Here's your sign.

no troll, i just dont think you guys understand how the columbia river is managed, i really doubt you could answer the question.

cant answer the question ?

As I've already said, a gillnet ban on the CR reaches far beyond a single stock.

Fewer ESA-listed wild winter steelhead die.

Fewer of the river's depleted white sturgeon die.

Some have rebutted, "So what? We're talking about salmon here, not steelhead and sturgeon. Besides it's not about the fish.... we just wanna go fishing for our fair share."

Let's look a little closer....

In the past, when the gillnets have exceeded their ESA impact for spring chinook, it has caused the sportfishery for springers to shut down early. Pissed a lot of folks off that they never got a chance... you know, to go fishing for their "fair" share.

It has also caused a delay in opening the mainstem CR for summer steelhead. Just ask slabhunter.

I believe it has also caused a delay in the opener for summer chinook (someone correct me if I'm having a memory lapse here).

In the past, so many lower river kings were taken by fall gillnets targeting abundant hatchery coho that sports were left to hold the bag for conservation. SW WA tribs were all closed to chinook in-season.... maybe Keith remembers that one. Displaced chinook anglers descended on Grays Harbor like the plague looking to bonk a king.

So don't be distracted by the one-dimensional "less for us" argument being waged in the CR spring chinook fishery. It's just one tree in a mighty big forest.

Thinking BIG picture, those gillnets have cost the recreational community far more disruption and lost opportunities than most can imagine.

A lower CR free of gillnets will be a much more hospitable place for migratory wild salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon river-wide.

The head of NOAA-F is on record stating we must neither "carelessly hatch nor carelessly catch" the fish we mass-produce for the CR.

HSRG hatchery reform is already kicking into high gear. While harvest reform is just getting jump-started, once the wheels start turning, it'll be full steam ahead. It's a mighty big bus, folks.... so either get on board or get out of the way. Be a shame to get run over.

Your turn, from yesterday.



I've seen your "counter moves and parries", so I thought I'd ask you two questions at once. I can ask them separately if it's easier. Go.

Francis, when the fishery is managed by the non-tribal commercial's share of the 2%, it won't change how likely they are or are not to overshoot their share depending on what they fish with.

They're going to kill their share, and the amount will be based on the pre-season forecast.

With gillnets or purse seines, if the forecast is significantly higher than the actual run size, they will overfish and fish into our share.

If they are more successful under the allowed fishery than the model said they would be, or if the percentage of wild fish encountered is higher than the forecast said it would be, then they will overfish...again, before we get to fish.

Again...just as 2% is 2%, no matter how they're killed, the non-tribal commercial share of the 2% will die no matter how they fish, and they will be just as likely to fish into the sportie share no matter what they fish with...and we'll be just as likely to have a delayed opener for summer Chinook or summer run steelhead as we are now.

The only way to avoid having a delayed sportfishery for summer Chinook or summer run steelhead is the same only way that this will benefit ESA springers without ruining sportfishing for hatchery springers...and that's getting them off the river completely.

Fish on...

Todd

You're right... I haven't a clue.

That's because the coho gillnet season is part of a very convoluted matrix based on a sliding-scale ESA impact predicated on the performance of the Clack and Sandy wild runs, the only 2 functioning wild coho populations left in the entire lower CR.

The gillnets have never had to fish "selectively" for coho as a certain amount of wild exploitation is intentionally allowed in the matrix, which varies widely from year to year.

That said, they are charged one dead fish for every wild coho encountered.

Would seine gear change that? Where and when most of the fish are caught (bright fish in transition water, scales sill loose) the handling mortality on coho is going to be pretty high, even when that fish hasn't been ensnared in gillnet mesh.

Not disagreeing with you there brother, but the likelihood of eliminating the comm fishery from the lower river is close to ZERO. Not playing commie apologist here... it is what it is.... esp so when the managing agencies are charged to ensure that viable commercial opportunities be made available. While I would personally love to see them go, I ain't holdin' my breath waitin'.

Seeing as they are here to stay for the foreseeable future, why not make their fishery as "clean" as it can be? Seems a nobler and more achievable goal than having them magically disappear into some black hole.

