I am really surprised that our board has not yet fully discussed ALL THE OPTIONS that we have available at our hands to address our continued declines of both wild fish, and our opportunity to continue to have HARVEST. I know that there are the usual critics lurking around out there that are just waiting to attack any new ideas, so here is your golden chance!

I have dropped this idea onto this board before, but it has only fallen upon deaf hears, or people were just afraid to debate this idea on this board. The Idea is so simple, that it begs for the opportunity to be fully debated at this forum. It will certainly not be the total answer or cure to all of our problems, but it could be the key that leads to the resolving of our problems. Why not use our current "laws" to help make the much needed and overdue change concerning the miss management of our commercial salmon harvest and the overlapping effects that its management has to our sport fishing and the natural production of our native fish?

We did it with steelhead decades ago, and we can do it again with salmon in the same way! Why not pass and initiative or referendum to declare "salmon" a "sport fish"? It worked to stop the commercial take of our steelhead (for the most part), and there are no obvious reasons why it shouldn't work the same way on salmon too. It would promote the cutting back on some hatcheries in rivers that are only being managed and used to support the needs of the commercials, and at the same time, it would allow the opportunity for both native or natural stocks of salmon and steelhead to once again reproduce naturally in river systems that are now only being managed solely for the propose of commercial salmon harvest supplementation.

The current laws do not allow the commercials to take their catch by sport fishing methods, so how could they possibly continue to harvest salmon under the current food fish laws, if salmon were no longer legally consider to a food fish, and were declared to be a "sport fish", how could they harvest them? All of the management strategies for food fish would no longer apply, and the management strategies for sport fishing and harvest would then apply to salmon! In most places that do not have mitigation requirements, self sustaining runs would determine what the harvest rates could be. In area such as the Cowlitz and Lewis, were natural production is totally affected by the dams, hatcheries would continue to be the source for harvest.

The reclassifying of salmon from a "food fish" to a "sport fish" could start a legal shock wave that could just possibly resolve the age old commercial food fish priority that miss managed our fishery for decades! This idea would not by any means be the "complete answer" to our problems, but it certainly could be a legal starting point to the "end game". There are even existing laws that could further support this proposed change that would also work in the sport fisher favor. They are:


1) RCW 77.50.110
Commercial salmon fishing -- Unauthorized gear. The commission [shall not] authorize angling gear or other personal use gear for commercial salmon fishing."

2) RCW 77.50.070
Limitation on salmon fishing gear in Pacific Ocean.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, the commission [shall not] authorize gear other than troll gear or angling gear for taking salmon within the offshore waters or the waters of the Pacific Ocean over which the state has jurisdiction lying west of the following line: Commencing at the point of intersection of the international boundary line in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and a line drawn between the lighthouse on Tatoosh Island in Clallam County and Bonilla Point on Vancouver Island; thence southerly to the lighthouse on Tatoosh Island; thence southerly to the most westerly point of Cape Flattery; thence southerly along the state shoreline of the Pacific Ocean, crossing any river mouths at their most westerly points of land, to Point Brown at the entrance to Grays Harbor; thence southerly to Point Chehalis Light on Point Chehalis; thence southerly from Point Chehalis along the state shoreline of the Pacific Ocean to the Cape Shoalwater tower at the entrance to Willapa Bay; thence southerly to Leadbetter Point; thence southerly along the state shoreline of the Pacific Ocean to the inshore end of the North jetty at the entrance to the Columbia River; thence southerly to the knuckle of the South jetty at the entrance to said river.

(2) The commission may authorize the use of nets for taking salmon in the waters described in subsection (1) of this section for scientific investigations.

===============================

So why not use there own laws against them?

If we could change the definition of how a salmon is viewed legally, we could have a good chance to beat the commercials at their own game! How could the commercial discredit this action? Are they going to say that "salmon" are NOT a high priority to sport fishing? Are they going to try to argue the difference in the economics value of how much a sport caught salmon is worth compared to a commercially caught salmon? Are they going to argue about how many people "hold" special commercial licenses (which can be sold for huge profits) compared to the number of "sport fishing" licenses that are not even refundable? How could they defend salmon as just a "food fish" in this day and age?

What will their arguments be, other then what the current law allows them to argue under the laws that apply to "food fish"?

