Post by: bassquatch on June 07, 2012, 07:49:05 AM
JEANNE HYDE
Tucker has been trained to smell orca poop from as far as a mile away. Tucker never goes into the water, he just leans over the bow in the direction the boat should travel.
Lack of food — not noise from whale-watching boats — is most stressful to Puget Sound's endangered killer whales, researchers have learned.
Levels of certain stress hormones decreased in samples of orca scat gathered during the time of highest vessel traffic, instead of increasing, researchers found. They surmise this is because at the same time, the whales' favorite food, chinook salmon, was most abundant.
Interestingly, the orcas' stress-hormone levels only increased when vessel noise was higher if there also were lower levels of food available at that time.
"I like to call it my buffet-in-a-bar example," said Katherine Ayres, lead author of a paper on the study published in PLoS ONE, released Wednesday. Patrons in a noisy bar won't mind the racket if all their favorite foods are piled high on the buffet. "But you go there and they are only serving rice and potatoes, and it's super noisy and crowded, then it's, 'I am not getting a good meal and these boats are driving me crazy.' "
Sam Wasser, director of University of Washington's Department of Biology Center for Conservation Biology, said the study points to the importance of putting fish first as managers look for the priority management steps, amid reducing toxins and pollution, vessel noise and improving food supply, for orca recovery.
"If you are a manager, you really want to know what are the relative importance of those, and how do they interact, and our study did that; it found that fish are the most important," Wasser said.
Efforts to build up Puget Sound chinook have been under way since before they were listed as threatened more than 10 years ago.
Yet despite the knowledge that habitat is key to chinook survival, a review of the implementation of the recovery plan for chinook for NOAA Fisheries last year showed the region has continued to lose habitat since the listing.
From 2001 to 2006, the amount of developed land in Puget Sound increased about 3 percent, with nearly two-thirds of that converted from forests or agricultural land to pavement. That translates to a loss of about 10,700 more acres of forest cover and 4,300 acres of agricultural land over that period.
Western Washington Treaty Tribes reported in a 2011 White Paper that salmon returns have continued to dwindle to the point that tribes are catching fewer salmon today than before the 1974 Boldt decision, which secured their right to half the salmon catch.
To some it's no surprise that food supply and habitat that will support healthy salmon runs would be seen as key to orca recovery. Ken Balcomb of the Center for Whale Research said he remembered seeing far more orcas back when he also used to see far more fishing boats off the west coast of the San Juan Islands. The whales never seemed to mind the boats — back when there were lots of fish.
"This is what I have been saying all along," Balcomb said.
Post by: JohnVH on June 07, 2012, 08:26:53 AM
Post by: Button Nubbs on June 07, 2012, 09:46:20 AM
Post by: JohnVH on June 07, 2012, 09:47:35 AM
even the systems that receive little to no netting pressure. :twocents:
Is there such an area?
Post by: Button Nubbs on June 07, 2012, 09:49:50 AM
Post by: bowelkaholic on June 07, 2012, 02:42:59 PM
Post by: h20hunter on June 07, 2012, 02:59:33 PM
Post by: KopperBuck on June 07, 2012, 03:54:44 PM
well if the state would not have let them kill them when they try and get them whales for Marine zoos they mite not have a problem now leave *censored* alone PS that was if Penn cove years ago o look on you tube that killer whale looks like hes having fun this is BS.
Ya. What he said :yeah: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: wildmanoutdoors on June 07, 2012, 04:04:02 PM
And like Button said, habitat.
Add all that up and you get ZERO eventually...
Post by: FC on June 07, 2012, 04:19:21 PM
Snohomish system.
What planet is this that the Snohomish system doesn't have nets in it come salmon season? Have you not also seen the nets all over Possession sound? Refresh my memory again on what happened to the chum run in the Sykomish
That river system gets netted hard...
People have been spewing that crap about habitat and it being somebody else's fault etc etc but amazingly enough the pinks are the most prolific salmon in the state without outside assistance! Now that they are being netted too I am sure that they will be decimated as well.
No matter what spin people put on this, nets are a dominant part of the problem.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 07, 2012, 04:53:02 PM
Post by: huntnphool on June 07, 2012, 05:25:18 PM
No matter what spin people put on this, nets are a dominant part of the problem.
:yeah: Makes you wonder where the activists are, why don't the anti's scream about nets in the rivers.
Post by: Fishnclifff on June 07, 2012, 06:16:46 PM
One day the Indians will realize that half of zero is zero.
They keep clogging all the rivers with nets and wasting the fish, every year.
Post by: singleshot12 on June 07, 2012, 08:12:16 PM
Post by: Moose22 on June 07, 2012, 08:23:08 PM
They Native nets across or rivers are only part of the problem. It starts in AK and goes South. Wash, Or and Calif. fish get intercepted the whole way by commercial and sport. US and Canada. As well Foreign country commercial boats.
And like Button said, habitat.
Add all that up and you get ZERO eventually...
Totally agree with you wildman. My fishing grounds for over thirty years has not had nets in the river and I have seen the runs decimated. Every couple of years the sportsmen are cut back due to the lack of fish. No humpy season since '77 still no fish, no chum season for a tleast 10 years no fish, coho runs of over 12000 down to 500. Stealhead nearly non existant. Also no dams, a free flow river.
Post by: magnanimous_j on June 07, 2012, 08:35:04 PM
"End of salmon fishing eventually???" for the sportsman maybe? we're the ones that usually loose first while the natives continue to net. I wish this state could learn fron Canada on how to manage our salmon.
Look at the population densities of Canada vs. the US and you'll see why they have such an easier time.
The natives are an easy target, and I don't like their netting, but there are simply not enough of them to be causing the kinds of reductions that we are seeing. Salmon, like other game animals, are the middle of the food chain. The ecosystem anticipates, if not relies on, massive harvests of these animals by predators every year. It was that way a million years before humans ever wandered over.
We are destroying their habitat. If we aren't paving over it directly, industrial run off and silt are destroying the salmon's spawning beds.
Post by: HuntandFish on June 07, 2012, 08:36:59 PM
And yes the snohomish is netted heavily, and so is every other river that has a salmon run! The solution to this problem is remove indian nets which account for such a large portion of the harvest each year. Heck we don't even know how much because a large majority of the harvest from the indians is not reported.
I could go on and on, but I wont.
Thanks,
H&F
Post by: Moose22 on June 07, 2012, 08:43:03 PM
Post by: runamuk on June 07, 2012, 09:00:43 PM
"End of salmon fishing eventually???" for the sportsman maybe? we're the ones that usually loose first while the natives continue to net. I wish this state could learn fron Canada on how to manage our salmon.
Look at the population densities of Canada vs. the US and you'll see why they have such an easier time.
The natives are an easy target, and I don't like their netting, but there are simply not enough of them to be causing the kinds of reductions that we are seeing. Salmon, like other game animals, are the middle of the food chain. The ecosystem anticipates, if not relies on, massive harvests of these animals by predators every year. It was that way a million years before humans ever wandered over.
We are destroying their habitat. If we aren't paving over it directly, industrial run off and silt are destroying the salmon's spawning beds.
but salmon were not netted the way they are now..if they cannot get to the spawning beds they can't begin to reproduce at all so habitat becomes sort of a non issue until they can get upstream.... :dunno:
Post by: WDFW Hates ME!!! on June 07, 2012, 09:38:00 PM
Also the ocean conditions play a huge part in it. Look at some of the videos of the herring fishery. Take a million pounds of salmon food out of the ocean and see how long they survive.
Post by: FC on June 07, 2012, 09:41:57 PM
but salmon were not netted the way they are now..if they cannot get to the spawning beds they can't begin to reproduce at all so habitat becomes sort of a non issue until they can get upstream.... :dunno:
A simple leap of logic there, well said!
So reallt it all boils down to nets... Be it native, or commercial the nets are non-discriminate.
Yes, nets are the root of the problem.
Post by: singleshot12 on June 08, 2012, 07:13:02 AM
:bash: The world of Salmon politics bites
but salmon were not netted the way they are now..if they cannot get to the spawning beds they can't begin to reproduce at all so habitat becomes sort of a non issue until they can get upstream.... :dunno:
Post by: bassquatch on June 08, 2012, 07:37:58 AM
Post by: singleshot12 on June 08, 2012, 07:56:06 AM
Yeah, but the powers that be will 'Imminent Domain' your land right out from under you for the sake of saving the salmon when they see fit! I walked away from buying 27acres in Stanwood because by the time you factored in the setbacks from the salmon spawning stream you were really only getting 12 acres, 7 of those were wooded....you sure were paying for 27 though! You couldn't even let animals within 200 feet of the stream so virtually all the pasture land was off limits.....so it's not nets that are the big problem it's cow poop! :bash:
And a little bit of cow poop is the least of the salmons problems. The salmon is being used for other political agenda's plain and simple. Like putting the family farm out of business so it can be developed :dunno:
Post by: groundhog on June 08, 2012, 09:11:07 AM
In Alaska our King salmon runs are down state wide. Habitat is not a problem. I think the off shore high seas draggers (trawlers) are a big part of the problem. Kings spend a lot of their time very close to the bottom while other salmon species are suspended in the middle depths. These foreign owned Trawlers drag huge nets along the bottom that catch anything in their path. While they are not supposed to be specifically fishing for kings they keep them anyway.
I am surprised that no one has even mentioned the Marine Mammals Act. Seal and Sea Lion populations have exploded since the Marine Mammals act. Their main diet is Salmon . As long as they are allowed to increase in numbers unmanaged they will continue to hammer the Salmon populations. :twocents:
Post by: WSU on June 12, 2012, 10:13:42 AM
Also, much of the netting occuring on chums is done by non-Indian commercials. Those seasons are set by WDFW to allow the commercials to fish. Can't blame the tribes on that one either. Yes, the tribes are a problem, but we are a far bigger problem.
Post by: FC on June 12, 2012, 10:24:56 AM
Post by: PlateauNDN on June 12, 2012, 10:39:09 AM
Post by: WSU on June 12, 2012, 10:42:53 AM
I call BS on the habitat bit, I'm sure it plays a small part but nets are probably the other 99.9% of the problem...
Why is that? Have you read some study indicating that habitat is not the problem?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 12, 2012, 11:42:20 AM
Post by: Special T on June 12, 2012, 12:10:00 PM
Many salmon spend time outside US territorial waters and since there is little regualtion by Asian/Russian Fisheries they can have a huge effect as well.
http://www.goldseal.ca/wildsalmon/salmon_migration.asp?pattern=summary
http://www.fws.gov/species/species_accounts/bio_salm.html
Post by: Heartsblood on June 12, 2012, 05:37:03 PM
I call BS on the habitat bit, I'm sure it plays a small part but nets are probably the other 99.9% of the problem...Netting is habitat loss. By netting, natural free flowing waterways are changed, lost, (borrowed?) for an entrapment environment. Fish are not in the habitat they thrive in when there are nets. They are in an altered habitat, a lost habitat, a changed even damaged habitat because of netting.
Netting is a factor in the bigger picture scenario that is habitat loss and destruction. Habitat is not the smaller issue. Netting is a part of the habitat issue.
The argument has been - netting vs habitat loss. There is no argument here because netting is just one of many ways, that habitat is adversely affected.
