As usual the commercial harvesters on the Columbia River are not allowing observers on their boats. I'm sure this is out of fear that the observer will document the incredible bycatch.

Here is the latest from Oregon:

"There are three problems going on:

1) Very vew observers for the entire river & flee
2) Gillnetters refusing to let observers on board
3) NEITHER ODF&W Nor WDF&W even know how many commercial boats are out there ahead of time.

Last year when the Departments allowed overfishing in the commercial fleet, the claimed that "They had no idea how many boats would fish that day!"

Netters warned to allow observers
Thursday, March 11, 2004
By ALLEN THOMAS, Columbian staff writer
Commercial fishermen were warned Wednesday to stop refusing to allow state observers to board their boats and monitor gillnetting of spring chinook salmon in the lower Columbia River.
Steve Williams of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife said there were "a lot of turnaways'' during Tuesday's fishing. Cindy LeFleur of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife said she "heard the same report,'' although it appeared limited to a specific area of the river.
She did not specify which area.
Williams said the refusals of observers from Oregon were scattered across a number of locations on the lower Columbia.
Commercial fishing in March in the lower Columbia is intended to allow the fleet a chance to catch hatchery-origin spring chinook destined for the Willamette River, yet minimize the handle of upper Columbia spring chinook and wild winter steelhead.
Wild spring chinook and all steelhead must be released. There are guidelines to keep the commercials from killing no more than 2 percent of the wild winter steelhead run and 0.8 percent of the wild upper Columbia spring salmon run.
Both runs are protected under the federal Endangered Species Act.
Commercial fishing in March gets close scrutiny, particularly after the commercial fleet killed between 6 percent and 15 percent of the wild winter steelhead run in 2002.
Washington and Oregon provide a combined 16 observers each fishing period to collect on-the-water data from the commercial fleet.
Williams encouraged the commercials to cooperate, even if having an observer on board makes fishing more difficult.
"This remains a key to allowing these fisheries,'' he said. "We've got a lot of people watching us so all the information is critical.''
Bill Tweit of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife said if there are too many refusals to board and monitor the data collected becomes inaccurate. If one area is excluded from monitoring, the information may be biased, he added.
Specific areas of the river might have to be closed and fewer netting periods allowed overall if the refusals become chronic, Tweit said.
Spring chinook are extremely valuable to commercial fishermen. A spring salmon brings $5.50 a pound, compared to 20 cents to 50 cents a pound for fall salmon.
State officials did authorize 24 hours of gillnetting from 10 a.m. today until 10 a.m. Friday from the mouth of the Willamette River at Kelley Point downstream to the ocean.
On Tuesday and Wednesday, the commercials landed 611 spring chinook, bringing their total to 1,177. The fleet has used 4 percent of its upper Columbia guideline and 7 percent of its wild winter steelhead limit.
Les Clark of the Northwest Gillnetters Association said predation of spring chinook in the nets by seals and sea lions has been very high.
Spring chinook entry into the Columbia appears a bit delayed this year. The river is about three degrees colder than the 10-year average.
Officials will meet by telephone at 8 a.m. Monday to consider

Isn't predation by seals a natural occurance? :rolleyes:

I highly doubt that this impact is counted against the commercial take guidelines, being a natural event and all. Haven't seals been taking salmon out of nets for centuries?

I mean, even the greenies enjoy watching those cute fuzzy little critters do their thing.

Let them observe or cut the fishery- I love it!

Refuse to be observed and license gone just like drunk driving.

Gee, I wonder why they dont want to be observed... maybe too many non-targeted fish being killed, and the recovery tanks dont work or exist? what happens to sports fishermen when we dont pull over and have our fish or hooks checked,,,,arrested?

I have spoken to observers who take notes but are NOT allowed to take pictures. The commercials see the revival tanks as a joke I think and some are not even operational and most don't get used. You can bet that they don't want to screw around releasing wild steelhead and salmon and sturgeon from their nets when they only get a 45 minute soak time. Funny how big of a deal it is to WDFW to makes sure they can monitor sports fisheries before even allowing them but when it comes to the commercials they don't even know how many boats are out in the fishery and don't force the observers on the boats. I bet we could get alot of volunteers to be observers as long as we could bring along the digital cameras. Maybe some of you should call Cindy LeFleur and offer to volunteer. See what she says.

Grandpa

That is a very good point. The Sky Chinook fishery cannot be expanded because of monitoring

I don't know about Oregon law, but if WDFW wants to check out the commercial fishing boats, there are numerous ways that they are authorized to get on the boats and see what they are catching when they are on the water. Listed below are just a few of laws that would allow WDFW to enter onto a commercial boat to check for numerous violations.

Biggest problem of all….. first WDFW must WANT TO CHECK THEM!!!


