#572030 - 01/13/10 12:15 PM
Re: Gill-net salmon fishing ban on ballot?
[Re: Salmo g.]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 05/22/05
Posts: 3771
|
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 Salmo, Treaty Tribes have built and used platforms to dip spring chinook from Willamette Falls in the recent past, and they harvest ells annually at those same falls. The only thing that keep the Tribes above Bonneville Dam, is simply their own free will.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#572034 - 01/13/10 12:24 PM
Re: Gill-net salmon fishing ban on ballot?
[Re: Illahee]
|
clown flocker
Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 3731
Loc: Water
|
They were also taking ceremonial between the bridges using a non-indian commercial gillnet boat and have already told the states more of the same in 2010.. Contrary to popular sportsmans belief Bonneville was not constructed to hold the tribes back but to provide Hydro Electricity and it just became a kind of an unwritten divider between the two fishing groups..No Laws involved here.
Edited by SBD (01/13/10 12:28 PM)
_________________________
There's a sucker born every minute
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#572035 - 01/13/10 12:31 PM
Re: Gill-net salmon fishing ban on ballot?
[Re: SBD]
|
clown flocker
Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 3731
Loc: Water
|
_________________________
There's a sucker born every minute
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#572047 - 01/13/10 01:08 PM
Re: Gill-net salmon fishing ban on ballot?
[Re: ]
|
clown flocker
Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 3731
Loc: Water
|
I think the tribes care deeply about recovery they just haven't been sucked into this Hatchery/Selective Fishing hole that the BPA/Irrigators/LNG gang are selling.
_________________________
There's a sucker born every minute
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#572050 - 01/13/10 01:19 PM
Re: Gill-net salmon fishing ban on ballot?
[Re: Salmo g.]
|
clown flocker
Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 3731
Loc: Water
|
Not sure Salmo... But I haven't seen the tribes ever lose a case when it comes to Bolt Decision..Maybe the sportsfisherman want to test this water..My guess is they get scalded bad, and the tribes don't forget.
_________________________
There's a sucker born every minute
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#572056 - 01/13/10 01:53 PM
Re: Gill-net salmon fishing ban on ballot?
[Re: ]
|
clown flocker
Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 3731
Loc: Water
|
Aunty I'll send you a PM when I hear the tribes are working below Bonneville and you can jump in the car and go look for yourself..Your right don't believe anything you read on these boards or at special interest meetings..Do your own research!
_________________________
There's a sucker born every minute
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#572059 - 01/13/10 01:56 PM
Re: Gill-net salmon fishing ban on ballot?
[Re: SBD]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 12/30/07
Posts: 3116
|
Not sure Salmo... But I haven't seen the tribes ever lose a case when it comes to Bolt Decision..Maybe the sportsfisherman want to test this water..My guess is they get scalded bad, and the tribes don't forget. What the hell is your problem? You sit back and judge the first organization that comes along and makes some real progress in a relatve short time, has a resume of accomplishments, longer than your arm and you refer to them as the LNG crowd? Now you light a fire for some redneck to jump on and watch the fire take off? You a commercial or just a pouty angry old man? Even the PSA members around here recognized a winner. Doesnt stop them from getting involved, in fact, their situation and influence is improved, because they support cca. Im getting a little tired of the whining about springer allocation, when the entire state is involved. This process will be played out over and over for a variety of improvements to the fish, habitat, harvest, hydro, predators etc over the next ten years or more. Its akin to not setting up a retirement account, cause you cant buy enough tackle. Man up! Its one thing to be a starving college student, but hanging on to the free ride attitude, is exactly what got us to this point. Ive never met so many people who bitch about 25 dollars. Where can you buy an attorney and two lobbyists for $25 at the federal level. You want better fishing. Its not free. You want to defeat the commercial overharvest and the processors? Its not free. You want to sue the ........ its not free. You have hatcheries because of great lobbying and lousy mgt. You want to catch wild fish? Then protect the fish we have.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#572060 - 01/13/10 02:06 PM
Re: Gill-net salmon fishing ban on ballot?
[Re: Fast and Furious]
|
clown flocker
Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 3731
Loc: Water
|
I guess I have more faith in NMFS than most when they say we can use x number of impacts and not hurt the recovery effort..All the rest like this bill is just an allocation issue, even though its title says Salmon Protection Act.. It never explains how it will protect the fish other than passing the burden to the next user group above them, and with all the fine print it reaks of something else..Kinda of a rotten egg smell
_________________________
There's a sucker born every minute
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#572071 - 01/13/10 02:36 PM
Re: Gill-net salmon fishing ban on ballot?
[Re: Fast and Furious]
|
BUCK NASTY!!
