Post by: CamoDup on October 15, 2012, 07:44:22 PM
An important message from CCA Washington:
We have no doubt that you have closely followed the many recent twists and turns of the collective efforts of CCA in Oregon and Washington to put an end to commercial gillnetting on the Columbia River. CCA’s actions over the past several years, including this year’s ballot measure effort in Oregon, have been strategically focused on getting indiscriminate gillnets off of our native fish and wildlife populations forever. Period. CCA members across the Northwest have been critical to all of these efforts.
The time has come for all of us to strike a final blow to indiscriminate gillnetting by attending an important meeting Thursday, October 18 in Portland and sending WDFW Commission members a pre-drafted email in support of the essential components of Oregon Governor Kitzhaber’s proposal. Please continue reading this alert as more important details are included below.
It would take too long to describe how we have arrived at this critical moment, but the more important fact is that we are just weeks away from a watershed moment when the Washington and Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commissions will vote to adopt a proposal that would rid the lower Columbia River of gillnets. After years of work our elected officials agree that non-selective gillnets have no place in the sensitive, mixed-stock fisheries of the lower Columbia River. Oregon Governor Kitzhaber and the two candidates to become Washington’s next Governor are on board with a plan that removes gillnets, is good for the fish and would boost the economy of our region.
By now you are well aware of the fundamental components of this proposal. While the bi-state Commission working group is working through important details, there is growing agreement that gillnets must be removed from the mainstem of the Columbia River where they threaten native fish and wildlife populations.
This decision will be made in the next three months. The outcome will set the tone for how we will manage fisheries across the Pacific Northwest for years to come. We have no choice to but to go all in at this critical moment as we know the gillnet lobby will do the same.
Here’s what we need you to do:
Attend Thursday’s Important Meeting in Portland. The next meeting of the bi-state Commission Working Group is scheduled for Thursday, October 18 at the Portland Airport Embassy Suites Hotel (address: 7900 Northeast 82nd Avenue; Portland, OR 97220) The meeting will start at 8:30 and is open to the public. The agenda can be found here. We need to pack the room with supporters of this common sense reform (we will have stickers and signs available). Be sure to sign in clearly indicating your support for removing gillnets. While the workgroup public comment period is likely to be short, you can provide brief comments to the Commissioners to express your support. In short, show up and be counted! If you do plan to attend the meeting or would like talking points, please email us at info@ccapnw.org.
Take 30 seconds to send a pre-drafted email to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission: We must make it abundantly clear that the public overwhelmingly supports removing gillnets from the Columbia River. While we have pre-drafted the email, we encourage you to personalize it indicating why you support this critical reform. Emails can also be sent directly to commission@dfw.wa.gov.
Commit to attending ODFW Commission meetings in November and/or December to push this over the top. We will provide more details as the meetings are scheduled.
Friends, this is our time to stand up for the resource and the next generation of those who will care for it!
Click the link below to log in and send your message:
http://www.votervoice.net/link/target/ccapnw/2zPJ3JFr.aspx (http://www.votervoice.net/link/target/ccapnw/2zPJ3JFr.aspx)
You have received this message because you have subscribed to a mailing list of CCA Pacific Northwest. If you do not wish to receive periodic emails from this source, please click below to unsubscribe.
Post by: Dhoey07 on October 16, 2012, 11:53:34 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 16, 2012, 11:56:45 AM
Post by: Curly on October 16, 2012, 12:36:10 PM
All nets in the river should come out, IMO.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 16, 2012, 12:50:28 PM
Pman, it is not natives.
All nets in the river should come out, IMO.
Yes, but there's nothing that can be done about the Native nets under treaty obligations, certainly not at the state level. Thanks for the answer.
Post by: WSU on October 16, 2012, 12:51:44 PM
Pman, it is not natives.
All nets in the river should come out, IMO.
Yes, but there's nothing that can be done about the Native nets under treaty obligations, certainly not at the state level. Thanks for the answer.
The nets at issue are non-tribal.
Post by: Curly on October 16, 2012, 01:26:44 PM
Pman, it is not natives.
All nets in the river should come out, IMO.
Yes, but there's nothing that can be done about the Native nets under treaty obligations, certainly not at the state level. Thanks for the answer.
Yeah, the last time an initiative was voted on in this state, a lot of people voted against the net ban because natives would still be netting. I say get the non-native nets out and worry about natives later. :twocents:
Post by: PBinWA on October 16, 2012, 01:28:48 PM
Post by: WSU on October 16, 2012, 01:33:19 PM
I will never support a ban unless it is fairly applied to all people regardless of race or other "treaties".
You should. There is no reason that we (meaning non-Indians) should be netting in the Columbia. It costs our state economy millions and hurts a lot of businesses. Whether it is really beneficial to our fish to remove the nets from the Columbia remains to be seen, but the economic impact alone is plenty of reason. Don't let the perfect idea prevent a good idea from happening.
Post by: runamuk on October 16, 2012, 01:47:42 PM
I will never support a ban unless it is fairly applied to all people regardless of race or other "treaties".
:yeah: too many things have been lost to us...all the nets go or we watch the fish go .....
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 16, 2012, 01:54:21 PM
I will never support a ban unless it is fairly applied to all people regardless of race or other "treaties".
OK, but the state has no power over treaties that have been ratified in Congress. That's the only reason I was asking. I'm not taking the Natives' side on this either. I think your attitude is fair, but I don't think a ban will affect Natives fishing under treaty rights.
Post by: Curly on October 16, 2012, 01:57:38 PM
I will never support a ban unless it is fairly applied to all people regardless of race or other "treaties".
You should. There is no reason that we (meaning non-Indians) should be netting in the Columbia. It costs our state economy millions and hurts a lot of businesses. Whether it is really beneficial to our fish to remove the nets from the Columbia remains to be seen, but the economic impact alone is plenty of reason. Don't let the perfect idea prevent a good idea from happening.
:yeah:
I think we need to show that we're willing to quit netting first. Then we can work on convincing the natives.
It is just like elk in the Colockum. We need to go to permit only for the area and then we can work on getting the natives to have better management. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 16, 2012, 02:17:47 PM
I will never support a ban unless it is fairly applied to all people regardless of race or other "treaties".
:yeah: 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.
Post by: jackmaster on October 16, 2012, 02:25:39 PM
:yeah: hopefully someday, it would be nice, hell i wish they would do away with all comercial fishing, give the commercial guys a job enforcing and counting fish so they dont go jobless, my thoughts have always been if you cant fish or hunt for it then you shouldnt get to eat it, sounds harsh i know, but all are fish runs and numbers would sky rocket... :twocents:I will never support a ban unless it is fairly applied to all people regardless of race or other "treaties".
:yeah: 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.
Post by: Curly on October 16, 2012, 02:29:41 PM
;)
:IBCOOL:
Post by: runamuk on October 16, 2012, 02:30:32 PM
I will never support a ban unless it is fairly applied to all people regardless of race or other "treaties".
:yeah: 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 :dunno: 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. :twocents: +
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 16, 2012, 02:33:50 PM
I will never support a ban unless it is fairly applied to all people regardless of race or other "treaties".
:yeah: 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 :dunno: 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. :twocents: +
Then you'll have to be happy with nothing. :dunno: They're not going to give up their treaty rights.
Post by: runamuk on October 16, 2012, 02:41:38 PM
then there will be nothing for all equally :dunno: 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....I will never support a ban unless it is fairly applied to all people regardless of race or other "treaties".
:yeah: 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 :dunno: 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. :twocents: +
Then you'll have to be happy with nothing. :dunno: They're not going to give up their treaty rights.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 16, 2012, 02:43:15 PM
Post by: WSU on October 16, 2012, 03:35:02 PM
I will never support a ban unless it is fairly applied to all people regardless of race or other "treaties".
:yeah: 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 :dunno: 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. :twocents: +
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.
Post by: cohoho on October 16, 2012, 08:59:40 PM
Post by: runamuk on October 16, 2012, 09:19:31 PM
Whats your sales pitch?
Post by: cohoho on October 16, 2012, 11:01:22 PM
Post by: Button Nubbs on October 16, 2012, 11:21:38 PM
Post by: kentrek on October 16, 2012, 11:26:53 PM
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.. :)
Post by: jackmaster on October 17, 2012, 06:48:18 AM
Post by: boneaddict on October 17, 2012, 07:13:08 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 17, 2012, 07:21:34 AM
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.
Post by: runamuk on October 17, 2012, 07:25:16 AM
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. :dunno: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.
Post by: Maverick on October 17, 2012, 07:26:09 AM
:yeah:I will never support a ban unless it is fairly applied to all people regardless of race or other "treaties".
:yeah: too many things have been lost to us...all the nets go or we watch the fish go .....
Post by: Curly on October 17, 2012, 07:27:24 AM
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.
I remember reading some stats, back when the no nets initiative went to vote in this State (over 10 years ago), and they showed what Jackmaster stated..........that sportfishing does bring more money into the economy than commercial fishing. Maybe I can google and find some of that info.
Post by: Curly on October 17, 2012, 07:29:24 AM
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. :dunno: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.
It is not an issue of who is more entitled, it is an issue of the nets being bad for the resource. Nets are indiscriminate in what they catch. And lost nets catch and kill fish 24/7 365 days a year.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 17, 2012, 07:32:51 AM
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. :dunno: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.
It is not an issue of who is more entitled, it is an issue of the nets being bad for the resource. Nets are indiscriminate in what they catch. And lost nets catch and kill fish 24/7 365 days a year.
I don't disagree, Curly. I was addressing the comment that sport fisherman put more into our economy. That statement is unfounded as far as I can see and one which will not help your cause if it's used without substantiation.
Post by: Curly on October 17, 2012, 07:42:01 AM
Post by: runamuk on October 17, 2012, 07:44:55 AM
I was following that line of debate.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. :dunno: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.
It is not an issue of who is more entitled, it is an issue of the nets being bad for the resource. Nets are indiscriminate in what they catch. And lost nets catch and kill fish 24/7 365 days a year.
I don't disagree, Curly. I was addressing the comment that sport fisherman put more into our economy. That statement is unfounded as far as I can see and one which will not help your cause if it's used without substantiation.
If we go back to nets then get all nets out or you are not really doing anything more than putting a band aid on an arterial bleed....
are there any rivers in WA or even Canada or AK that have removed all nets and seen massive returns of fish? if so start using that precedence to sell the need to remove nets and quit trying to dog on commercial guys over sportsmen which is what keeps happening when saying the sportsmen would get more of the catch....
Post by: Curly on October 17, 2012, 07:51:38 AM
Post by: PBinWA on October 17, 2012, 07:58:13 AM
Then you'll have to be happy with nothing. :dunno: They're not going to give up their treaty rights.:yeah:
I've got native relatives. They will never give up their treaty rights so I don't see why I should either.
Post by: Curly on October 17, 2012, 08:03:37 AM
Quote
An ironic note in the story of Sacramento River basin salmon: river gillnetting was banned in 1957, not for the welfare of salmon, but because of protests from striped bass fishermen. Gillnetters had to throw back incidental takes of stripers, and fishermen objected to seeing dead fish floating by, especially when their own luck was bad, so all river gillnetting was stopped.
http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft209nb0qn;chunk.id=0;doc.view=print (http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft209nb0qn;chunk.id=0;doc.view=print)
I could do more research, but I have to get to work now. But, I probably will just give up. I sounds like its all or nothing with most folks......... so what's the use in learning what benefits of removing at least some of the nets would be?
Post by: Huntbear on October 17, 2012, 08:24:10 AM
The Natives are now taking over the Hatcheries, one at a time. They will control the fish, so they will control the fishery. Mark my words, it will happen. They could care less about sportfishermen, or commercial fishermen. Just how much salmon THEY can net... I have been fishing at Drano, while the Natives sit and drink beer and laugh and make jokes about the stupid white man, having to use a line and a hook to catch a fish... later they get to put their nets into an enclosed area, and catch everything that swims...
I heard one native bragging he makes about 5K a night netting at Drano during the Springer season...
So it IS all about the money... HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANCIENT RITUALS, OR FEEDING THEIR FAMILIES..... It is all about the money, plain and simple...
Post by: WSU on October 17, 2012, 08:41:25 AM
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. :dunno: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.