RCW 77.15.096
Inspection without warrant -- Commercial fish and wildlife entities -- Limitations.
Fish and wildlife officers may inspect without warrant at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner the premises, containers, fishing equipment, fish, seaweed, shellfish, and wildlife, and records required by the department of any commercial fisher or wholesale dealer or fish buyer. Fish and wildlife officers may similarly inspect without warrant the premises, containers, fishing equipment, fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and records required by the department of any shipping agent or other person placing or attempting to place fish, shellfish, or wildlife into interstate commerce, any cold storage plant that the department has probable cause to believe contains fish, shellfish, or wildlife, or of any taxidermist or fur buyer. Fish and wildlife officers may inspect without warrant the records required by the department of any retail outlet selling fish, shellfish, or wildlife, and, if the officers have probable cause to believe a violation of this title or rules of the commission has occurred, they may inspect without warrant the premises, containers, and fish, shellfish, and wildlife of any retail outlet selling fish, shellfish, or wildlife. Authority granted under this section does not extend to quarters in a boat, building, or other property used exclusively as a private domicile, does not extend to transitory residences in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and does not allow search and seizure without a warrant if the thing or place is protected from search without warrant within the meaning of Article I, section 7 of the state Constitution.


RCW 77.15.080
Fish and wildlife officers -- Inspection authority.
(1) Based upon articulable facts that a person is engaged in fishing, harvesting, or hunting activities, fish and wildlife officers have the authority to temporarily stop the person and check for valid licenses, tags, permits, stamps, or catch record cards, and to inspect all fish, shellfish, seaweed, and wildlife in possession as well as the equipment being used to ensure compliance with the requirements of this title, and may request the person to write his or her signature for comparison with the signature on the license. Failure to comply with the request is prima facie evidence that the person is not the person named on the license. For licenses purchased over the internet or telephone, fish and wildlife officers may require the person, if age eighteen or older, to exhibit a driver's license or other photo identification.

(2) Based upon articulable facts that a person is transporting a prohibited aquatic animal species or any aquatic plant, fish and wildlife officers and ex officio fish and wildlife officers have the authority to temporarily stop the person and inspect the watercraft to ensure that the watercraft and associated equipment are not transporting prohibited aquatic animal species or aquatic plants.

RCW 77.15.094
Search without warrant -- Seizure of evidence, property -- Limitation.
Fish and wildlife officers and ex officio fish and wildlife officers may make a reasonable search without warrant of a vessel, conveyances, vehicles, containers, packages, or other receptacles for fish, seaweed, shellfish, and wildlife which they have reason to believe contain evidence of a violation of law or rules adopted pursuant to this title and seize evidence as needed for law enforcement. This authority does not extend to quarters in a boat, building, or other property used exclusively as a private domicile, does not extend to transitory residences in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and does not allow search and seizure without a warrant if the thing or place is protected from search without warrant within the meaning of Article I, section 7 of the state Constitution. Seizure of property as evidence of a crime does not preclude seizure of the property for forfeiture as authorized by law

RCW 77.15.110
Acting for commercial purposes -- When -- Proof.
(1) For purposes of this chapter, a person acts for commercial purposes if the person engages in conduct that relates to commerce in fish, seaweed, shellfish, or wildlife or any parts thereof. Commercial conduct may include taking, delivering, selling, buying, or trading fish, seaweed, shellfish, or wildlife where there is present or future exchange of money, goods, or any valuable consideration. Evidence that a person acts for commercial purposes includes, but is not limited to, the following conduct:

(a) Using gear typical of that used in commercial fisheries;

(b) Exceeding the bag or possession limits for personal use by taking or possessing more than three times the amount of fish, seaweed, shellfish, or wildlife allowed;

(c) Delivering or attempting to deliver fish, seaweed, shellfish, or wildlife to a person who sells or resells fish, seaweed, shellfish, or wildlife including any licensed or unlicensed wholesaler;

(d) Taking fish or shellfish using a vessel designated on a commercial fishery license or using gear not authorized in a personal use fishery;

(e) Using a commercial fishery license;

(f) Selling or dealing in raw furs; or

(g) Performing taxidermy service on fish, shellfish, or wildlife belonging to another person for a fee or receipt of goods or services.

(2) For purposes of this chapter, the value of any fish, seaweed, shellfish, or wildlife may be proved based on evidence of legal or illegal sales involving the person charged or any other person, of offers to sell or solicitation of offers to sell by the person charged or by any other person, or of any market price for the fish, seaweed, shellfish, or wildlife including market price for farm-raised game animals. The value assigned to specific fish, seaweed, shellfish, or wildlife by RCW 77.15.420 may be presumed to be the value of such fish, seaweed, shellfish, or wildlife. It is not relevant to proof of value that the person charged misrepresented that the fish, seaweed, shellfish, or wildlife was taken in compliance with law if the fish, seaweed, shellfish, or wildlife was unlawfully taken and had no lawful market value.
[2002 c 127 § 2; 2001 c 253 § 27; 1998 c 190 § 8.]
NOTES:
Intent -- 2002 c 127: "The legislature intends to clarify that when a crime under chapter 77.15 RCW requires proof that a person acted for commercial purposes, that element refers to engaging in particular conduct that is commercial in nature and the element does not imply that a particular state of mind must exist. This act revises the existing definition of that element to confirm that the element is fulfilled by engaging in commercial conduct and to eliminate any implication that a particular mental state of mind must be shown. Examples are given of the type of conduct that may be considered as evidence that a person acts for a commercial purpose; however, these examples do not create a conclusive presumption that a person acts for a commercial purpose." [2002 c 127 § 1.]

