End commercial gillnetting on the Columbia River. Need your help

[runamuk]

I will never support a ban unless it is fairly applied to all people regardless of race or other "treaties".

  too many things have been lost to us...all the nets go or we watch the fish go .....

All or nothing will eventually accomplish nothing. This is probably not the stand that will best affect change in salmon stocks. I agree with Curly. You have to start somewhere and we could start with ourselves, trying to convince Native councils to adopt like, sensible restrictions after results are shown.

I will just have to disagree    if the natives get 50% of the harvest (that is what the Boldt decision dealt with) reducing our portion to near zero and doing nothing for them is not gonna work...across the board reduction has to happen.... so lower the entire harvest for all on the river, shorten all seasons, remove all nets.....but do it equitably to all who rely on this resource, and dont say white fishermen dont rely on it and natives do because that is crap.  If white men can find a new income so can the natives.  +

[pianoman9701]

I will never support a ban unless it is fairly applied to all people regardless of race or other "treaties".

  too many things have been lost to us...all the nets go or we watch the fish go .....

All or nothing will eventually accomplish nothing. This is probably not the stand that will best affect change in salmon stocks. I agree with Curly. You have to start somewhere and we could start with ourselves, trying to convince Native councils to adopt like, sensible restrictions after results are shown.

I will just have to disagree    if the natives get 50% of the harvest (that is what the Boldt decision dealt with) reducing our portion to near zero and doing nothing for them is not gonna work...across the board reduction has to happen.... so lower the entire harvest for all on the river, shorten all seasons, remove all nets.....but do it equitably to all who rely on this resource, and dont say white fishermen dont rely on it and natives do because that is crap.  If white men can find a new income so can the natives.  +

Then you'll have to be happy with nothing.  They're not going to give up their treaty rights.

[runamuk]

I will never support a ban unless it is fairly applied to all people regardless of race or other "treaties".

  too many things have been lost to us...all the nets go or we watch the fish go .....

All or nothing will eventually accomplish nothing. This is probably not the stand that will best affect change in salmon stocks. I agree with Curly. You have to start somewhere and we could start with ourselves, trying to convince Native councils to adopt like, sensible restrictions after results are shown.

I will just have to disagree    if the natives get 50% of the harvest (that is what the Boldt decision dealt with) reducing our portion to near zero and doing nothing for them is not gonna work...across the board reduction has to happen.... so lower the entire harvest for all on the river, shorten all seasons, remove all nets.....but do it equitably to all who rely on this resource, and dont say white fishermen dont rely on it and natives do because that is crap.  If white men can find a new income so can the natives.  +

Then you'll have to be happy with nothing.  They're not going to give up their treaty rights.

then there will be nothing for all equally  the treaty if it was enforced correctly allows for harvest reduction....not sure if we need a wdfw with a set of testes or what but its not that hard they get 50% of the harvest...so reduce the harvest and enforce it....

[pianoman9701]

Reduction is different from ending it. We're arguing over nothing, literally. 

[WSU]

I will never support a ban unless it is fairly applied to all people regardless of race or other "treaties".

  too many things have been lost to us...all the nets go or we watch the fish go .....

All or nothing will eventually accomplish nothing. This is probably not the stand that will best affect change in salmon stocks. I agree with Curly. You have to start somewhere and we could start with ourselves, trying to convince Native councils to adopt like, sensible restrictions after results are shown.

I will just have to disagree    if the natives get 50% of the harvest (that is what the Boldt decision dealt with) reducing our portion to near zero and doing nothing for them is not gonna work...across the board reduction has to happen.... so lower the entire harvest for all on the river, shorten all seasons, remove all nets.....but do it equitably to all who rely on this resource, and dont say white fishermen dont rely on it and natives do because that is crap.  If white men can find a new income so can the natives.  +

Your post shows a huge lack of understanding of how catch on the Columbia is structured.  The 50% harvest is split between tribal and non-tribal, meaning the non-tribal 50% is split between sportfishers and commercials.  The tribe's harvest won't change whether or not commercials are fishing the big C.  What will change is the sportfishers' catch.  All catch is limited by ESA impacts, meaning that a certain number of fish are going to die whether it is sportfishers, tribes, or non-tribal commercials who kill them.  The only change will be who gets to kill them.  If the commercials go, our seasons get longer and we get to kill the non-tribal share.  This will produce millions of dollars a year in economic benefit every year that we are currently pissing away in order to prop up an obsolete industry that has no business draining our economy. 

And your comment about "white men" finding new income is also incorrect.  Almost none of the gillnetters use gillnetting as a full time job, and there are not all that many netters in the first place.  Simply put, they don't rely on fishing the big C in nearly the same way as the tribes.  More importantly, the fact that 100 or so people choose to harvest our public resource for profit does not give them any more right to continue doing so that it did when commercial hunters were slaughtering our buffalo. 

