i dont think failure of this new gear is an option, i`d say they will figure it out and catch more fish and thru some new mathematical formula they will convince the feds that with the new amount of fish they are catching it will make a difference on the spawning grounds and very little if any hatchery funding will be cut, the commercials will be viewed as the saviors of the fish.

NOAA :: National Marine Fisheries Service
Promotes sustainable fisheries, recovery of protected species, and the health of coastal marine habitats in the USA.
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ - Cached - Similar
Apply for a fishing permit?
Southeast
Contact Us
Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil Spill About Us
FishFacts
Law Enforcement
Office of Protected Resources
More results from noaa.gov »


Seems pretty clear to me.

it`s really a transparent policy that can be manipulated in several ways.

why do you think the wdfw is testing different selective commercial fishing methods in the lower columbia river ?? [/quote]


WDFW? Cause they were told to. Didnt NOAA go around Koenings and set up testing with the tribes? Their goal is to save wild fish, without kicking commies out of the river. There is too much push-back from local politicians. You notice all the politicians who preach selective harvest yet let everyone else do the work. Ya, they exert some influence in funding, but they are not kicking them out of the river. It would not matter if they did. They just fish somewhere else and I have no information on the impacts in coastal waters.

Your supposition of why these departments are doing this is wrapped up in conspiracy. I suspect they would rather not deal with any of it. You have a defeated attitude and expect to get screwed. Unfortunately, you see nothing positive about the changes. You think, we lack the ability to persuade and have no case. You are wrong.

I agree with the manipulation comment. That is why its important to have fishing orgs and voters involved. Yet, the people who are not members seem to know all about, what the organizations want to do or intend to do than the members. Every election, fish advocacy gives way to petty differences about business and social issues. For once, just get this done.
I found a democrat [outside my district] for fish and he is an incumbant, he even said we have too many seals. But, I was the person who told him how many we have and the damage they are doing. I have 3 in my district and only one of them is for the fish. These people are spending too much and raising taxes. It isnt likely to change, but the fish are running out of time. Go find out where the candidates stand. If they don't know its a problem to their constituents, they won't ask questions or get involved.

We get the crumbs because we haven't been proactive enough, before the elections and find out where candidates stand. Other than the Candidates for Governor, what local candidate has taken a public stand on our fisheries?
The Jacobsen, Haugens, Hargroves, Hatfields in commercial fishing districts, are not confused who their constituents are. We vote our business or social issues and role the dice on everything else. Its no wonder that Slade Gorton was so successful in this state.

Twice as many Senators, 33-15 voted to get rid of the commission as keep it. Is that a reflection of constituents or ignoring that direct representation is more important, than a commercial fishermans paycheck? Some people don't deserve representation?

Fact is, only a few people had the heads up, the meeting took place and most of the hunting clubs either were not involved or never considered what anglers wanted. The Senators in the YEA column never considered what anglers wanted. Thats our fault, too.

Is there a sportfisherman on this site, who would throw hunters under the bus and not support their hunting opportunities?

I don't know if you found a loophole, but this shows that the sports aren't getting 50% of the take.

2266 would change some of the language in that law. It would have to be introduced again.

Just need more sport friendly legislators. Dont depend on one governor to provide a fish friendly commission. It can disappear as quickly as it was created. If the commission gets heat for standing up for conservation and sports, we have to stay in contact with our reps. People may have forgotten the reactions of a few Senators when they were confronted at a public forum, during the session in 2009.

if you dont believe me call the wdfw and ask them.

thats because we are going to get screwed.

If the target is lower river hatchery coho and kings its going to have a hard time passing the viable test with the mark rates I'm seeing.

That's why they are testing commercial selective gear to bring the 40% mortality rate down of gill nets. Trying to help eliminate some of the waste of drop out and by catch along the way as well, while trying to keep hatchery off spawning beds.

I read that sports could/should try to drop their mortality rate as well on this thread.

Probably not a popular idea, but using artificial bait only like C&R rivers to help with less mortality issues. What the mortality rate number drops to ---- I have no idea---- but it does keep some rivers open for fishing in this state that would be normally closed.

Just watch the gnashing of teeth by sporties, who widely decry all user groups but themselves, when someone even mentions perhaps going to barbless hooks, much less no bait. The hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a knife...but it would take a big knife to get the job done.

Fish on...

Todd

Sport anglers have taken steps to lower their release mortality rate, none adipose fin clipped fish must now stay in the water while being released.
But the hypocrisy is their mortality release rate of 10% was not adjusted down to reflect this new release technique.
The failed CR barbless hook rule didn't include lowering the sport release mortality either.

no problem, just tell me who you talked to so I can verify it.

Why is it a failed barbless hook rule?

Oregon used the best available science, which says barbless is not the deciding factor in mortality, but rather where the hook penetrates the fish.

Hypocrisy is continuing to rail against selective harvest while continuing to kill wild steelhead by catching and releasing them to die, all while decrying that person whom decides to exercise his lawful right to harvest one wild steelhead a year.

Jesus you must get dizzy spinning your head around trying to see which side of your mouth your speaking out of!

Fishy

Not a tough concept, given knife and gunshot wounds.


But they had the chance to outlaw treble hooks and didnt do it.

Baseless feel good rules that don't lower sport mortality percentages might seem like a good idea, but the science on the issue says otherwise.
If WDFW doesn't like the science, then they should budget a study on the matter, Oregon doesn't seem willing to throw out their science in favor of a feel good rule.

Perhaps we need a hook website survey on salt water fishing in Washington, where barbless hooks are required to fish and in some cases have a season at all. Many of the saltys I know are using circle hook, that apparently dont hook too well in the areas that kill fish. I see no reason they could not be used for herring in the CR.

You and SBD often site reports which may prove your comment, but fail to post them. Who paid for the study is also a consideration.

ODFW funded the extensive hook mortality study, many refer to it as the "Toman Study".