RCW 77.15.270
Providing false information -- Penalty.
(1) A person is guilty of providing false information regarding fish, shellfish, or wildlife if the person knowingly provides false or misleading information required by any statute or rule to be provided to the department regarding the taking, delivery, possession, transportation, sale, transfer, or any other use of fish, shellfish, or wildlife.

(2) Providing false information regarding fish, shellfish, or wildlife is a gross misdemeanor.

RCW 77.15.280
Reporting of fish or wildlife harvest -- Rules violation -- Penalty.
(1) A person is guilty of violating rules requiring reporting of fish or wildlife harvest if the person:

(a) Fails to make a harvest log report of a commercial fish or shellfish catch in violation of any rule of the commission or the director;

(b) Fails to maintain a trapper's report or taxidermist ledger in violation of any rule of the commission or the director;

(c) Fails to submit any portion of a big game animal for a required inspection required by rule of the commission or the director; or

(d) Fails to return a catch record card or wildlife harvest report to the department as required by rule of the commission or director.

(2) Violating rules requiring reporting of fish or wildlife harvest is a misdemeanor
RCW 77.15.360
Unlawful interfering in department operations -- Penalty.
(1) A person is guilty of unlawful interfering in department operations if the person prevents department employees from carrying out duties authorized by this title, including but not limited to interfering in the operation of department vehicles, vessels, or aircraft.

(2) Unlawful interfering in department operations is a gross misdemeanor.

RCW 77.15.520
Commercial fishing -- Unlawful gear or methods -- Penalty.
(1) A person is guilty of commercial fishing using unlawful gear or methods if the person acts for commercial purposes and takes or fishes for any fish or shellfish using any gear or method in violation of a rule of the department specifying, regulating, or limiting the gear or method for taking, fishing, or harvesting of such fish or shellfish.

(2) Commercial fishing using unlawful gear or methods is a gross misdemeanor.

RCW 77.15.540
Unlawful use of a commercial fishery license -- Penalty.
(1) A person who holds a fishery license required by chapter 77.65 RCW, or who holds an operator's license and is designated as an alternate operator on a fishery license required by chapter 77.65 RCW, is guilty of unlawful use of a commercial fishery license if the person:

(a) Does not have the commercial fishery license or operator's license in possession during fishing or delivery; or

(b) Violates any rule of the department regarding the use, possession, display, or presentation of the person's license, decals, or vessel numbers.

(2) Unlawful use of a commercial fishery license is a misdemeanor.
RCW 77.15.550
Violation of commercial fishing area or time -- Penalty.
(1) A person is guilty of violating commercial fishing area or time in the second degree if the person acts for commercial purposes and takes, fishes for, possesses, delivers, or receives fish or shellfish:

(a) At a time not authorized by statute or rule;

(b) From an area that was closed to the taking of such fish or shellfish for commercial purposes by statute or rule; or

(c) If such fish or shellfish do not conform to the special restrictions or physical descriptions established by rule of the department.

(2) A person is guilty of violating commercial fishing area or time in the first degree if the person commits the act described by subsection (1) of this section and:

(a) The person acted with knowledge that the area or time was not open to the taking or fishing of fish or shellfish for commercial purposes; and

(b) The violation involved two hundred fifty dollars or more worth of fish or shellfish.

(3)(a) Violating commercial fishing area or time in the second degree is a gross misdemeanor.

(b) Violating commercial fishing area or time in the first degree is a class C felony.

RCW 77.15.560
Commercial fish, shellfish harvest or delivery -- Failure to report -- Penalty.
(1) Except as provided in RCW 77.15.640, a person is guilty of failing to report a commercial fish or shellfish harvest or delivery if the person acts for commercial purposes and takes or delivers any fish or shellfish, and the person:

(a) Fails to sign a fish-receiving ticket that documents the delivery of fish or shellfish or otherwise documents the taking or delivery; or

(b) Fails to report or document the taking, landing, or delivery as required by any rule of the department.

(2) Failing to report a commercial fish harvest or delivery is a gross misdemeanor.

(3) For purposes of this section, "delivery" of fish or shellfish occurs when there is a transfer or conveyance of title or control from the person who took, fished for, or otherwise harvested the fish or shellfish.

RCW 77.15.580
Unlawful use of net to take fish -- Penalty.
(1) A person is guilty of unlawful use of a net to take fish in the second degree if the person:

(a) Lays, sets, uses, or controls a net or other device or equipment capable of taking fish from the waters of this state, except if the person has a valid license for such fishing gear from the director under this title and is acting in accordance with all rules of the commission and director; or

(b) Fails to return unauthorized fish to the water immediately while otherwise lawfully operating a net under a valid license.

(2) A person is guilty of unlawful use of a net to take fish in the first degree if the person:

(a) Commits the act described by subsection (1) of this section; and

(b) The violation occurs within five years of entry of a prior conviction for a gross misdemeanor or felony under this title involving fish, other than a recreational fishing violation, or involving unlawful use of nets.