Registered: 01/26/00
Posts: 6312
Loc: Vancouver, WA
|
Ive never met so many people who bitch about 25 dollars. Where can you buy an attorney and two lobbyists for $25 at the federal level.
Piss on the $25 bucks. That's the lousiest arguement I've heard yet... I'd send CCA a check for $1000 today if I didn't believe CCA is taking us down the road of destruction.... As soon as you give the netters a better harvesting method that is less lethal than sportsman you'll never get our fish back and our allocations will slowly fade.... You watch... Money drives the system, sad but true... Keith
_________________________
It's time to put the red rubber nose away, clown seasons over.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#572073 - 01/13/10 02:41 PM
Re: Gill-net salmon fishing ban on ballot?
[Re: ]
|
clown flocker
Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 3731
Loc: Water
|
Todd would be the one to update you on Tribal Laws he's been right on so far...Yes all the rest is theory, but the lightly attended LNG meeting I attended the main concern came from the sports side..1000ft LNG tankers with 1500ft no travel zones around them twice a week and bouy 10 don't work together, the skipanon river would close for 48hours.. Shutting down the terminal fisherys and 3 mitchell act hatcheries that feed it and taking the smolts far upriver would fix that. Just rename the fishery the St Helens Derby, everybodys happy and CCA is king, look what they did for us.. One thing that did come up would be the need to remove some dikes for mitigation and there was some in the Youngs Bay area..It would fix that problem too..and the worst problem is I'm not against it because I hate whats going on in the middleast and would sell my soul to the devil to get us out of there..Its just that I think some other people all ready beat me to it
_________________________
There's a sucker born every minute
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#572084 - 01/13/10 03:03 PM
Re: Gill-net salmon fishing ban on ballot?
[Re: SBD]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 12/30/07
Posts: 3116
|
I guess I have more faith in NMFS than most when they say we can use x number of impacts and not hurt the recovery effort..All the rest like this bill is just an allocation issue, even though its title says Salmon Protection Act.. It never explains how it will protect the fish other than passing the burden to the next user group above them, and with all the fine print it reaks of something else..Kinda of a rotten egg smell Really? Allocation... Its ONE change. Ban nets, and switch gear. The rest just plugs the loop holes. It wont protect Salmon? The tribes can also go to selective gear and Ive been told TWICE, since the tribes are CO MANAGERS they are responsible for reducing ESA mortality. That came from a rep that works for the tribes. You assume this is the end. Its not. Process of elimination. NMFS? Then where is the recovery? Great science behind the San Juan Island MPA. How many people do you know on the NMFS board? Florida CCA has/had four in the last year or so. There are about 150 people on that board. Ever had to sue NMFS? CCA did and won. look it up. From what I understand they still have to pass it up to Commerce, which is our old buddy Gary Locke. Ive been reading a commercial site. Even they dont trust NMFS. Ive been guilty of finding a comfortable place and not paying attention. When they rolled over me, I didnt even feel it.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#572085 - 01/13/10 03:22 PM
Re: Gill-net salmon fishing ban on ballot?
[Re: stlhdr1]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 12/30/07
Posts: 3116
|
I will settle for a hundred. I hope you have something else to entertain guest with. Its bound to get boring listening to that tape. I thought you said we are heading there anyway..... This is about more than one river. I know guys who dont care about the CR and I know guys who dont care about PS. Support the others and hopefully, they return the support.
Time will tell, but its not me, running the show. Most of these guys are not new to the game. This definitely is not the Koenings era.
Last year, I had a guy bug me for a free hat. Otherwise, he would not join. mooooocher. Way too many, "something for nothing" in our sport. JHC look at the snaggers and poacher we have.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#572086 - 01/13/10 03:23 PM
Re: Gill-net salmon fishing ban on ballot?
[Re: Fast and Furious]
|
Dick Nipples
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 27838
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
|
Not sure Salmo... But I haven't seen the tribes ever lose a case when it comes to Bolt Decision..Maybe the sportsfisherman want to test this water..My guess is they get scalded bad, and the tribes don't forget. What the hell is your problem? You sit back and judge the first organization that comes along and makes some real progress in a relatve short time, has a resume of accomplishments, longer than your arm and you refer to them as the LNG crowd? Now you light a fire for some redneck to jump on and watch the fire take off? You a commercial or just a pouty angry old man? Even the PSA members around here recognized a winner. Doesnt stop them from getting involved, in fact, their situation and influence is improved, because they support cca. Im getting a little tired of the whining about springer allocation, when the entire state is involved. This process will be played out over and over for a variety of improvements to the fish, habitat, harvest, hydro, predators etc over the next ten years or more. Its akin to not setting up a retirement account, cause you cant buy enough tackle. Man up! Its one thing to be a starving college student, but hanging on to the free ride attitude, is exactly what got us to this point. Ive never met so many people who bitch about 25 dollars. Where can you buy an attorney and two lobbyists for $25 at the federal level. You want better fishing. Its not free. You want to defeat the commercial overharvest and the processors? Its not free. You want to sue the ........ its not free. You have hatcheries because of great lobbying and lousy mgt. You want to catch wild fish? Then protect the fish we have. After approximately four seconds of thought, I nominate the above quote for "dumbest fukin post in a 28 page thread"...congratulations. Fish on... Todd
_________________________
Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#572090 - 01/13/10 03:29 PM
Re: Gill-net salmon fishing ban on ballot?