It is not an issue of who is more entitled, it is an issue of the nets being bad for the resource. Nets are indiscriminate in what they catch. And lost nets catch and kill fish 24/7 365 days a year.
I don't disagree, Curly. I was addressing the comment that sport fisherman put more into our economy. That statement is unfounded as far as I can see and one which will not help your cause if it's used without substantiation.
Here you go: http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2009/01/jan1009_04_econ_fnl_corrected.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2009/01/jan1009_04_econ_fnl_corrected.pdf)
WDFW and the legislature know that sports put millions more into our economy, but keep propping up the commecial fishing industry (at the expense of millions of dollars and thousands of jobs) because the commercials are more organized to assert their political will (a better "special interest group," if you will). Read the summary below, and then imagine if we didn't piss away half the allowable fish in the Big C by letting 100 and some odd dudes net them as a hobby (they almost all have other jobs, like fishing in Alaska). It is a disgraceful waste of our public resource that does nothing but cost our ecnomony and thousands of families jobs.
Here is the summary from the study:
"Study Conclusions
Ultimately, our findings indicate that commercial and recreational fisheries not only contribute employment and personal income, but also contribute in several other significant ways to Washington’s economy, as well as to its residents’ quality of life.
In terms of economic impacts, commercial and recreational fishing conducted in Washington fisheries directly and indirectly supported an estimated 16,374 jobs and $540 million in personal income in 2006. When viewed in the context of the Washington state economy, these levels of employment and earnings account for about 0.4 percent of total statewide employment and about 0.2 percent of total statewide personal income in 2006.
Recreational fishing generates the larger share of economic impacts, supporting 12,850 jobs or more than three-quarters of the fishing-related jobs in 2006. Of the jobs supported by recreational anglers, state residents accounted for more than 90 percent of the spending that supports these jobs.
While the spending by non-resident anglers contributes to the tourism economy in Washington State, spending by resident anglers serves to direct discretionary consumer spending toward fishing-related goods and services. As a consequence, spending by non-resident anglers plays a more pivotal role in supporting the state economy than does the spending by resident anglers.
The non-treaty commercial fishery in Washington waters also contributes an estimated $38 million in net economic values (net income or profits), allowing commercial fishers to participate in a livelihood that has been passed down from generation to generation. And, recreational fisheries generate an estimated $424 million in net economic values (over and above expenditures) to the estimated 725,000 residents who live and fish in Washington, suggesting that sport fishing substantially contributes to anglers’ quality of life."
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 17, 2012, 09:38:29 AM
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. :dunno: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.
It is not an issue of who is more entitled, it is an issue of the nets being bad for the resource. Nets are indiscriminate in what they catch. And lost nets catch and kill fish 24/7 365 days a year.
I don't disagree, Curly. I was addressing the comment that sport fisherman put more into our economy. That statement is unfounded as far as I can see and one which will not help your cause if it's used without substantiation.
Here you go: http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2009/01/jan1009_04_econ_fnl_corrected.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2009/01/jan1009_04_econ_fnl_corrected.pdf)
WDFW and the legislature know that sports put millions more into our economy, but keep propping up the commecial fishing industry (at the expense of millions of dollars and thousands of jobs) because the commercials are more organized to assert their political will (a better "special interest group," if you will). Read the summary below, and then imagine if we didn't piss away half the allowable fish in the Big C by letting 100 and some odd dudes net them as a hobby (they almost all have other jobs, like fishing in Alaska). It is a disgraceful waste of our public resource that does nothing but cost our ecnomony and thousands of families jobs.
Here is the summary from the study:
"Study Conclusions
Ultimately, our findings indicate that commercial and recreational fisheries not only contribute employment and personal income, but also contribute in several other significant ways to Washington’s economy, as well as to its residents’ quality of life.
In terms of economic impacts, commercial and recreational fishing conducted in Washington fisheries directly and indirectly supported an estimated 16,374 jobs and $540 million in personal income in 2006. When viewed in the context of the Washington state economy, these levels of employment and earnings account for about 0.4 percent of total statewide employment and about 0.2 percent of total statewide personal income in 2006.
Recreational fishing generates the larger share of economic impacts, supporting 12,850 jobs or more than three-quarters of the fishing-related jobs in 2006. Of the jobs supported by recreational anglers, state residents accounted for more than 90 percent of the spending that supports these jobs.
While the spending by non-resident anglers contributes to the tourism economy in Washington State, spending by resident anglers serves to direct discretionary consumer spending toward fishing-related goods and services. As a consequence, spending by non-resident anglers plays a more pivotal role in supporting the state economy than does the spending by resident anglers.
The non-treaty commercial fishery in Washington waters also contributes an estimated $38 million in net economic values (net income or profits), allowing commercial fishers to participate in a livelihood that has been passed down from generation to generation. And, recreational fisheries generate an estimated $424 million in net economic values (over and above expenditures) to the estimated 725,000 residents who live and fish in Washington, suggesting that sport fishing substantially contributes to anglers’ quality of life."
A much better argument. Do you know how much of that $424M is attributed to the salmon industry - probably a huge portion. My point being that sport fishing encompasses trout, bass, walleye, sturgeon, deep water stuff - all other than salmon, which is our discussion. But I would imagine that salmon fishing is a huge chunk.
Good post for the argument! :tup:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 17, 2012, 10:12:04 AM
are there any rivers in WA or even Canada or AK that have removed all nets and seen massive returns of fish? if so start using that precedence to sell the need to remove nets and quit trying to dog on commercial guys over sportsmen which is what keeps happening when saying the sportsmen would get more of the catch....At the moment and for about 4 more years, the Elwha river on the peninsula has a no net/no fishing moratorium in place. It might be one to watch. Even while the dams are being removed, they are having fish return in larger numbers because of the net removal. One dam has been removed and the other is still in progress, but all the bios so far have 'been amazed' at how quickly fish are returning and keep telling everyone how were gonna have these massive fish returns once all that habitat is opened back up. The indians are busy working on their hatchery. The questions being asked around are....if the dams coming down are the cure for the tribe's salmon woes, then why would they need a hatchery? They tell everyone it is to assist in the rebuilding of the fish stocks, but most I've talked to around the project say the tribe knows that as soon as they start putting their nets back in all the 'miraculous recovery' is going to disappear. A net is a dam to fish, but not water.
Post by: WSU on October 17, 2012, 10:17:39 AM
Post by: jackmaster on October 17, 2012, 10:20:06 AM
Post by: WSU on October 17, 2012, 10:44:05 AM
Post by: bolsen on October 17, 2012, 10:50:47 AM
Post by: kentrek on October 17, 2012, 10:54:09 AM
this is the problem with these stats, measuring econ impact between the two is a pretty complex deal..im not in favor of nets by any means but if your gona get rid of a bunch a economic rev the cost better be worth the return and thats what you gota prove :twocents:
Post by: WSU on October 17, 2012, 11:05:34 AM
If the commercial nets get banned on the lower river, the natives will be here in a hurry. there is some agreement in place now that keeps them upriver but if they ban the non native nets, they will have nets all over down in the lower river. there will be a lot of pissed off gilnetters showing them right where to go
Who cares? The tribes still only get 50%, so they aren't going to catch more overall. Why does it matter if they catch their 50% below bonneville or above?
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 17, 2012, 11:21:58 AM
An important message from CCA Washington:
We have no doubt that you have closely followed the many recent twists and turns of the collective efforts of CCA in Oregon and Washington to put an end to commercial gillnetting on the Columbia River. CCA’s actions over the past several years, including this year’s ballot measure effort in Oregon, have been strategically focused on getting indiscriminate gillnets off of our native fish and wildlife populations forever. Period. CCA members across the Northwest have been critical to all of these efforts.
Curious why you don't spend your time, money, and effort going after the real causes of poor salmon runs on the Columbia? You know, like dams, farmers irrigating, poor ocean survival, dredging islands and Caspian terns, pollution, etc etc. Why go after another user group who could help you try to turn things around? Are you really naive enough to think if commercial netters go away, all the other factors are going to go away? How many wild salmon do you think were killed by commercial non native fishermen on the Columbia this year?
And what have you got against the old lady next door who likes buying inexpensive local fish? They are her fish too.
Post by: WSU on October 17, 2012, 11:26:34 AM
"Do you know how much of that $424M is attributed to the salmon industry - probably a huge portion. My point being that sport fishing encompasses trout, bass, walleye, sturgeon, deep water stuff"
this is the problem with these stats, measuring econ impact between the two is a pretty complex deal..im not in favor of nets by any means but if your gona get rid of a bunch a economic rev the cost better be worth the return and thats what you gota prove :twocents:
The problem isn't with the stats, but rather the fact that you didn't read the stats. Salmon accounted for 28% of the economic value generated by sportfishing in the study (second to trout, which was 31%). It also breaks down the value of commercial caught salmon and the areas where it is caught. Read for yourself, but it all adds up to sportfishing being far more valuable to our state's economy than commercial fishing (this is specific to salmon, and is not necessarily my position regarding other fisheries).
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 17, 2012, 11:40:20 AM
You guys are missing a very important point on all this about the salmon.
The Natives are now taking over the Hatcheries, one at a time. They will control the fish, so they will control the fishery. Mark my words, it will happen. They could care less about sportfishermen, or commercial fishermen. Just how much salmon THEY can net... I have been fishing at Drano, while the Natives sit and drink beer and laugh and make jokes about the stupid white man, having to use a line and a hook to catch a fish... later they get to put their nets into an enclosed area, and catch everything that swims...
I heard one native bragging he makes about 5K a night netting at Drano during the Springer season...
So it IS all about the money... HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANCIENT RITUALS, OR FEEDING THEIR FAMILIES..... It is all about the money, plain and simple...
HB, this is a too broad sweep of the pen. Last year, the DFW announced that a budget shortfall would necessitate the elimination of a million smoults of coho from a hatchery on the Ho. The Quinaults stepped up with $10K to keep the hatchery open at full capacity, remaining under the direction of the state. The are other instances of where this tribe and others are shown to be good stewards of our resources without ulterior motives.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 17, 2012, 11:45:24 AM
The problem isn't with the stats, but rather the fact that you didn't read the stats. Salmon accounted for 28% of the economic value generated by sportfishing in the study (second to trout, which was 31%). It also breaks down the value of commercial caught salmon and the areas where it is caught. Read for yourself, but it all adds up to sportfishing being far more valuable to our state's economy than commercial fishing (this is specific to salmon, and is not necessarily my position regarding other fisheries).
Studies like you tout are worthless and slanted. On the commercial side, only the grounds price is considered as to the value of a fish taken. On the sport side, boats and their upkeep and mooring, fishing tackle, gas, travel, meals out, rain gear, and everything you can think of is included in the fishey's value.
You need to throw in all the facets of commercial fishing to get a true comparison. Boats and upkeep/moorage, nets, misc gear, rain gear fuel, wages to cannery workers, packaging, shipping, the value of the canneries themselves and all the equipment in them, wages paid in fish markets where finished product is sold, etc etc etc.
In other words, compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.
I could use your figures and say sport fishing is a waste of resources, and is too costly to society. Just think of how many gallons of petroleum products are used per lb. of fish produced.
Post by: buckhorn2 on October 17, 2012, 12:27:15 PM
Post by: Huntbear on October 17, 2012, 12:52:47 PM
You guys are missing a very important point on all this about the salmon.
The Natives are now taking over the Hatcheries, one at a time. They will control the fish, so they will control the fishery. Mark my words, it will happen. They could care less about sportfishermen, or commercial fishermen. Just how much salmon THEY can net... I have been fishing at Drano, while the Natives sit and drink beer and laugh and make jokes about the stupid white man, having to use a line and a hook to catch a fish... later they get to put their nets into an enclosed area, and catch everything that swims...
I heard one native bragging he makes about 5K a night netting at Drano during the Springer season...
So it IS all about the money... HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANCIENT RITUALS, OR FEEDING THEIR FAMILIES..... It is all about the money, plain and simple...
HB, this is a too broad sweep of the pen. Last year, the DFW announced that a budget shortfall would necessitate the elimination of a million smoults of coho from a hatchery on the Ho. The Quinaults stepped up with $10K to keep the hatchery open at full capacity, remaining under the direction of the state. The are other instances of where this tribe and others are shown to be good stewards of our resources without ulterior motives.