(3)(a) Unlawful use of a net to take fish in the second degree is a gross misdemeanor. Upon conviction, the department shall revoke any license held under this title allowing commercial net fishing used in connection with the crime.

(b) Unlawful use of a net to take fish in the first degree is a class C felony. Upon conviction, the department shall order a one-year suspension of all commercial fishing privileges requiring a license under this title.

(4) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2) of this section, it is lawful to use a landing net to land fish otherwise legally hooked.

Thanks CF...I think you have the key to it....WDFW has to want to observe and monitor the springer fishery on the Columbia.

Considering what this same fishery did to the wild steelhead populations last time out I would expect WSC and WT and TU to be all over this. I know PSA and RFA are.

Unless there is language in the fishing agreements developed by the Columbia River Compact (CRC) providing for on-deck observers the commercial boats probably have every right to refuse.

The time to put this language in the agreements has probably passed for this season but the RFA and perhaps the PSA should be prepared to try and get that provision next time around. And something about the fisheries contribution towards increased seal predation as well.

I'm pretty sure that Phil L. of the RFA is a member of the Sport Advisory Committee to the CRC. Not sure if the PSA is represented.

If the language providing for on-deck observers is in the current agreements we can at least try to force compliance. Phone calls, letters to the media, legislators and department heads, etc.

I don't think the state departments have the resources to drive around the river boarding enough boats often enough to really force compliance but a few sneakers would certainly levy a few stiff fines if blatant violations are common.

Perhaps WSC, WT, PSA & others could take legal action if they can develop evidence of non-compliance or excess impacts on ESA listed stocks.

Plunk

This is all I could find. It appears that they would have to abide by local state laws unless the two states wanted to change any specific rule.

RCW 77.75.010
Columbia River Compact -- Provisions.
There exists between the states of Washington and Oregon a definite compact and agreement as follows:

All laws and regulations now existing or which may be necessary for regulating, protecting or preserving fish in the waters of the Columbia river, or its tributaries, over which the states of Washington and Oregon have concurrent jurisdiction, or which would be affected by said concurrent jurisdiction, shall be made, changed, altered and amended in whole or in part, only with the mutual consent and approbation of both states.

RCW 77.75.020
Columbia River Compact -- Commission to represent state.
The commission may give to the state of Oregon such consent and approbation of the state of Washington as is necessary under the compact set out in RCW 77.75.010. For the purposes of RCW 77.75.010, the states of Washington and Oregon have concurrent jurisdiction in the concurrent waters of the Columbia river.

This comes from the "THE PACIFIC MARINE FISHERIES COMPACT" and it include both Oregon and Washington.

"…The commission shall have power to recommend the coordination of the exercise of the police powers of the several states within their respective jurisdictions and said conservation zones to promote the preservation of those fisheries and their protection against overfishing, waste, depletion or any abuse whatsoever and to assure a continuing yield from the fisheries resources of the signatory parties hereto.

To that end the commission shall draft and, after consultation with the advisory committee hereinafter authorized, recommend to the governors and legislative branches of the various signatory states hereto legislation dealing with the conservation of the marine, shell and anadromous fisheries in all of those areas of the Pacific Ocean and adjacent waters over which the signatory states jointly or separately now have or may hereafter acquire jurisdiction. The commission shall, more than one month prior to any regular meeting of the legislative branch in any state signatory hereto, present to the governor of such state its recommendations relating to enactments by the legislative branch of that state in furthering the intents and purposes of this compact.

The commission shall consult with and advise the pertinent administrative agencies in the signatory states with regard to problems connected with the fisheries and recommend the adoption of such regulations as it deems advisable and which lie within the jurisdiction of such agencies."

If this is true, then the "commission" could apply the rules at any time that the commission felt necessary to do so.

I would image that NOAA could also put observers on at any time, or they could shut down the fishery completely.


Cowlitzfisherman

Cowlitz,

I like what it says in the "THE PACIFIC MARINE FISHERIES COMPACT", especially the part that says, "the "commission" could apply the rules at any time that the commission felt necessary to do so."

But, the part about, "The commission shall, more than one month prior to any regular meeting of the legislative branch in any state signatory hereto, present to the governor of such state its recommendations relating to enactments by the legislative branch of that state in furthering the intents and purposes of this compact.", kind of makes that tough.

Check out the following:

The Proposed Rules in the Washington State Register Satate :

NEW SECTION
WAC 220-33-070 Limited participation commercial salmon fisheries -- Columbia River.

(1) When the director determines that a harvestable amount of salmon is available, but that full-fleet fishing effort has an unacceptable risk of exceeding the available harvest or compromises other specific management objectives, the director in collaboration with the Oregon department of fish and wildlife (ODFW) director, working through the Columbia River compact, may authorize a limited participation fishery in the Columbia River in order to provide additional opportunities for commercial salmon fisheries where they might not otherwise exist. Such a fishery may be authorized for experimental or developmental fisheries, fisheries necessary to refine run size data, fisheries necessary to provide biological information, or in cases where:

(a) Other specific management objectives have been stated for the species and area in question; or

(b) Full-fleet participation with time, space, or gear restrictions cannot achieve the harvest goal.


