End commercial gillnetting on the Columbia River. Need your help

[kentrek]

Netting isn't the problem. Habitat and management is the problem. Alaska is proof of that. There is all kinds of netting there and we've been having record runs. But you have to have plenty of good habitat, and you need managers and a plan that puts getting a minimum number of fish to the spawning grounds. On the Copper River Delta where I gillnet, we have a sonar in the river and Fish and Game has escapement goals for every day of the run. If the minimum escapement isn't being met, Our fishing time is restricted or in severe shortages, shut down until the numbers pick up. And if the maximum desired escapement is exceeded, we are given extra fishing time. The escapement includes a certain # for breeding, and a certain # for other user groups, which include subsistence users, personal use users, and sports fishermen.

Do you really think commercial fishermen want to catch every last fish? That's crazy talk, because then their livelyhood is gone. Just like you want to catch fish in the future, so do we. Why would we want to make a few more thousand dollars this year if it meant we lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in the future. We are smart enough to know we need breeding stock to sustain runs.

I believe the State of Washinton under escapes wild fish every year and that's a big part of the problem. It also depends too much on hatchery fish which just compounds the problem for wild fish. And there is too much degraded habitat here. The State won't enforce good water quality standards on private landholders including timberland owners.  But as long as the salmon user groups can be kept fighting each other, no one will hold the State responsible for doing what is really right by the salmon. They'll just keep hiding the problem with hatcheries and at the same time add to the problem.

 

[WDFW Hates ME!!!]

Record runs??? Look at the the collapse on the kenai and the kasiloff, and every tributary in cook inlet. No record runs there... Destroyed by nets

And in some instances destroyed by the removal of biomass in the salt. A million pounds of herring in one net? I bet that wont make a difference.

Yes habitat is a huge factor, so is ocean conditions. But you toss in a net and you got an indiscriminate killer. I could care less if the commercial guys took fish out of the hatchery, or if they netted fish in the tribs, but get them out of the mainstream.

And hatcheries could go away if we could figure out a way to rebuild the wild runs, but nets don't choose to release wild fish and you know that. What is the mortality of a wild fish in a net?

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Record runs??? Look at the the collapse on the kenai and the kasiloff, and every tributary in cook inlet. No record runs there... Destroyed by nets

And in some instances destroyed by the removal of biomass in the salt. A million pounds of herring in one net? I bet that wont make a difference.

And hatcheries could go away if we could figure out a way to rebuild the wild runs

On the Kenai the problem is King runs. There are two King runs, the early run and the late run. The late run happens during the gillnet fishery, the early run hasn't been fished commercially for decades. Guess which run is in the most trouble? The early run that doesn't get commercially fished.  But it does get hammered by the sport fishery. Now I'm not blaming the low king runs totally on the sports fishery, but it is a factor. It has exploded since the 80s especially the guided sport fishery and a new fishery has been added, the personal use dipnet fishery.  But even all that is not the answer. There has been a problem with ocean survival for kings and to some extent silvers, all across Alaska. It's not a local issue even though it feels like it when there are few king in your local stream. It could be a regime change in the ocean, in other words, changes are occurring that allow some species to flourish while others struggle, or it could be the unregulated (now regulated to a degree) bycatch of immature kings by the pollack fleet in the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea, or it could be a combination of the two or something totally different.  But it's going on State wide.

As for record runs now days, you might look at sockeyes. In the 1980's when king runs on the Kenai were flourishing with runs of 40,000 to 90,000, sockeye runs averaged 2 million or so fish per year. Today, during the dark days of King runs, the average sockeye run in the Kenai is 4 million fish. So yes there are record runs, just not of those big Kings everybody loves to catch. The Kings are being loved to death.