[cohoho]

Well stated WSU, I got to agree with you for sure.  Get rid of the commercial nets and it will allow us as recreational fishermen who pump excessive amounts of money into the economy more fun for fishing.  The natives, well they will get their half until sometime in the future a decision could rule against their allotment.  If you think for one minute about how many boats are on the Columbia during Springer season, then again at Buoy 10 during fall kings, it is staggering to think of the money that is generated by this influx of business, launch fees, gas, equipment, boats, chips, beers, restaurant, camping areas, hotels and the list goes on up and down the I-5 corridor.  What do the commercial contribute?  Very little - except they know how to lobby, unlike us as a whole can't get past the first hurdle in any point or issue.  They gain making a profit and that profit is mostly due from part time jobs for extra incomes, not absolutely sure here in Washington and I could be wrong in that regards, but most Commercial guys that I knew in AK did it as a PT job for shear profit.  Half is still better than none, so a great start is the commercial nets being gone....   Look at Sturgeon- granted other variables, but commercial's play heavily into that drop ratio on their by catch alone....

[runamuk]

well you say there aren't many nets and they dont make much money...oh ok...then why do they need to go    oh thats right sportfishing wants that share of the fish ...great for sport fishermen but not for the guys losing their livelihood.... so sell me on why I should care about sport fishermen more than commercial guys or more than natives? 
Whats your sales pitch?

[cohoho]

Sportfishermen put their money into the economy where commerical netters are making $$ from their activities. 

[Button Nubbs]

Annnnd BOOM goes the dynamite!

[kentrek]

Sportfishermen put their money into the economy where commerical netters are making $$ from their activities.

and then spend there earnd money where ? back into the economy aswell.. 

[jackmaster]

sportfisherman put more into the economy than commercial guys, not to mention the money that gets poured into little towns like chinook or illwaco, comercial guys dont pump money into those towns like sportfisherman, and like what was said before those comercial guys that net the rivers dont rely solely on their catch, they are doing it for the extra cash, i dont blame them, i would love to be able to comercial fish for herring, but that wont ever happen getting a permitt is damn near impossible, but thats besides the point, if they want to keep on with commercial nets then limit them to the ocean only, there should be ZERO nets in any rivers, natives included, but that is for a later battle, i have watched natives net the puyallup for years and it is just flat wrong, if it was round eyes doing what they are doing we would be strung up by the media and are goverment, sorry gettn off thread a bit...

[boneaddict]

Net them all.   Until the fishery is completely destroyed  there will be no way to get the tribal nets out.   The whole thing is ridiculous.  Try to be conservative minded and the tribes will just take more.  Its ridiculous. 

[pianoman9701]

sportfisherman put more into the economy than commercial guys, not to mention the money that gets poured into little towns like chinook or illwaco, comercial guys dont pump money into those towns like sportfisherman, and like what was said before those comercial guys that net the rivers dont rely solely on their catch, they are doing it for the extra cash, i dont blame them, i would love to be able to comercial fish for herring, but that wont ever happen getting a permitt is damn near impossible, but thats besides the point, if they want to keep on with commercial nets then limit them to the ocean only, there should be ZERO nets in any rivers, natives included, but that is for a later battle, i have watched natives net the puyallup for years and it is just flat wrong, if it was round eyes doing what they are doing we would be strung up by the media and are goverment, sorry gettn off thread a bit...

I'm not advocating commercial fishing in the Columbia, but I don't know that your statement is accurate or even verifiable. Do you have any statistics to back it up? Commercial boats employ people who then spend their income where they live. They also sell their fish to brokers who make some money selling to fish stands and grocery stores, the profits from which go to employ more people and use peripheral services to run their shops. To use as your argument that sport fisherman put more into the economy without substantiation is not making a great argument. Show me the money.

[runamuk]

sportfisherman put more into the economy than commercial guys, not to mention the money that gets poured into little towns like chinook or illwaco, comercial guys dont pump money into those towns like sportfisherman, and like what was said before those comercial guys that net the rivers dont rely solely on their catch, they are doing it for the extra cash, i dont blame them, i would love to be able to comercial fish for herring, but that wont ever happen getting a permitt is damn near impossible, but thats besides the point, if they want to keep on with commercial nets then limit them to the ocean only, there should be ZERO nets in any rivers, natives included, but that is for a later battle, i have watched natives net the puyallup for years and it is just flat wrong, if it was round eyes doing what they are doing we would be strung up by the media and are goverment, sorry gettn off thread a bit...

I'm not advocating commercial fishing in the Columbia, but I don't know that your statement is accurate or even verifiable. Do you have any statistics to back it up? Commercial boats employ people who then spend their income where they live. They also sell their fish to brokers who make some money selling to fish stands and grocery stores, the profits from which go to employ more people and use peripheral services to run their shops. To use as your argument that sport fisherman put more into the economy without substantiation is not making a great argument. Show me the money.

they also often are property owners in the community paying property taxes and levies, not to mention B&O and other taxes related to operating a business then add in permitting licensing for fishing and boats and equipment.  again why do sportsmen deserve that portion of the catch?  because that is what I am hearing sportsmen are more entitled to those fish than the commercial guys.

[Maverick]

I will never support a ban unless it is fairly applied to all people regardless of race or other "treaties".

  too many things have been lost to us...all the nets go or we watch the fish go .....