(2) Only licensed commercial salmon fishers may participate in a limited participation fishery. Fishers who wish to have their name placed on the Columbia River limited participation register must notify the department's Region 5 office, in writing, by December 1 each year for the following year's fisheries. Interested fishers must provide a message phone number at which they can be contacted and indicate the fishing zone(s) (SMCRA 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E) in which they can participate.


(3) Each year the department will, from the list of interested fishers, use random selection to create a priority list by fishing zone (SMCRA 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E) in the Columbia River. Once the priority lists have been created, sale or transfer of the license shall invalidate the receiver from participation in that year's limited participation fishery.


(4) When a limited participation fishery is authorized, the department will contact fishers from the priority register at least twenty-four hours prior to the opening of the fishery. When a fisher cannot be contacted after reasonable effort, the department will select the next name, until the maximum number of allowable units of gear is reached. If not reached, the fisher's name will remain at the priority position, but the fisher may not participate in that limited participation fishery. Agreement to participate, or declining to participate, will remove the fisher from the priority position, and place the name at the bottom of the priority list.


(5) Fishers may be required to take on-board observers to collect biological information during the limited participation fishery.

(6) Examples of specific management objectives include, but are not limited to:

(a) Reducing levels of incidental catch of wild salmon stocks;

(b) Reducing incidental catch of nontarget salmon species originating from regions other than the fishing area; or

(c) Specific recreational emphasis action.

--------------------------------------------------

As you can see from the following, these WAC rules was not adopted.

--------------------------------------------------

From the December 5-6, 2003 WDFW Commission Minutes :

ADOPTION OF COLUMBIA RIVER LIMITED PARTICIPATION SALMON NET FISHERIES RULE:

Department staff withdrew the proposed WAC 220-33-070, Limited participation commercial salmon fisheries--Columbia River, which would allow for limited participation fisheries in the Columbia River. The Department will continue to work with the Columbia River Commercial Advisory Group on developing solutions to address issues of concern.

--------------------------------------------------

Me thinks it might be back to the drawing board.

But, perhaps further research might prove me wrong.

Plunk

Here is another thought!

This was sent to me by a friend (thanks Jim).

Why isn't NOAA doing something here, since they are the ones who have mandated the restrictions, and the taking of these species and they have included them in the "by- catch" of this fishery, and these fish are listed as ESA species, why are they not "overseeing this fishery" with observers?


[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 50, Volume 4]
[Revised as of October 1, 2002]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 50CFR660.28]

[Page 480-481]

TITLE 50--WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

PART 660--FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES AND IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC--Table of Contents

Subpart C--Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries

Sec. 660.28 Conditions for at-sea observer coverage.

(a) NMFS shall advise the permit holder or the designated agent of any observer requirement at least 24 hours (not including weekends and
Federal holidays) before any trip for which NMFS received timely notice in compliance with these regulations.
(b) The ``Notice Prior to Fishing Trip'' requirements in this subpart commit the permit holder to the representations in the notice.
The notice can be modified by the permit holder or designated agent because of changed circumstance, if the Regional Director is promptly
provided a modification to the notice that complies with the notice requirements. The notice will also be considered modified if the Regional Director and the permit holder or designated agent agree to placement changes.

(c) When NMFS notifies the permit holder or designated agent of the obligation to carry an observer in response to a notification under this
subpart, or as a condition of an EFP issued under Sec. 660.17, the vessel may not engage in the fishery without taking the observer.

(d) A NMFS observer shall arrive at the bserver's assigned vessel 30 minutes before the time designated for departure in the notice or the
notice as modified, and will wait 1 hour for departure.

(e) A permit holder must accommodate a NMFS observer assigned under these regulations. The Regional Director's office, and not the observer,
will address any concerns raised over commodations.

(f) The permit holder, vessel operator, and crew must cooperate with the observer in the performance of the observer's duties, including:

(1) Allowing for the embarking and debarking of the observer.

(2) Allowing the observer access to all areas of the vessel necessary to conduct observer duties.

(3) Allowing the observer access to communications equipment and
navigation equipment as necessary to perform observer duties.

(4) Allowing the observer access to VMS units to verify operation, obtain data, and use the communication capabilities of the units for
official purposes.

(5) Providing accurate vessel locations by latitude and longitude or loran coordinates, upon request by the observer.

(6) Providing sea turtle, marine mammal, or sea bird specimens as requested.

(7) Notifying the observer in a timely fashion when commercial fishing operations are to begin and end.

(g) The permit holder, operator, and crew must comply with other terms and conditions to ensure the effective deployment and use of
observers that the Regional Director imposes by written notice.

(h) The permit holder must ensure that assigned observers are provided living quarters comparable to crew members and are provided the same meals, snacks, and amenities as are normally provided to other vessel personnel. A mattress or futon on the floor or a cot is not
acceptable if a regular bunk is provided to any crew member, unless other arrangements are approved in advance by the Regional Director.

