Well here we go, the first volley is a broadside by the Oregonian, in the form of a editorial condemning CCA's plan.




Conservation group wants gill-net salmon fishing ban on ballot
By Matthew Preusch, The Oregonian
December 28, 2009, 7:02AM


View full sizeSteven Nehl/The OregonianMark Ihander gill-net salmon fishes in the Columbia River near Astoria in 2005.A conservation group wants Oregonians to vote on whether to ban gill and tangle net fishing for salmon in Oregon waters, including the Columbia River.

The proposal is the latest in a long history of ballot initiatives and legislative proposals attempting to stop commercial gill netting of the Columbia's salmon and steelhead, many of which are listed under the Endangered Species Act.

This most recent proposal comes from the Northwest chapter of the Coastal Conservation Association, which hopes to have it on the November ballot. The law would not affect tribal fishing.

“Banning the use of gill nets and tangle nets and using selective gear that allows for the release of wild fish is an effective, achievable way to create a sustainable commercial and recreational fishery for the citizens of Oregon,” said Dave Schamp, chairman of Coastal Conservation Association’s Oregon board of directors and a chief petitioner of the initiative.

The text of the initiative is here. (PDF)

The nets snare salmon as they swim upstream to spawn, inevitably capturing endangered wild salmon as well as hatchery-raised fish. But the commercial fishers try to minimize their impact to wild fish, as this video from the group Salmon for All demonstrates.

Uh...that's not me in the quote you attributed to me.

Fish on...

Todd

Its worse on another site to the south. They have a couple full time unpaid lobbyists that play the same arguements over and over, like a looped tape.

Heard one of those running through Las Vegas 15 years ago...
Gay wedding, looped tape, fed into a CB radio, with the button taped down. 24 hrs a day. Made it really tough on the various brothels, reaching out to the tourist trade, at least within CB range.

The hatchery fish are not going anywhere, despite what GL says...they are paid for by Mitchell Act funding that is in place as mitigation for the dams, they are not there to feed a commercial fishery.

For about the 100th time, I want non-tribal commercial fishermen completely and utterly off the LCR...gone.

As far as #2 goes, that's kinda right...those pushing the selective commercial fishery seem to be under the impression that killing the same amount of wild springers, while killing four (or more) times the amount of hatchery springers will somehow be good for fish and fishing, when in reality it will have no effect on wild springer numbers or recovery, and will make sportfishing considerably worse.

If I were just to put on my wild steelhead advocacy hat, then I'd be all for this plan...it will certainly be better for wild steelhead, since they have to all be released, anyway...any technique that releases them better will be better for them.

If the CCA would come out and say "This will be good for steelhead, and even though it won't help salmon and will make salmon fishing for hatchery springers worse, we're supporting it to help wild steelhead", well, at least they'd be telling the truth.

Every year these BB's fill up with springer fishermen whining about how bad the fishing sucks when the nets were in the night before...just wait to hear the whining when the nets were in and caught four (or more) times as many hatchery fish before you got to go fishing.

I guess we can just blame it on the sea lions?

Fish on...

Todd

Lucky you werent wearing your cca hat....

Great, so the next time you have trouble seeing, go find a fisheries biologist and get his opinion.

Great, so the next time you decide ifish isn't for you, go find another fishing board to spew your negativity.

Francis, comparing an east coast fishery that targets, say, redfish to a mixed-stock hatchery/wild composite is like comparing digging clams to buying cherries at a grocery store.

When we are talking about an overfished stock of target fish, then reduce harvest, increase numbers...it is that simple. Just like the management of the razor clam digs around here...count the clams in the ground, count the clams that can be harvested, go harvest them, and no more.

Simple.

That's how you can manage a non-mixed stock...harvest management is simple.

Here in the PNW, all fisheries in the LCR catch all kinds of things...non-target species, wild and listed target species, hatchery fish of target species...comparing that to non-mixed stocks on the east coast is not even like comparing apples to oranges...it's like comparing apples to moon rocks.

When the allocations of hatchery fish are based on how many wild fish are killed, it doesn't matter how they're killed...they will die, period.

There is no way whatsoever to sell this as being good for wild springers, since it kills the exact same amount.

There is no way whatsoever to sell this as being good for sportfishing for hatchery springers, since there will be far less to fish over.

It can easily be sold as being good for wild steelhead, but that's not what it's being sold as.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. This would be a bad idea if Mother Theresa were selling it...it has nothing to do with the CCA, or liking commercial fishermen, or gillnets, or nothing else...when some of you lower yourselves to calling people who don't like this obviously bad idea as "haters" or "gillnet lovers", it's because you don't have anything else to hang your hat on.

Comparing GH to the Columbia is also like comparing apples to moon rocks.

Fish on...

Todd

It is a scientific fact CR dams kill 80% of the basins potential salmon and steelhead production.
Saying it's harvest of the remaining 20% as the problem doesn't sound very scientific to me.
Sounds more like some hidden agenda, koolaid swigging sheeple, that can't understand how dams negatively effect fish habitat, just like clear cuts and roads do.

They both share harvest issues...but without the overlay of the ESA on Grays Harbor, you can't compare one single thing about the harvest regimes.

