Rediculous ideas?? Me do the research??

All the information is right under your nose and your finger tips.... Ironically you're favorite steelhead streams (Rogue/Umpqua) haven't seen netting/HARVESTING since the 1930's and 40's...

Just because nets don't harvest fish doesn't mean they don't handle them with a estimated 40% mortality...................

You still think those rivers of your's would be thriving with steelhead if they had nets to swim through?

Keith

I have no idea what your point is, all I ever hear you say about fish recovery comes right out of the back of your boat, nothing your saying has any scientific backing, just like the crap I hear on the river, baseless assumptions being made by uninformed anglers.
If your going to be an armchair fisheries biologist, at least say something that they agree with.

more than 41 million pounds on average. Taylor points out that this would make the aboriginal fishery “fully comparable to the industrial fishery during its heyday between 1883 and 1919, which surpassed 41 million pounds only nine times.”

http://www.nwcouncil.org/history/IndianFishing.asp

Are you that stupid?

Of course you don't know what my point is... You're like one of those people that hears what he wants to hear and just rules everything else out...

So your Oregon rivers haven't been netted for nearly 70 years and they have runs good enough for small harvests. Do you think the LCR tribs would be in the same boat they are now if we didn't have commercial netting on the LCR for the last 70 years?? You telling me the netting has had no effect on the wild steelhead? Hell, just short of 10 years ago over 20,000 wild winter steelhead were handled in tangle nets....

Keith

i do and the handwriting is on the wall that when this selective commercial trash happens sport fishing will suck

I think you guys should either get a room or spend a weekend together fishing.

It may be the case that that would happen, but I am not sure. I am sure at the point where what we have been doing hasn't worked and am ready to try something else. To continue to do the same thing and expect a different outcome is nuts.

I support selective fishing and think it will change the dynamics a least; maybe speed things up but maybe force the issues. The current direction is not working. And I understand the ESA argument and agree with the logic, but that policy is goofy and must be thrust through the heart and burnt with fire.

what is so different ?, other than the commercials getting more fish and screwing up sportfishing and still killing the same amount of esa listed fish how will this help ?

Environmental and cultural consequences
The dam had severe negative consequences for the local Native American tribes whose traditional way of life revolved around salmon as well as for the original shrub steppe habitat of the area. Grand Coulee Dam permanently blocks fish migration (barring construction of a fish ladder)[20] removing over a thousand miles of spawning grounds.[21] By largely eliminating anadromous fish above the Okanogan River, the Grand Coulee Dam also set the stage for the subsequent decision not to provide for fish passage at Chief Joseph Dam (built in 1953)[11]. Chinook, Steelhead, Sockeye and Coho salmon (as well as other important species including Lamprey) are now unable to spawn in the reaches of the Upper Columbia Basin. The extinction of the spawning grounds upstream from the dam has prevented the Spokane and other tribes from holding the first salmon ceremony since 1940.[11] Grand Coulee Dam flooded over 21,000 acres (85 km²) of prime bottom land where Native Americans had been living and hunting for thousands of years, forcing the relocation of settlements and graveyards.[22] Kettle Falls, once a primary Native American fishing grounds, was inundated. The average catch went from a historical average of over 600,000 salmon a year to nothing. In one study, the Army Corps of Engineers estimated the annual loss was over a million fish.[23] The town of Kettle Falls, Washington was relocated. The Columbia Basin Project has affected habitat ranges for species such as whitetail and mule deer, pygmy rabbits and burrowing owls resulting in decreased populations, however, it has created new habitat in the form of wetlands, reservoirs, and riparian corridors.[24] The environmental impact of the dam effectively ended the traditional way of life of the native inhabitants. The government eventually compensated the Colville Indians in the 1990s with a lump settlement of approximately $52 million, plus annual payments of approximately $15 million.[11]

It's nuts to think selective fishing is going to recover the Columbia river runs but what the hell its keeps everyone busy and that's the real plan..

Grand Coulee Dam started being built 1933 producing power 1941.

On the time line we sort of jumped over the wild CR salmon that were caught by the walls of death in the Columbia to being caught in the ocean as well.

The marine factor is one of the components of where the 2% ESA which is established by the feds which in turn impacts the amount of encounters we can have on some of the CR wild fish.

Ocean caught wild fish still plays a role in what happens in terminal fisheries including the CR. Just because we don't see them being caught doesn't mean it isn't happening.

EDIT: After rereading the 62 page report by the feds,

any bets that anderson is dealing with what koening was dealing with ??, this selective rubbish isnt about recovery its about hatchery funding

Fish managers are already overstressed at the thought of potential funding cuts if they don't solve the hatchery surplus question soon.

http://www.newsdata.com/enernet/fishletter/fishltr111.html#1

Thanks and so the tribes are hoping for 5 million fish in 25 years and the Feds just want to cut hatchery production and let the Sealions and the Cormorants finish it off..I know who I 'm supporting!

Changing the harvest method for commercials under the present allocation process will completely screw sport fishing.
WTF are these idiots thinking? Change the way commercials harvest and hope the federal government changes the way they manage CR ESA mortality guidelines?
This might work, if the feds had any track record of actually helping ESA listed stocks.
Their record speaks for it's self, they spend money like a drunk sailor, yet they can't point to any successes in recovering any stocks, in fact two of the original 5 CR listed stocks have declined.
Let's hope the politicians step up and stop this train wreck.

Not sure what's causing the change but I'm talking to a lot of people down here and there all saying the same thing, lots of high fins..King and Coho, so what ever this can be attributed to we need more of it..My guess its the old judge and his foot in the ass of the BPA..

I think Boater's got a point about Anderson (WDFW) sacrificing sport fishing quality, that is if he even cares, to get hatchery harvests significantly increased to maintain Mitchell Act hatchery funding. There isn't much state money spent on Col. R hatcheries, mostly federal.

Judge Redden and other actions that tweak the edges of fish productivity will help, but meaningful recovery remains unlikely as long as the root cause of low productivity (dam passage) is not significantly reversed.

Sg

It's all going to hell in a hand basket..........

Keith

I'm guessing since were dealing with very small numbers compared to what the Columbia used to produce pre-dams any improvement shows up as a big % gain..

a good example is last years coho on the lower columbia, the non-tribal gillnetters had around 4.17 percent esa take and sports had around 3.33, the gillnetters were modeled to catch about 30k "any" coho and sports were modeled to catch about 100k "hatchery coho", any guesses as to how many "hatchery" coho the gillnetters could catch if they had a lower release mortality rate with the new methods than sports do ??

It seems to me that sportsfishermen are worth a lot to the state of Wa and should be to WDFG. As such wdfg would be putting their jobs on the line if they can not keep the sports folks happy. Imagine a major loss of license sales and its effect on wdfg's budget, and the loss of jobs statewide related to sportsfishing. Anyone that totally ignores sportsfishing is crazy. I was on the Skok this morning, yes the skok with eggs, nada with three bites, there were at least 3 to 4 hundred fishermen approx on the open river, just add up the costs for them alone on one small river, then imagine what the C R losses would be if no sportsssssssss

NW Panhandler,

You make a serious mistake of overestimating the importance of sport fishing licenses for salmon and steelhead. WDFW can live without it. The majority of fishing licenses are sold to anglers who fish lowland lakes for resident trout about five times a year, at most. We hard core anglers cost the Dept. more than we pay. Boater has lousy social skills, but you should try to analyze what he's saying.

Sg