Post by: FC on June 12, 2012, 08:20:05 PM
Nets, regardless of who's using are a major problem. Yes, by all means, please take the easy way out and point them at the Tribes if it makes you feel better and sleep better at night. The decimation is occuring by more ways than one and if you don't care to educate yourself on that fact then sorry, by all means carry on. Sure native fishermen are an issue but to say we are almost the entire issue is abusrd.
Is this directed at me? FWIW I am against all netting equally, I can't even imagine how incredible our fisheries could be without netting!
Guess I should specify, when talking salmon issues my references to 'habitat' are from the river mouth/delta to the spawning beds. If you want to include the ocean habitat (changing ocean conditions like temperature and acidity or the over harvest of forage fish and shrimp), then I could put more weight on the habitat issue. But from what I've seen from visiting the coast in Alaska and parts of Washington, and what I've read about coastal BC; there are enough freshwater systems that if 'habitat' was the issue, then the declines theoretically should be confined to those areas that experienced development. The latest I've heard is that numbers are down even in rivers and small coastal streams in areas that have had nearly no human impact.
Agreed, these are my thoughts as well.
I call BS on the habitat bit, I'm sure it plays a small part but nets are probably the other 99.9% of the problem...Netting is habitat loss. By netting, natural free flowing waterways are changed, lost, (borrowed?) for an entrapment environment. Fish are not in the habitat they thrive in when there are nets. They are in an altered habitat, a lost habitat, a changed even damaged habitat because of netting.
I trimmed this to the points I agree with (most of it), to my knowledge there really is only one group that does this and while I have been primarily vocal about this group they are not the sole or even prime issue (with certain exceptions).
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 12, 2012, 08:52:51 PM
Post by: FC on June 12, 2012, 08:58:03 PM
It makes me sad. This is a sport I "hung it up on." It was a tradition. I have $1000's in gear and a boat for it but I quit. I feel that participating in the program hurts the runs. Also, not buying the license or spending the funds to support it means no funding and I am no longer an activist in it; that is also hurting the runs; It sucks! :bash:
Would you like to PM me your address so I can facilitate the disposal of all that unwanted gear and boat? :)
Post by: singleshot12 on June 13, 2012, 07:11:10 AM
It makes me sad. This is a sport I "hung it up on." It was a tradition. I have $1000's in gear and a boat for it but I quit. I feel that participating in the program hurts the runs. Also, not buying the license or spending the funds to support it means no funding and I am no longer an activist in it; that is also hurting the runs; It sucks! :bash:
:yeah: Same with sturgeon now! :bash:
Post by: huntnphool on June 13, 2012, 09:12:53 AM
:yeah: Same with sturgeon now! :bash::yeah:
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 13, 2012, 09:10:45 PM
It makes me sad. This is a sport I "hung it up on." It was a tradition. I have $1000's in gear and a boat for it but I quit. I feel that participating in the program hurts the runs. Also, not buying the license or spending the funds to support it means no funding and I am no longer an activist in it; that is also hurting the runs; It sucks! :bash:
Would you like to PM me your address so I can facilitate the disposal of all that unwanted gear and boat? :)
Haha :chuckle: Sorry bud, switched to bass. Less combat fishing, but not always as big a fight...
If I decide to give away lures again or some reels I'll PM you. (Seriously) You missed the last give away by a few weeks. :yike:
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 13, 2012, 09:12:19 PM
It makes me sad. This is a sport I "hung it up on." It was a tradition. I have $1000's in gear and a boat for it but I quit. I feel that participating in the program hurts the runs. Also, not buying the license or spending the funds to support it means no funding and I am no longer an activist in it; that is also hurting the runs; It sucks! :bash:
:yeah: Same with sturgeon now! :bash:
Don't remind me! :'(
Post by: teal101 on June 18, 2012, 09:04:05 AM
Starting in the mid 1800's us Euro-Americans began settling out here and exploiting the natural resources. We began doing worse than what the indians now are doing. Completely blocking rivers with nets to collect fish for canning operations. We used fish wheels to collect fish, seine nets, gill nets, etc. There was no quota or limit and in the years of large runs many of the fish rotted on the docks as the canneries could not keep up with the supply. At the same time we were stripping the river of its fish for the commercial canning market we decimated their habitat.
Hydro mining destroyed natural spawning streams and littered the gravel bottoms needed by salmon to spawn with sediment. It not only inhibited the salmon from spawning, it buried redds already there and choked out fry. Hydro mining also washed untold amounts of toxic chemicals from the soil into the stream.
Along with the mining industry you have the logging industry. Loggers cut trees along the bank of spawning streams and rivers. Removing the trees removed the shade and the water warmed. Fry lost vital cover needed to survive. Along with the loss of the trees you have splash dams. Splash dams dammed the river up with logs behind it until the logging company needed to move the logs down. They opened that dam and released a torrent of water, logs, and sediment down the river destroying redds and fry as it went down. The logs then go to the mill which dumps tons of sawdust into the water depleting oxygen and choking out the fry.
We're not done yet though. The cattle ranchers then began bringing livestock into the cleared areas. The livestock eat the remaining water holding plants and compact the ground to the point it can not hold water. Spring floods rampaged and drought in the summer prevailed drying up many streams to a trickle.
Then their is the irrigation issue. Have you seen the pictures of the Yakima during the irrigation heydays? It is damn near dry. Not only did the fish lose the water, but the fry and smolt in the river were sucked into the pipes and deposited in the irrigated fields suffocating them.
Then you have hatcheries supposedly supplementing the population when in fact they are genetically retarding it. Managers use the hatcheries as a mask to a problem. They boast at excellent hatchery numbers when wild strains are dwindling. Many of you are probably unaware, but each stream has it's own genetically diverse Salmon population. Taking fish from the lower Columbia and planting them in the Wenatchee does little good but destroy the native genes. It has been proven since the introduction of hatcheries that they are not the saving grace they are made out to be. Yet the fish managers still clog the system with their hatchery slime. They just freed the Elwha river from it's dam giving the native fish a chance to rebound and they want to put a hatchery on it! Why? To feed the people who can not wait for proper native population growth.
Finally we come to the permanent hydro dams. We all realize what they did, but many have never seen an example of the extent of the damage. Grand Coulee alone destroyed hundreds of miles of natural Salmon and Steelhead habitat. See the picture:
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi3.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy99%2FKsToy%2FSalmonHabitatBy1990.jpg&hash=f68c71b10c87979ac797105f2eb89da8843405fa)
The indians lived in harmony the with salmon previously. They used techniques similar to todays the block rivers and catch fish. The difference is their ancestors had respect for the fish and didnt fish them to the brink like the current ones do. Not only that, but at that time there was minimal commercial market involvement from the indians, now it is the driving force. Combine all this and you can see why the Salmon and Steelhead are destroyed.
Post by: HuntandFish on June 18, 2012, 08:34:36 PM
The points you make are completely valid and were true causes of fish decline. But we do not do any of these practices (damming is an issue on some rivers... hatchery fish is not really a issue here, and the indians are pushing for the elwa hatchery...) anymore. It is really easy to play out the P.R. rhetoric of its not the indians fault we did it, because they were doing it long before us with no problems.
The reasons you listed were the cause of the problem we have now, but we cannot take it back and the damage has been done. We have to focus on corrective and rehabilitation methods now. It is a case of we did it now the indians have to help us fix it. We have stopped the bad practices that decimated the fish populations, now it is the indians turn, there is simply to many people living in this country now to let the indians have free reign!
The indians used to net for sustenance that is no longer the case, they are netting for profit, and allot of the time sacking fish and leaving them rot, along with many other wasteful practices. And they do this all with impunity because the general public is brainwashed into thinking it is all of our past generations faults for what we did to the salmon/indians and for some reason we need to pay the price by letting the indians do whatever they want. Well unfortunately the indians are not responsible people and are overfishing the limited fish populations we have, and it doesn't matter the reasons we have limited fish, it matters now how we can recover this great species for generations to come.
I get that the indians still want to fish, Great! Let them do it with a pole and license just like every other citizen that enjoys the comforts and freedoms of this great nation. The indians are all grown up now, we have given them a huge apology for what has happened to there ancestors and now its time for them to live like they respect what they have!
Do you disagree?
Thanks,
H&F
Post by: Coastal_native on June 18, 2012, 08:54:04 PM
Teal101-
But we do not do any of these practices anymore.
We have stopped the bad practices that decimated the fish populations
The indians used to net for sustenance that is no longer the case, they are netting for profit,
Well unfortunately the indians are not responsible people and are overfishing the limited fish populations we have
Thanks,
H&F
Post by: predatorpro on June 18, 2012, 08:59:01 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 18, 2012, 09:10:40 PM
That map leaves off lots of other rivers that aren't affected by dams, and they have had big declines too.
There is a graph I was looking for that showed the total annual catch by tonnage since the 1950's, and if I remember correctly the total had almost tripled before 2010--it was a NMFS graph if you want to search for it.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 18, 2012, 09:18:39 PM
why do i always here how great the salmon numbers have been the last few years? i hear one person say numbers are way up and then i hear people act like salmon are almost extinct?Wild salmon, particulary kings and silvers, are low enough in numbers to get ESA designation for certain systems. (though I thought NMFS was claiming silvers are recovered now--not sure, but still low numbers)
The 'great' salmon numbers tend to be hatchery fish and vary by year, also pink salmon have been making up a lot of the records.
Post by: teal101 on June 18, 2012, 09:21:08 PM
Teal101-
The points you make are completely valid and were true causes of fish decline. But we do not do any of these practices (damming is an issue on some rivers... hatchery fish is not really a issue here, and the indians are pushing for the elwa hatchery...) anymore. It is really easy to play out the P.R. rhetoric of its not the indians fault we did it, because they were doing it long before us with no problems.
The reasons you listed were the cause of the problem we have now, but we cannot take it back and the damage has been done. We have to focus on corrective and rehabilitation methods now. It is a case of we did it now the indians have to help us fix it. We have stopped the bad practices that decimated the fish populations, now it is the indians turn, there is simply to many people living in this country now to let the indians have free reign!
The indians used to net for sustenance that is no longer the case, they are netting for profit, and allot of the time sacking fish and leaving them rot, along with many other wasteful practices. And they do this all with impunity because the general public is brainwashed into thinking it is all of our past generations faults for what we did to the salmon/indians and for some reason we need to pay the price by letting the indians do whatever they want. Well unfortunately the indians are not responsible people and are overfishing the limited fish populations we have, and it doesn't matter the reasons we have limited fish, it matters now how we can recover this great species for generations to come.
I get that the indians still want to fish, Great! Let them do it with a pole and license just like every other citizen that enjoys the comforts and freedoms of this great nation. The indians are all grown up now, we have given them a huge apology for what has happened to there ancestors and now its time for them to live like they respect what they have!
Do you disagree?
