that one wasnt it, post the one your referring to.

not me, did you get your order of quickfish and mag lips yet ?

I think all parties will benefit from this proposal. This isn't a ban on comercial fishing. Just an attemt to make it a selective method of harvest. I think it will have favorable impacts well beyond that of the spring chinook. It will eliminate the "incidental" catch of sturgeon. I don't know about everyones thoughts on this but I can share an intresting observation. Eagle Cliff Wash. I have fished there for 40 plus years. Up untill about 8 yrs ago I would have bet anyone at the beginning of the day $100s that I would catch a sturgeon. Maybe not a keeper but I would catch a sturgeon. I would still have that $100. My brother ,who is a lot stuborner than I fished 56 days without a bite. Where have the juvinile went?
I think it is time that some kin off enforcement is put in place. This proposal; would make that very easy.Now it's Out Of Sight Out Of Mind.I think most netters are honest just like us. A few bad apples spoil the barrel. I geuss I better shut up. I have been known to talk too much. Thanks.

Actually it's the commissions of WDFW and ODFW that decide how the harvest is allocated. Oregon's laws allow the commission to make its harvest decisions in a very arbitrary manner - without even specifying what guidelines they are using to make these critical decisions. IF you're putting faith in the ODFW Commission to protect sport anglers, then you're unaware of their decisions these past years to to shift more harvest in favor of the commercials. As WA's commission has begun to treat sport anglers more equitably, Oregon's ODFW commission has done the opposite. And there's no signs of them changing that stance, especially with gillnet provisioner Jon Englund renewing his term on the commission.

Of course the status quo sucks. That lit the fire for CCA to build on. But I can tell you, I and the others in our chapter didn't join CCA to diminish sport fishing by creating a welfare program for gillnetters.

[/quote]

But I can tell you, I and the others in our chapter didn't join CCA to diminish sport fishing by creating a welfare program for gillnetters. [/quote]

So, what's the alternative CCA is considering? Or is there one?

Keith

So, what's the alternative CCA is considering? Or is there one?

Keith

See THE OREGONIAN's website for more examples of how ignorant most folks are when it comes to managing commercial harvest on the Columbia:

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/in...nts-newest.html

The Colvilles will be switching. When the seasons are closed early, the tribes will hit the lottery.

But why will the seasons close early again??

On another note, it sure would be nice to see all those head-chipped non-clipped fish not count against everyone.... Bunch of horseshit as I see it, false wild fish........

CLIP THEM ALL SOMEDAY? Anyone?

Keith

Seems as though the nets have started to come out already.


http://seattle.craigslist.org/tac/boa/1541116012.html


One down, too many to count to go!

Fishy

Great, will probably be bought by some local to be used privately on the Cowlitz, then lost and never recovered. Bill

Or above Bonneville, since this bill really doesn't ban gillnets

I wish CCA would go with a better alternative, but Oregon CCA has submitted this proposed initiative to the Secretary of State's Office, so this is the direction their government relations committee has decided on for 2010 and now expect everyone to join the parade....

OntC

You need to read the fine print, the really fine print. But your right about the plan to get every sportsfisherman in Oregon to pay for it..and I'll leave it at that

I'm probably just getting hung up on the worst points .... feel free to educate me on the 'really fine print'. PMs welcome.

OntC
I'm getting my info from a honest CCA member, I would suggest trying to find one in the management dept and having him explain what are all the selective fishing methods on the table. Wouldn't waste my time with the lawyer on myfish, by the way she's PETA. Best of luck

She is PETA?? She is not very good at it then. I have watched her with my own eyes kill fish on the Siletz River in Oregon. Might check your sources.....

Well maybe I better then, two different sources there. Never know who you can trust anymore, as the CIA just found out.

Man some of you are dense. You can't see past the end of your nose. Let me instruct you in a few points of logic, military strategy, and long-term thinking.