I have to disagree... NOT 1 Native tribe gave a rats ass about the salmon recovery issues, till they found money in it.. then even tribes that NEVER used salmon as a mainstay in their historic diet demanded their fair share.. It is all part of the history of the salmon, if you study it.. and unfortunately very very true.
Post by: WSU on October 17, 2012, 01:04:26 PM
Everyone has an opinion but none a real solution. Since people have netted the columbia since we first discovered it do you really think it;s right to just ban netting. Those netting families have been on the columbia before a sportsman ever heard of bouy ten or in the willipa there were never any sportsfishermen there until they put the best kept secret in washington and seattle showed up and now everyone wants the people who live there and make there livelely hood to just stop so you can have more. I am a sportsfisherman and I have a boat and moorage and poles and reels and a toy hauler so I can bounce around but I don;t want to take anyones livelehood away so I can do it more. My solution is a stewide Buyout just like they did for the draggers and it worked. It worked in canada why can;t we instead of just stopping all netting just use some of the money you say we all put into it and start a buyback program. There is a moritorium on gillnetting there are no more license sold by the state the only way to get one is to buy one out from a license holder. With all the money we claim to generate why can;t we help this fisherman with a way out that pays them for there business. Just my opinion on a way out that might work.
I certainly don't oppose buying people out and would whole-heartedly support such a proposal if done in a workable fashion.
But, I don't think that fact that a netter's grandpa may have been a netter gives them any more right to the fish our taxes pay for. If my grandpa was a slumlord should I get to continue the tradition? What about buffalo hunter? What about slave owner? Asbestos producer? The list of industries that outlived their usefulness is long, and commercial fishing (for salmon in Washington, which is the only fishery I am talking about) is one of them. It is only slightly better than welfare to pay millions of dollars to raise fish so a couple hundred netters can make a few thousand bucks. It is a waste of money that could be better spent and should be giving our economy a much bigger bang for our buck.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 17, 2012, 02:06:39 PM
You guys are missing a very important point on all this about the salmon.
The Natives are now taking over the Hatcheries, one at a time. They will control the fish, so they will control the fishery. Mark my words, it will happen. They could care less about sportfishermen, or commercial fishermen. Just how much salmon THEY can net... I have been fishing at Drano, while the Natives sit and drink beer and laugh and make jokes about the stupid white man, having to use a line and a hook to catch a fish... later they get to put their nets into an enclosed area, and catch everything that swims...
I heard one native bragging he makes about 5K a night netting at Drano during the Springer season...
So it IS all about the money... HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANCIENT RITUALS, OR FEEDING THEIR FAMILIES..... It is all about the money, plain and simple...
HB, this is a too broad sweep of the pen. Last year, the DFW announced that a budget shortfall would necessitate the elimination of a million smoults of coho from a hatchery on the Ho. The Quinaults stepped up with $10K to keep the hatchery open at full capacity, remaining under the direction of the state. The are other instances of where this tribe and others are shown to be good stewards of our resources without ulterior motives.
I have to disagree... NOT 1 Native tribe gave a rats ass about the salmon recovery issues, till they found money in it.. then even tribes that NEVER used salmon as a mainstay in their historic diet demanded their fair share.. It is all part of the history of the salmon, if you study it.. and unfortunately very very true.
I didn't say it wasn't in their best interest, HB. I only said that they are good stewards of their resource. All of us do what we do selfishly. I work with RMEF and DFW to make sure I have plenty of animals to kill. They've been fishing the Ho and the Quinault River and have been either trading or selling their fish for centuries. They know how to do it and it's perfectly sustainable. Doing what they do for a profit has been going on here long before your or my ancestors ever landed on the east coast. Is their profit somehow now a crime just because we're here and decide they take too much and we want more?
I don't know if the same can be said for the non-Native commercial guys on the Columbia, which is truly what this thread is all about anyway. That video with the abandoned nets indicates to me that they're less a steward of their resource than they are solely opportunists. I would suggest that many of us could take away lessons learned from the Quinaults and the Quileutes. Just my :twocents:
Post by: buckhorn2 on October 17, 2012, 02:26:17 PM
Post by: Huntbear on October 17, 2012, 02:47:50 PM
You guys are missing a very important point on all this about the salmon.
The Natives are now taking over the Hatcheries, one at a time. They will control the fish, so they will control the fishery. Mark my words, it will happen. They could care less about sportfishermen, or commercial fishermen. Just how much salmon THEY can net... I have been fishing at Drano, while the Natives sit and drink beer and laugh and make jokes about the stupid white man, having to use a line and a hook to catch a fish... later they get to put their nets into an enclosed area, and catch everything that swims...
I heard one native bragging he makes about 5K a night netting at Drano during the Springer season...
So it IS all about the money... HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANCIENT RITUALS, OR FEEDING THEIR FAMILIES..... It is all about the money, plain and simple...
HB, this is a too broad sweep of the pen. Last year, the DFW announced that a budget shortfall would necessitate the elimination of a million smoults of coho from a hatchery on the Ho. The Quinaults stepped up with $10K to keep the hatchery open at full capacity, remaining under the direction of the state. The are other instances of where this tribe and others are shown to be good stewards of our resources without ulterior motives.
I have to disagree... NOT 1 Native tribe gave a rats ass about the salmon recovery issues, till they found money in it.. then even tribes that NEVER used salmon as a mainstay in their historic diet demanded their fair share.. It is all part of the history of the salmon, if you study it.. and unfortunately very very true.
I didn't say it wasn't in their best interest, HB. I only said that they are good stewards of their resource. All of us do what we do selfishly. I work with RMEF and DFW to make sure I have plenty of animals to kill. They've been fishing the Ho and the Quinault River and have been either trading or selling their fish for centuries. They know how to do it and it's perfectly sustainable. Doing what they do for a profit has been going on here long before your or my ancestors ever landed on the east coast. Is their profit somehow now a crime just because we're here and decide they take too much and we want more?
I don't know if the same can be said for the non-Native commercial guys on the Columbia, which is truly what this thread is all about anyway. That video with the abandoned nets indicates to me that they're less a steward of their resource than they are solely opportunists. I would suggest that many of us could take away lessons learned from the Quinaults and the Quileutes. Just my :twocents:
Good Stewards???? Obviously you have never seen a net pulled in with 50-75 ROTTING salmon in it, because the native dropped his net, and went and got drunk and left it for 4 or 5 days, not overnight.... that is real good stewardship there..
Post by: jackmaster on October 17, 2012, 03:02:53 PM
Post by: Huntbear on October 17, 2012, 03:05:20 PM
IF we are not going to ban ALL gill netting, then there is not one shred of a good idea here...
Post by: WSU on October 17, 2012, 04:01:49 PM
Yes, this thread is about commercial fishing... that said, why should they be banned, if the other nets in the river will just get the fish ?????
IF we are not going to ban ALL gill netting, then there is not one shred of a good idea here...
I told you why above. The tribes won't catch more fish when the nets are gone. Your statement regarding "if the other nets in river will just get the fish" is completely baseless. The fact that you have seen practices by some Indians that you disagree with appears to blind you to the reality of what is going on.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 17, 2012, 04:55:18 PM
this is turning into something that it shouldnt, and since it is i will add my 2 cents on this part.....round eyes DO NOT net the puyallup but i know who does and its disgusting, makes me friggin sick to see what is being done there, if you saw it piannoman i have NOOOOO DOUBT, that you would be disgusted as well..... we are off thread by a long shot now..... :chuckle:I'm not sure the thread is off topic...I think you are stating the very reason for this possible ban. I don't think the grumblings of sporties against well regulated white man nets in the Columbia are what's behind this. The few that still do it, take a small amount of the harvest and I think they have a very short season. All the pissed off people all over the west aren't pressuring CCA and politicians and contributing lots of money against these few commies. I think it is an attempt to start the ball rolling on what really is getting everyone upset--the indians. Many guys I know don't even bother to fish anymore on days when nets are in, all other conditions can be perfect...but the one that makes a good day of fishing into just a scenic drift.
Post by: singleshot12 on October 17, 2012, 05:04:38 PM
Post by: Huntbear on October 17, 2012, 05:09:23 PM
Yes, this thread is about commercial fishing... that said, why should they be banned, if the other nets in the river will just get the fish ?????
IF we are not going to ban ALL gill netting, then there is not one shred of a good idea here...
I told you why above. The tribes won't catch more fish when the nets are gone. Your statement regarding "if the other nets in river will just get the fish" is completely baseless. The fact that you have seen practices by some Indians that you disagree with appears to blind you to the reality of what is going on.
Yes they will still get their share.... right now it is a 3 way drawing.. take the commercial guys out, it is a 2 way battle.. Last time I checked 50% is more than 33%
AND any wanton waste of resources is enough to turn me off to anybody and their "PRACTICES" Have you ever pulled into the rest area just east of Hood River and smelled the rotting fish?????
Post by: WDFW Hates ME!!! on October 17, 2012, 05:32:26 PM
Sportsmen catch what? 1 or 2 out of a school of fish moving up river at a time. How many does a net take??? How many native fish die in a net? How many die on a line? A ton less. The fish has a choice to hit your offering or not. SO some days they are biting and some days they are not.
All the fish that the public need can be caught in the ocean and they are. Or they are caught in the S.A.F.E. zones. We do not need non selective nets in the mainstem anymore.
Post by: Huntbear on October 17, 2012, 05:36:23 PM
I guess if you are trying to rebuild depressed stock of fish netting every last one of them is a good idea right?
Sportsmen catch what? 1 or 2 out of a school of fish moving up river at a time. How many does a net take??? How many native fish die in a net? How many die on a line? A ton less. The fish has a choice to hit your offering or not. SO some days they are biting and some days they are not.
All the fish that the public need can be caught in the ocean and they are. Or they are caught in the S.A.F.E. zones. We do not need non selective nets in the mainstem anymore.
Could not agree more.. BUT, will not back or agree to any ban on commercial nets as long as the Native nets stay in the river... Why should I? The commercial fleet inside the mouth of the river, take far fewer fish than the natives do from Bonneville all the way to what? Canada?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 17, 2012, 05:52:10 PM
Could not agree more.. BUT, will not back or agree to any ban on commercial nets as long as the Native nets stay in the river... Why should I?I think it is part of the overall strategy. They ban the commie nets in the Columbia then the commie nets in the sound, finally they can say no whites are allowed to use nets, so inidans shouldn't either. As long as there are whites using the nets somewhere around the area they lose leverage against the indians.
Post by: fishcrazy on October 17, 2012, 08:08:45 PM
Banning gill nets will force them to harvest their fish with more wild fish friendly methods. They will then be able to harvest far more fish before they reach their kill rate on Wilds. That leaves sport fishers with far fewer fish.
Anyone who thinks you are going to get more fish by pushing the commercials aside is nuts. Nowhere does it say fish are to be managed for sport harvest. Only for commercial harvest.
Until simple laws are changed like the way seasons are set with ESA impacts and managing fish for sport harvest all this talk about banning nets tribal or not is just hurting us.
On another note I have read several studies comparing a salmon caught by a commi or sport and the sport caught fish pump far more money into the economy. One article said that sport fisherman state wide can pump near 4billion into the state economy annually. Figured the price of trucks, boats, gas, gear, motels, guides.
Very few if any commercial fishers make their living at it. Its a second income and much of it goes overseas and don't support jobs at home.
Kris
Post by: runamuk on October 17, 2012, 08:40:35 PM
You guys are missing a very important point on all this about the salmon.
The Natives are now taking over the Hatcheries, one at a time. They will control the fish, so they will control the fishery. Mark my words, it will happen. They could care less about sportfishermen, or commercial fishermen. Just how much salmon THEY can net... I have been fishing at Drano, while the Natives sit and drink beer and laugh and make jokes about the stupid white man, having to use a line and a hook to catch a fish... later they get to put their nets into an enclosed area, and catch everything that swims...
I heard one native bragging he makes about 5K a night netting at Drano during the Springer season...
So it IS all about the money... HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANCIENT RITUALS, OR FEEDING THEIR FAMILIES..... It is all about the money, plain and simple...
