[markg]

I confess that I dont know that much about it. I know that I love fishing and would hate to see things get worse than they are. I simply expressed an opinion. I will readily admit that many on this forum know a great deal more about things than I do.

With that said I havent seen a solution to the problem that didn't involve pandering to one group or another. I see a lot of blame being passed around. I believe rightly or wrongly that all parties involved have contributed to the problem and must be part of the solution. As stakeholders they can continue the blame game and let the problem get worse.

Whats the worse that could happen if all fishing by all parties was stopped for 5 years? Would the Salmon population be better or worse? I am in no way saying it would be a easy or simple solution to the problem. I know the impact it would have on the economy in the short term. I owned my own modestly successful business for 10 years and understand what this would mean.

What would it mean to the west coast economy if the entire fishery collapses permanently? All those tourist dollars would be permanently lost.

I think we need to look at the bigger picture and approach the problem with the long game in mind. If the salmon stocks could be brought back to a sustainable level then all stakeholders would benefit. The question is will all those affected rather point fingers at others or be willing to make radical changes so that they and there grand children could enjoy a Salmon fishery for all people and generations.

I could be wrong and I am willing to listen to other solutions.