(i) Reimbursement requirements are as follows:

(1) Upon observer verification of vessel accommodations and the number of assigned days on board, NMFS will reimburse vessel owners a reasonable amount for observer subsistence as determined by the Regional
Director.

(2) If requested and properly documented, NMFS will reimburse the vessel owner for the following:

(i) Communications charges incurred by the observer.

(ii) Lost fishing time arising from a seriously injured or seriously ill observer, provided that notification of the nature of the emergency
is transmitted to the Fisheries Observer Branch, Southwest Region, NMFS (see [[Page 481]]address for Southwest Regional Director) at the earliest practical time.

NMFS will reimburse the owner only for those days during which the vessel is unable to fish as a direct result of helping the NMFS employee
who is seriously injured or seriously ill. Lost fishing time is based on time travelling to and from the fishing grounds and any documented out-of-pocket expenses for medical services. Payment will be based on the current target fish market prices and that vessel's average target fish catch retained per day at sea for the previous 2 years, but shall not exceed $5,000 per day or $20,000 per claim. Detailed billing withreceipts and supporting records are required for allowable communication and lost fishing time claims. The claim must be completed in ink, showing the claimant's printed name, address, vessel name, observer name, trip dates, days observer on board, an explanation of the charges,
and claimant's dated signature with a statement verifying the claim to be true and correct.

Requested reimbursement claims must be submitted to the Fisheries Observer Branch, Southwest Region, NMFS. NMFS will not process reimbursement invoices and documentation submitted more than 120 days after the occurrence.

(j) If a vessel normally has cabins for crew members, female observers on a vessel with an all-male crew must be accommodated either
in a single person cabin or, if NMFS concludes that adequate privacy can be ensured by installing a curtain or other temporary divider, in a two-
person shared cabin. If the vessel normally does not have cabins for crew members, alternative accommodations must be approved by NMFS. If a
cabin assigned to a female observer does not have its own toilet and shower facilities that can be provided for the exclusive use of the observer, or if no cabin is assigned, then arrangements for sharing common facilities must be established and approved in advance by NMFS.

Since region 5 is in charge of the Washington side of things and region 5 and Cindy LeFleur are the instigators of the appeal to NOAA for a tripling of the ESA mortality percentages then doesn't it stand to reason that they would turn a blind eye to the commercial's refusal to allow observers even though the law provides for the use of observers?

I liked the part about sea turtles and marine birds...almost forgot that they are also "bycatch"....We need to jump on this observer deal Monday...I think it is crazy that they allow the commercials to thumb their noses at the observers and crazy that WDFW and ODFW aren't sure who is fishing when the law is very specific about totally identifying exactly who is fishing and selecting them from a list of eligible boats. It is high time that restrictions are followed and abuses are brought out to the light of day. And it is way past time that commercial coddling stop in WDFW.

Grandpa,

You know how much I hate being argumentative but I'm still not convinced that the law specifies that observers may be required. I doubt that we would be seing this situation if they were.

Here is the title of the law cfm posted above:

--- --- ---
TITLE 50--WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

PART 660--FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES AND IN THE WESTERN PACIFIC--Table of Contents

Subpart C--Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries
--- --- ---

The NMFS or NOAA Fisheries or whatever name they go by these days seems to recognise several types of fisheries including:

Groundfish
Salmon
Pacific Halibut
(and) Pelagic (coastal and high sea)

The pelagic fisheries include sardines and herring and further out fish like tuna.

I don't think anything in the above law applies to netting salmon inthe columbia.

I still haven't thoroughly looked for an observer requirement that does apply and would still enjoy seeing such a law.

If the CRC or NOAA Fisheries has reason to believe that the ESA impacts are moving beyond the allocations they certainly can and should shut the netting down.

I'm not sure about the rules requiring observers but in this case the observers were obviously set up and sent down to the boats and the commercials turned them away. Kind of like the revivial tank rule that says they have to have a tank onboard but it doesn't say it has to have water in it.

" Northwest gill netters association" ??? Just the sound of that makes my skin crawl.

While I was searching for a rule requiring observers I did find a rule that specifies that the tanks must have water in them and the pumps must be running any time the nets are being brought in.

Cindy, if we will trust her, stated in a news interview that the agreement required that the boats testing the run composition were required to have observers onboard.

The "quick report" rule is also in effect for the buyers to prevent harvest over-runs.

Where's Mike G. or POS Clerk when we need them. They know the scoop on observers and catch reporting requirements.

"Wild spring chinook and all steelhead must be released. There are guidelines to keep the commercials from killing no more than 2 percent of the wild winter steelhead run and 0.8 percent of the wild upper Columbia spring salmon run.
Both runs are protected under the federal Endangered Species Act. "

Yeah, the survival rate of gillnet caught fish is really high I'm sure..... I am so tired of this BS and we need to have a little tea party I'm afraid. "Let them eat cake" is the attitude all to common today towards working-joe types today by the Gov't officials.... "Off with their heads" would be the appropriate response......

MC

The WDFW admits to over 50% mortality on fish released from gill nets. Like on the Columbia river springer netting season going on now..they can only keep three incidentally caught sturgeon so they get to toss the rest of them over..or maybe fillet and release since there are no observers on board.