What can you see that is wrong with this simple idea? Can you add any improvements to this idea?

Would you support some kind of legal proposal to change and reclassifying salmon to become a "sport fish" instead of a food fish?

If not, why?


Cowlitzfisherman

I think you could potentially run an initiative process to obtain this result. It might have some unintended consequences and possibly some legal issues.

Unintended consequences could include loss of state and federal financial support for hatcheries.

Legal issues might include whether the state can do this for waters under federal jurisdiction. I don't know the law in this area, but in other areas I believe that Uniform Commercial Commerce Code limits where states can regulate, when it impacts interstate commerce. I'll bet fishing in the Columbia and the salt would run into that issue.

Finally, I doubt you could legislate away the tribes' right to fish salmon. That's an obligation on the US, not the state of Washington. So you might end up simply changing the ethnicity of those running the gillnets. You could then end up growing hatchery salmon for fishermen who pay no taxes at all on the salmon.

I'd love to be proved wrong.

Silver

Decades ago they commercially harvested steelhead on the Columbia until it was made a sport fish. Once that was done, the commercial intentional targeting was terminated in our rivers and in our coastal off shore waters. I could be wrong, but I believe that the State controls all fishing rights with the states limits of their off shores waters. That may only be 3 to 12 miles out, but it would make a sufficient difference when it came to gill netting. So I do not see how our hatcheries would be affected by any federal rules in those areas.

As far as the tribes go, in my opinion, it would not affect or change their rights to half of the harvestable fish. Most likely there share would increase considerably just as would the sport fishers. What may change could be the method and ways that the courts would allow them to harvest those fish. Like now, they are entitled to use the same methods and ways to harvest fish as the none-natives are allowed to use. That may all change if there was no net fishery allowed by the commercials.

In fact, the tribes may be even more responsible for paying a bigger share for some of the hatchery fish if they are no longer being targeted by nonnative commercial fishers. There are lots of different things that can be discussed on this issue, and that is why I have bought this subject up for debate.

Thanks for your impute Silver, and I hope others will follow yours. All of these different views may lead to a solution.

Cowlitzfisherman

CFM,

You rascal! You have too much time on your hands for thinking, but thanks anyway. You have a very good point regarding the effectiveness of reducing commercial emphasis by the WDFW Commission. And I believe you are correct in your analogy with the steelhead initiative of 1935 or so. Silver H's concerns are not likely to apply. The feds recognize each state as the primary fish and wildlife manager. The feds get involved in interstate fisheries like the Columbia (WA, OR, ID) and US Canada, and treaty - non-treaty, but otherwise states are free to determine appropriate management. Oh, there are exceptions like the Black Bass Act which designate largemouth bass as a game fish nationally, and no state may permit their commercial harvest.

The primary effect of CFM's proposal would be to shift all non-treaty commercial salmon harvest to recreational harvest as an allocation adjustment. There would be no direct effect on treaty commercial fishing. The treaty share would officially remain 50% of the harvestable salmon and steelhead. However, in situations where the non-treaty fishery would be unable to harvest their full share, treaty fisheries would, in some of those cases, be allowed to increase their harvest percentage.

Personally, I think it's probably a good idea for the Columbia River and Puget Sound, where there are viable treaty fisheries that can harvest salmon above that which can be recreationally harvested, so people who don't sport fish could still purchase fresh salmon to eat. I would prefer not to totally eliminate the ocean troll fishery, but that's just a personal opinion, probably because I buy some troll caught chinook every year for my BBQ. But the idea sure works better if it's an across the board shift that all salmon in non-treaty fisheries are game fish and not food fish.

The oposition to such an initiative would be immense; comparable to the gillnet initiative of a few years ago. The money wouldn't come from WA state commercial interests specifically. It would come from coastwide commercial interests - Alaska (many boats fish Alaska in the summer and Puget Sound in the fall) and the off-shore trawl group - since they would see it as an incremental conspiracy to eliminate all commercial fishing.

It would be hard to do, since many conservation groups officially recognize non-treaty commercial fishing interests as being part of the "great coalition" to save salmon for "everyone." Recreational interests couldn't do it alone, in my estimation. We would need the conservation groups - they have more people (voters) and money than we do. We would need and could possibly get the Direct Service Industries, although so many of them are going out of business, it might not be much anymore.