HB, this is a too broad sweep of the pen. Last year, the DFW announced that a budget shortfall would necessitate the elimination of a million smoults of coho from a hatchery on the Ho. The Quinaults stepped up with $10K to keep the hatchery open at full capacity, remaining under the direction of the state. The are other instances of where this tribe and others are shown to be good stewards of our resources without ulterior motives.
the ulterior motive is their annual catch :dunno: without the hatcheries they have no fish to catch and sell so they lose revenue, the state basically got out of the hatchery business a few years back and the only private industry that was ready and able to take over was the Tribes. universities and colleges have canned their wildlife biology/management and fisheries programs and the environmental movement has convinced everyone that netting is bad but fresh wild salmon is better than farmed fish. The wild foods movement right now is huge with more and more people revolting against the gma and feedlot/hormone/antibiotic farmed animals and foods. I doubt the market for fresh wild salmon will decrease any time soon.
Post by: Heartsblood on October 18, 2012, 08:56:01 AM
The mentality: If they're doing damaging practice, well by god, I'm gonna do it too unless they stop!
:bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 18, 2012, 09:34:56 AM
Yes, let's make sure all the runs go extinct. At least you will feel like you didn't get screwed which of course is waaaaay more important than the lives of the fish. Don't do the right thing because it's the right thing. Do the wrong thing because......"Those people are doing it!"
The mentality: If they're doing damaging practice, well by god, I'm gonna do it too unless they stop!
:bash: :bash: :bash:
:yeah: I don't get it, either. It has to start somewhere. It might as well start with us.
Post by: Curly on October 18, 2012, 09:50:18 AM
Yes, let's make sure all the runs go extinct. At least you will feel like you didn't get screwed which of course is waaaaay more important than the lives of the fish. Don't do the right thing because it's the right thing. Do the wrong thing because......"Those people are doing it!"
The mentality: If they're doing damaging practice, well by god, I'm gonna do it too unless they stop!
:bash: :bash: :bash:
:yeah: I don't get it, either. It has to start somewhere. It might as well start with us.
:yeah:
Post by: motg9_6 on October 18, 2012, 10:53:41 AM
im sure this post will stir all kinds of controversy but the truth is the truth.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 18, 2012, 11:01:28 AM
ever pull a native gill net out of the water for curiosity??? IT WILL MAKE YOU SICK!!! dead fish native and hatchery. Commercial netters arent the problem they are pulling nets timely because thats there source of income and they also have more strict regualtions. native nets however dont get pulled timely. i lived along the river for several years and have watched them pull there nets out with dead rotten fish in them, ive found MULTIPLE LARGE coolers on my property that were dumped by natives full of fish that was just wasted.
im sure this post will stir all kinds of controversy but the truth is the truth.
We've really been over this topic now about 100 times. Natives this, commercial that. I see lots of excuses to not start with ourselves "because of someone else". "All or nothing". "This has to be fair." No, it doesn't have to be fair and it doesn't have to be all or nothing.
The real question remains: what are we willing to do about this which is unconditional and not depending upon the support of others? It CAN start with a little to lead to a lot eventually. Sometimes, when someone looks bad enough in the light of someone else's sacrifice, they're spurred to action, even if through nothing else than shame. What's it gonna be?
Post by: motg9_6 on October 18, 2012, 11:40:44 AM
dont get me wrong im not pro nets but to think that the white commericial pumps nothing into the economy is pathetic. think about all the people who dont want to eat hatchery fish, they pay big money to go out to dinner ( gas, movies, blabla bla etc.) the effect is the same as the owner of a gas station thats making the same dollar as a commercial guy and puts it right in his pocket.
they may not have as big a dollar figure as sportfisherman because they are outnumber over a 1000 to one with higher regualtions. think about how much the one part time commerical business provides and compare that to one sportsman that fishes once a month or even twice a month.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 18, 2012, 12:09:40 PM
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 18, 2012, 01:00:46 PM
I came across a problem the other day and I don't know for certain who did it but I'm pretty sure I know why? I was in the hills with my children and we came across a nice big 2x2 who was shot and left to rot. Very nice big 2x2 with a very thick neck and body which I believe occured the evening before because the evidence points towards a low light scenario. After photographing everything in the surrounding area and taking coordinates I began checking him to see if the meat was salvageable, it was not.
My children did not and at this age could not understand why somebody would shoot a deer and not take it home? Now do I say all non-tribal guys are like that and cry for all the rifle hunters to be restricted/banned and leave the muzzies and archers because they are more responsible (possibly)? Is is the rifle hunters fault because they were out walking around and unsure of what they shot and killed because they were to drunk from having a few back at camp? Are they to blame for all the problems? Tree huggers and conservatives see them and label every sportsmen as such and if you don't like it then what makes you think I would like to be called such a hunter.
It's not any one group or method, it's everybody because we all play a part in the overall picture. It has to start somewhere and with something if we are all to have a future in the harvesting of the natural resources. I'm done.
Post by: WSU on October 18, 2012, 01:10:42 PM
Yes, this thread is about commercial fishing... that said, why should they be banned, if the other nets in the river will just get the fish ?????
IF we are not going to ban ALL gill netting, then there is not one shred of a good idea here...
I told you why above. The tribes won't catch more fish when the nets are gone. Your statement regarding "if the other nets in river will just get the fish" is completely baseless. The fact that you have seen practices by some Indians that you disagree with appears to blind you to the reality of what is going on.
Yes they will still get their share.... right now it is a 3 way drawing.. take the commercial guys out, it is a 2 way battle.. Last time I checked 50% is more than 33%
AND any wanton waste of resources is enough to turn me off to anybody and their "PRACTICES" Have you ever pulled into the rest area just east of Hood River and smelled the rotting fish?????
I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall. What part of the tribes get 50% and the non-tribal fishers get 50% can you not understand? How does sportfishers getting the commercial share of our non-tribal 50% result in the tribes getting more?
Post by: WSU on October 18, 2012, 01:14:47 PM
You guys are missing a very important point on all this about the salmon.
The Natives are now taking over the Hatcheries, one at a time. They will control the fish, so they will control the fishery. Mark my words, it will happen. They could care less about sportfishermen, or commercial fishermen. Just how much salmon THEY can net... I have been fishing at Drano, while the Natives sit and drink beer and laugh and make jokes about the stupid white man, having to use a line and a hook to catch a fish... later they get to put their nets into an enclosed area, and catch everything that swims...
I heard one native bragging he makes about 5K a night netting at Drano during the Springer season...
So it IS all about the money... HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANCIENT RITUALS, OR FEEDING THEIR FAMILIES..... It is all about the money, plain and simple...
HB, this is a too broad sweep of the pen. Last year, the DFW announced that a budget shortfall would necessitate the elimination of a million smoults of coho from a hatchery on the Ho. The Quinaults stepped up with $10K to keep the hatchery open at full capacity, remaining under the direction of the state. The are other instances of where this tribe and others are shown to be good stewards of our resources without ulterior motives.
the ulterior motive is their annual catch :dunno: without the hatcheries they have no fish to catch and sell so they lose revenue, the state basically got out of the hatchery business a few years back and the only private industry that was ready and able to take over was the Tribes. universities and colleges have canned their wildlife biology/management and fisheries programs and the environmental movement has convinced everyone that netting is bad but fresh wild salmon is better than farmed fish. The wild foods movement right now is huge with more and more people revolting against the gma and feedlot/hormone/antibiotic farmed animals and foods. I doubt the market for fresh wild salmon will decrease any time soon.
Wrong again. Please enlighten us and identify what hatchery WDFW is no longer operating and the tribe has taken over. In fact, please identify the hatcheries the state closed to "get out of the hatchery busines." I'm very interested to see what facts back up your theory.
And, the reason that many are against farmed salmon has nothing to do with feedlots or hormones or anitbiotics. That issue is really neither here nor there in this discussion, but do a little research into the problems BC is running in to.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 18, 2012, 01:35:12 PM
What I see and hear is the bad apples from each side are ruining it for everybody. I know what I've seen and heard and some may be true and some may not be but, what I do know is there is always somebody ruining for the rest. You see one bad apple and the taste of that bad apple lingers in your mouth and sets the precedent for the rest of the apples. Do I go down to the river and leave nets to float for days on in? Do I go down to the river with my buddies and drink up a storm? Do I leave coolers of fish laying by the bank side or on somebodies property? These are all attributes of a few bad apples that need to be dealt with and turning a blind eye or not doing anything is never going to solve the problem.
I came across a problem the other day and I don't know for certain who did it but I'm pretty sure I know why? I was in the hills with my children and we came across a nice big 2x2 who was shot and left to rot. Very nice big 2x2 with a very thick neck and body which I believe occured the evening before because the evidence points towards a low light scenario. After photographing everything in the surrounding area and taking coordinates I began checking him to see if the meat was salvageable, it was not.
My children did not and at this age could not understand why somebody would shoot a deer and not take it home? Now do I say all non-tribal guys are like that and cry for all the rifle hunters to be restricted/banned and leave the muzzies and archers because they are more responsible (possibly)? Is is the rifle hunters fault because they were out walking around and unsure of what they shot and killed because they were to drunk from having a few back at camp? Are they to blame for all the problems? Tree huggers and conservatives see them and label every sportsmen as such and if you don't like it then what makes you think I would like to be called such a hunter.
It's not any one group or method, it's everybody because we all play a part in the overall picture. It has to start somewhere and with something if we are all to have a future in the harvesting of the natural resources. I'm done.
Put very well and what I was feebly trying to convey. Thanks Plateau. :tup:
Post by: Curly on October 18, 2012, 01:43:47 PM
How many fish can get past all the nets, dams, and sealions? It would be nice to start helping the fish runs with something so easy to fix............taking the nets out of the river.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 18, 2012, 01:44:41 PM
Post by: runamuk on October 18, 2012, 01:45:35 PM
and with that I exit....I am done for now with hatcheries and fisherman against fisherman against tribe against ....well you dont get idea because I make no sense...
Lets just go with I will not help endone type of/fishing for only one user group.....
Post by: WSU on October 18, 2012, 02:03:56 PM
Wsuj obviously you know more than I....I was referrin g to a couple years ago when the state shut down the hatcheries they were runnning en masse....tribes took over many as there are few private parties interested in the hatchery business.....hard to be a business if you cant ake money...
and with that I exit....I am done for now with hatcheries and fisherman against fisherman against tribe against ....well you dont get idea because I make no sense...
Lets just go with I will not help endone type of/fishing for only one user group.....
I'm not trying to be an ass, but rather am hoping to get folks to change their minds. Your opinion is based at least in part on things that never happened (hatchery issue you are talking about). We have a history a few hundred years long proving we are over-fishing the columbia and gillnetters are directly responsible for a lot of that. Doing nothing makes us all more a part of the problem than a part of the solution. How long are we (and you specifically) going to be content with the status quo while we watch our natural resources go further and further down the drain because we don't want to make changes?
Post by: WDFW Hates ME!!! on October 18, 2012, 09:11:56 PM
I bet if you look, they got the rest of the methods outlawed.
Get rid of the non selective harvest on the river...
Post by: WSU on October 19, 2012, 08:07:50 AM
Look back at the history of the gill net.
I bet if you look, they got the rest of the methods outlawed.
Get rid of the non selective harvest on the river...
That is exactly what occurred. They are just getting exactly what they did to the other methods.
Post by: runamuk on October 19, 2012, 08:14:56 AM
Has oregon banned gillnetting?
Post by: WSU on October 19, 2012, 08:18:42 AM
If the nets come out it has to be all nets otherwise it is really pointless annd punishes a small portion of the population .... it isnt about status quo for me it is the bigger picture andx it is pointless to control one population and not another
Has oregon banned gillnetting?
Oregon is working on it right now. And, it isn't pointless to remove non-tribal nets. The tribes are going to catch the same number with or without the non-tribal nets. However, there will be a huge benefit to our economy and arguably to our troubled runs (because gillnetters won't be killing as many non-target species, for example steelhead). Like it or not, saying that it is pointless is not supported by any fact and in fact is directly contrary to all evidence I have seen. Perhaps you can point out how it won't make a difference?
Edit: And, what do you say about the hundreds or thousands of jobs that would be created by having more robust sport fishing seasons in the big C? Why are those hundreds of jobs worth less than a hundred part-time jobs?