BTW anything that slows down the rate at which the impact is consumed makes it all the less likely that the impact would ever be exceeded. And until they actually figure out how to best use the new gear and where/when to most efficaciously deploy it, I don't think there's much danger of them catching too many any time soon.

Great grand scheme of things, I still say the benefits outweigh the risks.

Pretty entertaining so far. My favorite quote is from Aunty M and is one shared by several people posting on this thread I am afraid:

The only way the 2% non-tribal share of ESA springer impacts won't be used is by accident...and if that unlikely accident happens, they'll be sure to "fix" it by making sure it gets all used up in subsequent years.

The pipe dream that the allocation of dead ESA springers won't used is just that...a pipe dream...a pipe that's been smoking stuff a lot harder than marijuana.

I appreciate the "cleanliness" of having a much better release mortality for steelhead and sturgeon...but like I've said before, repeatedly, those who are pushing this agenda aren't saying that...they're saying how great it will be for springers and for springer fishing...and those people must have been hitting that pipe hard.

Fish on...

Todd

Ok, you have warned us and we have completely ignored your advice. Is your job done, or do you plan to defeat the legislation, to save us from ourselves?

I plan to hope that you get what you ask for...but I'll be here to remind you when you start bitching about it when you do.

I also plan on the hope that some folks might actually be on the fence on these issues, or not know about them, and find out that what they are hearing from one source might not actually contain much in the way of logic, no matter how passionately they keep repeating the same illogical arguments.

Who knows? Maybe you'll even learn how LCR seasons are set one of these days...though, frankly, I'm not holding my breath...it's not like you haven't been shown dozens of times, and you haven't shown any inkling of understanding it yet.

Perhaps you ought to stick to boat ramp educational seminars?

Fish on...

Todd

Sorry about that Todd, the quote system must have screwed up... Guess I made you look like the bad guy when it's actually ME!!

Keith

No worries...just want to keep it clear as to who's saying what...

Fish on...

Todd

Yep........ The fact of the matter is if "your" leader wasn't so full of you know what I'd shut up too......

But CCA is gaining momentum of false facts, sort of reminds me of greased hair car sales I guess.... Say one thing, do another??

To think it all started with his "hatch-box" fish that got mopped up... Oh and how CCA would eliminate Commercial nets... I still think it can be done, but there has to be a better way.....

If you all want to give me $25 I'll ELIMINATE GILLNETS too, care to follow me?

Keith

common sense

How's that status quo working out for you?
Wow you guys have been going round today! Thought I`d answer this question as it`s been asked many times in the past, I actually thought it was someones sig line. The last few years the status quo has been OK for me, I catch between 5-10 LCR springers a year which is plenty for me and my small family. Thing is most of these fish come after a break in the commercial season which allows a few to get to my stomping grounds. What I`m worried about with this proposal is that there will be NO break in the commercial season for me to catch my few fish. About the only thing I can hope for if this deal goes through is that it will expand my season into April/May where I may have a shot at a few the commercials missed. What I`d like to see is a complete ban on ALL commercial fishing in the Columbia river, hopefully then I would have a long and fruitful season. I would not vote for change just for changes sake though as we`ll not know what we`re going to get `till it happens. Although quite a few of you have voted for change in the past, how`s that going for you? Any promises actually kept? See where I`m going with this? Bill

OK, so the OR LCR gillnet ban isn't the end all, be all. It won't be because there will still be commercial fishing, and that commercial fishing might take a larger share of ESA and hatchery fish that otherwise would be available to sport fishing. However, the best way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time. Is anyone who posts in this thread actually opposed to the OR LCR gillnet ban? If so, why? Is anyone here opposed to the difficult and arduous task of eventually eliminating the entire LCR commercial fishery? If so, why?

I feel like posting in this thread made my IQ drop two points . . .

Sg

If the goal is ending all commercial fishing on the LCR , as I agree it should be, wouldn't it be harder to do away with commercial fishing that uses a selective method? Seems like going selective will remove one of the major arguments against commercial fishing. What's the argument for ending commercial fishing going to be when they are releasing unharmed all the by-catch? And no, I'm not opposed to banning gillnetting, just want to explore all the not so obvious outcomes of this jump to selective commercial gear.