Conservation group wants gill-net salmon fishing ban on ballot

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 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.

-- Matthew Preusch

RecommendRecommend (0)Print this Email this Share this:Previous story: The quest to designate Portland's growth areas sets counties against each other
Next story: Researchers track sea turtles off African coast


Story tags: ballot | columbia | gill net | salmon


Comments (54 total) RSSPost a commentOldest comments are shown first. Show newest comments first
Next comments » 1 | 2 | 3 Posted by jwh2008
December 28, 2009, 7:09AM
"This would not effect tribal fishing." The same people trying to kill more private sector jobs in Oregon might want to drive up the Columbia and look at all the gill nets put in the river by the Indians. Oh again I forgot wild salmon swim around indian nets but not white mans. I have read more than once about the indians saying our nets dont catch wild fish but all one has to do is go to Cascade Locks and see the wild fish for sale.

Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by mickfinn2001
December 28, 2009, 10:36AM
jwh2008 - Really? Indians have said that their nets don't catch 'wild' (whatever that is supposed to mean) salmon? Honestly? Well, then, please provide some evidence of those 'statements' - and no, we'll not hold our breath while we wait for you to try to substantiate your lie(s).

Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by billybeav
December 28, 2009, 7:14AM
We should ban the gill netting, and that includes tribal fishing.... I know the indians used to be able to catch all the fish they wanted.... but, we all used to be able to shoot all the elk and deer they needed too... times have changed... no special rights or privileges for anyone.... special rights and previleges equals discrimination.... we are supposed to be beyond all that... same rules for everyone, black/white/yellow/red.... and gill netting kills wild fish indiscriminatly...therefore, should be banned...

Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by mickfinn2001
December 28, 2009, 10:47AM
Hey 'billybeav' your ability to fish is a privilege, one that the state can limit or take away while the tribes' reserved right to fish is just that - a right they reserved to themselves under peace treaties with the US, not a right granted or given by the US.

Under those treaties the tribes gave up a lot of land and agreed to share many things with the US, including the salmon. The tribes did not give up their right to take fish, as the original land owners and sovereigns, that is one of the rights they kept.

Now, I've come to realize that there are now a lot of Americans that aren't real big on keeping promises or honoring obligations - and it sounds now like you may be one of them (or, hopefully, just someone ignorant of the facts) but expecting other nations to believe our 'word' means that we must first make sure we honor our 'word' at home. In this case, it means the tribes keep fishing.

Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by kilchisriver
December 28, 2009, 8:20AM
How many ways can you say GREAT and it is damn well time!

Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by jooky
December 28, 2009, 8:24AM
There needs to be a different harvest method for commercials. Nets dont really have any positive effects.
They kill anything that swims.. salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, walleye. Lost nets kill for years and years. Anything that escapes are left with large scars along there body.
Only positive is that it is a cheap method for the commercials to use.. less gas and time needed to catch all they can catch.

Cant they just catch them at the dam?

Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by roys
December 28, 2009, 1:44PM
Columbia river gillnetters use drift nets which are attached to their boats. They don't loose nets.

As far as catching fish at the dams, the Corps of Engineers wont allow it. And if sports fishermen were really concerned about not catching and killing wild fish, why don't they go and fish at the hatcheries when the adult fish return? That would be the best way to keep sports fishermen from killing wild fish.

Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by navinrjohnson
December 28, 2009, 8:31AM
Just another freeloading group with nothing better to spend their nickle on. All they try to do is shut down the guy making a buck. I think they are just jealous of the guy working unlike them who are unemployed and just freeloading off donations.

Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by luludesevilla
December 28, 2009, 8:34AM
I guess people who want to ban gill netting don't like eating salmon. I like the way this group calls their idea "sustainable commercial and recreational fishery for the citizens of Oregon". If you ban gill nets there will be no local salmon on the open market, only frozen Alaska salmon or farm raised salmon. Now if you have lots of money and can hire a boat or have even more money an own a boat then you can get your fresh local salmon by "sport fishing". It's a sad thought that only the rich and privileged will be able to eat local salmon. This is nothing more than a ploy for the rich sport fisheries to get ALL the salmon instead of a portion. The local Astoria gill netters started their own fish run in Youngs Bay years ago so they would have fish to catch and sell to you and me, the regular guy on the street. Now these elite "sport fisherman" want to steal it away with your vote. The guise of eco protection is a smoke screen. Farm raising fish particularly salmon is an eco hazard, as much of Europe is finding out. So what's it gonna be salmon for the rich or salmon for all? Don't be fooled by this greedy grab for the fat cat "sport fisheries".

Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by circlehook1
December 28, 2009, 10:43AM
You're definitely a commercial fisherman yourself. I get a few spring chinook EVERY year from the bank. No boat, no wallet full of cash.

You try to make the sport fisherman appear elitist and rich - far from the truth. Get a grip.