The herring catch you're referring to must be the one a few years ago near Sitka. What one boat catches isn't nearly as important as what the fleet catches in relationship to the total biomass. This year's quota in Sitka was 28,000 tons. Only 13,500 tons of the quota were caught. If one boat caught 1,500 tons, that's no big deal. No more so than if one charter boat brought in 30 salmon, and another only 12. It's the total season catch that matters.

There is a way to rebuild wild runs, but we don't have the collective will to do it because of all the infighting between user groups (and that's the way some want it to stay), and the fact that 100's of thousands if not millions live in the watersheds and so many industries with political connections depend on the water the salmon need to flourish. The number one factor that would bring back wild salmon runs on the Columbia and it's upper tributaries is get rid of the dams. Talk about indiscriminate killers. But I doubt I'll see that in my lifetime.

[Curly]

The number one factor that would bring back wild salmon runs on the Columbia and it's upper tributaries is get rid of the dams. Talk about indiscriminate killers. But I doubt I'll see that in my lifetime

Columbia R dam removal is never going to happen.  The easiest way to help wild salmon runs immediately would be to 1) eliminate commercial gill nets and 2) eliminate at least half of the sealion poplulation.

[WSU]

Netting isn't the problem. Habitat and management is the problem. Alaska is proof of that. There is all kinds of netting there and we've been having record runs. But you have to have plenty of good habitat, and you need managers and a plan that puts getting a minimum number of fish to the spawning grounds. On the Copper River Delta where I gillnet, we have a sonar in the river and Fish and Game has escapement goals for every day of the run. If the minimum escapement isn't being met, Our fishing time is restricted or in severe shortages, shut down until the numbers pick up. And if the maximum desired escapement is exceeded, we are given extra fishing time. The escapement includes a certain # for breeding, and a certain # for other user groups, which include subsistence users, personal use users, and sports fishermen.

Do you really think commercial fishermen want to catch every last fish? That's crazy talk, because then their livelyhood is gone. Just like you want to catch fish in the future, so do we. Why would we want to make a few more thousand dollars this year if it meant we lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in the future. We are smart enough to know we need breeding stock to sustain runs.

I believe the State of Washinton under escapes wild fish every year and that's a big part of the problem. It also depends too much on hatchery fish which just compounds the problem for wild fish. And there is too much degraded habitat here. The State won't enforce good water quality standards on private landholders including timberland owners.  But as long as the salmon user groups can be kept fighting each other, no one will hold the State responsible for doing what is really right by the salmon. They'll just keep hiding the problem with hatcheries and at the same time add to the problem.

First, your argument that the fish are the publics doesn't hold water.  The tribes can and will continue to commercial fish and can and will continue to provide fish to the public.  We don't need a few guys in Aberdeen (or the big C) using gillnets to provide fish. 

Second, gillnetters are very guilty of over-harvesting.  Every year they go to North of Falcon and commission meetings and push for the longest seasons possible.  This year, sports at North of Falcon voluntarily decided they did not want to harvest chum in Grays Harbor.  The gillnetters volunteered to take those fish (rather than waste them by spawning).  Then, not only did they kill those fish that sporties wanted left for the gravel, but they blew past the quota and killed 400 and some odd percent of what they were supposed to.  Gillnetters desire to catch the maximum amount (maximum sustainable yield is how our fisheries are managed, with the idea that we need to kill every possible fish or else they are wasted) drives the continuing occurrence of over-fishing.  Gillnetters have been doing it for hundreds of years and are still doing it today.  It is proven fact that they are not capable of fishing without over-fishign.  While we are in agreement that habitat issues exist, getting rid of gillnetters who chronically over-harvest is much easier than stopping all logging, road building, home building, and moving a lot of the existing development.

[WSU]

Record runs??? Look at the the collapse on the kenai and the kasiloff, and every tributary in cook inlet. No record runs there... Destroyed by nets

And in some instances destroyed by the removal of biomass in the salt. A million pounds of herring in one net? I bet that wont make a difference.