Thanks,
H&F
We have not stopped the bad practices. Many irrigation lines still run without screens, dams still block rivers, logging still removes habitat, ranching still encroaches on Salmon habitat, expansion of the human population has taken it's fair share of land away, and we are STILL putting hatchery fish in the system. I read a recent study that was regarding Bull trout that linked reproductive success with lack of roads. The study showed a definite decline in reproductive success of the fish as road densities increase, yet we still populate these kind of areas. If you look at the map I posted you'll see the majority of lost habitat to spawning is behind permanent dams. Those shaded areas are areas that used to be used, not potential spawning ground. You're right we can not take back what has been done, but to really say anything that needs to be done is getting done is flat out wrong. The management barely does any habitat restoration on the scale it should. I know this isnt 100% their fault as politics play a huge role. The fact that they were able to breach the Elwha dam amazed me. Then you also have the appropriation of funds. The general populace wants an immediate return for their investment, which is where hatcheries come into play. If we took 50% of the hatchery money and put it in to habitat restoration I dare say we may see results 5-10 years down the road, but that does not suit the population. People want to catch fish now and it makes it hard for management to dump the hatcheries.
I do not disagree that what the indians are doing now is wrong, granted it is not all of them. We destroyed the runs and current practices by us and the "new natives" are not in any way shape or form helping the population.
Post by: teal101 on June 18, 2012, 09:22:37 PM
why do i always here how great the salmon numbers have been the last few years? i hear one person say numbers are way up and then i hear people act like salmon are almost extinct?
The numbers being up is comparative to the average over the past few decades after the major salmon decline. Imagine our rivers with Salmon runs closing in on the Alaskan runs, it once happened.
Post by: Special T on June 19, 2012, 09:36:56 AM
Post by: teal101 on June 19, 2012, 10:49:33 AM
"Many irrigation lines still run without screens" If that is the case then they open themselves to some stiff fines... I also know that no one will give a screen mesh size for the screen. the only answer you get is " NO SALMON IN THE IRRIGATION DITCH!" Not saying i completely disagree, but there is VERY little common sense employed to solve the problem. Because3 of this there are SO MANY ways to improve the situation it boggles the mind making it seem impossible... I THINK THIS IS ON PURPOSE! If not deliberately then because the bureaucracy cannot make any real decisions and INDECISION is a decision, just one they do not have to take accountability for.
Screens have been required since the early 1900's and many places still do not have them and are unregulated. There is little enforcement for existing items compared to new construction. I can not comment on the screen size issue, although I am tempted to see what answer I get when I call and if it is something without a standard then it needs to be addressed. Politics play a huge role in restoration, we have to do what the people want first and foremost followed by the Salmon. Every aspect of restoration is a battle with these fish as many of the problems facing the salmon are aspects of NW life that are engrained in our lives.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 19, 2012, 11:40:28 AM
Post by: Special T on June 19, 2012, 12:37:22 PM
I know several people that have talked aboutthe screen issue and they reside in E WA.
Post by: teal101 on June 19, 2012, 02:31:24 PM
A lot of the cost for the restoration is being eaten up by consulting groups, feasibility studies and administrative costs for the different groups. The state awards all kinds of money to areas for salmon projects--usually things like replacing a culvert, but sometimes the groups get money and just do studies and make recommendations for more money. (the original amount isn't close for the project anyways)
Cant disagree with ya there. Like I said politics, bureaucracy, it's all hindering actual restoration.
Post by: PlateauNDN on June 19, 2012, 02:48:19 PM
Teal101-
The points you make are completely valid and were true causes of fish decline. But we do not do any of these practices (damming is an issue on some rivers... hatchery fish is not really a issue here, and the indians are pushing for the elwa hatchery...) anymore. It is really easy to play out the P.R. rhetoric of its not the indians fault we did it, because they were doing it long before us with no problems.
The reasons you listed were the cause of the problem we have now, but we cannot take it back and the damage has been done. We have to focus on corrective and rehabilitation methods now. It is a case of we did it now the indians have to help us fix it. We have stopped the bad practices that decimated the fish populations, now it is the indians turn, there is simply to many people living in this country now to let the indians have free reign!
The indians used to net for sustenance that is no longer the case, they are netting for profit, and allot of the time sacking fish and leaving them rot, along with many other wasteful practices. And they do this all with impunity because the general public is brainwashed into thinking it is all of our past generations faults for what we did to the salmon/indians and for some reason we need to pay the price by letting the indians do whatever they want. Well unfortunately the indians are not responsible people and are overfishing the limited fish populations we have, and it doesn't matter the reasons we have limited fish, it matters now how we can recover this great species for generations to come.
I get that the indians still want to fish, Great! Let them do it with a pole and license just like every other citizen that enjoys the comforts and freedoms of this great nation. The indians are all grown up now, we have given them a huge apology for what has happened to there ancestors and now its time for them to live like they respect what they have!
Do you disagree?
Thanks,
H&F
Yes, right here I disagree. I disagree that your mentality on this subject is about as narrow-minded as it's going to get. Sure there is wastage and abuse done by Tribal Members but for the most part majority are not like that. I for one, am not like that but yet, here you are saying I am and rolling me up into the category. I for one, have fished for many years and have not personally witnessed any of the wastage but I have seen other minor infractions that I have spoken with individual members about and in certain cases reported and waited for L.E.
There are many reasons why the runs are slowly diminishing but to lay the entire problem on one group is pretty ridiculous and unfounded, carry on.
Post by: HuntandFish on June 19, 2012, 05:45:43 PM
My mentality is certainly not narrow minded, rather it is focused on the major issue at hand concerning this problem. I understand that there are many Indians that do not practice netting or at least not wasteful practices, unfortunately I do not know those people by name who are doing these wasteful practices or I would have cited them. Again I will restate that the persistant and extensive netting by Indians is a major problem in this state and others, regardless if the Indians are breaking the law or are "fishing" legally. It is a practice that needs to be stopped. I am a contractor and I spend countless dollars on environmental practices that ensure my impact on the construction site does not impact the salmon in the local tributary. And when I am done working for the day I can drive home along the river and see a Indian netting 100's of fish, allot of them native fish! But I am not going to go into the details and implications of how our government bends to suit politics and not logical legislation.
As I stated previously I am not laying the problem on one specific group, I am however laying the blame on Indians for not stopping the incredibly harmfull practice of river netting for the greater good of there so called beloved salmon. Because we all know the government will not step up and change the treaties to exclude this practice because of the political implications, instead the government will try and constrict the rights of the many to offset the actions of the few!
To be clear, there are other issue's that need to be addressed when it comes to saving and restoring salmon numbers. We cannot however patch all the holes in the bucket and simply refuse to address a large hole and expect to never run out of water. This is why people are angry!
Thoughts?
Thanks,
H&F
Post by: Dhoey07 on June 19, 2012, 09:21:54 PM
Post by: HuntandFish on June 19, 2012, 09:46:45 PM
This state has stopped nearly all harmful practices as far as law is concerned. A few people not following the law is to small of a pinhole in the bucket to be bringing into a debate like this in my own opinion. Large buffers along creeks are required for logging both private and public. Residential and commercial land development is doing more good then harm for the fish populations, and roads in general do nothing to the habitat of fish, it is obvious that this study is simply targeting the logging industry, I would assume anyway. Please be very wary of studies you read, just because a scientist or someone that is "educated" put together a study it does not mean it is correct, in fact in allot of cases they are just plain wrong. It is fairly easy to look up studies to support both sides of any argument, what does that tell you? Just remember everyone has to justify there jobs and a few of them have to justify government grants and money. This society is study crazy.
I agree with you that there are still some things that need to be addressed and should be, but we have to change the mentality in this state/country that we have to regulate ourselves more to compensate for the ignorance and self entitlement of others!
And yes the Elwha dam is just another example of this state's unwillingness to stand up to indians and do what is right.
This is just my two cents!
H&F
Post by: Special T on June 20, 2012, 09:15:12 AM
Post by: teal101 on June 20, 2012, 09:27:52 AM
Teal 101-
This state has stopped nearly all harmful practices as far as law is concerned. A few people not following the law is to small of a pinhole in the bucket to be bringing into a debate like this in my own opinion. Large buffers along creeks are required for logging both private and public. Residential and commercial land development is doing more good then harm for the fish populations, and roads in general do nothing to the habitat of fish, it is obvious that this study is simply targeting the logging industry, I would assume anyway. Please be very wary of studies you read, just because a scientist or someone that is "educated" put together a study it does not mean it is correct, in fact in allot of cases they are just plain wrong. It is fairly easy to look up studies to support both sides of any argument, what does that tell you? Just remember everyone has to justify there jobs and a few of them have to justify government grants and money. This society is study crazy.
I agree with you that there are still some things that need to be addressed and should be, but we have to change the mentality in this state/country that we have to regulate ourselves more to compensate for the ignorance and self entitlement of others!
And yes the Elwha dam is just another example of this state's unwillingness to stand up to indians and do what is right.
This is just my two cents!
H&F
Land development is doing more good than harm? How in any way shape or form is changing natural habitat better than leaving natural habitat? That is nearly the same argument that got the hatcheries implemented. The U.S. thought they could scientifically control and produce the fish better than millions of years of evolution in nature could. It's asinine. Just because a development is required to abide by a setback and implement retaining ponds to attempt counteracting their input does not mean that it is helping. It is merely a bandaid to the issue caused by the development. If you think roads do nothing you're out of your mind. You have noise pollution, air pollution, ground pollution, trash, sediment kicked up, and a compact channel for runoff. We've proven over and over again we can not manage the fish better than nature yet still try to do it. There are a lot of things the state needs to fix with salmon management, hatcheries being the big black eye in the program right now.
Post by: PlateauNDN on June 20, 2012, 09:43:39 AM
Teal 101-
This state has stopped nearly all harmful practices as far as law is concerned. A few people not following the law is to small of a pinhole in the bucket to be bringing into a debate like this in my own opinion. Really, so the small pin hole of Tribal Fishermen abusing their rights is ridiculously big and their to blame? Okay sounds reasonable Tribal Fishermen are the entire reason. Large buffers along creeks are required for logging both private and public. Residential and commercial land development is doing more good then harm for the fish populations, and roads in general do nothing to the habitat of fish, it is obvious that this study is simply targeting the logging industry, I would assume anyway. Wow, residential and commercial land development is better for the fish, ok, if you say so. :rolleyes: Please be very wary of studies you read, just because a scientist or someone that is "educated" put together a study it does not mean it is correct, in fact in allot of cases they are just plain wrong. It is fairly easy to look up studies to support both sides of any argument, what does that tell you? Just remember everyone has to justify there jobs and a few of them have to justify government grants and money. This society is study crazy. We can agree on this one.
I agree with you that there are still some things that need to be addressed and should be, but we have to change the mentality in this state/country that we have to regulate ourselves more to compensate for the ignorance and self entitlement of others!
And yes the Elwha dam is just another example of this state's unwillingness to stand up to indians and do what is right. So in your opinion what is right? Leaving the dams in place or removing them and restoring an ecosystem that was there way before the dams were ever put in place? I bet you were against the closure of the port idea when it came to town because the "Indian" skeletal remains that numbered well over thousands of full skeletals and partials were not worth the effort and should've just been removed and dumped like trash just like the previous excavations did in the past. Their families and ancestors were there first for many generations but yet you probably didn't even care to consider that, they were probably just in your way and who cares right?
This is just my two cents!
