Thanks Fishpinner for offering your thoughts.

Do you understand the layers of CR fish management as well as you do the Civil War?

'Cause if you do, you already know that the total allowed ESA impacts allowed on spring chinook is ~14% (it can vary). And you'd know that is split with 12% going to the Treaty Tribes (eighty-six percent of the total impacts). And 2% going to commercial gillnetters, and anglers below AND ABOVE Bonneville.

That 2% sliver is what all the battles have been about in Salem and Olympia and here and on IFISH. How to divide that itty bitty sliver of impacts between sports and commercial gillnetters.

That split of impacts has come down to roughly a 60/40 division. So, we get 1.2% ESA impacts to fish on and the gillnetters get .8% to conduct mainstem and SAFE area commercial fisheries.

If CCA completely eliminated gillnetting springers, and ALL OF THE GILLNETTERS' .8 ESA IMPACT SHARE WAS RESERVED FOR CONSERVATION, do you really think that would restore wild spring chinook?

No it wouldn't. It can't. The math doesn't lie.

And the "reserving" of those .8 ESA impacts isn't even in the initiative's language. That scenario is wishful thinking.

There is lots of good reasons to get rid of the gillnets. Along with solid policy grounds to not keep the commercials on the lower 110 miles of the Columbia River.

Those battles in Olympia and Salem were, are, and will continue to be about the inequity of a heavily subsidized handful of gillnetters getting too many fish.

This CCA Oregon initiative doesn't change that.

What it does:

1. Likely has no meaningful conservation impact for ESA spring chinook.

2. Moves more of the total harvest of hatchery fish to the commercial side of the plate.

3. Shifts more angler dollars (those current $2 surcharges) from pro-fishing projects to subsidizing the gillnetters even more.

Going back to the military analogy - understand just what the hell it is you're fighting for.

Below is from CCA's national newsletter.

Talk about bitter irony....

Down in Dixie, CCA is complaining about efforts to keep
"fishing operations in business at all costs."

And then up here, that's exactly what the CCA initiative does?


Fish Trap Proposal Turns Back the Clock on Conservation

An unusual alliance of environmental groups and commercial longliners is exploring the use of controversial fish traps in the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Fishery, leaving long-time participants in federal fishery management issues surprised at the re-emergence of the highly destructive gear. Fish traps were banned by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council in 1996, but were not fully phased out of the Gulf until 2006.

“There are so many things we should be working on for the conservation of our marine resources, yet here we are with another attempt by the environmental community to keep commercial fishing operations in business at all costs,” said Pat Murray, president. “It is just baffling that fish traps are back in the discussion, especially when some of these same environmental groups are pushing to give away permanent harvesting rights to the commercial fishing industry through catch share programs. It is difficult to comprehend the ultimate goal of these efforts.”

i agree.

With all of you "experts" on here I'm surprised that there are any problems with our marine resources at all, why did you let things get so bad before you decided not to do something?


Fishy

Cuz all of us wern't around in 1880 when all this new hatchery stuff seemed like a great idea..Lobotomy's and letting blood were still considered cutting edge medical procedures.

You've got all the answers so why did you wait so long and let our resources go down the toilet?

Through upheaval comes change and no change comes easily.

Fishy

Funny she's changed her picture and now talking about shutting down hatchery's..What happened to the promise of more fish to catch with all these selective methods. Already out the window..My sources are dead on

First things' first. We need to restore abundant wild fish runs, not focus on allocation. We need to bring populations back from the brink of extinction. If we can accomplish that as the first priority, we can then engage in the effort to promote the optimum uses of the resource for the economy and society. Right now we have to think about doing everything possible to reduce waste and destruction of wild fish while sustaining fisheries for hatchery fish.

ive been trying to get gillnets banned for years, where have you been ?

So Fishy, where were you when volunteer folks from Oregon drove to Olympia, and WA angler volunteers drove to Salem to lobby the commissions for more equitable allocations for anglers?

(The Olympia battle went pretty well!!!%2

Todd, it's not your fault you have some sanity........ Other's need to figure it out........

WTF folks, is it that hard to understand???

