Fishermen trying to save Orcas because they love whales sounds an awfully lot like enviros trying to save Spotted Owls because they really love Spotted Owls, not because they wanted to stop old growth timber cutting.

Just sayin'...it rings just as genuinely as that to me.

When fishermen complain about gillnets for taking too many of their fish, but then champion gillnets because without them they won't be able to plant as many of their fish...well, you kinda have to pick a position sooner or later.

If the position is "I want what's best for me", that's ok...just be consistent about it instead of pretending it's about salmon, whales, gillnets, Indians, steelhead, Spotted Owls, or anything else.

Fish on...

Todd

Sure!
Ron Garner is in bed with the tribes and commercial fishing while at the same time, strongly against wild fish.
He will have the entire region shut down to sport fishing if people continue to listen to him.
This bill while having some support in the senate is probably a non-starter in the state house.
Gill nets will be banned some day but we will likely not live long enough to see it.

Amen Todd ! I could not agree more.

Fish on...

M

There is NO EASY answer but I will say this:

Chehalis river is the only, that I'm aware of, river system that has 3 entities using gillnets and are allowed to net both wild and hatchery salmon.


QIN and Chehalis tribes also gillnet steelhead, both wild and hatchery. Qin send fish caught numbers to WDFW, Chehalis tribe does not send catch numbers to WDFW.


MSY.....should be eliminated from WDFW vocabulary.....clearly used for commercial reasons.....grrrrrrrrr

The Nooksack has two tribes and the NI, the Skagit has 3 tribes and the NI.

Not disagreeing a bit about MSY. It is an economic argument; minimum investment for maximum (very short term) return.

If I'm reading this right, the CCA and their leader Nello Picinich (that support SB 5617) are at direct logger heads with Ron Warner and the PSA (that oppose the ban on commercial gill nets)...or is it just Warner who publicly stands in support of commercial gill netting? How can that be?
How many of the PSA rank and file are in line with their President? I sense it's a a shallow minority. We Recs practice selective fishing methods, while the Comms indiscriminately kill everything coming into their gill nets...including ESA chinook.
Pretty hard to get past that. What say you, PSA members? Are you in harmony with your leadership? Do you advocate the continued use of gill nets, especially given the peril facing the SRKWs and general depletion of our salmon resource? Speak up...

Just make sure you understand what Ron is saying...he's saying that if you remove the gillnets, you remove the State's ability to remove enough hatchery fish (recreationals can't even come close to doing it)...so you remove the ability to plant more fish (and planting more fish benefits orcas and recreational fishers).

Not saying I do or do not agree with that...just want to make sure we understand what he's saying.

Fish on...

Todd

Which take me back to my original premise...it's not about gillnets, or salmon, or orcas...it's about having more hatchery fish for sporties to fish for.

Fish on...

Todd

I've got to soundly agree with Bender here. How many dues paying members of PSA are smoking the same crack that Ron G is? Ron's argument that: Is flawed by reasoning that NI Gill nets are the ONLY method available to remove overly abundant hatchery fish.

1. Orca's will remove overly abundant hatchery fish Ron, that's the intent of increased production.

2. Non-selective gill nets remove hatchery fish, but they also remove Native fish indiscriminately, thus are counter productive.

3. In the event the Orcas become so bloated that they cannot eat one more fish, the recreational community could supplement the removal by way of increased limits and seasons.

Where is the absolute in all this? PSA has become a part of the ever growing problem and not part of the solution. Ron is as much a member of the Fish Mafia elite as the rest of the cronies who blather crap and pat each other on the back, all the while telling each other how important they are.

+2 on Bender's comments. Can anyone tell me of ANY non-tribal location in the state where there are "excess hatchery fish on spawning beds"? That's the biggest joke I've heard in some time....

I totally get the train of thought here.

But there is a glaring Achilles Heel to this argument. Eliminating gillnets does not in and of itself eliminate the harvesting power of the commercials to remove hatchery fish. However, it WILL once and for all incentivize (coerce?) them to FINALLY adopt a gear-type capable of selectively disproportionate exploitation rates on hatchery fish thru live-capture sorting techniques that allow the depleted ESA fish to escape unharmed.

Selective fishing and oodles of hatchery fish are NOT mutually exclusive as Garner's argument suggests. Quite the opposite.... complementary like hand and glove. The CR fish trap is a PERFECT example of CLEAN biologically defensible mega harvest of hatchery fish... deployed by design for mega production and mega harvest.... to terminal wipeout levels for hatchery fish, no matter how many are made.

There lies the real crux.

Who's gonna fish behind them. No one likes gettin' low-holed.

Well, given the ESA listing of Puget Sound Chinook any hatchery fish on the spawning grounds are "excess" and undesirable.

In part because of that perception and exacerbated by funding woes there has been a huge decrease in Puget Sound Chinook hatchery production.

Todd pretty much summed up the issue. If we want to produce more hatchery fish into the system (in addition to and/or in lieu of reduction of pinniped predation) under the current ESA and HGMP constraints there needs to be a way to ensure that hatchery returns spawning naturally need to be minimized.

Is use of gillnets the appropriate answer? The fact that they are non-selective certainly makes their use counter-intuitive but there may be circumstances where they are the best tool.

My gut says ban them.....my brain says a complete ban may have unintended adverse consequences given our current complex constraints.

Time for a tall glass of something to quell my conflicts.

A state gillnet ban only bans NI gillnets. There will still be the massive treaty gillnet fleet to perform mop up duties in the terminal areas to prevent the unwanted over-escapement of hatchery Chinook. Mr. Garner's testimony appears disingenuous to me.

The train tracks aren't coming together for me on that response. Exactly how are tribal gillnets performing mop-up better than NI gillnets achieving the same results? The fish don't know a tribal net from a NI net.

Tribal gillnets are used more terminally than commercial. There is nothing we can do about tribal gillnets. Banning NI nets is a step in the right direction.
I agree a dead fish is a dead fish which is why we need to fish selectively.

Tribal nets ARE commercial nets and tribal fishers can fish them wherever they want within their tribal U&A. NT nets can be used in the same manner at the direction of WDFW (season setting process).

Look, I am not advocating for gillnets but to the extent that hatchery fish need to be harvested it is a tool - not necessarily the best tool but a tool none the less which could be utilized under the appropriate circumstances to remove the State's share of those "excess" fish.

Speakers from both sides hit the nail on the head to make their points, and made me rethink.

It's not quite as clear-cut as my beliefs were before hearing the testimony. Give it a listen.

It is sad to see any family's "way of life" disappear, to have that pride swept off the table forever, and have that long-lived tradition singled out as the sole culprit in a very complex issue.

The times we live in...

https://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=20190...aDN3PJ0cRyngyDM

Cue up 1:14:15.

Just one comment.... WDFW testimony was especially WEAK, demonstrating total impotence (either inability or unwillingness, take your pick) to lead on this issue.

Agreed. Pretty middle of the road, non-committal testimony, but I gotta think they are pro. The legislators surely had contact with them prior to submitting the bill. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. I'm surprised they didn't just sit this one out, at this stage anyway.
Tribal testimony surprise me, in that they are against the bill. I thought they would have preferred to be the sole gillnetters in the state, but instead I think they fear holding that title. Will make it easy for pro 5617-ers to point the finger at their non-selective fishery.

although pinnipeds were brought up, and environmental habitat issues as well, I was surprised none of the pro gillnet group brought up net's to the north of us, and the high ratio of Washington fish intercepted outside of the state.