It could be done - and probably will some day. They banned gillnets in Florida and California, and it's really helped. Striped bass and bluefish have really rebounded on the east coast as a result of removing commercial fishing pressure.

Such an outcome would certainly do much of what CFM indicates for SWW rivers and serve the interests outlined in Rob's thread.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

I'm going to think about this for a bit. This is one of those ideas that COULD actually happen, via the initiative process. And probably pretty easily. The question is, and I do NOT profess to know the answer, would we be happy ten years after it happened. While the steelhead is no longer pursued commerically, I note that the salmon runs, which are, are more abundant in the Columbia.

There is a paradox in recreational fisheries, which is that fisheries that are well known, get well supported. I do not know what happens as we allocate scarce dollars in the years to come, what will happen to fisheries that lose commerical fishing lobbying support.

Another possible consequence is that, if we quit dividing our hatchery management effort between a food fish (slamon) and a sport fish (steelhead), hatachery managers might have one distortion removed form their life. I am indifferent between catching steelhead and silver salmon. One may be easier than the other to provide. In a rational system, we would focus on providing more of the easier fish to provide.

Lest anyone get wrapped around the axle about my declaring silvers to be the same as steelhead, it's just a statement made for purposes of illustration.

Silver

Those are certainly valid concerns, but one has to ask themselves, can we afford not to try something new. Can we continue to sit back and wait for another ten years until every stock of salmon and steelhead become listed, and then all of our fisheries are curtailed?

The commercial salmon fishery is a dieing trade, and must move on. We known it, they know it, so why prolong the inevitable? It appears to be buyout money that is holding back the downfall of the smaller commercial fishermen from giving up there next to worthless business. One would think that when they are forced to spend huge sums of their own money fighting off a winless battle, that they would cave in. After all, what will their booty be? Even if they were to beat off such and initiative, what's their financial gain? What possible future would be on their horizon for them to spend even more of their lost dollars, for a trade that will only last for a few more years at best?

At some point, those commercial fishermen will realize that it is the big processors that are making out like kings, while the fishermen are slowly dieing off, one by one each season. How long do you think that these few large processors can keep these guys in the dark? Sooner or later, there will be that "straw" that will break the camels back, and I personally think that an initiative to reclassify salmon to become a "sport fish" would be that straw!

I known that the utilities would give us money to support such an initiative, and it shouldn't draw to much fire from the environment groups either. Other such initiatives in the past were attacked, or were not supported by many large environment groups such as American Rivers because it interfered with their own agenda. They were selling to habitat and dam removal as the cure to our declining salmon runs. They were convinced by the commercial fishing lobbyists that the "ban the nets initiative" would not cure the dam or habitat problems. Those issues are what keeps many of these environmental jobs and funding going, and are center to there survival. Personally, I see no conflict that can be made this time, on this issue, between the two. Even if there was one to be made, they would look pretty stupid in the eyes of the public if they were to appose such an effort at this time.

I believe that if sport fishers were to set down and write out a well thought through initiative, and showed the public how it would benefit both the fish and the economics, people would support it. Many years ago, I learned that to do nothing is the worse possible thing that a person can choose to do. I also learned that failure is not the final word either! Learn by your failures, and try, try, again until to finally win. We have learned by our failures in the earlier net initiative campaign, and the time is ripe for this idea to become a reality!

All of your concerns can and should be covered in a well written thought out initiative. All we need to do is to organize and start the ball rolling. It shouldn't take to long to figure out any unforeseen problems once the ball starts to roll! That is why I am trying to get any possible "negative points" bought out early, so we can see if such an initiative has enough merit to continue to keep moving foreword. Again, failure is not an acceptable option, and we must continue to get those damn nets out of our rivers! Personally, I would like to see a small group of our members do a little "brain storming" first on the "negative possibilities" and then have them look at how those "negative" issues could be resolved!

I am a little surprised that we have not gotten any more impute-be it good or bad, from some of our other popular members who have both the time, experience, knowledge and the ability to do so!

So Far, only Silver Hilton and Salmo G has stepped up and contributed to how this idea may or may not become a reality. We got guys that have come out of the closet; we have guys that work for the state and federal fishery agencies who have vast knowledge about our fisheries; and we hundreds of others members who can contribute there opinion and thoughts on this issue, and yet they just lay-back and say and do nothing!