H&F
Wow is all I can say.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 20, 2012, 11:24:24 AM
Really, so the small pin hole of Tribal Fishermen abusing their rights is ridiculously big and their to blame? Okay sounds reasonable Tribal Fishermen are the entire reason.I wouldn't say that. But they are using a VERY effective, non-selective harvest method. When using any highly effective method it only takes a small pin hole of any population to make a huge impact. Could you imagine how much worse it would be if non-tribal fisherman could use mono gillnets? The 50% of the catch doesn't even bug me, nor does using gillnets in open water. I just don't see the netting of river mouths with modern nets as doing anything good. It wouldn't bother me at all if the indians made nets out of cedar fibers like they did years ago and netted a few times a season for the traditional aspect.
Post by: PlateauNDN on June 20, 2012, 11:54:46 AM
Really, so the small pin hole of Tribal Fishermen abusing their rights is ridiculously big and their to blame? Okay sounds reasonable Tribal Fishermen are the entire reason.I wouldn't say that. But they are using a VERY effective, non-selective harvest method. When using any highly effective method it only takes a small pin hole of any population to make a huge impact. Could you imagine how much worse it would be if non-tribal fisherman could use mono gillnets? The 50% of the catch doesn't even bug me, nor does using gillnets in open water. I just don't see the netting of river mouths with modern nets as doing anything good. It wouldn't bother me at all if the indians made nets out of cedar fibers like they did years ago and netted a few times a season for the traditional aspect.
There are things that we agree on and no, I'm not saying Tribal Members that fish in this method are completely without blame, I was just pointing out to h&f that we are not the entire problem. To say it's just the "indians", blame them all, it's all their fault is absurd and narrow-minded.
Post by: jackmaster on June 20, 2012, 12:09:57 PM
Post by: WSU on June 20, 2012, 01:10:30 PM
Really, so the small pin hole of Tribal Fishermen abusing their rights is ridiculously big and their to blame? Okay sounds reasonable Tribal Fishermen are the entire reason.I wouldn't say that. But they are using a VERY effective, non-selective harvest method. When using any highly effective method it only takes a small pin hole of any population to make a huge impact. Could you imagine how much worse it would be if non-tribal fisherman could use mono gillnets? The 50% of the catch doesn't even bug me, nor does using gillnets in open water. I just don't see the netting of river mouths with modern nets as doing anything good. It wouldn't bother me at all if the indians made nets out of cedar fibers like they did years ago and netted a few times a season for the traditional aspect.
Why is netting in the open ocean better? Common knowledge seems to indicate that it is worse. Alaska and Canada already net a ton of our Washington fish without any idea of where those fish are headed. Way over half of the entire run in many rivers. At least the nets in rivers know what river's fish they are catching. It makes way more sense to do away with ocean netting and do all netting in terminal areas. At least then we would know what in the hell we are catching...
Post by: Dhoey07 on June 20, 2012, 01:20:42 PM
my honest opinion and i know i am gonna catch crap for this but oh well, my stance is, shut down all commercial fishing, including out in the ocean i mean shut it all down for everything, and shut down all native nets, no one family needs that much salmon in a year especially when i see native nets come out of the water and then those same natives are at the local ampm selling their catch right out of their totes, if anyone wants fish or shellfish or whatever else commercial and natives catch, then go catch it youself or do without, it wouldnt break my heart because i know how to fish and gather shellfish, crab or what have ya, i really dont care if you cant fend for yourself and dont know how to fish, not my problem, go learn just like i did, but to me that is the ONLY way to fix are fisheries, not by putn more regs and jackn up prices.... :twocents:
The only people you would catch flack from are natives and commercial guys. Unfortunately the are both special interest groups and we know how they are treated in politics. If a fish is endangered or protected they shouldn't be netted at all!
Post by: FC on June 20, 2012, 01:46:12 PM
my honest opinion and i know i am gonna catch crap for this but oh well, my stance is, shut down all commercial fishing, including out in the ocean i mean shut it all down for everything, and shut down all native nets, no one family needs that much salmon in a year especially when i see native nets come out of the water and then those same natives are at the local ampm selling their catch right out of their totes, if anyone wants fish or shellfish or whatever else commercial and natives catch, then go catch it youself or do without, it wouldnt break my heart because i know how to fish and gather shellfish, crab or what have ya, i really dont care if you cant fend for yourself and dont know how to fish, not my problem, go learn just like i did, but to me that is the ONLY way to fix are fisheries, not by putn more regs and jackn up prices.... :twocents:
I completely agree, all commercial fishing should be shut down.
Post by: jackmaster on June 20, 2012, 02:08:18 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 20, 2012, 04:22:26 PM
Why is netting in the open ocean better? Common knowledge seems to indicate that it is worse. Alaska and Canada already net a ton of our Washington fish without any idea of where those fish are headed. Way over half of the entire run in many rivers. At least the nets in rivers know what river's fish they are catching. It makes way more sense to do away with ocean netting and do all netting in terminal areas. At least then we would know what in the hell we are catching...I should be more specific, I was referring to the little gillnetter boats the tribes use along Hood Canal and the Strait...not all nets in general. As far as I know the indians are the only ones allowed to use gill nets across rivers, but indians and commercials are allowed to use them in the ocean. If they got rid of ocean nets for commercials, then I'd even suggest getting rid of the ocean nets for indians. In one of these threads, someone said they can only have a net halfway across a river. Well, I need to take a camera more often because I've seen nets strung completely across rivers, usually with more nets behind them in case of jumpers. I've had to row over said nets because there wasn't any way to go around them. They essentially make a barrier to anything trying to traverse---might as well just have a dam. And just because they target one specific-time run, they are also actually catching fish from different times hatches. Not all salmon/steelhead arrive at one time, some come really early and some late similar to a bell curve. Just overlap all the different bell curves and that's what's being caught.
And I do agree with you about the netting in general in the ocean and how much it takes, I just wouldn't agree with taking nets away from the indians and letting the commercials continue to use them.
Right now the Elwha has a big fish trap set up across the river, where the biologists can go look at and observe fish returning to get data and then release fish unharmed to continue upstream. The Colvilles are using purse seine nets and are able to release certain fish unharmed.
Post by: singleshot12 on June 20, 2012, 04:34:52 PM
my honest opinion and i know i am gonna catch crap for this but oh well, my stance is, shut down all commercial fishing, including out in the ocean i mean shut it all down for everything, and shut down all native nets, no one family needs that much salmon in a year especially when i see native nets come out of the water and then those same natives are at the local ampm selling their catch right out of their totes, if anyone wants fish or shellfish or whatever else commercial and natives catch, then go catch it youself or do without, it wouldnt break my heart because i know how to fish and gather shellfish, crab or what have ya, i really dont care if you cant fend for yourself and dont know how to fish, not my problem, go learn just like i did, but to me that is the ONLY way to fix are fisheries, not by putn more regs and jackn up prices.... :twocents:
The only people you would catch flack from are natives and commercial guys. Unfortunately the are both special interest groups and we know how they are treated in politics. If a fish is endangered or protected they shouldn't be netted at all!
100% agree! They put an end to market hunting years ago due to the rapid decline of critters. Salmon should of been treated the same.
Post by: singleshot12 on June 20, 2012, 04:37:54 PM
good i am glad that some agree, i didnt expect it, whatever happened to eat what ya catch, i get tired of the natives thrown whole salmon away just so they can get the roe, and i aint just singling out natives white people do the same damn thing, i guess it all comes down to big business, department of fisheries really dont give a crap if commercial guys or the tribes are decimating the fish because they supply big dollars to who the hell ever, but if you or i went out and caught one salmon over are limit or a trout that is a 1/8 in undesize then we get the book thrown at us.... some crap just dont make sense, we simple folk can see clearly what needs to be done, but the powers that be are blind to common sense
Yeah that too!
Post by: RG on June 20, 2012, 04:41:50 PM
Post by: runamuk on June 20, 2012, 04:55:13 PM
more info
Post by: teal101 on June 20, 2012, 06:14:26 PM
Post by: HuntandFish on June 20, 2012, 09:44:23 PM
Teal 101-
This state has stopped nearly all harmful practices as far as law is concerned. A few people not following the law is to small of a pinhole in the bucket to be bringing into a debate like this in my own opinion. Large buffers along creeks are required for logging both private and public. Residential and commercial land development is doing more good then harm for the fish populations, and roads in general do nothing to the habitat of fish, it is obvious that this study is simply targeting the logging industry, I would assume anyway. Please be very wary of studies you read, just because a scientist or someone that is "educated" put together a study it does not mean it is correct, in fact in allot of cases they are just plain wrong. It is fairly easy to look up studies to support both sides of any argument, what does that tell you? Just remember everyone has to justify there jobs and a few of them have to justify government grants and money. This society is study crazy.
I agree with you that there are still some things that need to be addressed and should be, but we have to change the mentality in this state/country that we have to regulate ourselves more to compensate for the ignorance and self entitlement of others!
And yes the Elwha dam is just another example of this state's unwillingness to stand up to indians and do what is right.
This is just my two cents!
H&F
Land development is doing more good than harm? How in any way shape or form is changing natural habitat better than leaving natural habitat? That is nearly the same argument that got the hatcheries implemented. The U.S. thought they could scientifically control and produce the fish better than millions of years of evolution in nature could. It's asinine. Just because a development is required to abide by a setback and implement retaining ponds to attempt counteracting their input does not mean that it is helping. It is merely a bandaid to the issue caused by the development. If you think roads do nothing you're out of your mind. You have noise pollution, air pollution, ground pollution, trash, sediment kicked up, and a compact channel for runoff. We've proven over and over again we can not manage the fish better than nature yet still try to do it. There are a lot of things the state needs to fix with salmon management, hatcheries being the big black eye in the program right now.
You can't stop development it is what runs the economy, and for all intents and purposes Washington (I can't speak for other states) does a great job of mitigating the impact of development, it costs me more then I would like to do business but it is worth it. The type of water control devices and erosion control that are implemented are not a bandaid they are a permanent mitigation to the disturbance. The concept behind these devices is to let water enter the waterways naturally or as close to as possible. After that you have set backs and buffers, because a stream is only effect by its immediate surroundings as far as shade and ecosystem are concerned. I suppose I should clarify roads do so little to a river environment it would be unmeasurable. And noise pollution is a crazy concept since sound waves do not enter water unless transferred by direct contact? Air pollution is also grasping at straws? Trash I will give you that one, but we are talking about salmon reproducing and thriving, don't think a McDonald's wrapper will effect this? Sediment that may be produced during a heavy rain fall event by concentrated flows running down the road are in almost all cases naturally mitigated by the natural vegetation that is left as a buffer (set back) between the road and the river, this is the main reason why these buffers are there, and they work very effectively.
I agree with you that we cannot manage fish better then nature, we pay for way to many biologists to blow smoke up our *ss and justify their jobs. All we can do is mitigate our development and let nature take its course. And to get back to my original point I believe that ONE of the major issues that needs to be addressed is netting.
Not trying to fight with you Teal, I respect the fact you want to save these fish like I do.
H&F
Post by: HuntandFish on June 20, 2012, 09:49:48 PM
Teal 101-
This state has stopped nearly all harmful practices as far as law is concerned. A few people not following the law is to small of a pinhole in the bucket to be bringing into a debate like this in my own opinion. Really, so the small pin hole of Tribal Fishermen abusing their rights is ridiculously big and their to blame? Okay sounds reasonable Tribal Fishermen are the entire reason. Large buffers along creeks are required for logging both private and public. Residential and commercial land development is doing more good then harm for the fish populations, and roads in general do nothing to the habitat of fish, it is obvious that this study is simply targeting the logging industry, I would assume anyway. Wow, residential and commercial land development is better for the fish, ok, if you say so. :rolleyes: Please be very wary of studies you read, just because a scientist or someone that is "educated" put together a study it does not mean it is correct, in fact in allot of cases they are just plain wrong. It is fairly easy to look up studies to support both sides of any argument, what does that tell you? Just remember everyone has to justify there jobs and a few of them have to justify government grants and money. This society is study crazy. We can agree on this one.