And hatcheries could go away if we could figure out a way to rebuild the wild runs

On the Kenai the problem is King runs. There are two King runs, the early run and the late run. The late run happens during the gillnet fishery, the early run hasn't been fished commercially for decades. Guess which run is in the most trouble? The early run that doesn't get commercially fished.  But it does get hammered by the sport fishery. Now I'm not blaming the low king runs totally on the sports fishery, but it is a factor. It has exploded since the 80s especially the guided sport fishery and a new fishery has been added, the personal use dipnet fishery.  But even all that is not the answer. There has been a problem with ocean survival for kings and to some extent silvers, all across Alaska. It's not a local issue even though it feels like it when there are few king in your local stream. It could be a regime change in the ocean, in other words, changes are occurring that allow some species to flourish while others struggle, or it could be the unregulated (now regulated to a degree) bycatch of immature kings by the pollack fleet in the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea, or it could be a combination of the two or something totally different.  But it's going on State wide.

As for record runs now days, you might look at sockeyes. In the 1980's when king runs on the Kenai were flourishing with runs of 40,000 to 90,000, sockeye runs averaged 2 million or so fish per year. Today, during the dark days of King runs, the average sockeye run in the Kenai is 4 million fish. So yes there are record runs, just not of those big Kings everybody loves to catch. The Kings are being loved to death.

Sockeye are fished hard by the commercials on the Kenai system and mass produced for commecial harvest.  This netting has a big impact on the king runs, as kings are caught as bycatch (gillnets are not capable of targetting a single species).  I'm not arguing that commercials are solely to blame, as the statewide melt-down would seem to indicate some other contributing cause like ocean conditions is partly to blame.

Also, I don't argue that the sport fishery appears out of control.  I also don't like that everyone goes up there to kill the biggest salmon of the run.  We are naturally selecting for smaller fish.  For that reason, I don't keep any wild kings over 30 and let one go this year that was an estimated 35.  I think everyone should be putting their money were their mouth is.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

First, your argument that the fish are the publics doesn't hold water.  The tribes can and will continue to commercial fish and can and will continue to provide fish to the public.  We don't need a few guys in Aberdeen (or the big C) using gillnets to provide fish. 

Second, gillnetters are very guilty of over-harvesting.  Every year they go to North of Falcon and commission meetings and push for the longest seasons possible.  This year, sports at North of Falcon voluntarily decided they did not want to harvest chum in Grays Harbor.  The gillnetters volunteered to take those fish (rather than waste them by spawning).  Then, not only did they kill those fish that sporties wanted left for the gravel, but they blew past the quota and killed 400 and some odd percent of what they were supposed to.  Gillnetters desire to catch the maximum amount (maximum sustainable yield is how our fisheries are managed, with the idea that we need to kill every possible fish or else they are wasted) drives the continuing occurrence of over-fishing.  Gillnetters have been doing it for hundreds of years and are still doing it today.  It is proven fact that they are not capable of fishing without over-fishign.  While we are in agreement that habitat issues exist, getting rid of gillnetters who chronically over-harvest is much easier than stopping all logging, road building, home building, and moving a lot of the existing development.

 Do you ever listen to yourself? And better yet, do you really believe what you spout?

Who's fish are they if they aren't the public's?

And how is it somehow better if native fishermen GILLNET those fish than non-natives? Do you think replacing non native fishermen with native fishermen is going to change one thing? Is having natives using gillnets to provide fish any different than non natives using gillnets providing fish?

As for your chum assertions, Is non natives taking 1,000 chums for the season worse than the natives taking 5,000? Explain the difference to me.  And explain why the non natives were allowed to retain chums at all?  Was it maybe because it became apparent the run was larger than forecast? Or they were catching hatchery chums?

And are you trying to tell me that sport fisherman don't fight to catch every last fish they can? Heck they even catch more than their limit and release them, killing many in the process and stressing even more.  It's human nature to be greedy. The way to fix that is to have good management, a well regulated fishery, and good enforcement.  That takes care of the greedy guys on both sides of the issue.