This is probably one of the biggest reason why fishermen can never come together and unite.

Salmo
Thanks again for your early impute and support on this issue! I known that a lot of members really respect your opinion and vast knowledge of our fish and our resources. I known that this issue is a tuff one to resolve, but to sit back and to do nothing, is not in my genetic makeup

Any more help or impute from you will be much appreciated by me….and it might even get you a few more of my "jig heads"


Cowlitzfisherman

CFM, there's not much I can add here, as this proposal and it's affects are frankly beyond me. I am however willing to help any way possible. It's just moral support for now, but when the time comes I'll chip in.

Perhaps a rough draft of an initiative posted here would induce some participation. It would at least inform the un-informed(me). It sure sounds like a simple solution for such a cluster@#$%. How did CA do it? Can we read thier initiative(if that's how it was done)?

The relationship between govt. and commercial fishig intrests should be and probably is illeagal. Lets stop them. The resource should be shared responsibly, not used as an election fund for those who make decisions based on a re-election stradegy.

Would it be better accepted by the general public if this initiative was as an advocate for salmon, rather than equality for the sportsfisherman?


Go Hawks!!

ya, that would be cool, a rough fdraft of a initiative and then we all could chip in our thoughts and what not..its got to make sure to not have any loopholes for the tribes to get away with the nets in the river, subsitance by fishing with poles or dip nets, no mono nets..and there needs to be proper enforcement on the rivers at nights to make sure the tribes arent fishng at night..

BB75,

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Such an initiative under state law would have absolutely no effects on treaty tribe fishing. That is federally protected, and WA State is powerless to stop it. So treaty tribal nets in the rivers would continue as long as tribes have a reason to net fish.

This proposal is just a plan to "retire" the non-treaty commercial salmon fishery that is mostly becomming a bad fit economically, socially, and conservation wise.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Sorry CFM but I can't buy into these blanket "take the non-treaty commercial fishers out completely" ideas as remotely feasible. That idea will be popular on forums like this, however in the real world? I think not. I view this effort to be just like the Ban Initiative; the Recs promoting legislation, faening conservation, while in reality it's just the Recs trying to get a bigger piece of the non-treaty harvest pie, or in this case, the whole pie in one bite. Makes for good non-fiction.

I think our efforts would be better spent trying to find ways to make the non-treaty commercials fish more responsibly. Sorry if you've heard this before, but I believe forcing the non-treaty commercial fishers into more selective fisheries would serve salmon and the Recs better. One idea would be to invoke mandatory maximium by-catch mortality rates for the commercials, somewhere in the range of 10% or whatever a high end hooking mortality rate might be. Make the commercials fish as selectively as the Recs are now. There are lots of ideas. It wouldn't take much to knock out non-selective methods like all the gill nets and the draggers while making the seiners and reef netters comply.

I know what I propose will take longer than the ten years you think we have left, however I don't think that the "knock them all out with one punch" is possible even if you dress it up as a conservation effort.

Beezer

I don't have a lot of info to provide, but I fully support the idea. Hunting and fishing is a recreational activity, not a commercial food source. Our population has grown too large to continue to strain these resources.

We have to assume that the demand for salmon (food) will remain constant or continue to increase, while we are attempting reduce the supply. The result will be an increase in farm raised salmon, as well as increased catch rates by the tribes.

I know that there are problems with salmon farms, but I'm willing to accept those risks. The way I see it, farm raised salmon are no different than cows. Would there be any elk or deer left if we didn't raise cattle? No way! It's time for salmon to take the same course - farms make food and fishing is for fun.

CFMs initiative is an excellent step in that direction.

This seems to be a proposal to eliminate commerical fishing for Pacific salmon in the Columbia Basin and Puget Sound by making Pacific salmon a recreational fish, not a commerical fish.

Would this help recreational anglers? Sure. There would be more hatchery fish for us to catch and more wild fish on the spawning grounds. I can't argue with that. But it would also eliminate a strong advocate for fish conservation - commerical fishermen. Is this trade-off worth the risk? I'm not sure. I don't like the idea of getting rid of one sector of the conservation community in favor of another. The Commerical-Recreational folks end up fighting each other when the real problems go unaddressed. These include habitat, hydropower, land development, water withdrawl, pollution, etc. So why provoke a fight that focuses our collective energy away from the real problems?

