With the federal law making it a crime to kill or harass endangered salmon going into effect tomorrow, does that include bycatch from the netters in the columbia? or is the government simply going to ignore the fact that their is actually other species than the targeted ones that get thrown back in dead or hidden under boat seats to be given to neighbors or friends(yes I have heard of this happening)Does this mean that netting will be shut down when their is even a slight chance of an endangerd salmon being killed? Or are the feds going to shut down our rivers when these endangered salmon are running? Will be interesting to see but I will almost bet on the fact that us sports fisherman will be on the losing side of the fish allotments as usual. Has anyone heard any rumours or facts on this subject?
RAMPRAT

Ramprat,

With the adoption of the ESA 4(d) rules, it is indeed now illegal to harm or harrass the endangered chinook.

That said, there are a couple types of permits, called "incidental take permits", which can be obtained. These permits are issued to allow otherwise legal activities that may "incidentally" take an endangered fish.

When it comes to commercial fishing seasons, and recreational seasons as well, rather than requiring an incidental take permit for each fisherman, the state generally gets the incidental take permit to allow it to set such a season. Once the permit is issued to have a season, any activities, such as fishing, that take place under the permit are deemed legal activities.

If there is a perceived problem with conducting a recreational or commercial season due to an endangered fish being present, the way to avert the problem is not to go after the fishermen, but to attack NMFS for issuing a permit to the state to have the season, and to argue that issuing the permit violates the ESA.

I suppose I could go on and on about this topic, and the more I write the more confusing it seems to get, so I'll stop here. I hope this answers your question, at least somewhat. If you have any other questions or would like me to clarify any of the legal gobbledygook above, lemme know.

Anyone fishing the dropping rivers?

Fish on...

Todd.

Just to try to give some perspective to the take of listed stocks on the Columbia River, fishing(tribal,non-tribal and sport)is allowed by NMFS 9% of listed spring chinook. Take by the hydro power system of these same stocks is 22% of returning adults. Note this dosen't include kill of migrating smolts by the hydo power system. Another thing to think about is that the fisheries are targeting hatchery fish. If all fishing is stopped to save the listed wild fish, hatcheries will be even more swamped with surplus fish than they are now. The question will be why are we paying to produce all these fish that no one can catch. While I am not a big fan of hatchery fish, without them there would be no salmon fishing on the Columbia or most of the other State waters. The only answer I can see for the short term is for the commercials to be required to use more selective harvest methods(sportfishers are already there). For the long term restore the wild runs to a healthy level, or figure out how to make a consistantly survivable hatchery fish. Or maybe we should let the hatcheries get the high surplus and distribute the carcasses throughout the river system. All you would have to do is convince the tax paying public that those $30-$300 hatchery fish are good fertalizer for the river system!

It amazes me to go to Alaska and fish the Kenai and other rivers that support a tremendous sport fishery, but still maintain the commercial fishery as well. Granted, the runs are much more robust, but so is the pressure from sport and commercial, one hundred percent. The key is that the fish get back into the river. Our geography is such that is it easy to stretch nets accross any given access point to salmon habitat, especially Puget Sound. Manage the nets, you will see the salmon return. Can this area support commercial/tribal/sport coexistance?

Mole,

While I agree that the Alaska runs are, in general, more robust, don't think for a minute that they aren't affected by netting and loss of habitat. I have talked to several Alaskan fishing guides (including ones on the Kenai) who predict that Alaska fishing will be in the same dire straights as Washington fishing in less than 10 years.

Kevin

Kevin,

Check out that article Steve J posted on nets in the Kenai. You are right on the money.

Now that third parties can sue those who may be damaging Threatened Salmon, will PETA bring suit against Sportfisherman?

Can SportFisherman bring suit against Tribes?
(i.e. The Muckleshoot Fisherie of Elliot Bay)

Whats the word Salmo Gardini?

Fishguts,

I'll give you short answers to your questions.

First, PETA cannot sue fishermen who are fishing during a season. As noted above, if they thought that a fishing season was going to violate the ESA, then they need to sue the NMFS for issuing an incidental take permit in violation of the ESA, or sue WDFW if they didn't get a permit that was required by the ESA.

Second, there are no definitive court cases that say whether or not the tribes are subject to the ESA. The tribes and state have both been loathe to bring the case because the tribes don't want it to apply to them, and the state doesn't want the court to say it doesn't apply. Instead, they just keep making agreements for seasons and keep on keepin' on.

Fish on...

Todd.

'Guts,

Todd's the lawyer. I think he's got it right. You've probably heard that anyone can sue anyone for anything. However, prevailing in a lawsuit is a whole 'nuther matter.

What I've been heard about potential ESA cases at a NMFS enforcement talk is that "take" under the ESA can be very difficult to prove in court - unless you've got the dead bodies as evidence, along with the forensics backup. Again, this would not apply to legal fisheries authorized under a WDFW permit by NMFS. And the tribal issue seems to be something no one wants to test.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

I think the state is out of the picture, NMFS is running the show when it comes to the 4d rules that are in affect. The dead bodys are the key here no matter if we are talking about adults or smolt fish kills. The incidental take permits are issued through the feds. So they take the heat of a third party law suit is started. I do believe there are going to be many of these suits out there by enviornmentalist. The sad truth is there are only a few NMFS fish cops around. The East side of Washington only has 2. One office in Wenachee the other in Idaho some where. Then they have two offices in western Washington. Fish on!