[WSU]

First, your argument that the fish are the publics doesn't hold water.  The tribes can and will continue to commercial fish and can and will continue to provide fish to the public.  We don't need a few guys in Aberdeen (or the big C) using gillnets to provide fish. 

Second, gillnetters are very guilty of over-harvesting.  Every year they go to North of Falcon and commission meetings and push for the longest seasons possible.  This year, sports at North of Falcon voluntarily decided they did not want to harvest chum in Grays Harbor.  The gillnetters volunteered to take those fish (rather than waste them by spawning).  Then, not only did they kill those fish that sporties wanted left for the gravel, but they blew past the quota and killed 400 and some odd percent of what they were supposed to.  Gillnetters desire to catch the maximum amount (maximum sustainable yield is how our fisheries are managed, with the idea that we need to kill every possible fish or else they are wasted) drives the continuing occurrence of over-fishing.  Gillnetters have been doing it for hundreds of years and are still doing it today.  It is proven fact that they are not capable of fishing without over-fishign.  While we are in agreement that habitat issues exist, getting rid of gillnetters who chronically over-harvest is much easier than stopping all logging, road building, home building, and moving a lot of the existing development.

 Do you ever listen to yourself? And better yet, do you really believe what you spout?

Who's fish are they if they aren't the public's?

And how is it somehow better if native fishermen GILLNET those fish than non-natives? Do you think replacing non native fishermen with native fishermen is going to change one thing? Is having natives using gillnets to provide fish any different than non natives using gillnets providing fish?

As for your chum assertions, Is non natives taking 1,000 chums for the season worse than the natives taking 5,000? Explain the difference to me.  And explain why the non natives were allowed to retain chums at all?  Was it maybe because it became apparent the run was larger than forecast? Or they were catching hatchery chums?

And are you trying to tell me that sport fisherman don't fight to catch every last fish they can? Heck they even catch more than their limit and release them, killing many in the process and stressing even more.  It's human nature to be greedy. The way to fix that is to have good management, a well regulated fishery, and good enforcement.  That takes care of the greedy guys on both sides of the issue.

The difference is that we can't do anything about native fishing.  I'm not saying that I prefer one over the other.  What I am saying is we are stuck with tribal fishing, like it or not, but we are not stuck with non-tribal fishing.  I'm saying we should change what we can.

[WSU]

First, your argument that the fish are the publics doesn't hold water.  The tribes can and will continue to commercial fish and can and will continue to provide fish to the public.  We don't need a few guys in Aberdeen (or the big C) using gillnets to provide fish. 

Second, gillnetters are very guilty of over-harvesting.  Every year they go to North of Falcon and commission meetings and push for the longest seasons possible.  This year, sports at North of Falcon voluntarily decided they did not want to harvest chum in Grays Harbor.  The gillnetters volunteered to take those fish (rather than waste them by spawning).  Then, not only did they kill those fish that sporties wanted left for the gravel, but they blew past the quota and killed 400 and some odd percent of what they were supposed to.  Gillnetters desire to catch the maximum amount (maximum sustainable yield is how our fisheries are managed, with the idea that we need to kill every possible fish or else they are wasted) drives the continuing occurrence of over-fishing.  Gillnetters have been doing it for hundreds of years and are still doing it today.  It is proven fact that they are not capable of fishing without over-fishign.  While we are in agreement that habitat issues exist, getting rid of gillnetters who chronically over-harvest is much easier than stopping all logging, road building, home building, and moving a lot of the existing development.

 Do you ever listen to yourself? And better yet, do you really believe what you spout?

Who's fish are they if they aren't the public's?

And how is it somehow better if native fishermen GILLNET those fish than non-natives? Do you think replacing non native fishermen with native fishermen is going to change one thing? Is having natives using gillnets to provide fish any different than non natives using gillnets providing fish?