Post by: runamuk on October 19, 2012, 08:24:15 AM
Post by: Curly on October 19, 2012, 08:48:13 AM
Post by: runamuk on October 19, 2012, 09:09:19 AM
Know that if you support this measure there will be many more behind it taking opportunity not giving more, the strongest backing for this is likely coming from all those liberals everyone on this website hates so much.....so go ahead and work on this and when they come for your method next.....I will remind you how it will help the wildlife/fish...or benefit a more worthy part of the economy.
they still commercial hunt in parts of the US its just been renamed and licensed differently to allude to it being a sport. And while we think commercial use of wildlife/fish is bad there are those who think sport is even worse and they work diligently to get all use of animals wild and domestic taken from us.
Everyone just stop eating fish and gillnetting would end ;)
Now I dont have time but in a budget passed a few years back when I had time and desire and read the entire friciking budget one of the things cut was hatcheries they were to be sold off to the private sector I have schoolwork, and doctors appointments and long days and sleepless nights at the moment so dont feel like spending the time to pour through the whole fricking state budgets of the past few that were passed...but it is in there that is why many of the hatcheries are just sitting empty now, there was no income generated they were operating at a loss so the budget cut them. :dunno:
Post by: WDFW Hates ME!!! on October 19, 2012, 09:27:47 AM
wn. The incidental by catch of sturgeon in the commercial nets should not be allowed. No sport season because lack of fish. But the netters sure can keep the incidental bycatch.
The argument about the native nets is a stupid argument. Look at the smelt on the lower river. Commercials taking a majority of the run for what? And we had to get the esa listed to keep the run for being netted to extiction. It isn't just about salmon and steelhead.
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 19, 2012, 09:36:18 AM
So the season for sturgeon in he lower columbia has all but been shut do
wn. The incidental by catch of sturgeon in the commercial nets should not be allowed. No sport season because lack of fish. But the netters sure can keep the incidental bycatch.
The argument about the native nets is a stupid argument. Look at the smelt on the lower river. Commercials taking a majority of the run for what? And we had to get the esa listed to keep the run for being netted to extiction. It isn't just about salmon and steelhead.
:yeah:
Post by: Curly on October 19, 2012, 09:38:25 AM
Hopefully the Commission will do the right thing. I don't have much faith in them though, so I won't hold my breath. I will cross my fingers though............. :)
Post by: WSU on October 19, 2012, 09:52:11 AM
Have you seen the tribal nets with your own eyes and the sheer quantity of them....there is no way leavin g theem and removing the others is going to have as great an impact as you seem to think....i support removing all nets otherwise I might support banning all fishing to remove all nets maybe make the columbia draw permit only
Yes. you do know that the there are specific numbers of fish allotted to both tribal and non-tribal and that catch is regulated by the time the nets are in the water, right? You seeing nets has very little to do with how many fish the tribal fishers are allowed to catch. Your anecodotal evidence simply is not supported by reality. Nor is your proposed solution.
You are basically arguing we should continue letting things go to *censored* because you see nets in the Columbia and thereby assume, without any numbers, data, or other hard evidence, that removing the nets below bonneville and pumping millions into our economy will do no good.
Post by: WDFW Hates ME!!! on October 19, 2012, 11:13:46 AM
Post by: runamuk on October 19, 2012, 11:17:46 AM
one day my great grandchildren will either enjoy stories of how we once had fish and wild life or stories of how only the wealthy land barons get to hunt their private wildlife and fish...its all good cuz either way its gonna not be there for them :tup:
and if you really truly want to restore fish and it isn't about who gets the most..then you would get behind the removal of the dams which in the long run would be most beneficial to the fish but might kinda mess it up for the sportsmen....
so my voice will back the dam removals that way I am actually supporting the fish and not some user group....california can get their power from someone else
Post by: Curly on October 19, 2012, 11:34:29 AM
Post by: Curly on October 19, 2012, 11:35:56 AM
But getting permission to remove them is not easy. Should be, but it isn't.......... :bash:
Post by: Huntbear on October 19, 2012, 11:41:47 AM
I'm for removal of the Snake River dams. Bonneville and the Dalles..........not so much.
They all have to be removed to be beneficial to the salmon.. again, it seems you guys are not for the fish, but for a larger allotment for sport fishermen... What is the matter???? Do not want 600.00 electric bills???? Come on, it is for the Salmon...
And again, if you are not going after ALL the nets, the commercial guys will still get my support. At least they are working for a living, and creating a few jobs along the way.
Not saying, I get this share because I am born a certain race.... and I deserve it because my ancestors fished that river.... .
Gill nets are gill nets... does not matter if they belong to a Native or a Commercial Fisherman... they both kill indiscriminately, so there will be sturgeon and wild fish killed.. does not matter which net they are caught in.
Post by: Curly on October 19, 2012, 12:07:59 PM
Removal of commercial nets would help the fish. Sure removal of all nets would help more, but removal of commercial nets would help greatly. Got to start somewhere.........kind of hard to convince the natives to remove nets if we don't remove ours.
Post by: runamuk on October 19, 2012, 12:31:44 PM
Quote
State Fish and Wildlife is looking to make its cuts with a reduction of hatchery production.
Hatchery fish represent more than 75 percent of the fish caught in Washington.
Potential cuts include salmon production at the Stevens Creek Hatchery on the Humptulips River near Grays Harbor, eliminating all fall chinook production, and a 75 percent cut in coho (970,000 down to 240,000).
"We're looking at a volunteer cooperative that may be interested to help us with mass marking as well as a host of other different volunteer outreach activities," said Ron Warren, a state Fish and Wildlife fish program manager in Montesano.
"We've also continued talks with the Quinault Nation, and they've engaged us in trying to resolve this," Warren added. "None of us want to make these cuts, so we're doing everything we can to make those options actually happen."
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/release.php?id=nov0609a (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/release.php?id=nov0609a)
Quote
Key provisions of the new policy, available on the commission’s website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission, (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission,) call on the department to:
Increasingly focus state commercial and recreational fisheries on the harvest of abundant hatchery stocks to support sustainable fisheries and reduce the number of hatchery fish spawning in rivers.
Develop and promote alternative fishing gear to maximize the catch of hatchery-origin fish with minimal mortality to native salmon and steelhead.
Quote
The policy adopted by the commission also directs WDFW to seek necessary funding "from all potential sources" to implement these hatchery-reform measures, expand selective fisheries and ensure state facilities comply with standards for fish passage, water-intake screening and pollution control.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/policies/c3619.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/policies/c3619.html)
Quote
Seek funding from all potential sources to implement hatchery reform and selective fisheries.
Define "full implementation" of state-managed mark selective recreational and commercial fisheries and develop an implementation schedule.
Work with tribal co-managers to establish network of Wild Salmonid Management Zones (WSMZ)1 across the state where wild stocks are largely protected from the effects of same species hatchery programs. The Department will have a goal of establishing at least one WSMZ for each species in each major population group (bio-geographical region, strata) in each ESU/DPS. Each stock selected for inclusion in the WSMZ must be sufficiently abundant and productive to be self-sustaining in the future. Fisheries can be conducted in WSMZ if wild stock management objectives are met as well as any necessary federal ESA determinations are received.
1 Wild Salmonid Management Zone is equal in meaning and application to the term of ‘Wild Stock Gene Bank’ as used and defined in the Statewide Steelhead Management Plan.
http://www.fws.gov/gorgefish/littlewhite/index.cfm (http://www.fws.gov/gorgefish/littlewhite/index.cfm)
Quote
Reimbursable funds from other agencies accounted for a majority of the operational budget at the Little White Salmon/Willard National Fish Hatchery Complex with most of these funds (46.3% in fiscal year 2009) coming from NOAA - Fisheries Mitchell Act appropriation. These funds reimburse the operating agencies (in this case the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) for fish production to mitigate for fish losses associated with the operation of hydroelectric dams on the Columbia River.
http://nwifc.org/2012/06/nwifc-magazine-tribes-keep-hatchery-programs-running/ (http://nwifc.org/2012/06/nwifc-magazine-tribes-keep-hatchery-programs-running/)
Quote
Treaty tribes in western Washington are assuming additional fisheries enhancement responsibilities to preserve hatchery programs in danger of closing because of cuts to the state budget.
there spent 20 minutes looking for information, this isnt all the info I had at one time but much of it is similar.....if you are interested in fish and the rivers and hydro electic and how it relates to hatcheries you will read all the articles in full and check out the many links and maybe even go look for more data to decide for yourself.
either this is about saving fish or its about opportunity and who isn't getting what they are entitled to, kinda simple as that in my mind.
Post by: WSU on October 19, 2012, 12:37:45 PM
I'm for removal of the Snake River dams. Bonneville and the Dalles..........not so much.
They all have to be removed to be beneficial to the salmon.. again, it seems you guys are not for the fish, but for a larger allotment for sport fishermen... What is the matter???? Do not want 600.00 electric bills???? Come on, it is for the Salmon...
And again, if you are not going after ALL the nets, the commercial guys will still get my support. At least they are working for a living, and creating a few jobs along the way.
Not saying, I get this share because I am born a certain race.... and I deserve it because my ancestors fished that river.... .
Gill nets are gill nets... does not matter if they belong to a Native or a Commercial Fisherman... they both kill indiscriminately, so there will be sturgeon and wild fish killed.. does not matter which net they are caught in.
Oh my. Where to start. First, as discussed at length above, your analysis of the netting issue is flat wrong. I can tell you aren't going to get that tribal nets and non-tribal nets present different issues and will stop beating my head against the brick wall.
Second, your analysis of the dams issue is totally wrong. The 4 lower snake river dams don't produce much power and your power bill won't change much, if at all, if they are breached. We spend more tax payer dollars per year maintaining those dams than they produce in energy. Their purpose is almost solely to facilitate barge traffic. They provide no flood control, almost no irrigation, and very little power. No scientist has said that all FCRPS (Federal Columbia River Power System) dams need to be removed for Snake River runs to receive a huge benefit, and almost unanimously agree that breaching those 4 dams would provide our greatest bang for our buck for salmon recovery.
Post by: bobcat on October 19, 2012, 12:46:05 PM
This is a rather complicated issue, I think I'll leave it up to those who are educated on the subject and those who have or are doing the research.
So what do the biologists say?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 19, 2012, 12:49:50 PM
Don't we have biologists to figure all this stuff out?Like the bios that recommend how great wolves are or that we are overharvesting cougars?
This is a rather complicated issue, I think I'll leave it up to those who are educated on the subject and those who have or are doing the research.
So what do the biologists say?
I talked to the bios at one of the hatcheries and the head bio said they only manage to get 16 pairs of coho (if memory serves me correct) to return to the hatchery trap. Said that was all they need to produce the number of fry needed to sustain the run to meet projected take in the open ocean, local marine waters and nets. As long as they got their 16 pairs of coho past the indian gill nets the bios were happy and the excess in the river were available for sport anglers in the river and river nourishment projects for conservation.
Post by: Curly on October 19, 2012, 12:55:19 PM
This is a rather complicated issue
Not really that complicated. Gill netting is not good for endangered fish runs.
Quote
There is a reason we have not moved the dial on recovery; it is the way we harvest - and continually over-harvest - our fish. Currently, the commercial fishing gear in use in the Columbia River and elsewhere (gillnets) is non-selective and kills large numbers of ESA-listed and wild salmon and steelhead. Gillnets are designed to "gill" fish snared in the nets, leading to suffocation and death before selection is possible. All marine life that gets caught in a gillnet dies, from salmon and steelhead to seals and seabirds. Ironically, the Pacific Northwest is one of the few areas in the country to still allow gillnets.
We have the ability to restore our runs -- and our fishing economy -- by changing our harvest practices.
Implementing the use of selective gear is an effective, achievable way to create a sustainable fishery for all stakeholders - both recreational and commercial - a solution that is supported by science. And, it opens the door to providing a greater return on the investment that taxpayers are contributing to salmon recovery.
You don't have to be a biologist or scientist to advocate for the conservation of this resource. It's an issue that impacts us all, and we can all be involved in this important effort. Thank you and I hope you take the time to get involved and join CCA!
Bryan Irwin
Executive Director, Pacific Northwest
http://www.ccapnw.org/pageview.aspx?id=31358 (http://www.ccapnw.org/pageview.aspx?id=31358)
Post by: WSU on October 19, 2012, 01:01:23 PM
http://seattletimes.com/html/othersports/2016748747_outn13.html (http://seattletimes.com/html/othersports/2016748747_outn13.html)QuoteState Fish and Wildlife is looking to make its cuts with a reduction of hatchery production.
