Grays Harbor allocation?
Willipa bay allocation?

Interesting comment the other day, they are not the same as the columbia. This issue is wild fish. Not allocation. You can FIX allocation. You cant fix extinct fish. Gillnets and tangle nets are the only legal gear on the Columbia. Gary never said, ban harvest, he knew up front selective harvest is the only change, that the general public would accept. Nelsons' Ban all nets initiative was very extreme. The issue at the time, was gillnets. Considering the alternatives, was too much work. Perhaps he thought he could duplicate what had been done in other states, but its not the same.
But dont think an initiative cannot pass. Florida, changed their constitution to ban gillnets. [only gillnets]

To the new reader, you are one of several people who come out against this looking for something else. That time, has passed. This is what we have. Some days, you dont get to choose. The public and those affected dont like change and big change, is usually rejected. Selective harvest is not a big change. Nothing wrong with having a job and being a part time guide. But, considering that, I think you protest too loudly, for what you think is going away permanently in less than a decade. Id be worried about getting stuck with a expensive river sled.

One more question. How much money, would you donate, to this unspecified alternative? Your own cash.

+50000000...which is the same exact reason I do not think just telling the commercials to kill the same amount of wild springers with purse seines as they do with gillnets makes any sense whatsoever...like when I responded to your earlier post about "taking a bite of an elephant"...I think giving them purse seines is feeding the elephant, not biting it.

Fish on...

Todd

Salmo, the SFS plan is just an extension of what was, and is already happening.
As was poited out in an earlier post, this getting the commercials off the maninstem has been in the works for many years, long before SFS.
And if eliminating the commercials is the goal, why would you want to increase their impacts on hatchery stocks with alternative methods first?
By lowering their impacts it would only increase their allocation, doesn't seem like a move to eliminate to me.

I'll take swing at it....

The SAFE-for-Salmon plan as introduced in the 2009 Oregon Legislature, isn't the perfect solution of eliminating lower Columbia commercial competition and all it's various impacts, however, it is a legislatively doable plan. It has broad legislative support.

Restricting the commercials to the off-channel areas, and using selective gear, achieves all the objectives of the CCA Oregon initiative.

PLUS

a) less impact on sportfishing.

b) better economics for lower river communities

c) resolves the allocation fight

d) a HUGE increase in sportfishing opportunity throughout the Columbia basin

To SalmoG's objection to smolt transfers, numerically the largest reprogramming is due to implementing HSRG changes. I don't see that changing. CCA embraces the HSRG changes.

I don't see the political will to walk away from the Select Area infrastructure that is in place, and the hefty annual subsidy coming from BPA that supports operations.

In the Oregon Legislature there is bipartisan support for moving the commercials off the mainstem as envisioned by NOAA when the build out of the Select Areas was promoted in the 1990's. The political reality is, all that stood in the way this past 2009 session was one, single, powerful state senator who's devoted to gillnetters.

Didn't Washington have a couple state senators who stalled progress (Dumis? Jacobson?) ? They're gone and the whole situation in WA has shifted for the better.

Getting the commercials off the main river involves compromises - like accepting the BPA subsidy to the Select Areas - but sport fishers give up LESS and in return get a lot MORE, a lot MORE than this initiative promises.

Freespool,

Are you suggesting that the best way to totally eliminate the LCR commercial fishery is to oppose the gillnet ban and oppose the SFS netpens and fishing area and keep gillnets in the mainstem, maximizing their harm, to paint the dirtiest picture of commercial fishing so as to improve the odds of a negative public reaction?

That's one way to go about it. Is it the most effective?

Sg

Nope, I support the SFS plan, but would not be opposed to using alternative harvest methods in the SAFE Areas if that what it takes for getting broader support from those opposed to gillnets no matter where they are deployed.

I think that there is a distinct possibility that future sport take fisheries will also be net pen/off channel areas.
Due to the negative effects hatcheries are having on native populations, at least until native stocks can sustain a limited harvest.