Plus, if a change in the regs can eliminate commerical fishing, why not recreational fishing as well? On what basis should we eliminate one type of fishing (commercial) while other types of fishing (recreation) continue? Because recreational anglers are more important? More numerous? Have fewer adverse impacts? Are more righteous?
From the fish's point-of-view, they would likely advocate eliminating both recreational angling and commerical fishing.

I agree with Beezer. Making the commerical folks more "catch selective" would a better solution. Eliminate the gill nets and switch to traps nets. The State of Michigan made the commerical fisherman switch to trap nets in the Great Lakes in the early 70's. The States of Washington and Oregon can do it here as well (but they need to change State law first).

I believe the fishing community needs to be more inclusive, not exclusive, if we are to work together for the benefit of the Pacific salmon. I do not support pitting one group against the other while the real problems are ignored.

Cohoangler,

Thanks for your obviously thoughtful post. I agree that CFM's proposal initially at least looks more like catch reallocation than anything else. However, there is a common sense basis as well.

The market for commercially caught salmon has shifted significantly. Ex-vessel prices are down very significantly, and salmon farming seems likely to keep them there. In that context alone, I find myself asking how sensible is it for state taxpayers to spend more to create a hatchery fish that, when sold commercially, yields less money than it cost to create it. For that matter, how sensible is it for state taxpayers to raise hatchery salmon for commercial fishermen to catch in the first place. And the fact that there are many other forms of subsidies and welfare does not qualify as an acceptable answer.

Next, is the public interest better served by having commercial harvesters take huge numbers of chum salmon for the value of their roe alone? I think WDFW Commissioners owe the public equal consideration of allowing those chums to "waste" themselves as excess spawning escapement and marine derived nutrients to the watersheds.

And particularly in the case of the Columbia River, with ESA listed chinook, chum, and steelhead captured with non-selective gillnets, and sold below cost, the fleet is dependent on surplus hatchery fish production. There are no harvestable numbers of wild spring chinook, wild fall chinook (excluding upriver brights), wild coho, wild chum, nor wild steelhead. I keep asking what public interest is served by the continued existence of this commercial fishery? The Columbia River gillnet fishery is totally inconsistent with wild salmon and steelhead conservation. The same is not inherently true for commercial harvest of coastal and Puget Sound populations - in all cases.

The huge production of hatchery fish on the Columbia River - intended in large part to support this commercial fishery - is a primary factor for the decline of fish populations presently listed under the ESA. And this hatchery production is a primary factor that interferes with survival and recovery of these same listed populations.

Admittedly, I've simply reached a point where I cannot biologically, economically, nor socially justify the Columbia R. gillnet fishery. Increasingly, I'm trending a similar direction regarding PS commercial fisheries on coho, pink, and chum salmon. They just don't fill the social need they once did, and the ecological cost really tips the balance in favor of termination, I believe.

Lastly, I don't know that commercial fishing interests are very significant players in the fish conservation arena. Surely, they should be, but I'm not sure that they are. I think - but don't know - that they contribute far more lip service to fishery conservation than direct financial and lobbying support. So, would we really miss their contributions to fish conservation?

I find this an interesting subject, particularly because the landscape it's played upon has shifted so dramatically in recent years. Oh, and one last reason for commercial fishing that earns no sympathy from me is the "it's our family tradition" line. Non-treaty commercial fishing has only occurred in the PNW for barely more than 100 years. If those traditional jobs are essential to society, than I guess we need to subsidize and bring back the buggy whip makers as well.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Like all initiatives, some people will like them and some will hate them! This initiative would be no different then the ones of the pass in that sense. But this initiative would be different, because it has sound footing, and it's has a foundation that can be based on facts and not just emotion. For example, it can be shown that sport caught salmon brings in far more money to the local economies then do that of what a commercial caught fish brings in.

Why not allow the people of our state to decide if they want salmon to be declared a "sport fish"? There is no "fight" to get into with the commercials; the people will just be given a choice that they were never given before! Its real simple economics, which harvest of salmon generates the most revenue and creates the most economic value, with doing the less harm or damage to all the other listed species. How are the Commercials going to counter the facts?