Hatchery fish represent more than 75 percent of the fish caught in Washington.
Potential cuts include salmon production at the Stevens Creek Hatchery on the Humptulips River near Grays Harbor, eliminating all fall chinook production, and a 75 percent cut in coho (970,000 down to 240,000).
"We're looking at a volunteer cooperative that may be interested to help us with mass marking as well as a host of other different volunteer outreach activities," said Ron Warren, a state Fish and Wildlife fish program manager in Montesano.
"We've also continued talks with the Quinault Nation, and they've engaged us in trying to resolve this," Warren added. "None of us want to make these cuts, so we're doing everything we can to make those options actually happen."
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/release.php?id=nov0609a (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/release.php?id=nov0609a)QuoteKey provisions of the new policy, available on the commission’s website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission, (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission,) call on the department to:
Increasingly focus state commercial and recreational fisheries on the harvest of abundant hatchery stocks to support sustainable fisheries and reduce the number of hatchery fish spawning in rivers.
Develop and promote alternative fishing gear to maximize the catch of hatchery-origin fish with minimal mortality to native salmon and steelhead.QuoteThe policy adopted by the commission also directs WDFW to seek necessary funding "from all potential sources" to implement these hatchery-reform measures, expand selective fisheries and ensure state facilities comply with standards for fish passage, water-intake screening and pollution control.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/policies/c3619.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/policies/c3619.html)QuoteSeek funding from all potential sources to implement hatchery reform and selective fisheries.
Define "full implementation" of state-managed mark selective recreational and commercial fisheries and develop an implementation schedule.
Work with tribal co-managers to establish network of Wild Salmonid Management Zones (WSMZ)1 across the state where wild stocks are largely protected from the effects of same species hatchery programs. The Department will have a goal of establishing at least one WSMZ for each species in each major population group (bio-geographical region, strata) in each ESU/DPS. Each stock selected for inclusion in the WSMZ must be sufficiently abundant and productive to be self-sustaining in the future. Fisheries can be conducted in WSMZ if wild stock management objectives are met as well as any necessary federal ESA determinations are received.
1 Wild Salmonid Management Zone is equal in meaning and application to the term of ‘Wild Stock Gene Bank’ as used and defined in the Statewide Steelhead Management Plan.
http://www.fws.gov/gorgefish/littlewhite/index.cfm (http://www.fws.gov/gorgefish/littlewhite/index.cfm)QuoteReimbursable funds from other agencies accounted for a majority of the operational budget at the Little White Salmon/Willard National Fish Hatchery Complex with most of these funds (46.3% in fiscal year 2009) coming from NOAA - Fisheries Mitchell Act appropriation. These funds reimburse the operating agencies (in this case the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) for fish production to mitigate for fish losses associated with the operation of hydroelectric dams on the Columbia River.
http://nwifc.org/2012/06/nwifc-magazine-tribes-keep-hatchery-programs-running/ (http://nwifc.org/2012/06/nwifc-magazine-tribes-keep-hatchery-programs-running/)QuoteTreaty tribes in western Washington are assuming additional fisheries enhancement responsibilities to preserve hatchery programs in danger of closing because of cuts to the state budget.
there spent 20 minutes looking for information, this isnt all the info I had at one time but much of it is similar.....if you are interested in fish and the rivers and hydro electic and how it relates to hatcheries you will read all the articles in full and check out the many links and maybe even go look for more data to decide for yourself.
either this is about saving fish or its about opportunity and who isn't getting what they are entitled to, kinda simple as that in my mind.
I'm familiar with most of those issues. The hatchery cuts on the Hump were not made because sport fisherman volunteered and fin-clipped hundreds of thousands of smolts this year. Noticeably absent was any help from the commercials, who net the *censored* out of those fish in Grays Harbor. Again, sportfishers pay the bill and do the work and 20 gillnetters in Aberdeen get to reap the rewards.
The next bunch of articles discuss hatchery reforms that are in the process of being implemented by WDFW. An independent group recommended a series of changes to lessen the impact of hatchery programs on wild fish. This is a very hotly debated topic, as many feel disagree with reducing hatchery plants in an attempt to bolster wild runs. A lot of this new thinking is based off, at least in part, the hood river study showing that interbreeding between hatchery steelhead and wild steelhead greatly reduced the genetic fitness of wild steelhead and results in far fewer returning fish (in fact, after a couple generations you get less returning fish than you had a spawners, meaning the population cannot replace itself).
The Mitchell act is a federal law that the feds to fund hatcheries to mitigate for the damage the FCRPS causes to the Columbia's salmon runs.
The last article discusses efforts of the Puyallup tribe to restore spring chinook to the white river. They do not harvest these fish, but I'm sure would love to (like everyone else) sometime in the future. The Quileutes are doing something similar on the sol duc with summer chinook. Again, I'm sure everyone would love to harvest those fish.
I don't really see what any of that has to do with your opposition to removing non-tribal gillnets from the Columbia?
Post by: WSU on October 19, 2012, 01:03:45 PM
Don't we have biologists to figure all this stuff out?
This is a rather complicated issue, I think I'll leave it up to those who are educated on the subject and those who have or are doing the research.
So what do the biologists say?
As you well know the biologists don't get to set public policy. Their opinion doesn't hold much sway with how we choose to allocate our fish runs or whether the dams are harmful. Everyone who has studied the issue knows the dams are harmful and that gillnets cost us money and kill unintended fish.
Post by: bobcat on October 19, 2012, 01:30:03 PM
I would assume most biologists would have the same opinion, but maybe not.
Post by: Huntbear on October 19, 2012, 01:48:11 PM
I'm for removal of the Snake River dams. Bonneville and the Dalles..........not so much.
They all have to be removed to be beneficial to the salmon.. again, it seems you guys are not for the fish, but for a larger allotment for sport fishermen... What is the matter???? Do not want 600.00 electric bills???? Come on, it is for the Salmon...
And again, if you are not going after ALL the nets, the commercial guys will still get my support. At least they are working for a living, and creating a few jobs along the way.
Not saying, I get this share because I am born a certain race.... and I deserve it because my ancestors fished that river.... .
Gill nets are gill nets... does not matter if they belong to a Native or a Commercial Fisherman... they both kill indiscriminately, so there will be sturgeon and wild fish killed.. does not matter which net they are caught in.
Oh my. Where to start. First, as discussed at length above, your analysis of the netting issue is flat wrong. I can tell you aren't going to get that tribal nets and non-tribal nets present different issues and will stop beating my head against the brick wall.
Second, your analysis of the dams issue is totally wrong. The 4 lower snake river dams don't produce much power and your power bill won't change much, if at all, if they are breached. We spend more tax payer dollars per year maintaining those dams than they produce in energy. Their purpose is almost solely to facilitate barge traffic. They provide no flood control, almost no irrigation, and very little power. No scientist has said that all FCRPS (Federal Columbia River Power System) dams need to be removed for Snake River runs to receive a huge benefit, and almost unanimously agree that breaching those 4 dams would provide our greatest bang for our buck for salmon recovery.
Again,,,, netting is netting... does not matter who own the nets... and breaching those 4 dams does absolutely nothing for the lower river fisheries... Speaking of breaching dams... that one on the White Salmon really did a lot of good didn't it???? Totally destroyed the mouth of that river for ANY kind of fishing but netting...
and again, if we are not going after ALL the nets, you will never get my support.
Post by: runamuk on October 19, 2012, 01:48:26 PM
Post by: Button Nubbs on October 19, 2012, 01:52:28 PM
Post by: Curly on October 19, 2012, 01:53:49 PM
OK, well I'm all for no nets in the Columbia, and no dams on the Snake.
I would assume most biologists would have the same opinion, but maybe not.
:tup:
I'm pretty sure bio's would share that opinion. How could they not? :dunno:
Politics is what gets in the way of doing the right thing.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 19, 2012, 03:42:42 PM
and breaching those 4 dams does absolutely nothing for the lower river fisheries...
I think they actually did some research on this and found that with the dams in place it created a low flow/slackwater condition through that area. The young fish leaving Idaho bound for the sea would naturally face upstream and swim in an upstream manner, but the river current is dominant. The current carried the fish to sea. So the fish make it to the delta faster, use less energy and have a much higher survival rate. With the dams in place, the fish have to turn around and swim all on their own downstream through the slackwater portions. It takes them considerably longer to make the journey and many die. Years ago a federal judge ordered some of the dams in the region to release large volumes of water to generate enough flow, and the return of that out migration of salmon was much higher than suspected. They correlate the higher return to the higher/faster flow of the water.
Post by: WDFW Hates ME!!! on October 19, 2012, 03:46:46 PM
I understand people need to eat fish, even if they can't catch them for themselves.
But this stand by and do nothing attitude had done no good. There are rivers below bonneville the natives do not net. And there are runs below bonneville that are in trouble.
And the columbia dams will stay untill the american public get on board with nuclear power.
The 4 lower snake dams are not tax based. They are payed for by the Bonneville Power Admin. And i guarantee you the BPA would not be paying for the Operation and maintenance if they provided nothing. One of the issues the lower snake dams solve is shipping from the lewiston/clarkston area. And flood control.
Seems everybody has an opinion on this subject and most are emotion based. Do some fact finding and quit trying to scare others with emotion.
Post by: WSU on October 19, 2012, 03:52:10 PM
Post by: WDFW Hates ME!!! on October 19, 2012, 04:07:53 PM
And i do realize this is not about BPA, but some facts were not correct. I am sorry i was mistaken about flood control. But the snake dams provide power, and commerce to idaho.
Post by: WSU on October 22, 2012, 11:23:12 AM
And, the dams do provide power. They don't provide much in the large scheme of things (the Columbia dams provide far more) and, as you indicate, the main use is barging grain.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 25, 2012, 08:16:28 PM
I'm familiar with most of those issues. The hatchery cuts on the Hump were not made because sport fisherman volunteered and fin-clipped hundreds of thousands of smolts this year. Noticeably absent was any help from the commercials, who net the *censored* out of those fish in Grays Harbor. Again, sportfishers pay the bill and do the work and 20 gillnetters in Aberdeen get to reap the rewards.
Then you must be familiar that the non native gillnetting on Grays Harbor is limited to about 1 to 3 days per year. Those 20 boats from Aberdeen you see fishing all the time are tribal fishermen and you aren't going to stop that. In fact the reason they are there is because sports fishermen and the State tried to stop tribal fishing for steelhead and salmon. I remember the fish wars well. Natives getting billy clubbed and arrested on the Nisqually and Puyallup. You might not like what's going on, but when you start something, you aren't going to always like what you get. The Boldt decision morphed into crabbing rights and hunting rights that everybody on this site complains about. So keep on pushing.
Post by: WSU on October 26, 2012, 10:31:56 AM
I'm familiar with most of those issues. The hatchery cuts on the Hump were not made because sport fisherman volunteered and fin-clipped hundreds of thousands of smolts this year. Noticeably absent was any help from the commercials, who net the *censored* out of those fish in Grays Harbor. Again, sportfishers pay the bill and do the work and 20 gillnetters in Aberdeen get to reap the rewards.
Then you must be familiar that the non native gillnetting on Grays Harbor is limited to about 1 to 3 days per year. Those 20 boats from Aberdeen you see fishing all the time are tribal fishermen and you aren't going to stop that. In fact the reason they are there is because sports fishermen and the State tried to stop tribal fishing for steelhead and salmon. I remember the fish wars well. Natives getting billy clubbed and arrested on the Nisqually and Puyallup. You might not like what's going on, but when you start something, you aren't going to always like what you get. The Boldt decision morphed into crabbing rights and hunting rights that everybody on this site complains about. So keep on pushing.
That is just plain false. The non-native gillnetting in Grays Harbor is a hell of a lot worse than that. I just looked back at this year's schedule, and the non-tribal gillnetters fished 20 days in Grays Harbor. They also fished way past the chum quota they were supposed to have (by 421%). Those are facts. Try to spin it how you want, but reality doesn't support your position.