Unfortunately, we already had that on rivers like the Kalama...only the fish are getting shunted down to the SAFE areas now, and fishing on the Kalama is gonna suck for springers.

Fish on...

Todd

Unfortunately for the anglers that like to harvest fish, there might not be any other option.
And compared to a C&R fishery, it would be better than nothing.
Much of the present B10 harvest is from the SAFE Areas bound fish, so sports do get a crack at them as well.

this is where we should have started, you would have everybody on board, but where you guys started in helping the commercials to become stronger doesnt make sense

Here's how the tribe's view gamefish status


http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/OSCRP/CRM/landings/09/2009_treaty_FALL_landings_prelim_WEB.pdf

SBD,

Treaty fishing isn't the topic of this thread. Your linked table, while interesting, isn't relevant.

Sg

Might want to reread the ballot then ... I believe it states it will not affect treaty tribes or processers..Who are the only groups that I'm sure are still going to be around in a few years. Just not sure what gamefish status will protect the fish from.

It won't do jack to treaty rights...but it might restrict non-tribal commercial fishing.

Fish on...

Todd

I guess I'm looking at as if the ballot passes, which would leave just the sport and tribal fisheries..Sport C/R.. Tribal limited Harvest below the dams on Sturgeon, is my guess.

Glad to see you guys brought up the tribes again today. I`m with the Goat herder{aunty m} on this one in that I believe the tribes will end up to be our saviors on the springer issue and others. They`re the ones with the power to make our federal and state government respond, their goal is fish even if they have to raise them their selves. While I`ve seen the mismanagement up north by the tribes I don`t think the Confederated are going to do that. The only problem I can see is if they decide to move below Bonneville, which I`m pretty sure a few will. How far down is another question. I`m hoping for more of the platforms immediately downstream of the dam like I saw last year, maybe they`ll take out a couple dozen{or more} seals and sea lions too. Bill

I also believe the tribes have the power to stop all commercial harvest on the Columbia, and sports too. If I could I would join their group {tribes} and tell CCA to move on. Bill

Thanks, but I can't take credit or blame for posts on other boards because this is the only fishing site I have posted to in the last several years.

--- OOPS wrong guy then, you share screen names with someone. Still good post though, love the analogy. Bill

SELECTIVE FISHING CAN REBUILD WILD SALMON


Wright says “The common practice of deliberately overfishing naturally spawning salmon populations in order to harvest comingled hatchery fish continues to be alive and well in Washington and Oregon (albeit with some new disguises commonly called “hatchery reform”). It is true that at this date hatchery and naturally spawning salmon are still harvested together in unnecessary and harmful mixed-stock fisheries. But the goals of hatchery reform, apparently misunderstood by Wright, are largely the same as the changes he proposes, but with more precise guidelines.


Hatchery reform is a process created by Congress, guided by a group of largely independent scientists called the HSRG (Hatchery Scientific Review Group). It is ongoing and its recommendations are widely accepted in the Pacific Northwest. A primary conclusion is the numbers of hatchery salmon spawning together with natural stocks should be strictly limited so hatchery fish do not compromise the genetics and thus the productivity and survival rates of natural, protected fish. This means that hatchery fish should be fully harvested, above hatchery broodstock needs, or not produced in the first place. Since hatchery fish are largely the only fish available for harvest, no production means no fisheries. Thus we assume the logical goal is to maintain harvest while simultaneously recovering ESA listed stocks.


Both Wright and the HSRG agree that what is needed is selective fishing that can harvest hatchery fish and release natural fish without harm. A requirement so fishermen can identify natural fish and release them is the hatchery fish need to have a visually identifiable mark. This has largely been accomplished by removing .....
http://bakke-nativefish.blogspot.com/2010/01/pete-bergman-response-to-sam-wright.html

SBD,

You've mentioned several times about treaty tribes fishing downstream of Bonneville. However, none of the treaty tribes have adjudicated U&A downstream of Bonneville as far as I know. Why would WA or OR allow unadjudicated treaty fishing? If you know something else, give it up.

Sg