As for your chum assertions, Is non natives taking 1,000 chums for the season worse than the natives taking 5,000? Explain the difference to me.  And explain why the non natives were allowed to retain chums at all?  Was it maybe because it became apparent the run was larger than forecast? Or they were catching hatchery chums?

And are you trying to tell me that sport fisherman don't fight to catch every last fish they can? Heck they even catch more than their limit and release them, killing many in the process and stressing even more.  It's human nature to be greedy. The way to fix that is to have good management, a well regulated fishery, and good enforcement.  That takes care of the greedy guys on both sides of the issue.

Also, I'm 100% agreeing that they are the public's fish.  I was disagreeing with the age old argument that we need a couple dozen commercial fisherman being propped up by my tax dollars to provide them to the non-fishing public.  The tribal fishers, that we all agree we are stuck with for better or worse, can and do provide those fish to the non-fishing public.  And, for better or worse, they will continue to do so. 

The chum decision was based upon pre-season estimates of run abundance, just like all other commercial and recreational seasons, which you would know if you were as familiar with gillnet harvest as you claim to be.  And, if you were as familiar as you claim to be, you would know that they are catching some hatchery fish (likely from the Satsop) and some non-hatchery fish.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Sockeye are fished hard by the commercials on the Kenai system and mass produced for commecial harvest.  This netting has a big impact on the king runs, as kings are caught as bycatch (gillnets are not capable of targetting a single species).  I'm not arguing that commercials are solely to blame, as the statewide melt-down would seem to indicate some other contributing cause like ocean conditions is partly to blame.

Also, I don't argue that the sport fishery appears out of control.  I also don't like that everyone goes up there to kill the biggest salmon of the run.  We are naturally selecting for smaller fish.  For that reason, I don't keep any wild kings over 30 and let one go this year that was an estimated 35.  I think everyone should be putting their money were their mouth is.

Mass produced? This is a wild native run.  Nobody is producing anything except nature.  But suppose for a minute this is true and these runs were mass produced for the commercial fishery. Isn't that good for everybody? More fish for sports fishermen, more fish for personal use/dipnet fishermen, more fish for subsistence fishermen..........Isn't everybody happy in this scenario?

Think about this. The Kenai sockeyes are targeted and hammered on by the commercial fleet, those guys you say are chronic over harvesters. And yet the sockeye run there are thriving. Your "commercial gillnetters are killing all the salmon" argument doesn't hold water in a well managed fishery.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

The difference is that we can't do anything about native fishing.  I'm not saying that I prefer one over the other.  What I am saying is we are stuck with tribal fishing, like it or not, but we are not stuck with non-tribal fishing.  I'm saying we should change what we can.

So basically, you're saying.... It won't make a lick of difference because those fish will just be caught by tribal fishermen, but I'll feel better because I eliminated some competition who will just be replaced by someone I can't get rid of.

Now my question to you is, Who are you going to blame after a hand full of non tribal fishermen are gone?

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Also, I'm 100% agreeing that they are the public's fish.  I was disagreeing with the age old argument that we need a couple dozen commercial fisherman being propped up by my tax dollars to provide them to the non-fishing public.  The tribal fishers, that we all agree we are stuck with for better or worse, can and do provide those fish to the non-fishing public.  And, for better or worse, they will continue to do so. 

The chum decision was based upon pre-season estimates of run abundance, just like all other commercial and recreational seasons, which you would know if you were as familiar with gillnet harvest as you claim to be.  And, if you were as familiar as you claim to be, you would know that they are catching some hatchery fish (likely from the Satsop) and some non-hatchery fish.

Propped up by your tax dollars? Good grief, now the gillnetters are welfare recipients?

I am very familiar with gillnet harvests as that has been my occupation since 1970. I just wanted to hear you admit that preseason forecasts are just that, a forecast or educated guess. The fact is if in season indicators show that the forecast was off, adjustments can be made to the season. And I also wanted to hear you admit that they were keeping hatchery fish and those weren't restricted.

