WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Print Version
NEWS RELEASE
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091 RSS Feeds

August 11, 2010
Contact: Pat Frazier (WDFW), 360-906-6711
John North (ODFW), 971-673-6029

Alternative commercial fishing gears
to be tested on lower Columbia River

OLYMPIA – Starting this week, fishery managers from Washington and Oregon will test the feasibility of five types of alternative commercial fishing gears on the lower Columbia River.

Expanding on a pilot project conducted last year, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) will work with commercial salmon fishers to test purse seines, beach seines and trap nets.

In addition, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) will work with a team of commercial fishers to test commercial troll gear and tangle nets during fall chinook and coho salmon runs.

Additional types of fishing gear will be evaluated in the future.

This year’s test fishing, funded primarily by NOAA Fisheries and an Oregon legislative appropriation, will be conducted from mid-August through October at various sites downstream of Bonneville Dam. Tests will include five purse seines, five beach seines, two trap nets, two trollers and three different types of tangle nets.

“Our shared goal is to identify and develop commercial fishing gear capable of catching large numbers of hatchery salmon, while also allowing for the safe release of wild fish,” said Pat Frazier, regional WDFW fish manager. “These tests are a critical step toward achieving that goal.”

Gears that achieve that goal could be approved for future use on the lower Columbia River, where gillnets are now the primary gear used in commercial fisheries. While gillnets are highly effective at catching salmon, alternative gears may increase the ability to release wild fish in good condition, Frazier said.

“Because many wild salmon and steelhead populations are listed for protection under the federal Endangered Species Act, impact limits on these fish often curtail fisheries even when large numbers of hatchery-reared fish are available for harvest,” said John North, ODFW Columbia River Fisheries manager.

Development of viable fishing gear that can selectively remove hatchery fish would not only benefit commercial fisheries, but may also contribute to the recovery of wild salmon stocks on the Columbia River by reducing interactions with hatchery fish, North said.

In that regard, the results of last year’s pilot project were promising, said Frazier, who oversaw gear tests conducted by WDFW. Working with a purse seine, beach seine and trap net, WDFW project members caught and sorted 884 salmon, of which only one died during handling.

“The immediate survival rate was very good, but we need to conduct further tests to determine if these, or other gear types, are viable on a commercial scale,” Frazier said. “We also need to test them in different areas and under different conditions. That will be a major focus of this year’s tests.”

Should be all set to go about the time they cut the hatchery releases.

Yeehawww!!!..............
































Not.



















Fish on...

Todd

i agree, this is about as retarded as it gets, any sportfisherman who supports this is really stupid.

...and they are still testing tangle nets.....

Hmmm, so today's commercial gear is not viable on the mainstem Columbia River?

Not as viable as what they're hoping to do...which is kill the same amount of wild fish while harvesting three, four, or ten times as many hatchery fish...sportfishing will be so fukked if this actually works.

Fish on...

Todd

Hey Todd, I finally get this.
How about if the other rules change and total harvest is based not on ESA limits but other harvest limits such as total numbers or pounds of fish caught.. More ESA survival? and "better" allocation of hatchery fish?

Seems to me that the problem is not selective fishing but the method of allocation.

They want all the hatchery fish out of the river, so they are not going to limit how many the commercials can take. ESA limits is the only limit and will be the only limit.

Feds are cutting way back on CR basin hatchery plants, CCA is pressuring for commercial selective harvest.
What a mess this is going to be.
Send more money to Texas.

Rick, as long as there are hatchery fish for harvest and ESA fish in the LCR, the limits will be set by the allowable mortality on the ESA stocks...it's the only way it can be done under the existing regulatory schemes, and the only way out of it would be to stop planting hatchery fish, or massively reduce them...which, of course, would run directly counter to the whole idea of this "selective fishing" idea, which is to put as many fish as possible in the holds of the commercial fishing vessels.

Fish on...

Todd

So if the commercials switch to more selective gear are allowable impacts on ESA going to be reduced?

As far as hatchery reduction goes and the availability of Mitchell fund act money for hatcheries, Alt 1 keeps the status quo, alt 2,3,4,and 5 each have on the top of there list;
reduce negative effects of hatchery programs on natural origin salmon and steelhead.

If you like and want hatcheries you better find a way to rid the hatchery fish off the spawning beds with wild.. Even if this is just one problem that needs to be resolved to retain funding, I see this working together instead of being counter productive.

If you don't like hatcheries and don't mind not fishing the CR for many years to come ----that can happen also.

It would appear that two scenarios are possible, one is to remove the long standing habitat log jams and increase native populations to the point where harvest is possible, the other involves a little ball and a club.

Not a chance...that would directly counter the reason for the selective gear, which is to increase harvest for the commercial industry.

Fish on...

Todd

Ok, I will bite. Why do you feel this would be a bad thing for sport? I stand neutral on this as of right now, so am truly curious what reasoning is on both sides.

There will be no reduction in ESA impacts...i.e., the same amount of ESA salmon will die in the various fisheries. The commercial guys, if this works, will harvest far more hatchery fish than they are now.

That's the entire point, to put more hatchery fish in the commercial totes...see any mention of how great this is for fish or fishing in the news release? Notice the multiple comments regarding commercial guys being able to harvest more and more fish?

The "may help" wild stocks is just lip service...the only way that would happen would be if they lowered the allowable ESA impacts, and that is not going to happen, since it would reduce the amount of hatchery fish the commercial guys can harvest, which would run directly counter to the only reason they're even doing this at all.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. And the amount of change in hatchery fish on the spawning grounds will be so negligible as to be almost "zero"...

I think we can all agree that, in principle, selective commercial fishing is better for the future of wild fish than gill-netting. Granted, this plan has potential to negatively impact sport fishing, and it is reasonable to assume it will not immediately help wild fish populations. That said, we should be careful not to lose sight of the fact that a permanent change to this type of fishing would get those hated, non-discriminating instruments of mass destruction out of the river.

If this does turn out to be the crushing blow to sport fishing opportunity many expect it will be, sport fishers should have a legitimate beef to take up with the Legislature so that something can be done to correct the imbalance. I don't have a lot of faith in our Legislators' inclination to act in any interest other than their own, which is why I believe it will be important for us to be organized. Unless they believe their re-election depends on it, they are not likely to veer far from the status quo, so we will need to show up in numbers. If that's not enough, we could resort to playing the game the commercials have apparently been playing for decades by putting money where our mouths have been. If our license fees truly do add up to a large amount more than those paid by commercials, simply not purchasing licenses one year would make a loud statement that could not be ignored. If the Legislature still chose to ignore us, we could pool the money we would have spent on licenses, hire a lobbyist, and make a few strategic "campaign contributions." That's the American way, right?

Believe it or not, as naive as it may seem, I am actually fairly serious about this. If we can't beat the system, we might do well to make it our ally. I'm sure there are other reasons why this would not work, but I'm pretty sure the biggest reason is that we sport fishers choose, time and time again, to get hung up on our differences of opinion rather than finding our common ground and standing united. Whether you're a member of CCA, WSC, Long Live the Kings, etc. or choose not to associate with any of the groups out there advocating for wild fish because you don't agree with every stand they take, if you like to fish for salmon, steelhead, and/or sturgeon, this should be a cause you can believe in. If we all stood together on the things we agree on (one at a time, if that is the best pace we can muster), I believe we could rapidly turn this in our favor.

Gee, it might be time to invest in a Columbia River commercial fishing permit. I haven't been catching all that many on hook and line anyway.

Sg