I have friends in alot of various industrys/agencys and the problem there facing right now is not the commercial guys but sport fisherman selling on the side. One estimate I heard from a Dept of Agriculture employee is 20% of the salmon in the mom and pop restuarants is coming through the back door. I've heard the same thing from a NMFS enforcement agent, and even a Portland ares chef at a big name restuarant that said it was so common he didn't even know It was illegal, and don't worry about the extra fins.

One estimate I heard from a Dept of Agriculture employee is 20% of the salmon in the mom and pop restuarants is coming through the back door.

Yes and they got caught, easy when its going through one channel..Hard as hell when its going a thousand different directions

So no... I don't think you're here to fight for fish or even allocation for sport fishers. You're here to divert peoples attention from taking long overdue action. Since you do it so often over more than a half dozen YEARS, the logical conclusion is that you are a gillnet hugger.

If you hate gillnets, then you should welcome a switch to selective methods that can more carefully handle wild fish AND be easier to monitor and control how many are caught. You aren't. In addition, instead of doing something on your own and being proactive, you chose to attack ANY organized effort that will change the status quo to benefit the resource.

So again, logic and your history prove you are dishonest about your motives.

http://egov.oregon.gov/OSP/FW/docs/Newsletter/April08.pdf



Its a bigger problem than you think

cant you ever answer a question ?

Obviously for you the glass is perpetually half empty, don't you have a neighbor to call the cops on or something?

http://egov.oregon.gov/OSP/FW/docs/Newsletter/April08.pdf

Its a bigger problem than you think

Here we go again
Proposed gillnet ban would delegate resource management to TV pitchmen

http://www.dailyastorian.info/main.asp?SectionID=23&SubSectionID=392&ArticleID=66704
12/29/2009 11:17:00 AM

An advocacy group is at it again this winter, promising to put an initiative to ban gillnetting on Oregon's November ballot. Voters should reject this self-serving plan.

All types of fishing play important parts in the economy and culture of the Lower Columbia River. Although the commercial importance of salmon isn't what it once was, gillnetting continues to support local families. And for many residents, gillnetters provide our only hope of buying a splendid taste of the salmon that swim past our towns.

Nor should we overlook the contributions of recreational fishing. Taking many forms, from casting a line off a jetty to spending thousands on a boat, sport angling is both a key lifestyle choice and a prime economic sector.

Just as our economy needs all types of fishing, salmon need all types of fishermen to serve as allies in the struggle against river industrialization and environmental threats like global warming. Most fishing groups understand this partnership and have worked well together over the years.

The regrettable exception to this spirit of cooperation is the newly arrived Coastal Conservation Association, which might be better named "More Salmon For Us." This sport-fishing group will be trying to persuade voters that it is somehow immoral to catch salmon in a net. They tried and failed to push the same radical agenda in the Oregon Legislature last session.

Designing fisheries with a citizens' initiative is a horribly flawed idea, essentially taking management out of the hands of biologists and placing it with TV advertising pitchmen who will try to convince a big block of urban voters to put gillnetters out of business. This is no way to improve salmon populations.

There are worthwhile studies under way to enhance the selectivity of salmon harvests. These even include bringing back a form of fish traps, which permit fishermen to examine unharmed salmon and free any that spawn in the wild. Considering the money and expertise invested in gillnetting, any broad-scale change in methodology will necessitate much thought, planning and government assistance.

But such innovations may be the real future of salmon management, not heavy-handed resource grabs like the one being pushed upon voters in 2010.