[Re: SBD]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 12/30/07
Posts: 3116
|
Todd would be the one to update you on Tribal Laws he's been right on so far...Yes all the rest is theory, but the lightly attended LNG meeting I attended the main concern came from the sports side..1000ft LNG tankers with 1500ft no travel zones around them twice a week and bouy 10 don't work together, the skipanon river would close for 48hours.. Shutting down the terminal fisherys and 3 mitchell act hatcheries that feed it and taking the smolts far upriver would fix that. Just rename the fishery the St Helens Derby, everybodys happy and CCA is king, look what they did for us.. One thing that did come up would be the need to remove some dikes for mitigation and there was some in the Youngs Bay area..It would fix that problem too..and the worst problem is I'm not against it because I hate whats going on in the middleast and would sell my soul to the devil to get us out of there..Its just that I think some other people all ready beat me to it You are just absolutely wack. CCA didnt form until july 2007. No chance of doing anything about that plant. Your just another guy, who looks for an excuse to blame someone else. You had the web, you were there, could have started your own campaign etc.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#572093 - 01/13/10 03:36 PM
Re: Gill-net salmon fishing ban on ballot?
[Re: Todd]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 12/30/07
Posts: 3116
|
Not sure Salmo... But I haven't seen the tribes ever lose a case when it comes to Bolt Decision..Maybe the sportsfisherman want to test this water..My guess is they get scalded bad, and the tribes don't forget. What the hell is your problem? You sit back and judge the first organization that comes along and makes some real progress in a relatve short time, has a resume of accomplishments, longer than your arm and you refer to them as the LNG crowd? Now you light a fire for some redneck to jump on and watch the fire take off? You a commercial or just a pouty angry old man? Even the PSA members around here recognized a winner. Doesnt stop them from getting involved, in fact, their situation and influence is improved, because they support cca. Im getting a little tired of the whining about springer allocation, when the entire state is involved. This process will be played out over and over for a variety of improvements to the fish, habitat, harvest, hydro, predators etc over the next ten years or more. Its akin to not setting up a retirement account, cause you cant buy enough tackle. Man up! Its one thing to be a starving college student, but hanging on to the free ride attitude, is exactly what got us to this point. Ive never met so many people who bitch about 25 dollars. Where can you buy an attorney and two lobbyists for $25 at the federal level. You want better fishing. Its not free. You want to defeat the commercial overharvest and the processors? Its not free. You want to sue the ........ its not free. You have hatcheries because of great lobbying and lousy mgt. You want to catch wild fish? Then protect the fish we have. After approximately four seconds of thought, I nominate the above quote for "dumbest fukin post in a 28 page thread"...congratulations. Fish on... Todd Well, at least you used my testimony for evidence. A clear improvement over your lynching of me and cca over the green river allegations. I guess that oath you took doesnt matter anymore.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#572101 - 01/13/10 03:56 PM
Re: Gill-net salmon fishing ban on ballot?
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
Hippie
Registered: 01/31/02
Posts: 4450
Loc: B'ham
|
The CCA is first and foremost a conservation group. They want to conserve fish. The ability to fish for them is also important, but waging an allocation battle is NOT a primary concern. I'm glad that is the case but doubt that most NW CCA members would agree. If you think otherwise, I think you're mistaken.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#572108 - 01/13/10 04:18 PM
Re: Gill-net salmon fishing ban on ballot?
[Re: ]
|
Three Time Spawner
Registered: 07/01/09
Posts: 1597
Loc: common sense ave.
|
Doc's right and I hope the CCA membership will educate themselves, or they won't have anything left to fish for.
thats realy true, when this commercial selective fishing takes off and they start taking more hatchery fish sport fishing wont be to good above these new methods, i`d suggest fishing below them.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
11499 Members
17 Forums
72912 Topics
824756 Posts
Max Online: 3937 @ 07/19/24 03:28 AM
|
|
|