Since the WDFW and the Wildlife and Game Commission is in the process of accepting and enacting a new law; the one that will make it illegal to remove a wild or native salmon or steelhead from the water (Rule # 27 Removing Steelhead and Salmon from fresh water) when it is being released; will the "gill netters" have to follow the same standards and rule?

Since the reason that is given for proposing this new rule (law) is done under this justification; "to improve survival of released fish because they will not have the additional handling and stress caused by their removal from the water", why shouldn't this rule apply to all forms of fishing?

Will they (the gill netters) legally be required to do the same? If not, why not? Since their fishing methods involve far more (or at least as much) "stress" and handling as that of sport fishing does, why should they be allowed to continue to stress and harm the same fish that we must not do any harm to?

This one begs a legal challenge folks!


Cowlitzfisherman

Totally assinine....I agree.
I support minimizing traumatizing native fish, but I really doubt most recreational anglers how the ability to catch a release effectively enough to unhook IN THE WATER.

Some of the Washington regs are just plain ridiculous and yet another attempt to mire an entangle an enthusiast in a zealous attempt to make the regulations so complicated its almost not worth the effort to comply or to make an effort to enjoy.

God forbid I dont C&R properly...get real (Whats next a trauma pack to inject the fish with Epi and penicillin) or how about (Upon indentifying species, angler is to immediately cut the line as close to the lure/bait as possible).

Oh and you can bank on those that claim heritage rights to have free reign to contiue rape, pillage and plunder. Stewards my ass....


As a transplant I am beginning to see and learn that our lawmakers are a bunch of ball-less lip service giving, morons who are placed in office by a very small percentage of the general population. VOTE!!!

Sorry to rant but there is a lot of really messed up stuff going on.....

If the new rule is passed, there goes 90% of the cover shots on local fishing magazines. I have a hard time believing properly holding a fish out of the water for a quick pic or to remove the hook, puts much more stress on the fish.
Good point on the gill netters too.

Likely it doesn't trouter ... but I believe the whole idea behind the proposal is to eliminate the actions of those pulling fish into the boat or ten feet up the rocks before unhooking it.

It's one of those deals in which another "I told you so" comes around. Many of us have long suggested to people to try to properly handle fish to be released ... if not, something will be done about it .. and here it is.

It's really not as bad as many of you think. In the state of Alaska, it's against the law to remove a king salmon from the water prior to release (at least in the rivers, not positive on the salt) and in most areas any trout or steelhead ... technically if the fins are in the water, you're still legal and can get your pic.

Don't see ANY of the " fish in the boat, oh have to release, toss it back in" syndrome on the rivers there!

Personally I have mixed feelings on this proposal, but I think it would do more good than bad ...

But CF does have a good point ... perhaps it's an avenue to change commercial techniques!

I would like to see how gill netters "properly" handle their catch in the pitch of darkness during there night fishery!

I have already seen how they handle them in the daylight hours!

Bob, if such handling practice and methods are good and necessary by sport fishers, then it should also be good and necessary for the gill netters too! Personally, I believe if the new law only applies just to sport fishers and not the gill netters, the sport fishing industries should take WDFW, the director and every single member of the "commission" to court! It would be a double standard under Washington State law!

How else could the courts interpolate this section of law under RCW 77.04.012

This is the Mandate of both the Department and Commission.

"Wildlife, fish, and shellfish are the property of the state. The commission, director, and the department shall preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish in state waters and offshore waters.

The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource. In a manner consistent with this goal, the department shall seek to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state. The department shall promote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve recreational and commercial fishing in this state."

If this new law is being passed so that we will "not impair the resource" (what other reason could there be?) then the commercials gill netters must also abide by these same rules. The part of law that says "not impair the resource" is applicable to all of our fish, and is being proposed to prevent further harm to our wild and endangered stocks of fish.

I don’t believe that the "commission" has even thought about the legal aspect of passing such a law yet! What's good for the goose is also good for the gander!

WDFW has already said that this rule is needed because it will; "… improve survival of released fish because they will not have the additional handling and stress caused by their removal from the water" It can easily be legally argued and shown that this new law is being proposed to "preserve, protect, perpetuate and "conserve" our game and food fish. These are all mandates of both WDFW and the wildlife Commission.

If it can be shown (and it can be shown easily) that this action is being taken to "preserve, protect, perpetuate" our fish runs; then WDFW and the Commission are both mandated to apply these same practices and rules to all of the fisheries that are under their jurisdiction. Read the mandate and figure it out yourself!

What could their legal argument possibly be? It's there own law!


Cowlitzfisherman

CFM,

Are you indirectly suggesting that sportfishermen who participate in the Columbia R. spring chinook fishery ought to have a rescucitation tank on board to revive the fish they release? The commerical guys do.

There's a fairly obvious reason that you can't apply the exact same rules to both types of fisheries, and that's that the fisheries are quite different.

Non-tribal commercial fisheries aren't allowed to harvest their quota from upstream portions of rivers, while sportfishermen are. Should we allow the commercials up there, too, or should we restrict sporties to the salt water and lower Columbia, as well?

