes beyond that argument IMO.

[Wingman]

"Quote England
Here is the truth about the impact allocation. Since 2001, a total of 468,000 Spring Chinook have been harvested below Bonneville Dam. These fish have been caught in the mainstem of the Columbia River, in it's many tributaries, and in select downriver areas where specially released hatchery fish are targeted for capture."

Since when did the tributaries of the Columbia become part of the numbers to make his decision and set allocation???

The Commercial Gillnets have testified numerous times to try and include these numbers, that at this time are said NOT to be a factor on the Mainstem of the Columbia River!

smoke and mirrors...Snake oil salesmen

Thanks for read..I expected no less.