There are many other ways to harvest salmon besides killing native/wild salmon, steelhead and sturgeon like you do.

Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by oldgal
December 28, 2009, 9:03AM
Oh boy, folks....please do not buy into the "putting the poor working guy out of a job and his family out on the street" line. You can verify this quite easily. The majority of the Columbia River (lower) gillnetters do this as a second job to augment their annual pay from their regular jobs. They have used this ploy alot...please do not buy into it.

Yes, the tribal gillnetters need to look at their method also. I'm thinking and hoping they will or they will be netting the LAST salmon. The tribes have the long-standing treaty rights and it would take an act of congress to change that. I think they would have to see the light and take it upon themselves to change things up there.

The video shown about the revival boxes on the gillnet boats? Those nets are put in and not retreived for 12 hrs at a time. If there is a live fish in the net, it has to have been caught in the net very recent to pulling the net in. Therefore, common sense tells me that most of the wild fish caught are dead long before the net is retreived.

And most importantly..this is not a ban on commercial fishing. Just on the method. The current method is non-selective and not only are the salmon negatively impacted, but other types of marine wildlife i.e. birds, mammals, etc. In addition, when these nets are supposed to targeting a certain species of salmon, etc., they have what they call "by catch". They target a run of fish but are, on the side, also "accidently" taking in other fish such as sturgeon.

Gillnetting is just a bad, bad way to commercially harvest.

Please do not rely on solely on the news media (sorry, Oregonian) for your information. Conact CCA folks, contact ODF&W, even contact the commercial fishermen. Ask where their information comes from and then Verify what they tell you. Verify what little I've said above. Make your own choices based upon reliable facts rather than "paid" advertisements, etc. It is very important to make a decision based on good research. If you don't make the right choice, you could very well be eating farm-raised salmon in the future. Do some research on THAT...you don't want it.

Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by roys
December 28, 2009, 1:56PM
This is one of the big problems with the CCA members. They don't have a clue as to how commercial fishing works. Drifts in the tanglenet fishery are only allowed to be 30 minutes long not 12 hours. Enforcement officers watch this carefully.
Tanglenet fishing is selective. It releases unmarked fish. That is the definition of a selective fishery. The nets do not catch marine mammals. Seals and sea lions can and do swim right through the nets causing a great deal of damage to them. Sturgeon are not bycatch in commercial fisheries. They can be legally retained and sold. Undersize and oversize sturgeon that are required to be released survive capture very well. Sturgeon research is often done with gillnets with no adverse effects on the fish.

Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by roys
December 28, 2009, 9:10AM
The CCA's motive is to ban any kind of commercial salmon fishing so that the sport fisheries can get access to the commercial fishery's share of the harvest. They are purposely misleading people by claiming there would be a conservation benefit from banning gillnets. There wont be. In-river fisheries are managed based on harvest rates. The sport and commercial fisheries share the same allowed harvest rates which are based on allowed impacts to ESA listed fish. If you get rid of either the sport or commercial fishery, then the other group would simply get to harvest fish until that same total harvest rate was reached. No wild fish are saved by shifting the allocation between commercial and sport fisheries.

The CCA is an organization based completely on greed.

Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by oldgal
December 28, 2009, 9:12AM
Roys...that is totally bogus and you know it. I'm thinking you must be linked to the commercial fishing industry. Support your accusation with facts...

Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by roys
December 28, 2009, 9:57AM
What kind of facts are you interested in? How about the fact that tanglenets which would be banned under this measure have been successfully used in selective fisheries since 2002? How about the fact that they have a lower release mortality rate that the Buoy 10 sport fishery which kills 21% of the wild coho that so called sportsmen encounter there.

Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by oldgal
December 28, 2009, 2:18PM
Prove it...you're saying it doesn't prove a thing.

Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by oldgal
December 28, 2009, 9:17AM
Roys...I should have added..if all CCA wants to do is eliminate commercial fishing to allow sports fishermen/women to get more of the resource, why would they be offering to buy out the gillnets and help provide the commercial fishermen with more selective type of commercial fishing gear?

Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by roys
December 28, 2009, 10:00AM
The CCA should post the language of their proposed measure and explain just where they think the money is going to come from to buy out the gillnets? Its a ruse. There will be no money. This will just kill off the commercial fishery and all the jobs it supports. Just what we need in this economy is to kill off jobs.

Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by sauer
December 28, 2009, 9:47AM
We used to be able to market shoot ducks and geese too now didn't we........wagons full. Well, when I lost my job years ago I MOVED WHERE THERE WERE JOBS. The indians and the gillnetters need to get over it and find something else to do or move on. Call that harsh, and no matter what the cause, no matter WHO is right or wrong, there are not enough salmon using the columbia to justify ANY commerical fishing. Continuing to fish and kill off the entire run is not the answer.