I know that the rules say that the commercial boats must have a functional revival tank but according to atleast a couple of observer's notes I have seen some of the tanks were not functional just like ruling that they have to have observers and they ignore that rule too. I suppose with their attitude they most likely don't release all those wild steelhead either.

Plunk

I should have included this about the PMC. It kind of covers your question about where it authority reaches and covers.

" ARTICLE I.


The purposes of this compact are and shall be to promote the better utilization of fisheries, marine, shell and anadromous, which are of mutual concern, and to develop a joint program of protection and prevention of physical waste of such fisheries in all of those areas of the Pacific Ocean and adjacent waters over which the compacting states jointly or separately now have or may hereafter acquire jurisdiction.

The key words here are " adjacent waters"

Grandpa
It was my understanding that the Commercial boys on the Columbia, could only have 3 sturgeon aboad there boats as by-catch. Once they had 3 sturgeons on board, they were done fishing for the day. It didn't matter if they wanted to fish for salmon or not, once they keep 3 sturgeon, they had to pull their nets. I do not know if this is fact or not, but it's what I have heard. If this is true, then that's probably one more reason to keep off the observers!

My "legal" research assistant "Jim", has found this in the Maguson Stevens Fishery Act, about over half way down the page at http://wdfw.wa.gov/do/mar04/mar1204c.htm

This is stated:

"8) require that one or more observers be carried on board a vessel of the United States engaged in fishing for species that are subject to the plan, for the purpose of collecting data necessary for the conservation and management of the fishery; except that such a vessel shall not be required to carry an observer on board if the facilities of the vessel for the quartering of an observer, or for carrying out observer functions, are so inadequate or unsafe that the health or safety of the observer or the safe operation of the vessel would be jeopardized;"

Seems to me, that there are plenty of laws that can be enforced, but someone has to get off there butts first to do it.


Cowlitzfisherman

It is starting to look like the Region 5 WDFW office should share the office with the gillnetters association...oh hey wait they already do....

Plunker

I would not qualify the use of observers as a requirement from ODFW’s view. They would tend to express the use of observers as a tool to measure compliance with the current US V Oregon BiOp. I would believe that NOAA fisheries would be the one to pressure as they are required to enter into consultations if the agreements within the BiOp are not being met. But ODFW may contend that the lack of observers has not hindered their ability to gauge compliance.

As to the number of observers, in a meeting in January, Steve King offered the Conservation proponents in attendance the opportunity to be observers for this fishery (actually it was a snide remark asking if any of us had ever worked on a gill net boat and would we like to be observers) Several days later I pressed him for more information to allow me or any one else to be observers, this was his reply:

“Regarding citizens observing the commercial fishery, my thought was to
ride along with an ODFW or WDFW monitor. We can accommodate a few
interested parties. I was not suggesting an individual would collect
data for us on his/her own. However you are certainly free to make your
own contact with a commercial fisher and ask to go along. You cannot
handle the gear though unless you possess a commercial fish license. If
you are interested in observing please let me or Pat Frazier know.”
Steve King / ODFW

ODFW does not want us collecting data for them. Perhaps we are too independent?


POS Clerk

The important data that an observer could collect would be the number of wild fish caught and kept or released. This could then be referenced to the amount of fish kept for sale and that way the real impact on ESA fish could be documented. Allowing the fishers who know that a high mortality count would shut them down is just plain naive. Or it could be viewed as collusion between Region 5 WDFW and the gillnetters to do whatever it takes to keep that commercial season intact...that is the scenario I feel is closer to the truth. Whatever it takes means appealing to NOAA for a tripling of ESA mortality impact as WDFW did and minimizing oversight of the fishery which it appears both WDFW and ODFW are doing.

If you sit down and really think about it, the whole thing is very hypocritical. Why even bother with on-board observers!? What are they gonna do, just watch the fish die? The fish will do that whether or not the observer is on board, whether or not the "revival tank" is used. It will continue to happen as long as there are nets in the river!!!

Does any agency actually do anything with the information gathered by the observers? Or is having them on-board just all for show? When observers witness and record the incredible "by-catch" of steelhead, does anything meaningful happen? Yeah, I guess that's what you call it when they decide they need to triple their allowable impact on ESA listed steelhead... real "meaningful".

Or how about the original January decision for commercial/sport allocation in Oregon:

The Commission reduced the Spring Chinook sport fishery by up to 28%. Ultimately, they determined that the commercial fleet needed a larger share of the prized sport fish because the netted wild fish cause twice as many mortalities in the commercial fishery than the sport. Wild fish are released from both fisheries, while abundant marked hatchery fish are kept. Nearly twice as many released fish die (18.5%) from the nets as from a sport caught (10%). The rates are even higher for the wild steelhead tangled in the nets.

When that wild springer or steelhead gets dragged aboard, he has lost a good amount of slime and scales. Even if he is "alive and well" upon release, he will likely end up in another net just a few miles upriver. How many times do you think he'll be netted over the next couple of months? Each time having the de-sliming/de-scaling repeated over and again. That fish will never get the chance to perpetuate its genetic fitness... it will be dead of overwhelming fungal infection long before it ever sees spawning gravel. Not exactly the best C&R tool for a selective fishery.

