Strange indeed. Wow. Sounds more appropriate as the motto for a subset of AA members who started a fishing club.

"Drinking our way to Sobriety"...?

Fish on...

Todd

Todd,

You know that WDFW's Legislative mandate does not include recovery, so it shouldn't be that surprising. It is pretty goofy tho. Kinda' like f***ing for chastity.

Sg

ODFW's mission statement says that they will manage native stocks to recovery and then manage those stocks as a limited harvest fishery.

Boater,

Don’t you ever pay attention.

The majority of PS Chinook are intercepted in BC/AK waters with Hoko river topping the list at 96%+.
What we get is left overs from other fisheries.

I’m on the fence when it comes to hatcheries. My two initial gut feelings are

1) I might not like hatcheries

2)and if it was the intent or goal to get rid of commercial salmon fishing on the west coast they would close all hatcheries and throw away the key.

Of course WDFW would be way ahead in the game to convert hatcheries into land containment fish farms creating a revenue stream, instead of throwing money into a never ending black hole.

With that thought--- everybody have a nice safe holiday.--- I’m out of here.

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/news/2010/august/082510.asp


Fishing without hatcheries, would have been enough to support a small native villiage of 25 or 30 with a life expectancy of 30 years old..

So can anyone show any scientific data that clearly shows that harvest is indeed a recovery tool on the CR?

What does science have to do with how we manage fish, anywhere?

We know, from more than a century of accumulated data, what we need to do to have abundant wild fish runs. Economics, Treaty Law, Society Needs, the next election, all trump science.

+1 (I'd say more than "1", but I wouldn't want to skew the results)

where is the model that shows that those selective fisherys are going to help recover fish ??, on the CCA website it says they helped develop 11 months of selective fisheries that will help to meet both hatchery and harvest reform objectives, where is the data that supports that ??, also, you seem to think that the fisheries up north only impact our fish, did you know that we have fisheries that impact there fish ?

If you want the data, go back to 2008 and compare season dates of every river and area fishery in the state. It was part of the NoF process. The cca reps on NoF traveled to California to complete the process. It didnt cost you a penny and you want proof ? How about you showing us the model that proves that non selective sport and commercial fisheries will not exterminate the last wild fish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beardstown_Ladies



Intill I see some better numbers I remain very skeptical the whole concept actually works..Anyone remember this little group, some big corporation put one of the Ladys on their board. Everyone was buying there books and wanted to know how to invest like them..

Great comparison. Money managers who lied about results. Therefore, you want proof of results before the changes are implemented ?

Don't expect anyone to wait around until you're convinced.

• 2 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following
• 3findings:
• 4 (1) Several species of salmon native to the rivers
• 5 of the United States are highly migratory, interacting
• 6 with salmon originating from Canada, Japan,
• 7 Russia, and South Korea and spending portions of
• 8 their life history outside of the territorial waters of
• 9 the United States. Recognition of the migratory and
• 10 trans boundary nature of salmon species has led
• 11 countries of the North Pacific to seek enhanced co
• 12ordination and cooperation through multilateral and
• 13 bi-lateral agreements.

This brings up by catch, poaching and 10’s of thousands of miles of old parts of ghost drift nets in the ocean of old fisheries brought up earlier in this thread.

Just because you don’t see it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. Out of sight----- out of mind.

1)bycatch documented and nondocumented

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/inseason/chinook_salmon_mortality.pdf

Large amount of documented chinook caught . Reports of 130 other species involved in by catch not documented with numbers..

2)poaching

I. Twelve hundred metric tons (2.64 million pounds) of illegal salmon and steelhead were eventually smuggled to three companies in Japan. The Japanese government informed the U.S. that one of the companies involved received a "substantial fine" .

How many more operations are going on not caught? What % of drug smugglers are caught?

3)old discarded drift nets

It has been asserted that lost and discarded sections of driftnet ball up fairly quickly and cease to ghost fish in a short period of time (Mio, Domon, Yoshida, and Matsumura 1990). Although monofilament driftnet fragments may eventually form a loose ball, they frequently trail long streamers of torn net and continue to ensnare animals attracted to the floating mass. A two kilometer section of driftnet can form a mass more than seven meters in diameter (Hayworth pers. comm. 1991). Much evidence exists to indicate these tangled masses of net continue to ghost fish for long periods, both on the surface (Gooder 1989; Ignell, Bailey, and Joyce 1986; von Brandt 1984; Degange and Newby 1980) and on the bottom
fragments may continue to entrap animals for years, including populations
well within the 200-mi exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and territorial waters
of the United States.

Louie the estimated wild coho mortalitys in last year selective ocean coho season was almost 70000..Is that working for you?

They didn't lie, they just didn't know what the hell they were doing..Its a great comparison.

For some reason, killing the same amount of wild fish "selectively" is preferable to killing them "non-selectively"...even when the "selectively" results in poorer sportfishing and more...lots more...fish in the commercial totes.

The ideological grasp that the believers have is awesome...they not only don't want to hear the truth, but fully embrace the lie, even when they are shown...repeatedly...that the only real change is in the amount of fish that will end up in commercial totes, and the amount of fish that will end up in sportfishing coolers.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. Until the believers actually take the time to learn what "selective" means, and what "allowable ESA impacts" means...two very simple and easily ID'd terms...they'll never embrace the truth, just the hype.

the only difference would be the length of the season, the end result of dead esa listed fish would be the same

maybe you should volunteer to be a guest speaker at a cca meeting and explain to them how the system realy works ??, and if you want i can come with and hand out color crayons so they can take notes

Yes I'm laughing at you ---not with you,

You must be starting to believe your own propaganda.

Boater this is how the system works.

NOAA proposed and implemented integrating hatchery with wild in the CR by using their science. In the final draft there was concerns submitted during public input period that were answered similar to your questions you ask on here with ESA listed fish mixed with hatchery. . I suggest you look them up for your answers.

Obviously, NOAA could care less about your concerns because now we have mass amount of hatchery fish mixed with ESA listed wild.
NOAA science now dictates “use them or lose them” to keep funding for hatcheries while keeping hatchery fish off spawning beds.

WDFW already is testing selective commercial gear to reduce mortality rate = more fish off spawning beds.

So what is your proposal or plan of action to “use them or lose them”?
So far a handful of you are supporting cutting hatchery funding by just sitting there.

PS I would suggest if you have any problems with the system on ESA listed and hatchery fish to contact NOAA.They started it and now they are apparently attempting to end it.