Fish on...

Todd

I thought we were talking about the actual 20% that is now in the CR?
Are you saying Francis is right and the fisheries scientists claiming the dams are killing 80% of the rivers potential production are wrong?

Todd, you walk a very narrow line.

Other attorneys, that have represented clients, that are bad for fish, should not represent another client, that is doing a lot for fish.

Which in your eyes, means that those anglers, represented by said attorney will never take on a hydro project. It does not mean the same attorney will represent the anglers, if they want a dam to come down. Since when do attorneys, only represent one side of the issue. I doubt, the power companies changed attorneys, when they agreed to remove the dams.

It might be ideology for you, but for most, its a paycheck.

You want to split hairs and let wild steelhead die under current rules, because you dont think the rules can be changed for salmon and the boaters of the world, will catch a few less hatchery fish.

If wild steelhead, will live, than so will hatchery steelhead. That means more hatchery steelhead in the cowlitz and other tributaries. The cowlitz use to get a fair number of big steelhead, but mostly, the smaller units, decorated with net marks.

I never hear you complain about the hatchery fish coming out of the tribs like the cowlitz, to be transported down to the safe areas. Doesnt matter what kind of net they use, if the fish are allocated up front. Its not part of the tribal split, its a direct allocation transfer from anglers to the commercials. Sportsmen are getting screwed anyway. But, its only the nets that seem to bother you. Might as well close the cowlitz to sportfishing and give "salmon for all" set-nets in longview.

Wanting them out of the river, is a wish. They wont be pulled out of the river, until there are so few wild fish, it will be closed to everyone. Your full loaf policy, will hurt wild steelhead and it wont matter if the dams come down, when they are already dead.

You're wrong, but that doesn't surprise me.

The ESA does not control how GH fisheries are conducted, while it controls virtually everything about how CR fisheries are conducted.

On GH it's an easy fix...don't harvest so much. Making that happen, of course, isn't as easy as it sounds, but we're trying.

On the Columbia it's such a completely different ball game that you can't even compare the two.

You can continue to attack the messenger, but ignoring the message won't make it go away.

Killing 2% in the non-tribal fishery is killing 2%...period. How they die does not affect how many die, though it definitely affects how good the fishing is for the springer fishermen on the Columbia, and the tribal fishermen, too, for that matter.

As I've said before, I don't even fish for springers on the LCR, but those who do and support a selective non-tribal commercial fishery there are giving up fishing and harvest opportunities with nothing in return. No gain to the ESA springers, and a serious loss of hatchery fish to fish for.

Fish on...

Todd

The only valid comparison to the GH fisheries is this:

Get the non-tribal commercials completely out of the Columbia River...gone, gone, gone. Screw selective fishing with purse seines, screw the SAFE area fisheries...just get them out of there completely.

That will end the death of the ESA springers, the bycatch of sturgeon and steelhead, will not reduce hatchery production as it is mandated by the Mitchell Act as dam mitigation, and will not hurt the public's access to springers...they can fish for them themselves just as now, or can purchase them as they originate in the tribal fisheries, just as they do now.

The only change will be the end of an archaic fishery that serves no purpose other than to put recovery and economics in the back of the bus, with a handful of commercial fishermen who don't even make much money there sitting in the driver's seat.

Fish on...

Todd

Until you can wrap your brain around the concept of a rivers carrying capacity being the final deciding factor of population density.
Or being able to recognize the limiting factors that create life history roadblocks, which in turn negatively influence populations, then you really don't understand much about our fisheries and what they really need to recover.
And after reading several years of your fisheries management posts, it has become clear you don't have a clue.

Freespool, you could'nt buy a clue.

Your feeble attempt to get the thread closed, by getting under their skin isnt going to work.

Your assessment of other people is about as accurate as your statement, that 99% of washington rivers, dont have tribal fishing.

When you find a way, to tear down all the dams on the columbia and the tribs, let us know. It wont do much for wild fish, cause the tribes will load them up with hatchery fish, just like theyre doing on the Elwha. The state is going along, but no one will fish it for five years. How you going to dodge all the upriver recovery?

Taking the initiative on gill nets

Though the festering issue of commercial gill and tangle netting of salmon and steelhead on the Columbia River must be resolved, a conservation group's plan this fall to put an initiative on the ballot to ban the practice is a mistake.

This kind of complex fish and wildlife issue, which most Oregonians know little or nothing about, shouldn't be resolved at the ballot box. And the sport fishermen cheering now for a statewide vote on gill netting may one day find themselves on the other end of an initiative challenging fishing or hunting practices that are difficult to explain or defend to the larger public.

The commercial gill netting of ....... http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/01/taking_the_initiative_on_gill.html

I think a lot of this discussion unnecessarily focuses on how elimination of gillnets specifically affects the CR springer fishery.

Elimination of gillnets has ramifications that go well beyond spring chinook.

The decision will affect virtually every harvestable stock of finfish migrating thru the lower CR.

Some fisheries will win, some will lose.

There can be no doubt the fish will win.

The CCA is first and foremost a conservation group. They want to conserve fish. The ability to fish for them is also important, but waging an allocation battle is NOT a primary concern.