Some may still think, and make claim, that our resources can still withstand the "damages" that are being done though a "commercial fishery", but history has shown us otherwise! Can any of you name one specie of fish (salmon) that is native to the Columbia River that has been "commercially fished" that isn't at or near the brink of being listed under the Endangered Specie Act (ESA)? I think every logical person on this board knows that once a species is harvested "commercially" and is left to reproduce on its own; its days are soon to be numbered!

Personally, I think a lot of people are quickly getting very worried, and concerned, that this simple initiative may take off like a flash of lighting! It's so simple, and yet it's so deadly….to the end the continued indiscriminate taking of other species on places such as the Columbia River! Salmo G is 100% correct! I believe the majority of people in Washington would support it in a heart beat! People are finally becoming realistic, and fully understanding that our salmon runs can no longer continue to take or withstand the gurgling effects of the commercial gill net fishery, and are realizing that's its one of our leading causes and contributors to the "continued loss" and decline of our salmon runs, especially in places like the Columbia River.

Do some of you really believe that the commercial fishermen "wouldn't sell out the sport the fishermen" interests in a heart beat, if they knew they could make more of a profit by doing so? Personally, I think its way past time to get out of the same bed! It's time to tell the public that we do not "share the same interests", even those we must both share the same species. We are as different as day is to night, and I for one, am not afraid to say so. It's time that we draw the line between the two fishing groups and define our real differences and interests.

It's kind of like comparing a painter's "art work" to that of a street gangs "art work" on an alley wall!. . . .they are both "art", and they are both done with paint. . . but they are both done for different reasons and purposes.

Salmo has stated the facts very well!


Cowlitzfisherman

Bring back the bugg whip makers!

Salmo G, that's great!

So how do we rid ourselves of the commerical salmon fleet in this state?

Obviously, the tribes are more than capable of harvesting and marketing any surplus salmon.

For the record, CFM and Salmo g are in total agreement on an issue!! . Perhaps it's not the first time but it's worth mentioning nonetheless.

You guys make good points and it's hard to disagree with the fact that the price of commerically caught salmon is being undercut by market forces beyond the control of the producers. Your assessment that commerical fishing is a dying occupation is also probably correct. Implementing the proposal as outlined by CFM will hasten their dimise.

Sorta like buggy whip makers, commerical fishermen may be on course for extinction due to the competitive forces of the marketplace. But to me, that's the way our society should operate. Their economic future is tied to their success in marketing their product. If the market for their product collapses, they need to make adjustments. Either find another market, change your product, or go out of business. That's the American way. I'm not sure that society should provide commerical fishermen with an added push into the economic graveyard, even though that's where they're headed (sooner or later). If they can't compete, the marketplace will resolve the issue. Even commerical fishermen will agree with that.

But if they go, their passing will signify the end of a long tradition on the Columbia River and I, for one, will miss their prescence.

Cohoangler

How is it that Commercials can be more selective in release? While I may be a bit naive on this, by the time the nets are dragged in, isn't there a reasonable probability that the fish to be released are already dead or damaged? Do the fish get dumped on the floor of the boat and sorted that way?

Aunty,

Indeed, there are alternatives to gillnets. Most of them are not as economically efficient, which is one major reason for opposition. The other, is that the solo gillnetter is real clear about who owns, and therefore sells, the catch. That is the over-riding reason I've encountered against banning gillnets.

As you mention, the Columbia R. gillnet fleet exists at all because of the taxpayer supported supply of hatchery fish. No hatchery fish in the Columbia, no commercial (non-treaty) fishing. That simple. However, there would be very little recreational fishing, either. I do agree with the positions that recreational fishing returns more $ to the economy per fish caught (whether kept or released) than commercial fishing. And maybe it is in the public interest to support hatcheries that support recreational fishing even if they don't support a concurrent commercial fishery for both the social and economic benefits. Understanding, of course, that the benefits are still a subsidy.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

If I was a hatchery lover then I would be thinking hard about all this.Those hatcheries get our tax dollars to satisfy the tribes and the comercial fishermen not the sportsmen.Without the comercial interest and lobbing power I would say that alot of your hatchery fish go with those nets.