Post by: Dhoey07 on October 26, 2012, 10:34:25 AM
http://ecotrope.opb.org/2012/10/study-finds-hatchery-salmon-dont-harm-wild-runs/ (http://ecotrope.opb.org/2012/10/study-finds-hatchery-salmon-dont-harm-wild-runs/)
Post by: WSU on October 26, 2012, 10:38:19 AM
Post by: Dhoey07 on October 26, 2012, 10:41:23 AM
Interesting article. The two studies don't really compare apples to apples though. It could be that fall chinook populations act differently than the steelhead population studied, or it could be the different hatchery practices used. I'm sure there could be other explanations as well, but I'm not a fisheries scientist.
Me neither. And who knows who funded the study, you know how that can change outcomes.
Post by: WSU on October 26, 2012, 10:47:22 AM
Post by: WDFW Hates ME!!! on October 26, 2012, 02:11:02 PM
When they figure out a way to release, untargeted species and wild fish i might support them, but untill that day comes the nets need to go.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 26, 2012, 06:17:07 PM
That is just plain false. The non-native gillnetting in Grays Harbor is a hell of a lot worse than that. I just looked back at this year's schedule, and the non-tribal gillnetters fished 20 days in Grays Harbor. They also fished way past the chum quota they were supposed to have (by 421%). Those are facts. Try to spin it how you want, but reality doesn't support your position.
Now who's just plain false? I admit I was wrong, and that was from not checking this year's schedule and relying on what I knew from the not so distant past. But you evidently read the schedule and still got it wrong. There were six 24 hour openers in 2C or the North Bay this year targeting chinooks. Then there were four 12 hour openers in 2A and a tiny portion of 2D (Mainstem Chehalis up to the big bend at Cosy) and two 12 hour openers in 2A and all of 2D and one 24 hour opener in 2A and 2D. That makes for fishing on 13 days, and six of those days were 12 hours or half days so the total non indian fishery was 10 days or 240 hours of fishing.
Now lets compare what the Natives caught to the non natives.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/landings.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/landings.html)
Chinook - Non natives - 1,219 ........ Natives - 3,457
Coho - Non natives - 10,316....... Natives - 23,587
Chum - Non natives - 1,015......... Natives - 4,993
Sturgeon - Non natives - 7 ...............Natives - 38
So what's the purpose of shutting down the non native gillnetters? To put more in the Native nets? Because that's what will happen I guarantee you. It won't make a lick of difference to sports fishermen. And the Chum quota, what ever that was supposed to be???? All I see in the regs was, wild non clipped chums and chinooks were supposed to be released. Those thousand chums the non natives took could be hatchery fish. But I'd be willing to bet the natives don't release wild fish. Who do you suppose is hurting the wild run then? As for releasing non targeted fish, non natives are limited to 45 min soaks and required to take the safe fishing class and get the card and have Jesus boxes to rejuvenate any wild fish before they are released. They are making an effort. Again, I don't believe the natives are under any such restrictions.
And as for your accusation that the sporties do all the work and the commercials get to catch all the fish, back in the 70's when I gillnetted Grays Harbor the Grays Harbor Gillnetters Association hatched dogs and silvers up the East Hoquiam and released them. We tried to get sportsmen groups to help try to enhance the runs, but couldn't get ANY help from them. What goes around comes around I guess. I was also hired in the late 70s to guard the fish traps on the Satsop from poachers who would sneak in and gaff fish out of them before the hatchery personnel could come around to roe strip them for the hatchery. I won't blame that on sportsmen, but it wasn't commercial fishermen doing it. It was poachers. I was paid from a fund from the Grays Harbor Gillnetters.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 26, 2012, 06:37:51 PM
2006 Grays Harbor non Indian season.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/2006_willapabay_graysharbor_commercial_gillnet_sched_summary.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/2006_willapabay_graysharbor_commercial_gillnet_sched_summary.pdf)
"The Grays Harbor fishery began with a 1-day fishery on October 8, 2006 in Area 2C. This was followed by 4 consecutive, 8 hr days on October 10-13 in Areas 2A and 2D with boundary lines limited.Gear restriction was 6-inch maximum mesh, soak time was limited to 45 minutes and live boxes were required.(See the 2006 Commercial Gillnet Schedule for Grays Harbor for details of schedule and gear restrictions).There was NO RETENTION of Chinook or Green Sturgeon allowed."
OK that's 5 days, but only 56 hours of fishing for the whole year.
Now look at the catch difference.
Non indian - ZERO Chinooks - 649 Coho - 14 Chum
Indian - 3,738 Chinook - *,633 Coho - 40,38
Again I ask, who's making the impact? So what's the point of shutting down the non natives? Again I'll say, if you do, the Indians will just take up the slack.
2008 Grays Harbor Season
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/2008_willapabay_graysharbor_commercial_gillnet_sched_summary.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/2008_willapabay_graysharbor_commercial_gillnet_sched_summary.pdf)
The Grays Harbor fishery began on October 8 through October 10, 2008 in Area 2A/2D. This was followed by 2-24 hr fisheries in Area 2C October 11-12 and October 15-16. There was NO RETENTION of Chinook (in Area 2A/2D only) or Green Sturgeon allowed.
4 Days of fishing. Starting to get the picture?
Compare catch
Non Indian - 566 Chinook - 7,783 Coho - 241 Chum
Indian -1,877 Chinook - 10,122 Coho - 2,069 Chum
I can go on and on if I did, and you would see more of the same.
Post by: WSU on October 27, 2012, 06:24:39 PM
That is just plain false. The non-native gillnetting in Grays Harbor is a hell of a lot worse than that. I just looked back at this year's schedule, and the non-tribal gillnetters fished 20 days in Grays Harbor. They also fished way past the chum quota they were supposed to have (by 421%). Those are facts. Try to spin it how you want, but reality doesn't support your position.
Now who's just plain false? I admit I was wrong, and that was from not checking this year's schedule and relying on what I knew from the not so distant past. But you evidently read the schedule and still got it wrong. There were six 24 hour openers in 2C or the North Bay this year targeting chinooks. Then there were four 12 hour openers in 2A and a tiny portion of 2D (Mainstem Chehalis up to the big bend at Cosy) and two 12 hour openers in 2A and all of 2D and one 24 hour opener in 2A and 2D. That makes for fishing on 13 days, and six of those days were 12 hours or half days so the total non indian fishery was 10 days or 240 hours of fishing.
Now lets compare what the Natives caught to the non natives.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/landings.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/landings.html)
Chinook - Non natives - 1,219 ........ Natives - 3,457
Coho - Non natives - 10,316....... Natives - 23,587
Chum - Non natives - 1,015......... Natives - 4,993
Sturgeon - Non natives - 7 ...............Natives - 38
So what's the purpose of shutting down the non native gillnetters? To put more in the Native nets? Because that's what will happen I guarantee you. It won't make a lick of difference to sports fishermen. And the Chum quota, what ever that was supposed to be???? All I see in the regs was, wild non clipped chums and chinooks were supposed to be released. Those thousand chums the non natives took could be hatchery fish. But I'd be willing to bet the natives don't release wild fish. Who do you suppose is hurting the wild run then? As for releasing non targeted fish, non natives are limited to 45 min soaks and required to take the safe fishing class and get the card and have Jesus boxes to rejuvenate any wild fish before they are released. They are making an effort. Again, I don't believe the natives are under any such restrictions.
And as for your accusation that the sporties do all the work and the commercials get to catch all the fish, back in the 70's when I gillnetted Grays Harbor the Grays Harbor Gillnetters Association hatched dogs and silvers up the East Hoquiam and released them. We tried to get sportsmen groups to help try to enhance the runs, but couldn't get ANY help from them. What goes around comes around I guess. I was also hired in the late 70s to guard the fish traps on the Satsop from poachers who would sneak in and gaff fish out of them before the hatchery personnel could come around to roe strip them for the hatchery. I won't blame that on sportsmen, but it wasn't commercial fishermen doing it. It was poachers. I was paid from a fund from the Grays Harbor Gillnetters.
I was talking calendar days, you are talking openers. Either way, it is a hell of a lot more than 2 days. And, it ain't the 70's. The fact is there are more fisherman and fewer fish to go around, and gillnetting is obsolete. It's a waste of fish, a waste of money, and drains our economy. Like it or not, gillnetting needs to go the way of the buffalo hunters.
Post by: WSU on October 27, 2012, 06:28:44 PM
Here's the reality that supports my position
2006 Grays Harbor non Indian season.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/2006_willapabay_graysharbor_commercial_gillnet_sched_summary.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/2006_willapabay_graysharbor_commercial_gillnet_sched_summary.pdf)
"The Grays Harbor fishery began with a 1-day fishery on October 8, 2006 in Area 2C. This was followed by 4 consecutive, 8 hr days on October 10-13 in Areas 2A and 2D with boundary lines limited.Gear restriction was 6-inch maximum mesh, soak time was limited to 45 minutes and live boxes were required.(See the 2006 Commercial Gillnet Schedule for Grays Harbor for details of schedule and gear restrictions).There was NO RETENTION of Chinook or Green Sturgeon allowed."
OK that's 5 days, but only 56 hours of fishing for the whole year.
Now look at the catch difference.
Non indian - ZERO Chinooks - 649 Coho - 14 Chum
Indian - 3,738 Chinook - *,633 Coho - 40,38
Again I ask, who's making the impact? So what's the point of shutting down the non natives? Again I'll say, if you do, the Indians will just take up the slack.
2008 Grays Harbor Season
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/2008_willapabay_graysharbor_commercial_gillnet_sched_summary.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/commercial/salmon/2008_willapabay_graysharbor_commercial_gillnet_sched_summary.pdf)
The Grays Harbor fishery began on October 8 through October 10, 2008 in Area 2A/2D. This was followed by 2-24 hr fisheries in Area 2C October 11-12 and October 15-16. There was NO RETENTION of Chinook (in Area 2A/2D only) or Green Sturgeon allowed.
4 Days of fishing. Starting to get the picture?
Compare catch
Non Indian - 566 Chinook - 7,783 Coho - 241 Chum
Indian -1,877 Chinook - 10,122 Coho - 2,069 Chum
I can go on and on if I did, and you would see more of the same.
What's your point? You and I both know the tribal fishers aren't going anywhere. We can, however, get rid of the non-treaty gillnetting.
It's great that you can post stats and stories from the 70's and half a decade ago, but it still doesn't refute my point that non-tribal gillnetting is a waste. Those 10K fish would be better used pumping tens of thousands of dollars into the depressed grays harbor county economy then they are being caught by a few dozen gillnetters.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 27, 2012, 09:48:59 PM
I was talking calendar days, you are talking openers. Either way, it is a hell of a lot more than 2 days. And, it ain't the 70's. The fact is there are more fisherman and fewer fish to go around, and gillnetting is obsolete. It's a waste of fish, a waste of money, and drains our economy. Like it or not, gillnetting needs to go the way of the buffalo hunters.
You were talking about those non tribal gillnetters that you always see in Aberdeen. the fact is, out of the actual 13 days non-tribal fishermen had this year, 6 of those days were in the North Bay so you didn't see them. Where you see them in Aberdeen, they fished 7 days. Six of those days were half days. So I hardly think you see them "all the time". Who you do see the majotity of the time are tribal gillnetters. Try telling them they need to go the way of the buffalo. Also, the Native catch totals I posted are for the lower River. They don't include the catch upstream near Oakville and the reservation.
Now if the non native caught gillnet fish get sold and are eaten by the public. Pray tell, how are they being wasted? What you really mean is, they aren't being caught by YOU. Because the end user is the public. Does everybody have to buy a $30,000 boat and all the gear before they deserve to eat public salmon? Or is it OK for them to buy it for $4.99 a lb? (the price for local wild silvers at Swanson's in Hoquiam yesterday) I guarantee those local fishermen catching them are putting the dollars they make back into the local economy. I seriously doubt the guy from Seattle who buys his boat and gear up there and his gas and food along the way is putting much into the local economy no matter what studies you tout.
Post by: WDFW Hates ME!!! on October 30, 2012, 09:37:41 PM
Frustrating to say the least.
Seems the gillnetters need to use emotion over fact because if they tried to use fact on TV they would lose. Just like the bear baiting ban, all emotion no fact.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 30, 2012, 10:46:46 PM
So lets sit by and do nothing. Lets not start somewhere. Again lets just stand by and watch a net catch every last fish. I could care less if i have more opportunity. I have caught my share of fish, i hope my kid and grandkids have the opportunity.
