Ok, Freespool is on record against selective harvest in the Alaskan and BC waters, in addtion to Washington and Oregon.

Want to boycott California cause they banned gillnets?

What was the amount of money the US sent to BC to let more of our fish get back here. 30 million? So we paid to raise the fish and paid again to make sure noone caught them.

US gov bought off the tribes with 900,000,000 to drop the lawsuit against the dams. So we paid for the fish, the dams and the treaty got more expensive. Then they send money to local politicians to influence their votes, like dumping the commission, so they only have to influence the govt and the director. Representative govt at its best. 900 mill could have bought a lot of wind generation and solar panels and done more to stimulate the economy than paying off the tribes. 900 mill probably could fix every culvert in the state.

But, selective harvest is the problem, because they have selective hearing or reading skills and refuse to acknowledge getting fish back to the beds is one tool. Just like keeping unwanted fish out is one tool. (60% is not all our fish airhead)

Nope, I'm against idiots making false statements concerning our fisheries, and how they should be managed.
And you seem to be the dimmest of the dimbulbs in that regard.

got something crawling under your skin?

when do you think this will happen ??, on one hand we have the feds wanting hatchery fish out of the system because they jeopardize wild esa listed fish and on the other hand we have the hsrg wanting to put hatchery fish into the system to help them.

The HSRG recommends a small, integrated, conservation program at the Grays River hatchery (94,000 uniquely tagged, but not adipose clipped, to avoid selective harvest) to sustain the population until natural productivity and abundance has improved to sustain the population.

http://www.hatcheryreform.us/hrp_downloa...ok_01-31-09.pdf

So were going selective and now the plan is to not clip certain hatchery stocks in order to build that run of hatchery stocks...What can I say other than..

So whats new here? Its called 4 H

Yup the 4 H's, harvest is the only one NWPC doesn't have control over..

http://www.cbbulletin.com/395572.aspx

Interesting article, but this looks like your trying to change the subject.


The boogey man conspiracies should be worth a couple pages.

How would it work best to disconnect hatchery harvest from ESA harvest? Assuming it can be done.

If selective commercial harvest would increase the number of hatchery fish caught relative to the number of commercial ESA harvest,
and if that did increase in commercial hatchery harvest would subtract from available sportie harvest (commercials catch more, sporties catch less) what, in an ideal world, would be the desired laws around ESA fish and/or hatchery fish?

In other words, if changing to selective fishing means commercial folks catch more at the expense of sporties, what regulations would be needed to rectify that?

I am a wild and crazy guy!

the goal of the wdfw is to get more hatchery fish for the commercials so they can justify hatchery funding and once that happens there will be nothing we can do about it.

You could'nt get out of a paper bag.

In two states right? That would be one helluva compact.
Wa state will just ignore putting 13,000 jobs and 900,000,000 dollars in business in jeopardy in this state.
They sell 236,000 crab licenses. why stop at one initiative when you could write two or three.

How many signatures are needed to qualify an initiative or referendum?
Based on the number of votes cast for the office of Governor at the last regular state gubernatorial election, the number of signatures required for initiatives is: 241,153 and the number for referenda is: 120,557.



"While the Commission has several responsibilities, its primary role is to establish policy and direction for fish and wildlife species and their habitats in Washington and to monitor the Department's implementation of the goals, policies and objectives established by the Commission. The Commission also classifies wildlife and establishes the basic rules and regulations governing the time, place, manner, and methods used to harvest or enjoy fish and wildlife.

The Commission receives its authority from the passage of Referendum 45 by the 1995 Legislature and public at the 1995 general election. The Commission is the supervising authority for the Department. With the 1994 merger of the former Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife, the Commission has comprehensive species authority as well.

Through formal public meetings and informal hearings held around the state, the Commission provides an opportunity for citizens to actively participate in management of Washington's fish and wildlife."

OK, so the game is fixed.

How do we switch to a different game?

What do we tell our reps and senators? Assuming, just for fun, that it matters?

What are the goal's your trying to achieve Doc Rick?

Need to clearly define goals. If the goal is to put more/lots/enough (all of which need definition) naturally reproducing fish on the spawning grounds, then you need to not only allow them to live to spawn but have to reduce the hatchery fish on the grounds.

You can reduce hatchery fish by reducing the number stocked or by fishing more selectively.

As has been noted earlier and often, though, we have to stop killing the non-hatchery fish in order to increase their numbers.

It would appear that the goal of WDFW, NOAA, and the Tribes is to at least maintain the current fisheries and prevent the naturally produced fish from getting any rarer. I don't think recovery is really a goal unless it can be accomplished under current fishing patterns.

This includes the Alaska and Canada fishing patterns where they take lower-48 fish.

Both Oregon and Washington have state statutes directing the fish and wildlife agencies to provide for both recreational and commercial harvest opportunity.

Oregon State Law (ORS 506.109) directs the Fish and Wildlife Commission to provide for recreational and commercial harvest opportunity and to "manage food fish for optimum economic, commercial, recreational, and aesthetic benefits". Drift nets are currently the only legal harvest gear for commercial salmon fisheries in the Columbia River. However, ODFW and WDFW have the authority to regulate gear requirements, hours of fishing, and times and areas open for harvest, and use all of these to manage the fisheries.

The question of whether commercial fisheries should continue on the Columbia River is primarily a social, rather than a biological, issue. Commercial and recreational fisheries are both managed to ensure that the incidental mortality of wild fish resulting from their handling in fisheries falls within limits established to ensure their survival and recovery.


WASHINGTON
§ 77.04.012. Mandate of department and commission

Wildlife, fish, and shellfish are the property of the state. The commission, director, and the department shall preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish in state waters and offshore waters.

The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource. In a manner consistent with this goal, the department shall seek to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state. The department shall promote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve recreational and commercial fishing in this state.

The commission may authorize the taking of wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish only at times or places, or in manners or quantities, as in the judgment of the commission does not impair the supply of these resources.

The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.

Recognizing that the management of our state wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources depends heavily on the assistance of volunteers, the department shall work cooperatively with volunteer groups and individuals to achieve the goals of this title to the greatest extent possible.

Nothing in this title shall be construed to infringe on the right of a private property owner to control the owner's private property.

Just to throw gasoline on the fire, the RCW talks about preserving the commerical industry in WA, not the non-Indian commercial industry. While WA can't regulate the tribes, it can ensure that their commerical fisheries have fish to harvest.

You could'nt get out of a paper bag.

[/quote]

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

I agree I don't see any cleary defined goals here, if NWPC and NMFS saw the nontribal gillnets as the problem they could easy buy the fleet for less than 15million. Peanuts to these guys that are dumping 100x's of millions in to various recovery projects, I'm sure they just view it as an allocation issue and would be a waste of money..

they need to spend equal time developing new gear for the sports side, right now all effort is on getting the commercials more fish with new gear.

# Develop, promote and implement alternative fishing gear to maximize catch of hatchery-origin fish with minimal mortality to native salmon and steelhead.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/policies/c3619.html

To me, the writing is on the wall....

First they'll test selective methods... Success rates won't be as high as expected to sustain a full force selective fishery...

The big wigs will step in because we aren't getting enough hatchery fish out of the river and off the beds and hatchery plants will be cut even further....

Just a thought.... Time will tell...

Keith