It is no secret that the majority of the folks here on the boards are against the practice for a variety of reasons. Florida residents were against it as well, and thanks to the mighty manatee they had the practice banned.

Why haven't we been able to get this on the ballot? Are there not enough eloquent anglers with a background in law that aren't invested in gillnetting financially to get a ballot measure written? Surely there is the money aspect, with the overwhelming funds in favor of the netters, but videos and pictures play mightily on the common (wo)man.

The other thing that would be handy would be a listing of the owners of the gillnetting boats, in hopes to show that it's now only being done for the purpose of tax writeoff.

This is a hotbutton for a lot of folks, so I hope that this discussion doesn't degrade too far. I just think that it's time to stop *****ing about it and start working towards changing the practice.

There was, Inititive 696, BAN (Ban All Nets). It wouldn't have effected tribal netters because they have a federal right, but it would have banned all non tribal netting in the state both fresh water and salt water. Needless to say, it failed. Sportsmen are good at complaining, but try getting them to cough up money to run a campaign. I think we were able to get a few radio ads but could not get any TV ads and when there are commercials running against us saying that banning nets will cut thousands of jobs and put family business out of business, we didn't have a chance.

I'm all for it. There is little justification for the tired practice. There are plenty of financial reasons NOT to gill net. I say we petition the government to buy their commercial permits and put the Indian nets back to hand helds. On another tack, we could import some manatees!

IMHO
The issue with the non-tribal fishermen could be won if there was some sort of license buyback program and if funding for the buybacks was provided for. Voting someone out of a job is VERY unpopular, so unless this is adressed, we would be throwing our money at a losing cause.

This issue was not adressed last time, and I believe that was the primary reason for the issue not passing. It was not palatable to many groups.

Writing from an Oregon perspective and having been involved with both winning and losing initiative campaigns...

For initiatives, unless you have a deep-pockets funder you need a broad coalition behind you. The Assoc. of NW Steelheaders couldn't generate the support for their 'Ban Nets' attempt, largely because conservation groups viewed it as a social issue -- one of allocating the harvest -- as opposed to strictly a conservation issue.

In the intervening years, I haven't seen a change in the public's perception. It's a NON-issue to the nonfishing public.

As a prior post says, and I agree, a gillnet license buyout is probably the most practical way to achieve this goal.

Conservation groups are having success with this buyout strategy; from the Loomis (sp?) forest purchase in Washington, to purchasing waterrights and grazing permits in Central and Eastern Oregon.

So how many Columbia commercial gillnetters are there 30?, 50? Would most accept a $50,000 cash buyout? If so, for about $3-million you might be able to relegate commercial gillnetting on the Columbia to the historical artifact that it should be.

It will take leadership, however, and there do not seem to be fishing organizations - at least in my neck of the woods - who are willing to step up to this issue.

Fun topic to talk about though... at least we do something well.

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: GaryK ]

I was most of the way through my email to my local representative (who my wife is on a buddy-buddy relationship with) and it occurred to me that this is a damned lousy economy to try and retrain a boat captain to work in.

Of course I want to get this fishery into the history books for good, but with layoffs all over the place can we in good conscious displace them now?

It's perplexing.

The net ban failed for several reasons. The primary one being the inability to raise sufficent funds for a tv campaign just before election day as the commercial group did. The major "conservation" groups' failure to back the net ban is also based on money. With plenty of salmon coming back to the rivers, a major fund raising strategy is eliminated. It is not in the best interest of the career (ie. salaried) conservation group hierarchy to see salmon restored to historic levels by means of something as simple and quick as a net ban. Their troops would not be in the middle a long ongoing solution which would help perpetuate their paycheck. On the subject of paychecks, I doubt that there is more than a dozen fishermen that depend on gill netting for a livelyhood in Washington. If there is a buy out, it should be at a very nominal amount ($1,000 - 5,000). No one offered to buy out my hardhat and steel toed boots when I was put out of work due to a changing economy. How many are school teachers, off duty firemen, someone looking for a tax deduction, or fishermen looking to cover fuel expenses in getting their boat to Alaska where they earn their living. Also how many people lost jobs because of the damage caused by netting. Look at what happened to Sekiu. I'm sure that most people on this board are well aware of the economic benefits of sport fishing versus commercial fishing. A sport caught salmon is worth 28 times a commercially caught salmon in value to the state economy. Leathal netting practices should not have a place in modern fish management if they might impact wild or depressed stocks of salmon or steelhead.

