On Page 10, Nov 08 Edition, Northwest Sportsman, is an ariticle "Sportfishing Group Wants to Expand Netting Areas"

Jim Martin's seemingly heretical plan could lead to more recreational fishing on the Columbia and coast, but he needs help

This Group, S.A.F.E. (Selected Area Fisheries Enhancement) headed by Jim Martin, erstwhile head of Oregon Fisheries says Spoties must allow Commercials to fish more
nearer the mouth's of rivers in isolated bays. The Sporties then would be allowed more access to the main channel's fish. He also claims we'd, the Sporties, would have to give up bitching about gillnets. By doing so, he claims, both groups would benefit from the MItchell Act funding. I have just heard about S.A.F.E. from this article.
Here's more info: http://wdfw.wa.gov/com/aug0908_14_safe.pdf

Personally I accept most of this on first reading, but I still reserve the right to bitch about gills nets anytime anywhere.. There are other ways of getting fish out of the water.

I'm pretty sure that proposal is already DOA.

Fish on...

Todd

Sorry, gill nets aren't selective enough to be the water. Period.

+1

I hope your right Todd. DOA would be good for this bill and the entire gill net fishery.

Return fish wheels and traps as the primary method of commercial harvest on the Columbia. Sort the fish caught, and release all wild fish. Manage harvest of hatchery fish equitably between commercial and sport.

The LCR non-treaty commercial gillnet fishery is an anachronism whose time is past. It's a liability to society with few or no benefits. Commercially harvested salmon are readily available from treaty tribal fisheries for those who don't catch their own fish. There is no good socio-economic reason to continue the non-treaty gillnet fishery in this time of depleted salmon runs and ESA listed salmon and steelhead. I think I might have mentioned this once before.

Sg

I would rather an area be closed to all fishing rather than share it with gillnets. Gillnets are the enemy, Let's keep it that way

Without the CR non-tribal gill netting, the tribes woud be the only group not using selective gear. They're not gonna let that happen. Who would they be "in common with"?

WB,

In common with has nothing to do with gear type. It's about the right to fish, regardless of method.

Sg

It's all in the intrpetation SG. In common with is pretty ambiguous. Are you saying you dont think the tribes are motivated to keep the non-tribal gillnetters around?

WB,

I think the motivation is higher in Puget Sound. There may be some on the Columbia, but I don't think it has much relevance.

Sg

A more accurate and less divisive title would have been -

"Sportfishing Coalition to Remove Commercial Gillnets from Columbia and Restrict them to Existing Terminal Areas"

Ban all nets.Good luck,
STRIKE ZONE

an even more correct title would be "Sportfishing Coalition to Remove Commercial Gillnets from Columbia and Restrict them to Existing Terminal Areas while enhancing the available fish to the netters by taking smolt production from upriver fisherman and giving them to LCR non-tribal commercial gillnet fisherman"

I really hope this doesn't fly Gary K, they need to be removed totally, not given more.

B

At our board meeting last night, I passed a copy of the article in question around to the members. None of them have heard of this program. They did not seem to think the PSA has indeed endorsed it and stated at the end of the article.

I wouldn't mind that either.

However the REAL, TRUE and HONEST political reality is that nobody in the forseeable future is going to eliminate commercial fishing from the Columbia River.

We can either restrict the commercials to these SAFE areas, which are largely already in place, and politically doable.

Or....

We can continue to be locked in an unending battle with the commercials every year over allocations, and spend most of our energy there, instead of working on other vital issues that are impacting CR salmon even more.

That annual allocation battle will continue IF mainstem gillnets are replaced with 'selective methods'. In fact, with selective methods on the mainstem, the commercials will actually take FAR more hatchery fish --- fish that won't be available for anglers. IF you're pissed at them for taking like 4000 springers, wait until they take three or four time that amount --- that's result 'selective' methods gets us.

And under all scenarios, because of Federal hatchery reform policies, production is and will continue to move downriver.

So the real question is -- do anglers get something in return, like getting the commercial nets off the mainstem? Or just simply lose that production as it's moved downriver and give the gillnets a windfall?

There's wishful thinking and reality.

The proponents of this proposal have been involved with this gillnet issue since the 1992 Steelheaders net-ban initiative in Oregon, and even before that (virtually everyone in our strategy sessions is a CCA member too). There's a very good reason, these veterans of the gillnet wars are proposing this -- we want to WIN. And NOW is the time.

IF anyone has a better plan that's also politically feasible, please bring it -- we'd love to support it.

BTW, have you noticed who won the Washington Governor's race?
Yes, the candidate that Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association endorsed.

If only it were that simple.

And, it's not a cure for everything....

But it does get the nets off the below Bonneville mainstem,
- off the sturgeon,
- off the sockeye,
- off the ESA steelhead,
- eliminates the sealions from taking ESA salmon out of mainstem nets,
- eliminates other mainstem bycatch and drop-out

* creates predictable and stable sportfishing seasons that can be planned on, whether you're a retailer purchasing ahead, or a angler trying to plan vacation.

Down here, Auntym, the sportfishing industry from tackle shops to to boat dealers is going broke and needs relief.




Like I said earlier -- show us a feasible plan. IF somebody has something better, we'd be the first to sign-on

We've put ours out there for scrutiny.

Not wishful thinking, not a bumper sticker slogan, but an achievable plan.


BTW, has that Legislator up there that heads that key committee - Jacobson (?)- gotten over his infatuation with maintaining gillnetters? A pretty substantial obstacle there.