I agree with you that there are still some things that need to be addressed and should be, but we have to change the mentality in this state/country that we have to regulate ourselves more to compensate for the ignorance and self entitlement of others!
And yes the Elwha dam is just another example of this state's unwillingness to stand up to indians and do what is right. So in your opinion what is right? Leaving the dams in place or removing them and restoring an ecosystem that was there way before the dams were ever put in place? I bet you were against the closure of the port idea when it came to town because the "Indian" skeletal remains that numbered well over thousands of full skeletals and partials were not worth the effort and should've just been removed and dumped like trash just like the previous excavations did in the past. Their families and ancestors were there first for many generations but yet you probably didn't even care to consider that, they were probably just in your way and who cares right?
This is just my two cents!
H&F
Wow is all I can say.
Yes I do beileive tribal netters have a larger part to do with the fish decline then the other issues that also need to be adderessed.
I don't know why you are bringing up other subjects, but I do support anyone taking reasonable time to remove there ancestors remains, it would be a matter of respect. I didn't here about the port stoppage so cannot comment on that, was it recent? What I meant on the damn comment is that we are installing fish hatcheries so the tribal indians will have fish...
Post by: HuntandFish on June 20, 2012, 09:51:23 PM
Really, so the small pin hole of Tribal Fishermen abusing their rights is ridiculously big and their to blame? Okay sounds reasonable Tribal Fishermen are the entire reason.I wouldn't say that. But they are using a VERY effective, non-selective harvest method. When using any highly effective method it only takes a small pin hole of any population to make a huge impact. Could you imagine how much worse it would be if non-tribal fisherman could use mono gillnets? The 50% of the catch doesn't even bug me, nor does using gillnets in open water. I just don't see the netting of river mouths with modern nets as doing anything good. It wouldn't bother me at all if the indians made nets out of cedar fibers like they did years ago and netted a few times a season for the traditional aspect.
I couldn't agree with you more JimmyHoffa!
Post by: HuntandFish on June 20, 2012, 09:53:11 PM
my honest opinion and i know i am gonna catch crap for this but oh well, my stance is, shut down all commercial fishing, including out in the ocean i mean shut it all down for everything, and shut down all native nets, no one family needs that much salmon in a year especially when i see native nets come out of the water and then those same natives are at the local ampm selling their catch right out of their totes, if anyone wants fish or shellfish or whatever else commercial and natives catch, then go catch it youself or do without, it wouldnt break my heart because i know how to fish and gather shellfish, crab or what have ya, i really dont care if you cant fend for yourself and dont know how to fish, not my problem, go learn just like i did, but to me that is the ONLY way to fix are fisheries, not by putn more regs and jackn up prices.... :twocents:
Jackmaster I agree as well, I think netting is one of the most harmfull practices there are. Let people fish for themselves or pay the high price of buying from a non US fishing industry (because we will never stop them) :tup:
Post by: HuntandFish on June 20, 2012, 09:58:24 PM
Yes the Bolt decision allowed indians to stretch their nets across half of the river, this was determined by some people who obviously have never spent a minute on a river. The bolt decision originally said indians could only net half of the salmon/fish that entered the river, and the regulatory means for this was to implement a netting restriction allowing the nets to only cover half the river at a time.
I always see nets across the whole river, or if not they are stagger set to ensure they catch 99% of what is in the river because the indians know fish do not swim in a zig zag pattern.
H&F
Post by: HuntandFish on June 20, 2012, 10:05:38 PM
I'm sure HF will attest to this, but here on the west side thereis a runoff storm drain fee/tax each year. It is for "Manageing runoff issues" I know every new housing developemnt has water retention ponds with cattails to hold and treat runoff. Many of these so called runn off studies are must not take this into account. I also am some what suspect of what some counties are using this fund for... For the ammount of $$$ they come up with they should be addding retention ponds like crazy negating existing roads and problems. :twocents:
I don't even want to start adding up the money I spend on water quality each year. And the issue of the tax's and fee's that are collected and go into a fund is a good point. I would really like to see where that money goes, we probably can't figure that out though because no one knows? And yes if I am going to spend the money lets fix some of the roads and developments that were put in before the new practices. I believe this was the intent of several of these fees we pay?
Oh well...
H&F
Post by: PlateauNDN on June 21, 2012, 07:46:41 AM
JimmyHoffa-
Yes the Bolt decision allowed indians to stretch their nets across half of the river, this was determined by some people who obviously have never spent a minute on a river. The bolt decision originally said indians could only net half of the salmon/fish that entered the river, and the regulatory means for this was to implement a netting restriction allowing the nets to only cover half the river at a time.
I always see nets across the whole river, or if not they are stagger set to ensure they catch 99% of what is in the river because the indians know fish do not swim in a zig zag pattern.
H&F
You really need to comprehend and research some of your own posts. The Boldt decision didn't allow or grant anything. All it did was re-affirm what had already been secured through the Treaties by the Tribes with the Federal Government, not its States. Our Leaders at the time of the negotiations and signings only agreed to sign as long as we retained our rights to fish, hunt and gather on all lands that we ceded and usual and accustomed areas. We already had the rights and were and are exercising them right now. The Boldt decision upheld the Treaty Rights that the States were trying to take away and limit without having the authority or jurisdiction to do so.
If you actually read the minutes, documents and all the material pertaining to The United States v. Washington (AKA Boldt Decision) it was not the Tribes versus WA. State it was the United States, the Federal Government because the Rights secured by our Leaders were negotiated and agreed upon with the US not WA. and they hold the jurisdiction and authority over Tribes.
US v WA gave definition to what the language stated in the Treaties and in the Treaty Minutes and by breaking down the meaning of each phrase is what came up with the 50/50 ratio.
All non-tribal fishermen (commercial and sport) shall have an opportunity at 50% and Tribal fishermen shall have an opportunity at 50%.
Again, I'm not denying the fact that there is abuse among Tribal Members but not all of us abuse our rights and those that do deserve to be punished by the law, I report it when I see regardless of who it is.
Post by: WSU on June 21, 2012, 10:02:29 AM
Post by: Special T on June 21, 2012, 10:38:52 AM
Now i know many of you may say that "____ has more effect on salmon runs than Mergansers!" Well SO WHAT! It would be a step in the right direction. It may not be as BIG a change as many of you would like, but hey it would be in the right direction!
If we bann together on many of these "predator issues" we can build a large body of support.. :twocents:
Post by: WSU on June 21, 2012, 10:44:25 AM
I get really frustrated talking about this stuff! :bash: One of the reasons NOTHING happens is becuase we do not focus on things that 90% of us agree on... Lets just start with 1 example... Mergansers/sawbills... Is there ANYONE that thinks its a good idea to have them as part of the normal bag limit? The Gov Beurocracy LIKES it when large coalitions of people band together to make change happen.... I cannot think of very many people that would not support a change to this kind of legislation... I would immagine tribes, commercial fishermen, Hunters, Sport fishermen, Farmers, and anyone else affected by the salmon issue would thow thier support behind having a seperate limit like the other flyways... :bash:
Now i know many of you may say that "____ has more effect on salmon runs than Mergansers!" Well SO WHAT! It would be a step in the right direction. It may not be as BIG a change as many of you would like, but hey it would be in the right direction!
If we bann together on many of these "predator issues" we can build a large body of support.. :twocents:
Believe me, I do my part on the sawbills! One of the best part about an mid-October salmon float is that the sawbills aren't aware they are fair game!
Post by: Special T on June 21, 2012, 11:26:46 AM
Post by: buckhorn2 on June 21, 2012, 11:52:35 AM
Post by: PlateauNDN on June 21, 2012, 11:57:00 AM
Post by: jackmaster on June 21, 2012, 12:08:57 PM
Post by: magnanimous_j on June 21, 2012, 12:19:51 PM
Other countries harvest irresponsibly. The Japanese have basically admitted that they are going to fish the Blue Fin Tuna to extinction. But what can we do about that?
We are, however destroying ocean stocks in other ways. Farm runoff is creating huge "dead zones" in the gulf of Mexico. Tiny plastic particles are poisoning filter feeders who mistake them for plankton. Mercury and other toxins are bio-accumulating in large Ocean mammals. Perhaps most stupidly, we are depleting bedrock baitfish stocks like Herring, to make hog feed and farm fertilizer.
And habitat depletion is the number 1 cause of NW salmon run declines.
Post by: WSU on June 21, 2012, 12:38:32 PM
Banning commercial fishing in the US won't solve any problems. According to the Monterrey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch (http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/seafoodwatch.aspx (http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/seafoodwatch.aspx)), most of the US wild fisheries are run in a sustainable manner, Alaska Salmon got a "best choice" for example.
Other countries harvest irresponsibly. The Japanese have basically admitted that they are going to fish the Blue Fin Tuna to extinction. But what can we do about that?
We are, however destroying ocean stocks in other ways. Farm runoff is creating huge "dead zones" in the gulf of Mexico. Tiny plastic particles are poisoning filter feeders who mistake them for plankton. Mercury and other toxins are bio-accumulating in large Ocean mammals. Perhaps most stupidly, we are depleting bedrock baitfish stocks like Herring, to make hog feed and farm fertilizer.
And habitat depletion is the number 1 cause of NW salmon run declines.
That Seafood Watch rating is suspect at best. The problem is that it does not make a distinction between the various runs and the origins of the fish caught. Some places have very healthy, and heavily harvested, runs of certain fish while having very unhealthy runs of other fish. A prime example is the Kenai and Cook Inlet kings. They harvest the living $hit out of the abundant sockeye. In the process, they have harvested the $hit out of the not so healthy kings. Now, there are giant areas being closed to king fishing and some of the worst runs on record are occuring now. These fish harvested by Alaskan commercials. It ain't the Indians and Japanese. Similar harvest occurs on our Washington fish by Alaskan commercials.
Post by: magnanimous_j on June 21, 2012, 01:29:43 PM
That Seafood Watch rating is suspect at best. The problem is that it does not make a distinction between the various runs and the origins of the fish caught. Some places have very healthy, and heavily harvested, runs of certain fish while having very unhealthy runs of other fish. A prime example is the Kenai and Cook Inlet kings. They harvest the living $hit out of the abundant sockeye. In the process, they have harvested the $hit out of the not so healthy kings. Now, there are giant areas being closed to king fishing and some of the worst runs on record are occuring now. These fish harvested by Alaskan commercials. It ain't the Indians and Japanese. Similar harvest occurs on our Washington fish by Alaskan commercials.
I don't doubt you, but that surprises me. I would have thought that if anything,The Monterrey Bay Aquarium would be overly critical of commercial fishing.
I wouldn't object to shutting the fisheries down for a few years to let populations climb, but I feel weird about the idea of ending all commercial fishing forever. I fish and crab (and squid and clam), so I'd get mine, but for a lot of people, wild caught seafood is the only animal protein they eat that isn't pumped full of anti-biotics and growth hormones.