Deepwater

First of all...we need to stop buying gillnet caught eggs.

Great post, Deepwater.

I'd also like to add that most commercial fisherman just fish Washington waters as a tax write off.

The commercial gillnetters on the Columbia DO NOT need subsidizing,government bailout or anything like that. They are greedy *******s who do not need to net in order to make a living. Some of them have had their permits "grandfathered" to them and are not about to give it up. They lease their permits to others sometimes too.

Ya!

You guys are all preaching to the choir. If you think there is any chance of a movement to ban nets succeeding in a lousy economy, at a time of high unemployment combined with record fish runs, you are just dreaming. Spending your energy supporting groups that are trying to restore habitat (like Fish First) is likely to be of greater help and a whole bunch less frustrating.

Did anyone else vote for Carlson? "Ban all Nets" Had no shot! We had our shot at getting ALL nets out. I hope he runs again.

Carlsson a two faced jerk politician. He backed banning nets until he figured out that most of the voters didn't. Then not to piss anyone off he changed to a position of banning the indian nets knowing full way there was no way to do so.

There is already a buy back plan in the state of Washington and I would need to check the figures but, I know that at least half the gill net fleet and I think it is more than half has already been bought out by the state.

MONEY, and a lot of it! And good timing would help a lot, also.

1. A public information campaign that clearly articulates the adverse effects of gillnetting on public fisheries.

2. Possibly some modification of sportfishing practices and regulations. It's not very hard - and the commercial industry did it when the BAN initiative was on the ballot - to make sportfishermen appear as greedy citizens who just want to re-allocate all the harvestable salmon to themselves. And when I read the arguments that have often been advanced on this bulletin board, they often appear to be just that - an attempt to transfer the commercial catch into the sport catch. That doesn't do much for conservation, and the majority of the public has little sympathy for such apparent greed.

3. . . . and did I mention, MONEY? The commercial industry will spend a lot of the money it makes in Alaska to maintain the pathetic little chit that's left of the Washington State commercial salmon fishing welfare program, I mean, industry.

Actually, another good way to help rid the gillnet fishery is to cut back on the hatchery salmon programs that contribute most to these fisheries. WDFW either doesn't allow, or permits only the most minimal, gillnet fishing where mixed stocks of hatchery and wild fish congregate.

One more effective tool would be to undo the trade WDFW makes with Canada for the Fraser River sockeye fishery. WDFW trades your Puget Sound coho and chinook for Fraser River sockeye fishing in north Puget Sound. Recreational anglers catch very few Fraser sockey in Washington waters, yet they could catch some of those chinook and coho that are traded away. Give the Fraser sockeye back to the Canadians, and let those coho and chinook return to Washington.

These are tactics that would help squeeze away any of the pitiful remaining profit motive to gillnet in Washington. And if they lose money 3 years running, the IRS won't allow them to use it as a tax writeoff thereafter.

And focus on wild coho and chinook recovery. The healthiest foreseeable wild stocks will never support as many days gillnetting per week as hatchery stocks do. All this hatchery production just plays into the hands of perpetuating commercial fishing that is very much a cause of the fisheries problems to begin with.

Well, these are some of the things that could help make it happen.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/lic/econassist.htm

This link explains the buy back plan and where it is currently at and the future of the plan.

It took a couple elections to ban gill netting here in Florida ,but in just a few years the fishing has improved for certain species dramatically.I'm a former commercial fisherman who has gillnetted and its a devasting fishery for just about everything you can imagine.Swordfish to mullet for their roe. A buyout of the boats and gear and some extra licencse fees for saltwater anglers were the ticket along wth an education of the voters on how the ocean and estuararies were getting hammered by a few.Manatees had nothing to with it, they are all over the place down here.