Post by: Ripper on December 18, 2011, 04:12:20 PM
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/othersports/2017040705_outn18.html
Post by: Huntbear on December 18, 2011, 04:38:09 PM
Post by: Caliber on December 18, 2011, 04:46:26 PM
Post by: BigGoonTuna on December 18, 2011, 05:26:44 PM
Post by: allen on December 18, 2011, 05:49:01 PM
Post by: huntnnw on December 19, 2011, 01:18:40 AM
Post by: Houndhunter on December 19, 2011, 12:09:01 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 19, 2011, 12:15:05 PM
Not enough smolt being dumped in those riversI think that is going to be more and more of a problem. I read recently where WDFW is trying to reduce hatchery plants to lessen the effects of hatchery fish on wild fish. Mostly in rivers with good wild returns. Except in the areas where hatcheries support a large commercial base.
Post by: Huntbear on December 19, 2011, 12:16:19 PM
Please, don't mention the Cowlitz, Lewis or Kalama you just get me started. What's happened to our runs? How can we get fish past all the nets & dams clear to Idaho & Upper Central Washington & we can't get them to these three rivers. It's not nets & it's not dams, what is it?
Those water wolves, seals and sea lions....
Post by: spookgus on December 19, 2011, 12:45:02 PM
Post by: DUCK_COMMANDER on December 19, 2011, 02:02:10 PM
Post by: Ripper on December 19, 2011, 02:03:25 PM
Post by: Dhoey07 on December 19, 2011, 02:20:31 PM
Post by: Button Nubbs on December 19, 2011, 02:29:08 PM
Not enough smolt being dumped in those riversI think that is going to be more and more of a problem. I read recently where WDFW is trying to reduce hatchery plants to lessen the effects of hatchery fish on wild fish. Mostly in rivers with good wild returns. Except in the areas where hatcheries support a large commercial base.
this pisses me off so bad im punching the keyboard with my fingers! heres an idea, quit pumping hatchery plants into the rivers where the wild fish are on the brink of extinction!!!! i seriously wonder what these people are thinking sometimes!!!!!!! fu%$ing ra-tards!!!!! :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: huntnnw on December 19, 2011, 10:31:05 PM
Post by: Button Nubbs on December 19, 2011, 11:22:38 PM
Post by: bullcanyon on December 19, 2011, 11:34:44 PM
Post by: Button Nubbs on December 19, 2011, 11:40:59 PM
Post by: huntnnw on December 20, 2011, 05:35:04 AM
Post by: WSU on December 20, 2011, 08:49:36 AM
Post by: spookgus on December 20, 2011, 11:06:32 AM
You didn't get people fired up. Many people have been fired up with the fishing prospects(good and bad) and the management, for a long time.
I think that many rivers should not have hatcheries and should be left for wild fish with no netting in or downstream of those rivers. I also think that some rivers, especially the ones with dams that don't have provisions for fish passage should give up on wild returns and run the hatcheries full bore to provide sport fishing along the system and commercial netting inside those rivers. The hatchery rivers further inland could provide sport fishing for hundreds of miles and the hatchery rivers closer to the salt could provide the commercial guys fish that are in better condition. This would mean no netting in the Columbia and only netting the tributaries that are managed for hatchery fish only.
The fish passage report goes back to the 1930's and shows record returns over Bonneville within the last 20 years for several species. Granted alot of these were hatchery fish. Smolt production is down and maybe the ocean is on the downside of it's cycle and the countries that commercial fish the Pacific are damn good at targetting US originated fish.
Obviously my opinion is flawed because nobody seems to agree on how to increase wild returns while maintaining sport and commercial fishing. It will likely continue to be a piss poor juggling act.
Post by: Dhoey07 on December 20, 2011, 12:31:48 PM
RIPPER
You didn't get people fired up. Many people have been fired up with the fishing prospects(good and bad) and the management, for a long time.
I think that many rivers should not have hatcheries and should be left for wild fish with no netting in or downstream of those rivers. I also think that some rivers, especially the ones with dams that don't have provisions for fish passage should give up on wild returns and run the hatcheries full bore to provide sport fishing along the system and commercial netting inside those rivers. The hatchery rivers further inland could provide sport fishing for hundreds of miles and the hatchery rivers closer to the salt could provide the commercial guys fish that are in better condition. This would mean no netting in the Columbia and only netting the tributaries that are managed for hatchery fish only.
The fish passage report goes back to the 1930's and shows record returns over Bonneville within the last 20 years for several species. Granted alot of these were hatchery fish. Smolt production is down and maybe the ocean is on the downside of it's cycle and the countries that commercial fish the Pacific are damn good at targetting US originated fish.
Obviously my opinion is flawed because nobody seems to agree on how to increase wild returns while maintaining sport and commercial fishing. It will likely continue to be a piss poor juggling act.
How can you or anybody not agree that banning nets/commercial fishing is the answer?
Post by: spookgus on December 20, 2011, 01:18:02 PM
It is discouraging to see nets and ghost nets in our rivers.
Post by: WSU on December 20, 2011, 01:44:29 PM
Post by: Dhoey07 on December 20, 2011, 01:48:53 PM
Would all the anti-net people agree to ban alaskan nets? The majority of our fish that end up in nets are caught in Alaska and Canada. It isn't simply the Indians netting. Far more fish are killed by Alaska and Canada than the tribes or foreign fishing fleets.
Then why add to the problem by netting in the puget sound and columbia?
Post by: spookgus on December 20, 2011, 02:23:04 PM
Would all the anti-net people agree to ban alaskan nets? The majority of our fish that end up in nets are caught in Alaska and Canada. It isn't simply the Indians netting. Far more fish are killed by Alaska and Canada than the tribes or foreign fishing fleets.Nope, the nets in the rivers of Washington is what gets me festered.
Ok, I will admit I want to BAN nets,bears,orcas,sea lions, meteors, other fisherman and any other thing that could literally or theoretically kill a salmon returning to my favorite river. :chuckle:
Post by: WSU on December 20, 2011, 03:12:03 PM
Would all the anti-net people agree to ban alaskan nets? The majority of our fish that end up in nets are caught in Alaska and Canada. It isn't simply the Indians netting. Far more fish are killed by Alaska and Canada than the tribes or foreign fishing fleets.
Then why add to the problem by netting in the puget sound and columbia?
Don't get me wrong, netting in Washington is something that needs to go away for good. It is an outdated, harmful, and inefficient practice that isn't much more than a hobby for most. This, of course, refers only to non-Indian nets since the state can't do anything about that.
Post by: huntnnw on December 20, 2011, 11:46:18 PM
Post by: wog on December 21, 2011, 09:35:41 AM
Post by: WSU on December 21, 2011, 02:17:27 PM
I think that it not so much our nets dams or sea wolves but commerial fishing in the oceans by japan; russian, and others
My point is that the "others" you speak of are Alaska and Canada. Those two kill far more fish than the tribes, japanese, russians, washington commercials, etc.