Coastal Fishing Forums: AllCoast banner
1 - 1 of 1 Posts

· Registered
1,906 Posts
>As you are all aware by now we are faced with an impending
>disaster to
>our 2006 ocean salmon season. Due to the dangerously low
>spawning of salmon in the Klamath, our salmon season is going
>to be shut down

First off I would like to say that I think closures should be a last resort always. I also think that the first closures should always be commercial and not recreational.(I am sure some commercials or going to flame me for that comment)

Second, and I am just wondering, if the spawning is at a dangerously low level, why would we not want to close that fishery until it rebounds or severly restrict it?

Again, I don't like my fishing to be restricted, but if a fishery is in trouble I wouldn't want to be the cause of wiping it out. It seems to me that the spawning levels should be rebuilt to protect the future of that fishery.

If they have no proof that the levels are low, then agree that it should remain open. But if it is true, then they should close it off to the commercials first and restrict the limit to 1 fish per angler per day. JMO

I don't know anything about that fishery and I am not trying stir anything up, but I just didn't understand why we would want to leave something open if the statement above was true. If someone involved in the process could convince me as to why I should support this, then I would be more then happy to give my support.

Just looking for an understanding here.
1 - 1 of 1 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.