I'm fine with selective fisherys if the numbers work, but it's the mentality that as long as your throwing something back your doing the resourse a big favor that's scaring me.

I'm continually amazed by the clear fact that so many folks can't, or won't grasp the most fundamental and basic tenets of how fishing seasons on the LCR, especially for spring Chinook, are set.

They are not set...ever...by the amount of hatchery fish harvested by a user group.

They are set...always...by the amount of wild fish killed by a user group.

Always.

Your allotted impact gives you 500 ESA fish to kill...4 to one hatchery fish to wild fish in the mixed stock...

50% release mortality in your fishery? Bonk 4000 hatchery fish, release 1000 wild fish, kill 500 wild fish.

25% release mortality in your fishery? Bonk 8000 hatchery fish, release 2000 wild fish, kill 500 wild fish.

5% release mortality in your fishery? Bonk 40,000 hatchery fish, release 10,000 wild fish, kill 500 wild fish.

The ONLY variable that changes relative to release mortality is how many hatchery fish you kill...the amount of ESA wild spring Chinook stays constant.

This is not rocket science, nor is it quantum mechanics...it's very, very simple algebra, combined with a very, very basic understanding of how fisheries work under the ESA.

Fish on...

Todd

Any manager from ODFW/WDFW will tell you the same, you try and pass it on and holy chit it's like your talking to a bunch of camel jockeys about burning the Koran.

Leadbouncer, what you said here tells me you dont have clue one as to how the fish are managed on the columbia, do yourself a favore and get educated on the matter.

If the DFW's were pushing the fantasy, I'd be especially aggrieved...but even they don't pretend that anything other than more hatchery fish ending up in commercial totes is the goal...why any sportfisherman would not only suppor this, but make up utterly ridiculous justifications for it, is beyond me.

The State DFW's do things all the time that don't even pass the straight face test, and not even they will pretend that there's anything beyond increased commercial harvest...downstream, and in front of us...as the goal.

Fish on...

Todd

I used to believe that if more sport anglers would just get more involved in the process, good things would happen to sportfishing.
Now I think the average angler isn't smart enough to pour pizz out of a boot.

Boater, its not the first time that has been said, nor is Ed the only person who ever said it. But since you seem to believe and [hang] on whatever is printed in the paper, you can have that riddle all to yourself.

are you saying dont believe anything the cca puts out in a news paper release ?

Im saying its not news. It was said in Blakes Committee in January.

i agree and whats interesting is how commercial fishing happy phil anderson and the commission have become, simply amazing.

"At the end of the day it's got to be something we can all make money on," Frazier said

http://www.cbbulletin.com/393123.aspx

Well said, simply amazes me how many red rubber noses are worn by those advocating some of these groups.....

Keith

Also states that:

This year's research has three main goals: evaluating whether and/or which gears can efficiently catch fish, the general condition of the fish and the extent of any short-term mortality.

The plan for 2011 will include a long-term mortality study and the development of an implementation plan that maps out strategies for investment, marketing, equipping, location and gear type.

Selective commercial fishing gear is moving in the right direction--- just like all good plans do.

It's like putting on a wet bandaid.......

Keith

We are not trying to stop an infection. We are trying to stop the extirpation. You cant have recovery without fish.

Sure you can.... You can broodstock the crap out of them, we're headed down that path already......

How much are willing to pay for a guides license?

where has it been written that if they go to new selective methods they are going to kill less esa listed fish ?

There isn't anything written in any state proposals that switching to a commercial selective harvest method will in fact reduce the number of ESA mortalities.
Further there doesn't seem to be any scientific evidence to support it either, no modeling that shows any possibility of killing fewer ESA listed species.