Aunty? Of all people, you come across as educated, at least computer smarts? Comprende?? Where you at on all this?

Keith

I've been in this fight for years also.

Fishy

I work tirelessly for the resource and need not justify myself to the likes of you.

Fishy

SInce then about 6 million more of us have arrived and "altered" the landscape somewhat. And a big chunk of them people wanted fish. We whacked 'em hard and in order to provide for them people we took the fish habitat away. But them people STILL wanted them fish... can you imagine that? We demanded our governments produce the fish... and they did.

Even those of us with no blood and a lobotomy figured that out ;-)

[/quote]

I work tirelessly for the resource and need not justify myself to the likes of you.

Fishy [/quote]

Yet you seem absolutely clueless as to how the CR fisheries are managed.

OK
Here's CCA plan layed out in detail
Section 10
508.778
Limitation on issuance of permits
Except as provided in ORS 508.792 no new vessel permits shall be issued

Revoked.... the ballot measure would narrow the existing permit holders to about 75 not enough for the new selective technique

508.778
Renewal of permits: rules
An individual who obtained the permit required by ORS 508.775 for a particular calender year is eligble to obtain renewal of the permit in a subsequent calender year, upon application and payment of the fees therefor by Dec 31 of the permit year or by such date as may be specified by rule of the State Department of Fish and Wildlife
Revoked...Gives the (new) gillnet board the power to pick and choose who gets a permit renewed, bet the original 75 aren't on that list

508.787
Permit revocation procedure
The board may revoke and refuse subsequent issuance of a permit required by ORS 508.775 in a manner provided in ORS 508.485 and 508.490
Revoked

more coming

508.790
Fee: application form
(1) The annual fee for the vessel permit required by 508.775 is 1$
(2) Applications shall be in such form and contain such information as the State Department of Fish and Wildlife, by rule, may prescribe.

Revoked

508.792
Lottery system for permit issuance.
(1) Except as provided in subsection, if the number of permits renewed under ORS 508.781 falls below 200 the State Department of Fish and Wildlife shall issue permits by a lottery system for vessels that do not meet the lottery requirements of ORS 508.781. However, the number of permits issued pursuant to any such lottery systems shall not increase the number of permits issued to a total number greater than 200
(2)
The State Fish and Wildlife Commision may, in its discretion, suspend the lottery for upto to two years. Suspension shall be based on the commission's assessment of of the condition of the resourse and shall account for the recommendations of the (new) Gillnet Salmon Review Board. Revoked...So 75 isn't enough 200 is to many

508.793
Permit transfer restrictions
(1) The vessel permit required by ORS 508.775 is transferable:

(a) To a replacement vessel of the permit holder>
(b) To the purchaser of the vessel when the vessel is sold>
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, upon request of a permit holder, the State Department of Fish and Wildlife may authorize transfer of a permit to a replacement vessel owned by an individual other than the permit holder. However, any transfer of a permit away from a vessel without written consent of each person holding a sercurity interest in such vessel is void

Revoked...At least for the time being

508.796
Review of the permit denial: fee; rules; limitation on Transfer of certain permits
(1) An individual whose application for renewal of the permit required by ORS 508.775 is denied by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife may make written request to the (new) Commercial Fishery Permit Board for review of the denial. The review provided in subsection is in lieu of any such review by the department or the State Fish and Wildlife Commissions. The request shall be in such form and shall contain such information as the board considers appropriate.

There's more to this but it basiclly states is you quit drinking the Koolaide your permit is revoked and you have no recourse

Revoked

All for now, its a great plan, gives a few chosen the right to sell fish which meets the requirements of the state. Alittle will go back to Joe sixpack,
then they can start shutting down hatchery's, there's already a list being put together. You can kiss bouy 10 goodbye as with any kind of long salt.The tribe's are going to be tough nut to crack but starting to attack there markets would be there first step. If they can't sell gillnet caught fish they will be forced to change even though as many have pointed out there just fishing up to there NMFS impacts. As Loomis said it ain't the Dam's it harvest.

Wonder how many mid and low level Taliban had to be sacrificed to the hellfire missles by one of there own before he could gain enough trust to walk into a CIA meeting unsearched.