Seems that it would only be fair!

There are numerous other examples that could be made, but I think the point is clear.

I think that your premise is good, that commercials ought to bearing proportionate burden for the damage they do to fish runs, but insisting that the rules be exactly the same is not going to get the job done.

Lobbying for additional time, place, and manner restrictions on commercial fishing is necessary, just realize that the exact same ones we as sporties are restricted to are not the same ones that the commercials should be restricted to.

Fish on...

Todd.

Todd

You asked me;
The answer is a big NO!

The reason is a simple one to explain. Sport fishermen normally catch a single fish at a time. They have plenty of time to undue a single fish and release it in a timely matter. Now gill netting is a whole different story! The nets may have up to 100 or more fish in it at a single setting. These fish are gilled and die within minutes at times even when left in the water. When they are pulling there nets, many fish are left "standing" in the air while they are trying to remove their fish. That's not even including taking snags, drift wood, and other by-catch out of there nets at the same time.

Gill net fish spend far more time "out of water" then that of the sport caught fish the majority of the time.

You say;
The reason for that is that they are not allowed to compete with the tribes in the upper sections of the river after they have already had the "first opportunity to catch" there quota in the lower river.

Finally, you say;
I do not understand your logic on this one…can you explain it a little more clearly?

Cowlitzfisherman

CFM,
Ever since the tangle nets and tanks came out I have been laughing! It's my opinion that the T/Nets might appear to have a better survival rate upon release, but the build up of lactic acid in the fish’s blood system and scales and slime that come off from the stress of fighting the net and handling takes a few days to really show the survival rate of the fish. I'm with you 100%, if the law goes into effect without addressing the commercial net fishery having to comply its time for a big law suit to put them in compliance with the sportsman!

RiverLiver

Very good point!

I forgot to ask Todd how well those "Tangle nets" worked in last year's commercial net fishery on the Columbia.

The 2002 commercial fishery targeting hatchery-origin spring chinook was a catastrophe for three stocks of federally listed wild steelhead. Protections afforded to these fish by The Endangered Species Act were disregarded, putting these already beleaguered fish in further jeopardy of extinction even further.

Also, in 2002 the tangle net fishery intercepted more steelhead than the targeted hatchery-origin spring chinook. Of the 20,900 steelhead caught in this fishery 12,400 were wild fish. Estimates of mortality, both immediate and post-release, are between 2,400 and 6,100 threatened, wild winter steelhead, representing between 5 and 15% of the entire run. All of this information just adds support to my proclaiming that this new proposed rule/law should apply to the commercial gill netters as well as sport fishers.

What good did all those "rescucitation tanks" on board the gill netters boats do to revive all of those dead and lost fish?

Cowlitzfisherman

If this goes through enforcement spends alot of time on the plunking bars and hatchery terminal areas.

Rich what's your point here?

great point cfm!!! i say if we are to go to this extreem, the equal would be to ban gill nets alltogether and only allow commercial salmon to be dipnetted from fiah ladders or other stacking points where the fish could be positively identified as wild or not before it is even handled.

On the Peninsula anyways It is more comman on the Plunking Bars and terminal Hatchery areas for people to drag fish up on the bank before they check to see if the fish is wild or not.

This isnt as much as an issues after DEC 1 as alot of wild fish are bonked where legal.

I see some real issues with this, I think it is a good idea but very difficult to enforce and prove where wild retention is legal.

Its a step in the right direction but this issues is only a small part in the big picture.

I dont understand why this is being heard when Wild Steelhead Release with no exceptions is not being heard.

To me this should be part of the same issue.

CFM,

I think it may be because I'm using a Mac, but the quoted portions of the text just come out as blue lines...maybe you can just cut and past them rather than using the "quote" function...thanks.

The lower Columbia tangle net fishery is an unqualified disaster...and I think that this year there isn't money out there to have monitoring of the fishery, but they'll still have it.

How in the hell can you have an "experimental" fishery and leave it up to the fishermen to report how successful it is or isn't at being selective? Call me cynical, but I don't forsee any commercial fishermen reporting that their net killed too many listed steelhead, and recommending that the fishery not take place any more.

Even though I can't read the quoted portions, maybe this will clear up my point. I do think that if a law could be passed that required the "tangle net" (i.e., gillnet) fishermen to leave the fish in the water as it is "untangled" (i.e., has the net removed from its gills), then it would be good if they could possibly do it.

However, the reason for passing such a law is NOT because sporties have to do it...the reason is that if they can do it and it works, they should do it. It's not a double standard or fairness issue. It's a biological issue...if they can do it and it helps, then they should do it for the good of the fish, not because we have to do it.

Comparing sport regulations to commercial regulations is comparing apples and oranges. Making regulations that make sense biologically independently for both groups, though, is what should be done. It kind of hurts to see the continuing litany of regulations that we have to put up (mainly good and necessary regulations), while many times the amount of damage is being done by the nets and is not being addressed proportionately, if at all.

Fish on...

Todd.

Todd

Thanks for answering!

