In the state of Oregon the commercial fishing industry accounts for 1% of ODFW annual operating budget, sports contribute 26%.
Asking sports to pay for the retooling of the LCR commercial fleet, so they can harvest more hatchery fish, which assuredly will equate to less opportunity for sport anglers, is simply brilliant.

Better read it again..section 16...spells out surcharges on sports licenses to pay commercial fishermen to change gear....There are also surcharges on commercial permits but no outline as to how much money will be collected from each surcharge..someone could do the math. I am guessing that the surcharges on sports licenses willl bring in more revenue to pay commercial fishermen than the surcharges on commercial permits.

Bottom line is that the initiative if passed would raise sports licenses to fund commercial fishermen. This is in Oregon. In Washington there is already a surcharge for fishing the Columbia starting in 2010. This money will also fund commercial fishermen.

I'm sure the initiative sponsors in Oregon know that the commercial industry will come out swinging so making it appear that the plan will help commercial fishermen was taken into account. Unfortunately the commercials will come out with both barrells blazing anyway

Those of you that think we do not already pay commercial fisherman through higher taxes, fee's or surcharges raise your hands, I thought so.

Fact is we have been paying them in-directly through lost opportunity from the federal government. ODW will use the money how they see fit just like our dept.

Anyone seen a crab audit report yet?

Of course the other option is to let the commercials continue gill netting, then we could all site back and bid on the last wild fish so that we could mount it on the wall!

Fishy

That's one scenario, the other would be to move all LCR commercial harvest to the SAFE Areas and harvest selectively, while transferring the 2% ESA mortality to the sport fleet.

Selective harvest? Geez how would we do that?

This is a starting point, not the end. Problem with most things is there are compromises, we get this now and then have leverage to do more later.
Now is the time to start to have more control over those resources that our reps have squandered. Now is the time to start a new beginning, Now!

Fishy

Oh and it seems that the Nisqually tribe have taken steps to selectively harvest fish. I hope their application is approved so that others can follow and we can have all user groups selectively harvest fish just like others preach here about releasing the "wild and native" steelhead.

Let us all imagine selective harvest on a region wide scale.


http://www.nisquallyriver.org/


Fishy

How has the Nisqually Tribe taken steps to harvest selectively? I could find no reference to selective harvest in the management plan that was referenced.

The Winter issue has some interesting comments in the "Director's Corner" from David Troutt(Natural Resources Director). In part, he said the following: "Hatchery and harvest management issues are also being aggressively pursued consistent with the recovery plan. The Tribe is in the middle of the permitting process for a weir to better manage hatchery influence on the spawning population. The Tribe is looking at creative ways to manage its commercial fishery to maximize harvest of hatchery fish while supporting a sustainable wild population." The newsletter is an impressive one, with lots of info on habitat work. The website is www.nisquallyriver.org

Fishy

Yes. Later. When is later?

This proposed revision to Oregon Revised Statutes via ballot initiative doesn't include a 'sunset provision' -- (did I miss it???)

So how long are Oregon anglers going to use sport angler license surcharges to subsidize the commercial gillnetters to do what they should have been doing by their own volition and their own dollars?

Keep in mind those surcharges are now being used for activities to support sportfishing. And thus will be substracted from those pro-fishing activities. So are sport fishers being asked to make an open-ended sacrifice to support a handful of folks who refused to change ?????? Your answer here..<......>

Don't know when later is, but how is the status quo working out for you?

Fishy

Interesting. Id like to see how many of those springers, heading to various tributaries would end up in the safe areas. Id, also like to get a count from washington, how many cowlitz, Lewis, Kalama, and other washington trips, have already been pre allocated out the back door. Since, they would be as selective in the safe areas, with seine nets, Id like to know what the allocation. Seems like you just want cover, to kill more wild fish.

But dont plan on getting the 2%. We are not going to look like hypocrits.

nice catch Dave.

do you think this will be better for sportfishing ?, if so how.

WDFW officials envision a future in which the river's commercial fishers could catch considerably more fish than they do now while helping boost wild fish productivity.

http://www.cbbulletin.com/369796.aspx

isnt it safe to say that sportfishing sucks after the gillnets have been in ?, how will it be after this happens ??, and what wrong with trying to get more fish for sports ??

Wouldn't worry about it, CCA is trying to ram this through before there's any legal alternative to switch to, notice it never specifys anything. Why would the sports fisherman need to pay to fund illegal fishing methods like seines, fishwheels and traps. Only legal method would be hook and line, and would legalize the blackmarket trade thats already going on..Brilliant, except for those pesky War Hoops as my CCA neighbor likes to call them.

shut off the broken record for a minute. How does Freespools idea of SFS and selective gear and give the 2% to sport harvest change the allocation to our benefit. You have been saying all along, with less mortaility, the commercials would be allowed more allocation. Time to explain the difference.

Better read that section 16 once more. I'm pretty sure it doesn't add any new surcharges, those are ones already existing in the Oregon regulations. Section 16 reallocates the surcharges collected after 2010 to the fund. There is also a section 17 telling how the funds are dispositioned after no longer needed.

why dont you answer my question ?

"The use of gear that causes little mortality would allow the harvest of more hatchery fish within the ESA impact limits and help control the number of hatchery fish that inevitably stray onto spawning grounds."

That is straight from that article, if there are less hatchery fish on the spawning beds then the hatcheries could produce more fish without impacting the ESA listed fish, thereby giving more opportunity to all user groups.

I think i like that.

I would argue that the sport fleet fishing above the new selective commercial harvesters would in fact see far less opportunity.
So what your saying is CCA's plan is really just a plan to save the hatcheries.