Inappropriate comment? Alert us.
Reply to this comment | Post a new comment
Posted by roys
December 28, 2009, 10:08AM
The in-river fisheries have done a very good job of staying with their allowed impact rates on ESA listed fish. In-river fisheries simply do not have any conservation concern. If Sauer thinks that commerical fisheries are killing too many ESA listed fish, then clearly sport fishing should be banned too. The simple fact of the matter is that sport fishing kills way more ESA listed salmon and steelhead than commercial fishing does. Sport fisheries are enormously larger than the in-river commercial fisheries and handle and kill way more wild fish that the commercial fisheries do. So if there is a problem with fishing, then sport fishing should be banned first.

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/12/conservation_group_wants_gill.html

I think this is going to backfire so bad on the CCA its not even going to be funny. Maybe they should have hired Todd to explain tribal law to them.

Guess it all depends on if the tribes stay above Bonneville, my money says they don't, Pandora's box ain't quite open but its unlocked.

What does a state initiative have any thing to do with a federal issue?

A number of tribes have expressed an interest in resuming their traditional fishing methods and getting rid of the destructive gill nets, but every other method of fishing for the tribes was made illegal by the none tribal commercials.

Who would explain it to Todd?


Fishy

How did it work out in California, tribes still gillnetting on the Klamath and the Trinity?

Aunty, I for it full on bait ban!

Worked out good in Flordia, Louisiana, Great Lakes...got rid of the gill nets...fisheries rebounded, then sports and now the resource is better off and the States are way ahead in monies generated.

I've said before.....OLD WAYS die hard but die they do.....time to "roll up the non-indian, nets of death" and move on with their lifes. The commerical fisherman, like the loggers, needs to get re-trained in another job skill area......while not the answer the non indian commerical industry wants to hear but it really is time for that part of Northwest history, to fade into the past!!!!!

California has severe water shortages. They banned gillnets on the coast about 1954 +_



I dont suppose you heard anything about the Colville tribe testing and will be switching to seine nets.

BTW, Todd has publicly declare, he is in favor of banning nets and commercial fishing in the Columbia.


Pretty tall order in either state.

Key word is non-indian...

This has been discussed before. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the primary problem with banning non-tribal commercial nets is the concept of "foregone opportunity". Basically the treaty tribes can take any share of the catchable fish (any fish above that required for escapement) that the non-tribals don't. So any reduction in commercial fishing will likely lead to an increase in the tribal take and no/little reduction in the number of net caught fish. Banning netting essentially becomes a big boon for the treaty tribes. The states you listed above don't have treaties that guarantee the tribes 50% of the fish. A great example of the tragedy of the commons.

i dont suppose you realize that if they didnt go to a selective fishery that they would not get a new hatchery ?

Step 1......get the white commercial gillnets the hell out of the water. For good.

Then, public/political pressure might be put on the tribes to do the same. Sure, they don't have to but it takes away their ability to point the finger right back at us saying "why should we? You still use them too.)

I also think it's going to be a tall order but it can be done if approached correctly and not in a way that caused past initiatives to fail.

My biggest curiosity will be to see if WA follows suit. Seems to me both states need to be on board for this to really work.

I believe they have rights to 50% of the harvestable fish, the question is will they stay above Bonneville...Below gives them rights to half the sturgeon, Williamette and all the Washington tribs, they really don't need to be selective because they can keep anything...Coastal trawlers fought a battle with the Makahs because they were given 20% of the whiting quota even though they had no history of ever fishing it and didn't even have a word for it in there native langauge. Judge used the boldt decesion and gave them half of all the whiting on the west coast because it migrates past the reservation.

All the talk of the tribes fishing below Benneville is drivel. The tribes have not been able to fill thier entire quota for the past two years do to the amount of fish harvested in the lower river. If the tribe was so concerned about fishing below Bonny they would be setting up camp now and we would know about it. The tribe is quite content to fish for fall and spring fish in the mid-upper Columbia. When the tribe gets serious they will take us to court and will become the primary managers of our shared resources do to the the documented failure of maximum harvest.

The gillnetters need to go the way of the buffalo hunters.

Aren't they already fishing below Bonneville and have told the states they will be back in the spring for ceremonial, and I believe the 30% buffer was put in for 2010 for the reasons you just stated..To make sure they get there half

thats probly why they are still testing, they want a method that can take more hatchery fish than they are keeping now.

Anything that brings the issue of gill nets to the public's attention is a good thing. No doubt the gill netters will bring out all the tired old arguments, but eventuelly those nets must go. (One of their goofiest arguments was made at a commission hearing I atended a few years back. They had a local mental health worker testify that without the gill net season the small coastal communites would see marked increases in divorce, child abuse and other social problems. I bet things were really ugly inthe buffalo hunting camps once they had wiped out all the buffallo!

I dont suppose you realize, I dont care, its a done deal.

So thats the reasoning for switching over to seining instead of just getting rid of them? To keep the tribes out, CCA is playing with fire.

One reason I don't like gillnets is because of by-catch involved.