You bet I've been negative, I hate seeing how good fishing was once and how shotty it is now days... I've also been around the block for a while as well, I've see many anglers come and go on this site as well as others thinking they have the answer to fixing the problem.. The latest chant is obviously CCA.

It just cracks me up that the CCA bandwagoners think that eliminating the gillnets and switching to "more selective" netting is going to solve the CR problem... Face it, even if you eliminated nets as a whole the fisheries we have are still going down the drink... There's too many user groups handling too much of the wild fish pie....

A resolution you ask? It's sort of like Oregon hunting you know, most hunting units over there are by special permit or drawing the tag that year. They regulate how many people hunt a certain area... I wouldn't be suprised if that's what fishing turned to, it's the only way to stay ahead of population growth.... Have you seen your local river lately? I know SW WA and most of the Oregon Coast rivers have been pummeled by so many people fishing, sadly enough our wild fish populations don't seem to handle that well. Not with all the other obstacles and predators they face.... And let's face it, your average fisherman isn't that of the 70's anymore. Between technology advancement, free internet schooling and all the collective free knowledge of "how-to-fish" the average sportsman get's the job done now days and theres not enough to go around....

Keith

Not what I said...... Read along would ya!

Face it, you aren't going to save the friggin wild fish unless you quit fishing as a whole....

Let's sit back and watch how fast the Skagit wild fish recover, until they back every user group off those fish you won't see much improvement....

Keith

The first major target that CCA-PNW has put on its agenda is the lower Columbia gillnetters. Seems like a noble first target for a pro-sport conservation group. What I have seen posted by the anti-CCA crowd over the past year or two is that we REALLY need to be careful what we wish for. Here is the ANTI's mantra in nuts and bolts.

1) Don't wish the CR commercial fishery off the river. They are the main reason hatchery fish are being produced in any significant numbers. If the commercial fleet goes away so will the hatchery plants.

CONCLUSION: a vibrant commercial fishery is necessary so that there will be hatchery fish for us to catch. More for them, more for us.

2) Don't wish for the elimination of non-selective gillnets... that'll just allow the commercials to catch a bigger portion of the available hatchery fish.

CONCLUSION: Gillnets are necessary to keep the commies from maximizing their catch potential given the allowable ESA impact. Less for them, more for us.


***

Please clarify if these are not the positions being articulated by the ANTI's.

If you take 1) plus 2) you get the status quo.

Is that really what you folks want for our fish?

+1

Still waiting for excuse # 3 to make the rounds.

no milk.
suicides
Its big energy!
Its guilt by association

Anything to take the focus off of killing the last of the wild fish.

Considering the price they get off the boat, I wonder why they bother. They get less per pound for wild fish now, than than did in the 1800's. Supply and demand is not on their side. Farmed fish are being used, in many areas, cause there are not enough hatchery fish to go around.

I missed your thumbs up after your signature. Thats what I read. That you would close down the west coast fishery in the ocean and CR fishery to protect the wild fish. I missed what organization you are representing?

I'm not representing an organization... Is that too difficult to understand?

Keith

[/quote]

I'm not representing an organization... Is that too difficult to understand?

Keith[/quote]

Do you belong to an organization?

I'm dissapointed in you Keith, I really thought that with all the noise you have been making, that you would really have something to offer. Think about it a bit, what can we as sportsmen do on the same page...........I am an old man remembering what was and working hard to I hope to leave something good behind.........Chuck G

thats me, gillnets go in catch there measly amount of fish and reach there esa take and are done, before you go off on me answer 1 question, do you believe the compact notices at the end of the season that show what amount of esa take each user group used on the columbia ?, do you think those numbers are acurate ?

No, I do NOT personally believe them.

My gut feeling is that all the impacts are horribly understated... especially the gillnet numbers.

But I could a;so believe in the tooth fairy and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

The number they come up with is the number that is used for management purposes. Doesn't matter what I think.

Boater, you have said on many occassion that you are totally against gillnets but you never have given a solution to the problem.
1) because of conflict of interest?
2) and what would those interests be?
3) who do you represent?
4)or/ and what organization do you belong to?

Would probably go along ways to explain the predicament you are in when it comes to gillnets.

Getting back to my post about the ANTI-CCA assertions.

Read them again, folks.

Please help me out if I am misrepresenting the haters' positions. I just want to make sure I understand what it is they are advocating.

Examine it closely and you will find that the common denominator in the conclusions for 1) and 2) is "more for us".

That's what it really all boils down to for the ANTI's... allocative greed... whatever it takes to maximize the sport share of the take. Even if it means making ridiculous arguments in favor of one of the most biologically destructive fishing methods ever devised by mankind.

I am dumbfounded that any of you can maintain any credibility for being stewards of the resource when you speak in favor of gillnets. And for what? Just to maintain/increase your perceived fair share of the kill?

At some point, I hope that folks finally wake up to the fact that our sport is about so much more than just dead fish in the box.

Very well said and clearly to the point, Thanks Doc.


Fishy

I'm not representing an organization... Is that too difficult to understand?

Keith[/quote]

Do you belong to an organization? [/quote]

Do I have to to express an opinion?

Keith

You are dead right about your conclusions... Call it greed if you will.

Our sport is about getting to fish.........

Keith

thats the trouble here is alot of people think that the numbers are not accurate but cant prove it

And just looking at how CCA has fought its past battles on the East Coast and Gulf States, the strategy starts with CONSERVATION first. The allocative repercussions are secondary. It just so happens that the allocative outcomes overwhelmingly came out if favor of recreational users in those areas.

Because gillnetting and conservation are at polar odds in mixed-stock fisheries, they are NOT compatible with responsible stewardship of the diverse fish resources of ANY basin.

CCA has articulated that position so well in every other region of the country that the PNW is the ONLY place left in the good ol' USA that gillnets enjoy free reign.

Like it or not, that's about to change.

And some sport fishermen have to take that position because of conflict of interest with their organization being partners with other organizations unfortunately. So all sportsmen aren't on the same page. CCA doesn't have that red tape to muddle through and has the ability to attemt to ban gillnets where other organization don't have a snowballs chance in hell to even think that thought.

There are plenty of people, who take a purely selfish view of this issue. The crumbs they get, are more important than the wild fish, that cannot be replaced. Some hate hatchery fish and some want more hatchery fish. I dont think they can guarantee there will not be more hatchery fish in the future.

The rivers that have extinct runs of fish, have a lack of nutrients for future generations. Whatever programs are used to supplement the nutrient supply, it will eventually mean more angling opportunity. It going to take more effort in other areas, to grow the fish returns. But indiscriminant harvest will be one step closer to being fixed.

i`m not in favor of gillnets but there i one thing i cant do and thats prove they are killing more esa listed fish than the wdfw says they are and either can you, if the cca was to debate the gillnetters in an open forum the gillnetters would make the cca look stupid.