Post by: Special T on June 21, 2012, 01:53:44 PM
Post by: jackmaster on June 21, 2012, 01:56:50 PM
Post by: WSU on June 21, 2012, 02:10:09 PM
Post by: teal101 on June 21, 2012, 02:10:56 PM
Post by: WSU on June 21, 2012, 02:21:43 PM
Pretty sure while I was away from this conversation WSU telepathically communicated with me and posted my exact thoughts :chuckle: Carry on. :hello:
You know what they say about brilliant minds.....
Post by: teal101 on June 21, 2012, 02:24:11 PM
They're always right :chuckle:Pretty sure while I was away from this conversation WSU telepathically communicated with me and posted my exact thoughts :chuckle: Carry on. :hello:
You know what they say about brilliant minds.....
Post by: teal101 on June 21, 2012, 04:05:24 PM
When we are trying to figure this out did you know the fish that spawn in our wa rivers the fry turn right and go through canada and into alaska waters to feed and grow on the herring and krill so abundunt in alaskas warers. When the mature and head back down they go through alaskas troll and gillnet fisherys then on into canada where there fishing fleets are second to none. When they get to washington the pie is way smaller and harder to dshare everyone wants some the trollers the charters the netters the sports and then the indians who should get what of what is left is hard. The indians have rights to half of this so how would you divide the rest. Stop the commercials who were here before the sports ever found the ocean the charters who were the only other boats in the ocean the gillnetters who fished for a hundred years before sports found bouy ten. Maybe stop sport fishing they can fish the ocean the rivers the lakes ponds the others can;t the commercials fish the ocean as well as the charters. It takes bass 20 to 40 years to reach spawing age is this how long we should quit fishing. Not stirring the pot but when we start wanting to take from one group to benefit ourselves it;s selfish just like hunting becoming a rich mans sport it starts eleminating the competition and it;s not right. We fished the ocean the columbia drano the wind now it;s the rights the indians have to get there share they waited for there turn just like we have to do. Think about fixing the dams the rivers streams better logging practices better farming better hatchery managment things we can do to help there be more fish instead of fighting over the last piece of pie.
Just because they did it first does not make it right nor feasible to a sustainable population. The Euro-Americans came in and pillaged the Salmon runs with those boats and nets, it does not make it right they were the first to do so. Sport fishing has WAY less of an impact on runs than charter boats and gill netters. Why remove the user group that does the least damage and allow the user group that does the most damage to continue? It does not make sense.
Post by: WSU on June 21, 2012, 04:19:00 PM
Post by: HuntandFish on June 21, 2012, 05:37:17 PM
JimmyHoffa-
Yes the Bolt decision allowed indians to stretch their nets across half of the river, this was determined by some people who obviously have never spent a minute on a river. The bolt decision originally said indians could only net half of the salmon/fish that entered the river, and the regulatory means for this was to implement a netting restriction allowing the nets to only cover half the river at a time.
I always see nets across the whole river, or if not they are stagger set to ensure they catch 99% of what is in the river because the indians know fish do not swim in a zig zag pattern.
H&F
You really need to comprehend and research some of your own posts. The Boldt decision didn't allow or grant anything. All it did was reaffirm what had already been secured through the Treaties by the Tribes with the Federal Government, not its States. Our Leaders at the time of the negotiations and signings only agreed to sign as long as we retained our rights to fish, hunt and gather on all lands that we ceded and usual and accustomed areas. We already had the rights and were and are exercising them right now. The Boldt decision upheld the Treaty Rights that the States were trying to take away and limit without having the authority or jurisdiction to do so.
If you actually read the minutes, documents and all the material pertaining to The United States v. Washington (AKA Boldt Decision) it was not the Tribes versus WA. State it was the United States, the Federal Government because the Rights secured by our Leaders were negotiated and agreed upon with the US not WA. and they hold the jurisdiction and authority over Tribes.
US v WA gave definition to what the language stated in the Treaties and in the Treaty Minutes and by breaking down the meaning of each phrase is what came up with the 50/50 ratio.
All non-tribal fishermen (commercial and sport) shall have an opportunity at 50% and Tribal fishermen shall have an opportunity at 50%.
Again, I'm not denying the fact that there is abuse among Tribal Members but not all of us abuse our rights and those that do deserve to be punished by the law, I report it when I see regardless of who it is.
Ok so what am I not comprehending smart guy? The Boldt decision is what most of us refer to when talking about the particulars of the law governing indian netting. It did confirm and define what the indians are legally allowed to do, and nothing I said in my post was false? Obviously any law that relates to indians comes from a Federal level?
I am growing weary of the back and forth but let me be clear since nearly every time you post you cite how you are a law abiding indian and don't break the treaty laws, I am trying to say that I don't care you don't break the law I was never addressing that. What I want and many others want is for no indians or other races for that matter be allowed to net in the rivers. Allot of people agree it is time for the treaties to be amended.
I would be honestly very interested in why you or other indians believe that the treaties should not be ratified to exclude netting.
Thanks,
H&F
Post by: HuntandFish on June 21, 2012, 05:46:08 PM
Agreed. Many of HuntandFish's other points are similarly innaccurate. Roads cause a lot of damage that is not mitigated. Streams are greatly affected by things beyond the buffer. Logging still creates a ton of issues. Irrigation still creates a ton of issues. Commercial harvest in ocean kills far more fish (at least some kinds) than tribal netting.
WSU- I assume you are fresh out of school or are in the construction/development/logging industry for you to know how much damage is being done? I do not deny that there are many roads and washouts, irrigation for farming that still cause silt to enter the river. I have been talking in context of what this thread was originally started for and that is salmon survival/recovery. Do you really think the few roads that deposit silt in heavy rain fall events damage salmon? Have you ever floated down a river just as it starts to pour and float past a large landslide or clay bank, do you think this kills the salmon? Or some how stops them from swimming up stream. Or do you think nature puts silt into the river naturally?
I would love to get down to the details on erosion control and BMP's and how they effect there local drainage, and yes lets talk about roads specifically if you would like. Because on this one you are simply wrong when we are talking within the context of salmon survival or reproduction. The tree huggers out there love to cite roads as a salmon and habitat killer because they know if they can get the roads shut down they can get the woods all to them selves.
But hey I am sure there are studies out there that back up your side of the story?
Do you really disagree?
H&F
Post by: HuntandFish on June 21, 2012, 05:47:10 PM
I get really frustrated talking about this stuff! :bash: One of the reasons NOTHING happens is becuase we do not focus on things that 90% of us agree on... Lets just start with 1 example... Mergansers/sawbills... Is there ANYONE that thinks its a good idea to have them as part of the normal bag limit? The Gov Beurocracy LIKES it when large coalitions of people band together to make change happen.... I cannot think of very many people that would not support a change to this kind of legislation... I would immagine tribes, commercial fishermen, Hunters, Sport fishermen, Farmers, and anyone else affected by the salmon issue would thow thier support behind having a seperate limit like the other flyways... :bash:
Now i know many of you may say that "____ has more effect on salmon runs than Mergansers!" Well SO WHAT! It would be a step in the right direction. It may not be as BIG a change as many of you would like, but hey it would be in the right direction!
If we bann together on many of these "predator issues" we can build a large body of support.. :twocents:
:tup: Totally agree!
H&F
Post by: teal101 on June 22, 2012, 12:13:48 AM
Kinda like the indian thing we might have came last but will just take it anyway so for each his own. Like the willipa used to be the best ketp secret in wa. not anymore ten years ago not one sport boat maybe up at raymond but now they are regulations for a place they never new about. Because sportsman generate more money means they should have it wsu. The commercials are the ones at fault because it was them that started hauling sportsfisherman out in the ocean as charters funny how things get turned around. Maybe if we can take it away from the indians and the commercials. Did you know ther are 20 trollers out of westport and they can catch 35 salmon a week thats there quota hardley rapeing the resource when one charter boat can catch that and they can;t keep bass or lingc od but one charter can catch over 200 a day get your head out of the sand.
I'm having a hard time understanding your argument. :dunno:
Post by: teal101 on June 22, 2012, 12:33:38 AM
Agreed. Many of HuntandFish's other points are similarly innaccurate. Roads cause a lot of damage that is not mitigated. Streams are greatly affected by things beyond the buffer. Logging still creates a ton of issues. Irrigation still creates a ton of issues. Commercial harvest in ocean kills far more fish (at least some kinds) than tribal netting.
WSU- I assume you are fresh out of school or are in the construction/development/logging industry for you to know how much damage is being done? I do not deny that there are many roads and washouts, irrigation for farming that still cause silt to enter the river. I have been talking in context of what this thread was originally started for and that is salmon survival/recovery. Do you really think the few roads that deposit silt in heavy rain fall events damage salmon? Have you ever floated down a river just as it starts to pour and float past a large landslide or clay bank, do you think this kills the salmon? Or some how stops them from swimming up stream. Or do you think nature puts silt into the river naturally?
I would love to get down to the details on erosion control and BMP's and how they effect there local drainage, and yes lets talk about roads specifically if you would like. Because on this one you are simply wrong when we are talking within the context of salmon survival or reproduction. The tree huggers out there love to cite roads as a salmon and habitat killer because they know if they can get the roads shut down they can get the woods all to them selves.
But hey I am sure there are studies out there that back up your side of the story?
Do you really disagree?
H&F
Did you ever stop to think that EVERY road built near Salmon habitat damages it? EVERY ROAD. Lets make that clear. Not just logging roads. Not just paved roads. Not just private driveways. Not just Joe Shmoes crappy dirt road through the creek, EVERY ROAD. Now before you pull the school vs. industry card I am in the industry of construction/development so I see and know what is going on with all of this. You dont have to be in the industry to know. You think that because you are in the industry and have to jump through all the hoops to meet certain criteria set forth by the state you know you are doing little damage. You arent. Again, most of these regulations are bandaids on top of the real issue. The issue is not natural sediment deposits, it is excess sediment deposits created by human actions. You dont realize how and why the sediment affects the Salmon. It is not sediment killing adult fish, it is sediment covering reds, choking fry and parr. It goes beyond natural average sediment flow. What we are doing is creating a flood condition every year. Nature has it's safety nets built into the Salmon species to recover from one year of hard natural floods. It does not however have the ability to recover from year after year of artificial floods. Natural sediment kills fish when it flows in excess. Compare how often that happens to how often artificial sedimentation happens as well as how often "natural" floods occur on un touched streams vs. streams altered or effected by human activity.
It is not only the sediment, but the chemicals, both natural and man made. Have you seen Moses Lake? You do realize that it drains into O'sullivan which then drains into the seep lakes which then drains into Crab Creek which is a Chinook recovery area which then drains into the Columbia with MULTIPLE ESA listed Salmon runs. You do realize this single watershed is created by artificial irrigation from Banks Lake, Billy Clap Lake, Winchester Wasteway, and Frenchman Wasteway, and the natural Crab Creek. To think for one minute there is not chemicals from crops entering this water system via these artificial sources is ignorant. Not only that but sediment entering the system. Hell lets throw NON-NATIVE predators such as Walleye, Bass, Crappie, Bluegill, and Catfish into the situation.