Logic-If this bill is so good for commercial fishermen and will allow them to scoop all the hatchery fish out of the Columbia, why are they fighting it kicking and screaming? Several of the articles above had numerous presidents of commercial fishing groups defending gillnets and claiming they were selective. One of them also said that making improvements required by this initiative would cost millions and put most of the fishing fleet out of business. Do you think they are too dumb to realize the benefits they will get if the bill passes? Or is it possible that this bill will not help them like you believe?

Military strategy-You do not sit around and debate on how to fight a perfect battle to win a war. You do your best to win one battle at a time, and it takes a large number of successful battles to win a war. Also, the generals that are directing the fight must have a broad, strategic view of the conflict. They must have a clear plan on how to accomplish strategic objectives, and be willing to accept heavy casualties if that is what it takes to accomplish those objectives. They have plans for an entire campaign laid out, but it would be idiotic to advertise those plans to the enemy.
This view correlates to CCA's strategy that they outlined in an article in their magazine when they first started the chapters in Oregon and Washington. They said they would eat the elephant one bite at a time, beginning by targeting commercial fishing that can wipe out entire runs at the drop of a hat. While this strategy is controversial, at least they are doing something. In the civil war, Lincoln went through dozens of generals who sat around Washington with their armies, were indecisive, and got their butts kicked by Lee every time, until he finally found Grant, who was agressive, determined, and kept fighting Lee until he won the war. The generals of CCA have been extremely successful in the past. I've experienced some great fishing for striped bass on the east coast and redfish in the south. Both of these species and many others were collapsed until CCA was founded and won victory after victory defending fish. With their track record and with no other alternative group that is making an impact, I will risk $20 a year to see if CCA can have the same impact here. I am confident that they have a long-term plan to improve fisheries in the Northwest, but I do not expect them to provide it to the public, since that would make it easier for their enemies to defend against it.

Long-term thinking-So many of you are screaming about losing sport-fishing allocations for hatchery salmon next season. You probably hide your money in your mattress too. It is understandable that you want to protect what little fish you have left, but what if decreasing our impact for a few years or even a few decades brought fish level back to half of their original numbers when white men first arrived? We would have more fish than we know what to do with. I'm not saying if that's possible or not, but I know that very rarely do you get great rewards or returns without taking major risks. We already destroyed most of our fish resources in the last 150 years, so why not risk a portion of the remnant you are allowed to catch to see if it is possible to rebuild stocks?

I'm probably way off in some of what I'm saying, but just thought I'd try to paint a slightly bigger picture of the forest than some of you are seeing. If you want to continue with your noses buried in the moss on a branch growing from a tree in the forest, go right ahead.

Fishpinner...I'll tell you what's dense.

Dense is sportfishers supporting a program that will kill the exact same amount of wild ESA springers, saving NOT a one, and will likely remove triple or quadruple fish from the river that are usual available for sport harvest opportunities.

Dense is folks having no idea how Lower Columbia River seasons are set, and how the fish are allocated.

Dense is thinking that those methods will change easily, if ever at all.

Dense is comparing the Colvilles using a purse seine in a tiny river that barely moves as a requirement for them to get their own salmon hatchery to non-tribal commercials using purse seines to quadruple their catch of hatchery springers.

Dense is thinking that the CRTFC tribes on the Columbia will use selective fishing techniques, or ever could be forced to, by anyone.

Dense is thinking that removing a tiny fraction of spawning hatchery fish from the spring Chinook spawning grounds will make any difference whatsoever in the productivity of the spawning grounds for the wild Chinook.

Dense is calling anyone who doesn't drool at the name of Gary Loomis or the mention of the CCA as a "gillnet hugger".

Dense is thinking that so long as there is any non-tribal commercial fishing under federal rules required by the ESA in the Lower Columbia River that there will be any meaningful recovery of spring Chinook stocks listed on the ESA.

Extra-Dense is being shown these undeniable truths over and over again...yet continuing to think that they are not true.

Carry on...

Fish on...

Todd