I will just make the standard quote marks on this thread, so that you will be able to read what I am quoting! My last quotes were just repeating what you had said earlier and I think that you were able to siphon out what they were, so I will go on to what you have said now.

Todd, you say; " How in the hell can you have an "experimental" fishery and leave it up to the fishermen to report how successful it is or isn't at being selective?"

That is simple to answer! You just continue to do business as usual, and allow the gill netters to break the federal ESA, and turn your head, just like WDFW, NMFS and ODFW has done for the past 10 years!

That is what this thread is all about! Before the internet, we depended on the local news and press to tell us, or question what the hell was going on. Most of the time politics came into play, and we never herd a word about this stuff until it was long gone and over with! Now with electronic mail age, we all know what is going on in seconds, if we choose to know!

You say; "Call me cynical, but I don't forsee any commercial fishermen reporting that their net killed too many listed steelhead, and recommending that the fishery not take place any more."

You are not "cynical", you are 1000% right! Maybe we should save the state 10's of millions of more dollars each year, and eliminate all those state troopers who are out there to oversee and "verify" our honest efforts to stay within the legal speed limit when we are driving!

Todd, as it stands right now, "food fish" are being treated differently then "sport" fish when it comes to state law. So why shouldn't "food" fish be treated the same way by commercials gill netters as it is to sport fishers? These "salmon" are "food" fish and not sport fish, so why should the commercials be treated any different? A food fish in the water must legally be treated the same way under the current law and mandate of WDFW and the Commission.

You say; "However, the reason for passing such a law is NOT because sporties have to do it...the reason is that if they can do it and it works, they should do it. It's not a double standard or fairness issue. It's a biological issue...if they can do it and it helps, then they should do it for the good of the fish, not because we have to do it"

AS it stands right now, "food fish" (salmon) are not classified as "sport fish". The law for "food fish" (salmon) is different then those of the "game fish", so any law that is passed concerning the release of "salmon" must also apply to the laws that relate to "food fish". In my opinion, any law passed on releasing a salmon, must also apply equally to both the commercial and the sport fishermen.

Finally, I want to comment on your last statement when you said; "Comparing sport regulations to commercial regulations is comparing apples and oranges. ons that we have to put up (mainly good and necessary regulation Making regulations that make sense biologically independently for both groups…"

Many of our fishery laws have 0, that right, 0 biological grounds or foundation to stand on! Just look at all the current laws/wac's that relate to the commercial fish industry in our state. They were put there by special interests when they were made, and we are still dealing with there results today. Why don't we make every fish law stand the test of "biology" now, and get ride of the ones that can't pass?

I know you’re a very sincere person who cares about our resources and fish, so why can't we all get it together and make those much needed changes?

The past three years have seen experimental tangle nets on the Columbia financed by the NW Power Planning Council (our own money). In 2001 there were problems with the experiment design. In 2002, the use of 5 ½ inch coho nets resulted in unacceptable numbers of wild steelhead being caught. In 2003, both traditional gill nets and 4 ½ inch tangle nets again caught too many ESA listed Snake River springers. Each year there is some new complication that ends up costing sport angler's fish and fishing opportunity.

There are at least 550 lower Columbia River gill-netters in Oregon and Washington. When will sport fishers unite and take the actions that must be taken? Are we doomed….not if I can help it!

Cowlitzfisherman

CFM,

Good point on the # of gill netters on the lower Columbia, case in point ; I had several discussions with the Barrier Dam Salmon hatchery personnel this summer between May and August and every time and I mean every time I talked to them about the fall Coho Run estimates they doubled or dam near, here is a quick accounting of what I was told in May around 60k returns, June approx 120k returns, July 180k and finally August 200+ returns and these were RETURNS TO THE BARRIER DAM. Needless to say I started booking "Record Runs of Coho on the Cowlitz" boy did I end up with egg on my face. I was so p*ssed off I wrote a blazing letter about all of the fish being caught by the Gill Netters and not even making it the sportsman to Koenings head of WDFW of course I got a form letter back that was all fluff. Oh by the way I caught more jacks in some of my trips than I would normally catch in a normal Coho season and coincidentally most of the Jacks had net marks which tells me because of their size they escaped and the larger adults didn't, I think the unusually high number of Jacks should give us all a good idea of how large the run should have been!

Text from the Americans With Disabilities Act

Specific prohibitions.--

(A) Discrimination.--For purposes of subsection
(a), discrimination includes--
(i) the imposition or application of eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or any class of individuals with disabilities from fully and
equally enjoying any goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations, unless such criteria can be shown to be necessary for the provision of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations being offered.

What it means.....

Q. How does title II affect participation in a State or local government''s programs, activities, and services?

A. A state or local government must eliminate any eligibility criteria for participation in programs, activities, and services that screen out or tend to screen out persons with disabilities, unless it can establish that the requirements are necessary for the provision of the service, program, or activity.

to a commercial fisherman today the fish are just hunks of meat and egg containers, not something to be revered and treated with care and respect. They only put up with the falacy of releasing fish from nets when they are forced to. Getting rid of the nets is the only sure way to protect threatened runs.