If they really want to know what kind of an impact the nets are having on wild springers, they need something much more objective that measures the totality of the damage inflicted by repeated netting, not just what happens during a one-time netting event.

It would be nice for WDFW and/or ODFW to radio tag and track a bunch of wild springers to see just how well they fare running the gauntlet of nets. That would sure give everyone a much more realistic picture of the mortality impact these nets are having on wild springers. I would bet for damn sure that it's higher than their estimated 18.5%.

Can anyone cite whether such radio-tagged mortality studies have ever been done? Might be an interesting read. Salmo g? S malma? CFM? Grandpa? Todd?

Yes, they have done such studies, especially on fall chinook. It was like 75- 95% lost for those fish that were released after being gill netted.

Try this site out: http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/commercial/selective/tangleprogress1.pdf
Or: http://www.psc.org/Pubs/CHK971.html

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1hydrop/hydroweb/minutes/it020502.pdf

Or just go to goggle and do a search on "Gill net studies for chinook"

Cowlitzfisherman

CFM

Is the current spring chinook net fishery being prosecuted with standard gear or with "tangle" nets?

Its standard gear according to this:
http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/fish/crc/crc10mar04.htm

Don't forget to read this: "Use of recovery boxes will be required on all lethargic or bleeding salmonids."

Cowlitzfisherman

They went back to standard gill net gear after the tangle net experiment resulted in a massive wild steelhead kill. WDFW estimates a 50% or more mortality from the nets yet they go through all this window dressing to spruce up the image of the gill nets. Kind of like putting a string of pearls on a hog. There is just no common sense excuse for allowing gill nets in the migration path of wild fish that are ESA listed.

Standard gear it is.

According to that first study using 6.5" mesh vs 3.5" tangle nets, the C&R mortality on the first capture is about 40%. That may not apply 100% to the CR fishery this year since they are using an average 9.5" mesh. It appears the release mortality is greater with a bigger mesh.

Let's not forget that is only the mortality from a single netting event. It assumes that the fish that swam away "survived." We know that many of those "swimmers" would eventually die from de-scaling as well as immediate post-release predation by seals.

That says nothing about repeated netting encounters. What is interesting is what the study had to say about net re-captures. All of those fish died. Granted, not very many tags were recovered from released fish (could it be that most of them died?), but the fact remains that ALL of the re-netted fish died.

The only plus to this whole thing is that far fewer steelhead will be caught with the bigger 9.5" mesh size.... the tangle nets were a disaster for steelhead in the past.

I don't believe that there are any "wild" fish and according to the literature they are all native.

There are enough people who do believe in wild fish that I wonder why there hasn't been a call to arms.

A couple huindred boats following the netters around with cameras blazing might put the pressure where it belongs.

Now that's a damn good idea.

Not that this has anything to do with science its just an observation. The last three years we have had some pretty good numbers of salmon make it over lower Granite dam. We have caught several with net marks on them. I doubt that these fish were released by the commercials or tribes, they got away on their own some how. One fish we caught last year had a 3 inch deep cut in its belly just behind the anal fin, and two more marks up further on the body.

Lots of fish out there have gashes in them from predator bites. These magnificent fish endure some incredible challenges on their journey from egg to spawning beds. Seals and sea lions are a big predator. We have artificially bolstered their numbers since we started treating them like pets instead of predators.

As for NOAA's blind eye I can only say....

THANKS GW!!

GAWD.....It took you ahwile but now you have blamed commercial fishing abuses on George Bush...Congratulations!!!

Remember grandpa, when a guy like H20 points that finger at someone else, he's really pointing the other 3 fingers at himself.


Cowlitzfisherman

I was at the NOF meeting today in Portland & before the meeting someone asked Cindy about the Gill Netters refusal to allow observers.

Her comment was, "only 3 boats were involved ".

It was rather obvious that she favors the netters.

Come on now this can't suprise you, just business as usaul for the wdfw. What I suggest is bombarding Cindy's office with e-mails and phone calls of dissaproval, and then volunteering to be an observer, I will put in a day or two, just think if all of us volunteered just one day, they would have more observers then they would care to deal with. I have always been very good at being a pain in the ass, and I bet there would not be to many gillnetters making to many threats to me at 6-4 and 225.
Put it this way , if I was to get caught trying to buy a 10.00 bag of weed, I would be in more trouble then those gillnetting poaching ***gots for killing 100 wild steelhead. What the hell is wrong with this picture? This state needs a total overhaul is what is wrong and it starts with us saying enough is enough and demanding a complete reform of the WDFW !!!!
Thats it for now.
Peace
Superfly

Watch out...those commercial guys might spit on you. Don't forget a video camera. I think an army with cameras could do alot of good. Record meetings between region 5 WDFW and the commercials...nets with wild steelhead in them ..how the commercials handle the fish....etc....then of course photos of the "salmon stewards" our native bruthas.