Besides being a lifelong gillnetter, My grandfather owned one of the largest salmon processing plants in Wahington. He bought fish from all over western Washington including from most of the tribes and many hatcheries including those on the Columbia. He was also issued the first permit by the State to buy steelhead from the tribes.  My great uncle was one of the lawyers who argued for the tribes during the Boldt decision. I'm quite familiar with issues regarding salmon.

[WSU]

The difference is that we can't do anything about native fishing.  I'm not saying that I prefer one over the other.  What I am saying is we are stuck with tribal fishing, like it or not, but we are not stuck with non-tribal fishing.  I'm saying we should change what we can.

So basically, you're saying.... It won't make a lick of difference because those fish will just be caught by tribal fishermen, but I'll feel better because I eliminated some competition who will just be replaced by someone I can't get rid of.

Now my question to you is, Who are you going to blame after a hand full of non tribal fishermen are gone?

That is not at all what I'm saying.  Perhaps more targetted fish will survive to spawn, and perhaps more fish won't.  If you read the rest of this thread, you will see that I have been arguing that the tribal and non-tribal share of the catch will not change.  This means that sport-fishers will get the entire 50%.  I have also posted a study which shows that sportfishing already accounts millions more dollars in our economy.  The result will be more sportfishing and millions more dollars in our economy.  We also will eliminate the bycatch that is rampant with gillnets, meaning we won't do as much harm to stocks that are not targeted.  The fact is that commercial salmon fishing in Washington is basically a welfare system that props up an obsolete industry and costs our state millions.  And, while costing us millions, it only provides a very part time job (by your own admission, commercials only fish a number of days per year).  It seems stupid to me to waste millions of dollars and use our tax dollars to do so only to provide a week's worth of work to a couple dozen people.  Please explain how that makes sense.

[WSU]

Also, I'm 100% agreeing that they are the public's fish.  I was disagreeing with the age old argument that we need a couple dozen commercial fisherman being propped up by my tax dollars to provide them to the non-fishing public.  The tribal fishers, that we all agree we are stuck with for better or worse, can and do provide those fish to the non-fishing public.  And, for better or worse, they will continue to do so. 

The chum decision was based upon pre-season estimates of run abundance, just like all other commercial and recreational seasons, which you would know if you were as familiar with gillnet harvest as you claim to be.  And, if you were as familiar as you claim to be, you would know that they are catching some hatchery fish (likely from the Satsop) and some non-hatchery fish.

Propped up by your tax dollars? Good grief, now the gillnetters are welfare recipients?

I am very familiar with gillnet harvests as that has been my occupation since 1970. I just wanted to hear you admit that preseason forecasts are just that, a forecast or educated guess. The fact is if in season indicators show that the forecast was off, adjustments can be made to the season. And I also wanted to hear you admit that they were keeping hatchery fish and those weren't restricted.

Besides being a lifelong gillnetter, My grandfather owned one of the largest salmon processing plants in Wahington. He bought fish from all over western Washington including from most of the tribes and many hatcheries including those on the Columbia. He was also issued the first permit by the State to buy steelhead from the tribes.  My great uncle was one of the lawyers who argued for the tribes during the Boldt decision. I'm quite familiar with issues regarding salmon.

And there it is.  People on the dole usually want to stay on the dole.  What do you do for your fulltime job?

[JimmyHoffa]

What is the overall difficulty in transitioning those gillnetters to something like purse seining?  The purse seiners tend to give fish a better chance of survival upon releasing than the gillnets, better for selective harvesting.  I'm not against the commercial take of their portion of the quota, just the method they are using--from what I've seen provides a dead/dying harvest vs a live harvest.  They used to use fish traps all over the state, but those were banned by the voters around 1935..from what I've read mostly due to how much they deplete the runs.