The saying ignorance is bliss is all too true when it comes to the Salmon. People who work for the Salmon dont understand the people who hinder the Salmon and vice versa. It is those people who understand BOTH sides of the argument and have done research regarding both sides that know. I am not saying that I know all the facts by any means. I do however recognize that there are some things that can not be avoided due to human expansion and that there are some things that effect the Salmon many people do not see. Oh and by the way, I would like to see you argue how erosion control standards are based on Salmon recovery versus destruction of infrastructure due to natural events. Keeping the road, house, mall from sliding away in a flood is going to be the main concern in those standards, not the fish. I would also like to know what you base your assumption on that WSU is wrong regarding the context of Salmon survival and reproduction.
There are volumes of studies and books written to back up our side. I'd be curious to see the amount of literature to the contrary, and I am talking specific studies and literature, not a mention in a 500 page report.
Post by: WSU on June 22, 2012, 10:37:56 AM
Agreed. Many of HuntandFish's other points are similarly innaccurate. Roads cause a lot of damage that is not mitigated. Streams are greatly affected by things beyond the buffer. Logging still creates a ton of issues. Irrigation still creates a ton of issues. Commercial harvest in ocean kills far more fish (at least some kinds) than tribal netting.
WSU- I assume you are fresh out of school or are in the construction/development/logging industry for you to know how much damage is being done? I do not deny that there are many roads and washouts, irrigation for farming that still cause silt to enter the river. I have been talking in context of what this thread was originally started for and that is salmon survival/recovery. Do you really think the few roads that deposit silt in heavy rain fall events damage salmon? Have you ever floated down a river just as it starts to pour and float past a large landslide or clay bank, do you think this kills the salmon? Or some how stops them from swimming up stream. Or do you think nature puts silt into the river naturally?
I would love to get down to the details on erosion control and BMP's and how they effect there local drainage, and yes lets talk about roads specifically if you would like. Because on this one you are simply wrong when we are talking within the context of salmon survival or reproduction. The tree huggers out there love to cite roads as a salmon and habitat killer because they know if they can get the roads shut down they can get the woods all to them selves.
But hey I am sure there are studies out there that back up your side of the story?
Do you really disagree?
H&F
Here is a study/summary that describes the affects of logging and road building associated with logging. According the study (and those cited therein), lands can occur 23-27 times more often in logged areas. River scouring occurs, runoff is drastically different, the transport of sediment (both fine and large) is increased. Read this one, and I will find others describing many of other non-problems you mentioned.
http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10289/2020/Hicks%20gravel%20galore.pdf?sequence=1 (http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10289/2020/Hicks%20gravel%20galore.pdf?sequence=1)
Post by: WSU on June 22, 2012, 10:48:26 AM
Agreed. Many of HuntandFish's other points are similarly innaccurate. Roads cause a lot of damage that is not mitigated. Streams are greatly affected by things beyond the buffer. Logging still creates a ton of issues. Irrigation still creates a ton of issues. Commercial harvest in ocean kills far more fish (at least some kinds) than tribal netting.
WSU- I assume you are fresh out of school or are in the construction/development/logging industry for you to know how much damage is being done? I do not deny that there are many roads and washouts, irrigation for farming that still cause silt to enter the river. I have been talking in context of what this thread was originally started for and that is salmon survival/recovery. Do you really think the few roads that deposit silt in heavy rain fall events damage salmon? Have you ever floated down a river just as it starts to pour and float past a large landslide or clay bank, do you think this kills the salmon? Or some how stops them from swimming up stream. Or do you think nature puts silt into the river naturally?
I would love to get down to the details on erosion control and BMP's and how they effect there local drainage, and yes lets talk about roads specifically if you would like. Because on this one you are simply wrong when we are talking within the context of salmon survival or reproduction. The tree huggers out there love to cite roads as a salmon and habitat killer because they know if they can get the roads shut down they can get the woods all to them selves.
But hey I am sure there are studies out there that back up your side of the story?
Do you really disagree?
H&F
Here are a few dozen studies detailing the problems caused by development (including development where mitigation is used, such as infiltration ponds, etc.). Should give a week's worth of reading a demonstrate the effect urbanization and development has. In particular, scroll down to the studies under the heading "Habitat Characteristics." The others are informative as well, so don't skip them.
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/irc/bibs/effectsdevelopment.html (http://www.dnr.state.md.us/irc/bibs/effectsdevelopment.html)
Post by: RG on June 22, 2012, 07:51:41 PM
Post by: HuntandFish on June 25, 2012, 09:19:49 PM
Agreed. Many of HuntandFish's other points are similarly innaccurate. Roads cause a lot of damage that is not mitigated. Streams are greatly affected by things beyond the buffer. Logging still creates a ton of issues. Irrigation still creates a ton of issues. Commercial harvest in ocean kills far more fish (at least some kinds) than tribal netting.
WSU- I assume you are fresh out of school or are in the construction/development/logging industry for you to know how much damage is being done? I do not deny that there are many roads and washouts, irrigation for farming that still cause silt to enter the river. I have been talking in context of what this thread was originally started for and that is salmon survival/recovery. Do you really think the few roads that deposit silt in heavy rain fall events damage salmon? Have you ever floated down a river just as it starts to pour and float past a large landslide or clay bank, do you think this kills the salmon? Or some how stops them from swimming up stream. Or do you think nature puts silt into the river naturally?
I would love to get down to the details on erosion control and BMP's and how they effect there local drainage, and yes lets talk about roads specifically if you would like. Because on this one you are simply wrong when we are talking within the context of salmon survival or reproduction. The tree huggers out there love to cite roads as a salmon and habitat killer because they know if they can get the roads shut down they can get the woods all to them selves.
But hey I am sure there are studies out there that back up your side of the story?
Do you really disagree?
H&F
Did you ever stop to think that EVERY road built near Salmon habitat damages it? EVERY ROAD. Lets make that clear. Not just logging roads. Not just paved roads. Not just private driveways. Not just Joe Shmoes crappy dirt road through the creek, EVERY ROAD. Now before you pull the school vs. industry card I am in the industry of construction/development so I see and know what is going on with all of this. You dont have to be in the industry to know. You think that because you are in the industry and have to jump through all the hoops to meet certain criteria set forth by the state you know you are doing little damage. You arent. Again, most of these regulations are bandaids on top of the real issue. The issue is not natural sediment deposits, it is excess sediment deposits created by human actions. You dont realize how and why the sediment affects the Salmon. It is not sediment killing adult fish, it is sediment covering reds, choking fry and parr. It goes beyond natural average sediment flow. What we are doing is creating a flood condition every year. Nature has it's safety nets built into the Salmon species to recover from one year of hard natural floods. It does not however have the ability to recover from year after year of artificial floods. Natural sediment kills fish when it flows in excess. Compare how often that happens to how often artificial sedimentation happens as well as how often "natural" floods occur on un touched streams vs. streams altered or effected by human activity.
It is not only the sediment, but the chemicals, both natural and man made. Have you seen Moses Lake? You do realize that it drains into O'sullivan which then drains into the seep lakes which then drains into Crab Creek which is a Chinook recovery area which then drains into the Columbia with MULTIPLE ESA listed Salmon runs. You do realize this single watershed is created by artificial irrigation from Banks Lake, Billy Clap Lake, Winchester Wasteway, and Frenchman Wasteway, and the natural Crab Creek. To think for one minute there is not chemicals from crops entering this water system via these artificial sources is ignorant. Not only that but sediment entering the system. Hell lets throw NON-NATIVE predators such as Walleye, Bass, Crappie, Bluegill, and Catfish into the situation.
The saying ignorance is bliss is all too true when it comes to the Salmon. People who work for the Salmon dont understand the people who hinder the Salmon and vice versa. It is those people who understand BOTH sides of the argument and have done research regarding both sides that know. I am not saying that I know all the facts by any means. I do however recognize that there are some things that can not be avoided due to human expansion and that there are some things that effect the Salmon many people do not see. Oh and by the way, I would like to see you argue how erosion control standards are based on Salmon recovery versus destruction of infrastructure due to natural events. Keeping the road, house, mall from sliding away in a flood is going to be the main concern in those standards, not the fish. I would also like to know what you base your assumption on that WSU is wrong regarding the context of Salmon survival and reproduction.
There are volumes of studies and books written to back up our side. I'd be curious to see the amount of literature to the contrary, and I am talking specific studies and literature, not a mention in a 500 page report.
I am going to make this brief because I am tired of debating a difference in opinion, and I apologize for bringing up the old thread but I was out of town.
As far as the EVERY road damages salmon habitat argument, I don't feel like I have a great way of discussing this with you because it is such a blatantly ignorant statement... Nature has no problem absorbing a moderate amount of unmitigated impervious surface impact, let alone mitigated ones. I understand where you are coming from, the fact that roads create concentrated flows and inundate the natural water system faster then what is natural, especially when these flows are not handled correctly through the use of BMP's and alike. And I agree with you that roads are not ideal, but are a necessary part of the economic growth of this region. The debate we are having, or at least the debate that I thought we were having is that of what needs to be done to save our salmon. Are roads really impacting salmon recovery to the point that it would not recover or even thrive if we stopped the practice of ocean and tribal netting? The answer to this question is a matter of opinion of course, but I really doubt that you could find many well informed people that could tell you salmon numbers would continue to decline. And this is because roads, logging, and development well destructive by definition to habitat is not equally as destructive to the salmon.
Wasn't talking about Moses lake drainages and chemicals but I am sure there is abuse there as well, hell I duck hunt over there and I am sure I leave a tablespoon of oil every year behind due to my 2 stroke motor. Should we ban all hunting and recreation because that MIGHT kill a salmon? Or do we focus on where a larger portion of the salmon are being killed? Well the answer is we focus on the small stuff because it makes people feel good, and it doesn't offend anyone or mess with big money.
And yes I can argue very effectively that erosion control standards are set in place almost entirely for the purposes of habitat in respect to residential construction. If you knew anything about building you would understand that erosion is not a factor for residential construction unless steep slopes are involved? Civil road construction and other large scale projects take erosion of the structure into account for sure but it is not what you would call the design criteria? Again with exceptions to certain circumstances. I believe this is probably another liberal line that was told to you in college?
Sorry to not address every issue you brought up but I have actual work to do. But I do like healthy debate, and realize there is a difference of opinion here.
Let me know what you think?
H&F
Post by: HuntandFish on June 25, 2012, 09:34:10 PM
Agreed. Many of HuntandFish's other points are similarly innaccurate. Roads cause a lot of damage that is not mitigated. Streams are greatly affected by things beyond the buffer. Logging still creates a ton of issues. Irrigation still creates a ton of issues. Commercial harvest in ocean kills far more fish (at least some kinds) than tribal netting.
WSU- I assume you are fresh out of school or are in the construction/development/logging industry for you to know how much damage is being done? I do not deny that there are many roads and washouts, irrigation for farming that still cause silt to enter the river. I have been talking in context of what this thread was originally started for and that is salmon survival/recovery. Do you really think the few roads that deposit silt in heavy rain fall events damage salmon? Have you ever floated down a river just as it starts to pour and float past a large landslide or clay bank, do you think this kills the salmon? Or some how stops them from swimming up stream. Or do you think nature puts silt into the river naturally?
