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