Frustrating to say the least.
Seems the gillnetters need to use emotion over fact because if they tried to use fact on TV they would lose. Just like the bear baiting ban, all emotion no fact.
You're the one using emotion. I posted cold hard facts. The fish belong to the public, and that's where gillnet caught fish end up, with the public eating them. Your argument is so emotional that you threw in the "let's do it for the kids and grandkids" emotional plea. Your nic screams emotional...WDFW Hates Me!
Post by: WDFW Hates ME!!! on October 30, 2012, 10:54:54 PM
Post by: WDFW Hates ME!!! on October 30, 2012, 11:01:25 PM
Not much we can do about the native netting, they have Been given the right to harvest 50% of the fish. If they still get only 50 percent of 100 would they get more with no commercial netters? Don't understand your argument. The commercial harvest would still take place in the ocean. So the public would still get fish from those commercial fishermen? Right or wrong?
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 30, 2012, 11:36:23 PM
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.
Post by: kentrek on October 30, 2012, 11:39:56 PM
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.
:bow: :yeah: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :yeah: :yeah:
Post by: WDFW Hates ME!!! on October 31, 2012, 06:22:10 AM
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?
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 31, 2012, 09:51:11 AM
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.
Post by: Curly on October 31, 2012, 09:54:19 AM
Quote
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.
Post by: WSU on October 31, 2012, 09:55:46 AM
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.
Post by: WSU on October 31, 2012, 10:22:45 AM
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.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 31, 2012, 10:24:53 AM
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.
Post by: WSU on October 31, 2012, 10:26:34 AM
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.
Post by: WSU on October 31, 2012, 10:34:52 AM
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.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 31, 2012, 10:36:30 AM
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.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 31, 2012, 10:45:01 AM
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?
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 31, 2012, 11:01:42 AM
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.
Post by: WSU on October 31, 2012, 11:04:50 AM
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.
Post by: WSU on October 31, 2012, 11:08:37 AM
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?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on October 31, 2012, 11:15:37 AM
Post by: WSU on October 31, 2012, 11:18:13 AM
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.
That law was passed by the gillnetters. It is no coincidence that all other forms of commercial harvest disappeared.
And, I believe the other methods are more costly. A gillnetter is usually a single guy on a relatively small boat. Things like seines require multiple people and a bigger boat. Plus, gillnetters would have to go out and purchase new gear which I am sure is somewhat costly.
Post by: WDFW Hates ME!!! on October 31, 2012, 11:22:16 AM
The natives get 50% of the run no matter. So if the forecast is for 100 fish they get 50. I must be stupid but 50% of 100 is 50 right. And you are saying that if the commercials don't get there share the natives are going to get more than there 50 %.
Post by: scout/sniper on October 31, 2012, 11:27:20 AM
:yeah: After reading all of this arguing and fighting between groups who have an agenda and a financial stake in whatever outcome happens, this post says it all....short and sweet.QuoteThe 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.
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 31, 2012, 11:29:58 AM
Post by: WSU on October 31, 2012, 11:32:08 AM
I say get rid of all the sea lions lethal or non that are near the mouth of the Columbia and all the way down. generate some funds by starting a season and issuing some tags. Make some money off the hunters by making them pay for removal. :tup:
Did the tribes historically hunt seals and sea lions? I know they used go up to Celilo...
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 31, 2012, 11:36:40 AM
And there it is. People on the dole usually want to stay on the dole. What do you do for your fulltime job?
What dole?
My full time job is gillnetting. I don't make money any way else. I used to participate in other fisheries in the offseason, but don't any more. I used to take temporary onshore jobs in the offseason too but haven't for many years.
I collect no money from the government, but I do pay taxes. Lots of taxes.
So what's your full time job?
You're probably a nice guy, but if you believe ending non tribal gillnetting will do one thing to increase salmon runs in Washington, you're sadly mistaken.
Post by: kentrek on October 31, 2012, 11:37:07 AM
I say get rid of all the sea lions lethal or non that are near the mouth of the Columbia and all the way down. generate some funds by starting a season and issuing some tags. Make some money off the hunters by making them pay for removal. :tup:
Did the tribes historically hunt seals and sea lions? I know they used go up to Celilo...
my dad said there was a guy whose job was to kill seals when ev he saw them on the colombia..he said he nev used to see too many seals in the 60's
Post by: WSU on October 31, 2012, 11:39:09 AM
And there it is. People on the dole usually want to stay on the dole. What do you do for your fulltime job?
What dole?
My full time job is gillnetting. I don't make money any way else. I used to participate in other fisheries in the offseason, but don't any more. I used to take temporary onshore jobs in the offseason too but haven't for many years.
I collect no money from the government, but I do pay taxes. Lots of taxes.
So what's your full time job?
You're probably a nice guy, but if you believe ending non tribal gillnetting will do one thing to increase salmon runs in Washington, you're sadly mistaken.
So you work how much? Do you spend your summers in Alaska and net down here a handful of days?
I'm sure you are a nice guy too. We just have a healthy difference of opinion!
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 31, 2012, 11:39:28 AM
I say get rid of all the sea lions lethal or non that are near the mouth of the Columbia and all the way down. generate some funds by starting a season and issuing some tags. Make some money off the hunters by making them pay for removal. :tup:
Never going to happen with the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Even if we could defy federal USFWS enforcement, the greenies would lose their minds and the DFW would fold to their pressure. Killing sea lions will always be another wolf issue - "they're so cute and how could anyone kill one? I don't have to live near or deal with them, but if I did, I'm sure I'd feel the same way."
Post by: PlateauNDN on October 31, 2012, 11:56:31 AM
I say get rid of all the sea lions lethal or non that are near the mouth of the Columbia and all the way down. generate some funds by starting a season and issuing some tags. Make some money off the hunters by making them pay for removal. :tup:
Never going to happen with the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Even if we could defy federal USFWS enforcement, the greenies would lose their minds and the DFW would fold to their pressure. Killing sea lions will always be another wolf issue - "they're so cute and how could anyone kill one? I don't have to live near or deal with them, but if I did, I'm sure I'd feel the same way."
I know and it's just like wolves. As soon as they are FEDERALLY DELISTED they are open game and you better believe I'm going to get as many as I can. I like wolves in the aspects of the tribal signifance and roles they play in our culture but if I have to choose between them and deer/elk or any other species we harvest for food then guess who's going to get the hammer? I don't like sea lions and if/when they become unprotected you better believe they are going to suffer hard to alot of tribal hunters because they are not welcomed and hearing it myself from some of the fishermen down there they'd like nothing more then to handle it themselves if it wasn't for fear of jail and losing their families and livelihood.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 31, 2012, 12:12:49 PM
I say get rid of all the sea lions lethal or non that are near the mouth of the Columbia and all the way down. generate some funds by starting a season and issuing some tags. Make some money off the hunters by making them pay for removal. :tup:
Never going to happen with the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Even if we could defy federal USFWS enforcement, the greenies would lose their minds and the DFW would fold to their pressure. Killing sea lions will always be another wolf issue - "they're so cute and how could anyone kill one? I don't have to live near or deal with them, but if I did, I'm sure I'd feel the same way."
I know and it's just like wolves. As soon as they are FEDERALLY DELISTED they are open game and you better believe I'm going to get as many as I can. I like wolves in the aspects of the tribal signifance and roles they play in our culture but if I have to choose between them and deer/elk or any other species we harvest for food then guess who's going to get the hammer? I don't like sea lions and if/when they become unprotected you better believe they are going to suffer hard to alot of tribal hunters because they are not welcomed and hearing it myself from some of the fishermen down there they'd like nothing more then to handle it themselves if it wasn't for fear of jail and losing their families and livelihood.
You see Plat, that's the beauty of the Marine Mammal Protection Act - the animals on it stay on it regardless of population health or density. There is no delisting process for the act. It has to do with Namu and Flipper and seals with balls on their noses. It has nothing to do with conservation. It's about emotions and feelings. It's about peace between us and the animal world. I want to go out and kiss something furry now. I'll be back later.
Post by: scout/sniper on October 31, 2012, 12:23:35 PM
I want to go out and kiss something furry now. I'll be back later.I'm on my way over :drool:
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 31, 2012, 12:27:13 PM
I want to go out and kiss something furry now. I'll be back later.I'm on my way over :drool:
Oooh, bring your long gun, Scout!
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 01, 2012, 01:29:23 PM
Because the guys who bake cake like it that way. And as long as we fight for crumbs, they get their cake and eat it too.
Post by: Special T on November 01, 2012, 03:36:03 PM
I think as hunters and anglers we need to pus for the repeal of the ESA and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. They were tools that were necessary at their inception, but like many things Federal have long outgrown their usefullness. :twocents:
Post by: Curly on November 01, 2012, 04:36:01 PM
But, if nothing truly can be done about sealions, (and a point can be made about mergansers and cormorants) then the next thing that can go is gill netting.
The Snake River dams are another issue that gets discussed, but nothing ever gets done about them..........just too much opposition and differing opinions.
If we really want to save wild fish runs, there are many things that could be done to help. But it seems that people are not willing to sacrifice certain things for saving wild fish runs.
It is frustrating that the sealion huggers place sealions at a higher level than wild fish runs............and gill netters place their right to fish higher than protecting wild fish. And then there are others who don't want the nets out because natives will still have nets in, so that isn't fair................ And then there are also others who want the habitat restored; they say if the habitat isn't going to be restored, then there is no sense in doing anything....... So, essentially nothing will get done and eventually the wild fish will be gone. :(
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 01, 2012, 06:00:34 PM
I think this conversation is sad and JUST like the wolf topic, and here is why... Once upon a time predators of all kinds were decimated. Their prey number grew dramatically in their absence... Since those predators were protected, I think a good thing, they have rebounded to the point where they are no longer in any danger. They are impacting their prey numbers in a negative way and yet they are still protected... I hope that there is a correction of the books so that sealions, wolves, cormorants, mergansers, cougars and many others can be managed through hunting to MAXIMISE the benefit to all.
I think as hunters and anglers we need to pus for the repeal of the ESA and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. They were tools that were necessary at their inception, but like many things Federal have long outgrown their usefullness. :twocents:
You make a good point Special T. Management needs to go both ways. Protection of a truly endangered species is one thing, but managing them after they have recovered is another. With wolves at least there is a plan in place to regulate their numbers after the recovery and in fact it has been put into action in places like Idaho. Hunters now have the opportunity to take wolves legally and help control their numbers. Sea mammals unfortunately have no such plan or even an indication of how many is enough or even too many. Other than certain Alaska native, no one is helping to control their numbers, and they only do it sporadically.
Post by: runamuk on November 01, 2012, 06:27:45 PM
interesting reading...snippet from the column...
Quote
While the sea lion have a new friend in sabotage, they also have an old enemy: Puget Sound treaty tribes that historically hunted them for subsistence. The amendment to the Marine Mammal Protection Act specifically reaffirmed the treaty right of tribes to hunt sea lions. All they have to do is post a regulation of their own. The Makah Tribe on the coast already has.
Up to 20 treaty tribes in Western Washington could follow suit. The Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission said the tribal harvest "could help bring the marine ecosystem back into balance by reducing the rapidly increasing number of seals and sea lions preying on dwindling salmon runs."
PAWS officials have threatened to sue government agencies to stop the killing of any sea lions. They have hinted they might sue the Indians. Put that one in the loss column for PAWS right now.
this article is from 1995 so since 1995 why have the tribes not stepped in? Why have the sea lions continued out of control and they remain on a list and everyone says wild steelhead are the endangered ones...I think the best solution is put the steelhead on a list cut off all fishing of them by all people until the numbers recover to self sustaining levels above the needs of sealions then at that point surpluses could be identified and divided among the people :dunno:
Post by: scout/sniper on November 02, 2012, 06:42:08 AM
this article is from 1995 so since 1995 why have the tribes not stepped in? Why have the sea lions continued out of control and they remain on a list and everyone says wild steelhead are the endangered ones...I think the best solution is put the steelhead on a list cut off all fishing of them by all people until the numbers recover to self sustaining levels above the needs of sealions then at that point surpluses could be identified and divided among the people :dunno:All about the $$$ Run.
Just follow the money trail and you will find the truth.