I would love to get down to the details on erosion control and BMP's and how they effect there local drainage, and yes lets talk about roads specifically if you would like. Because on this one you are simply wrong when we are talking within the context of salmon survival or reproduction. The tree huggers out there love to cite roads as a salmon and habitat killer because they know if they can get the roads shut down they can get the woods all to them selves.
But hey I am sure there are studies out there that back up your side of the story?
Do you really disagree?
H&F
Here is a study/summary that describes the affects of logging and road building associated with logging. According the study (and those cited therein), lands can occur 23-27 times more often in logged areas. River scouring occurs, runoff is drastically different, the transport of sediment (both fine and large) is increased. Read this one, and I will find others describing many of other non-problems you mentioned.
http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10289/2020/Hicks%20gravel%20galore.pdf?sequence=1 (http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10289/2020/Hicks%20gravel%20galore.pdf?sequence=1)
WSU-
You have cited a study on clear cutting? This practice has not been allowed for years. I know companies "select log" now which is basically clear cutting... But anyway, very good you found a very dramatic and colorful study. And as I have stated previously I believe logging and some of its practices can still be fine tuned. But is it the root cause of the issue?
I can tell that you are college educated because you are good at using google :chuckle: But in all seriousness we as a society have to start thinking outside the box and addressing the real issues here. We have good practices enacted now for logging to mitigated allot of its very necessary function. We have to get guys like you on the band wagon of the other issues now, like netting and the poor management by our government of the fish and wildlife in this state and stop blaming it on what is the easiest thing to attack? If it helps you are not wrong in what you are saying. Do I think logging roads are declining salmon numbers, no I don't, do I think they are responsible for the death of salmon on a small scale, sure.
Anyway to summarize my thoughts.
Tribal and commercial netting BAD.
Roads/logging/construction SUSTAINABLE.(not good, but a necessary and sustainable evil)
My opinion anyway, I may be the only one out there :dunno:
H&F
Post by: cohoho on June 25, 2012, 10:40:47 PM
Post by: buckhorn2 on June 25, 2012, 10:55:16 PM
Post by: FC on June 25, 2012, 10:56:37 PM
Curious in all this discussion if anything about why the Chum/Dog Salmon numbers are rising, while others are in decline... They would be effected just as the other types of Salmon with the environmental factors as discussed.... Anyone netting Chum/Dog, pretty much not... Haven't seen too many Chums on menus around Seattle...... Hmmmm! Get rid of the nets... :tup:
My thoughts exactly!!!!!! Look at the way the numbers of pinks have increased too! Pretty amazing how it's everything but the nets that supposedly affects the fish but the ones that haven't had the crap netted out of them are still thriving....As a matter of fact the Skykomish had a hell of a chum run until just a few years ago, must be a coincidence that they got the crap netted out of them for a couple years and the entire run got shut down for fishing afterward.
I know the Snohomish system pinks got netted bigtime by the indians this year...any bets on future numbers?
Post by: WSU on June 26, 2012, 08:59:35 AM
Curious in all this discussion if anything about why the Chum/Dog Salmon numbers are rising, while others are in decline... They would be effected just as the other types of Salmon with the environmental factors as discussed.... Anyone netting Chum/Dog, pretty much not... Haven't seen too many Chums on menus around Seattle...... Hmmmm! Get rid of the nets... :tup:
My thoughts exactly!!!!!! Look at the way the numbers of pinks have increased too! Pretty amazing how it's everything but the nets that supposedly affects the fish but the ones that haven't had the crap netted out of them are still thriving....As a matter of fact the Skykomish had a hell of a chum run until just a few years ago, must be a coincidence that they got the crap netted out of them for a couple years and the entire run got shut down for fishing afterward.
I know the Snohomish system pinks got netted bigtime by the indians this year...any bets on future numbers?
You guys didn't read the studies, did you? That is the entire problem with debating this on the interwebz. Nobody reads anything, but is damn sure they know the answer even they are uneducated on the subject.
A big reason that pinks and chums continue to do relatively well, especially in puget sound, is that they do not remain in the rivers more than a few days. They hatch and head straight to the salt. Other species stay in the freshwater habitat much longer. Since the habitat sucks, so does their survival.
And, the chums get the $hit netted out of them in northern PS.
Post by: PolarBear on June 26, 2012, 09:10:55 AM
Post by: WSU on June 26, 2012, 09:24:16 AM
Agreed. Many of HuntandFish's other points are similarly innaccurate. Roads cause a lot of damage that is not mitigated. Streams are greatly affected by things beyond the buffer. Logging still creates a ton of issues. Irrigation still creates a ton of issues. Commercial harvest in ocean kills far more fish (at least some kinds) than tribal netting.
WSU- I assume you are fresh out of school or are in the construction/development/logging industry for you to know how much damage is being done? I do not deny that there are many roads and washouts, irrigation for farming that still cause silt to enter the river. I have been talking in context of what this thread was originally started for and that is salmon survival/recovery. Do you really think the few roads that deposit silt in heavy rain fall events damage salmon? Have you ever floated down a river just as it starts to pour and float past a large landslide or clay bank, do you think this kills the salmon? Or some how stops them from swimming up stream. Or do you think nature puts silt into the river naturally?
I would love to get down to the details on erosion control and BMP's and how they effect there local drainage, and yes lets talk about roads specifically if you would like. Because on this one you are simply wrong when we are talking within the context of salmon survival or reproduction. The tree huggers out there love to cite roads as a salmon and habitat killer because they know if they can get the roads shut down they can get the woods all to them selves.
But hey I am sure there are studies out there that back up your side of the story?
Do you really disagree?
H&F
Here is a study/summary that describes the affects of logging and road building associated with logging. According the study (and those cited therein), lands can occur 23-27 times more often in logged areas. River scouring occurs, runoff is drastically different, the transport of sediment (both fine and large) is increased. Read this one, and I will find others describing many of other non-problems you mentioned.
http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10289/2020/Hicks%20gravel%20galore.pdf?sequence=1 (http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10289/2020/Hicks%20gravel%20galore.pdf?sequence=1)
WSU-
You have cited a study on clear cutting? This practice has not been allowed for years. I know companies "select log" now which is basically clear cutting... But anyway, very good you found a very dramatic and colorful study. And as I have stated previously I believe logging and some of its practices can still be fine tuned. But is it the root cause of the issue?
I can tell that you are college educated because you are good at using google :chuckle: But in all seriousness we as a society have to start thinking outside the box and addressing the real issues here. We have good practices enacted now for logging to mitigated allot of its very necessary function. We have to get guys like you on the band wagon of the other issues now, like netting and the poor management by our government of the fish and wildlife in this state and stop blaming it on what is the easiest thing to attack? If it helps you are not wrong in what you are saying. Do I think logging roads are declining salmon numbers, no I don't, do I think they are responsible for the death of salmon on a small scale, sure.
Anyway to summarize my thoughts.
Tribal and commercial netting BAD.
Roads/logging/construction SUSTAINABLE.(not good, but a necessary and sustainable evil)
My opinion anyway, I may be the only one out there :dunno:
H&F
I don't disagree that there are many issues that need to be addressed. Salmon management is terrible, since the entire structure is designed to make sure that every allowable fish gets harvested. Any excess fish are bad as far as the managers are concerned. It occurs every year at NOF.
Netting and commercial harvest definitely needs to be curtailed, especially north of us. However, a big part of our problems are logging and development. That part is just as undeniable as arguing that nets kill fish.
Post by: Dhoey07 on June 26, 2012, 11:17:14 AM
Post by: Dhoey07 on June 26, 2012, 12:44:42 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 26, 2012, 01:13:19 PM
I saw a similar one that was pointing out the catch totals. It only gave me two years using data from National Marine Fisheries.
Totals (recorded) for King,Silver, Sockeye, Pink, Chum, Steelhead
1950 149,071 tons with 80% caught in Alaska
2007 401,338 tons with 97% caught in Alaska
The graphs and numbers I've seen on their site show that in the past it was the kings that made up a huge part of the harvest, then the silvers were the main fish, then the sockeye, and now it is the pink that are the big numbers caught.
Post by: jackmaster on June 27, 2012, 06:48:59 AM
Curious in all this discussion if anything about why the Chum/Dog Salmon numbers are rising, while others are in decline... They would be effected just as the other types of Salmon with the environmental factors as discussed.... Anyone netting Chum/Dog, pretty much not... Haven't seen too many Chums on menus around Seattle...... Hmmmm! Get rid of the nets... :tup:WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER, it doesnt get any simpler than that...... dogs and pinks arent as sought after so they dont net them, bang proof is in the puddin....
Post by: singleshot12 on June 27, 2012, 07:18:19 AM
There is a high demand for Chum and Pink roe in Asia plus the Bio's say they need to be thinned way down to give the endangered Chinook more room for a chance at a comeback. Chums and Pinks apparently interfere with the Chinook's spawning beds :dunno:
Post by: WSU on June 27, 2012, 09:11:40 AM
Curious in all this discussion if anything about why the Chum/Dog Salmon numbers are rising, while others are in decline... They would be effected just as the other types of Salmon with the environmental factors as discussed.... Anyone netting Chum/Dog, pretty much not... Haven't seen too many Chums on menus around Seattle...... Hmmmm! Get rid of the nets... :tup:WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER, it doesnt get any simpler than that...... dogs and pinks arent as sought after so they dont net them, bang proof is in the puddin....
Again, check out my post above responding to cohoho. Chums and pinks only spend a few days in the freshwater habitat, and the effects of the screwed up habitat therefore don't have as great of an effect. Also, chums get netted plenty and aren't doing all that hot.
Post by: FC on June 27, 2012, 12:49:44 PM
I don't think anyone here disagrees with you in that habitat does make a difference, it just doesn't make nearly the difference that netting half (or more) of the returning fish does.
Post by: cohoho on June 27, 2012, 01:34:59 PM
Right up until they started getting netted hard the chums were doing very well, same with the pinks.:P :yeah:
I don't think anyone here disagrees with you in that habitat does make a difference, it just doesn't make nearly the difference that netting half (or more) of the returning fish does.
Post by: WSU on June 27, 2012, 03:43:43 PM
Right up until they started getting netted hard the chums were doing very well, same with the pinks.:P :yeah:
I don't think anyone here disagrees with you in that habitat does make a difference, it just doesn't make nearly the difference that netting half (or more) of the returning fish does.
Uhh, what? Obviously it does since many other runs aren't nearly as abundant to begin with. Also, I have agreed throughout that netting is a big problem. Salmon runs are dying of a thousands cuts, and most of those cuts ain't small.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on June 27, 2012, 04:05:50 PM
Post by: WSU on June 27, 2012, 04:10:30 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on June 27, 2012, 04:12:20 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on June 27, 2012, 04:24:35 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on June 27, 2012, 04:34:40 PM
Post by: hornhunter1987 on June 27, 2012, 05:19:21 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on June 27, 2012, 06:17:18 PM
I THINK THE SEALS ALSO PLAY A BIG PART.Yeah ....along with my boys :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: singleshot12 on June 27, 2012, 06:33:28 PM
Post by: cohoho on June 27, 2012, 08:11:21 PM
Maybe I just hijacked this thread :dunno: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :sry:
In a very good way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :tup:
Post by: jackmaster on July 05, 2012, 11:57:52 AM