leadbouncer, why do they want to develop more selective fishing methods for the commercials so they can have increased access to hatchery fish ?, where are these fish going to come from ?

(b) Continue to provide opportunities and resources to further develop selective commercial fishing techniques with a goal of reducing mortality of listed fish and increasing access to hatchery fish.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/policies/c3617_attch1.pdf

Continue moving away from allocation-based fishery management to objective-based fishery management. This shift allows solutions that may improve both fisheries, rather than improving one fishery at the expense of another. This approach will require both sides to concede some ground on their stated positions in order to gain actual improvements in their fisheries. It will also require investment of additional resources in commercial fishery infrastructure and several years’ patience to implement changes.

Why someone would possibly think that equitable catch sharing between the tribal fisheries and the non-tribal fisheries would result in more fish for sporties is beyond me...how could you possibly come to this conclusion?

Equitable between the tribal and non-tribal? Maybe...but even if so, you're going to see those fish in Cowboy totes, not sportie fish boxes...after all, they're the ones who are investing the money and time to reduce their mortality rate, not us..."us" who actually fight and argue to keep ours as high as it is...

Fish on...

Todd

Actually this is how the WDFW long term plan reads.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/policies/c3617_attch1.pdf

Long Term:

(d) Continue moving away from allocation-based fishery management to objective-based fishery management. This shift allows solutions that may improve both fisheries, rather than improving one fishery at the expense of another. This approach will require both sides to concede some ground on their stated positions in order to gain actual improvements in their fisheries. It will also require investment of additional resources in commercial fishery infrastructure and several years’ patience to implement changes.

So the correct answer to this threads title is selective fishing won’t ruin sport fishing when the long term goal is to improve both groups harvest respectively. Considering how the longer term mortality study does. The closer to the recent commercial selective live release mortality that was 1/10th of 1% the more fish shared by commercials and sport in the LCR when the study is done. It could be great fishing in the CR in a few short years.

Great concept the Washington Commission has Louie, problem is theres not a heck of alot of math behind it, just handle and rehandle. Good Luck selling this to NMFS.

in the catch sharing fishery with the tribes for spring chinook how can you improve the harvest of both sport and non-tribal commercials without going over the catch sharing numbers with the tribes ?

This seems a lot more complex than it is...here's the very simple outline:

1. The pie is not getting bigger.

2. People who fish before and in front of us will be eating more of the pie.

Questions?

Fish on...

Todd

If you fish the Rivers or the Tribs your pie might get alot larger after PFMC/NMFS recalculate the H/R impacts of the Ocean Fisherys using the report Henry Yuon presented to PFMC. That will happen in March before the seasons are set according to a very reliable source/manager that looked sick even talking about it.

do you think sportfishing would improve in willipa bay and grays harbor if the wdfw let purse seine boats start fishing those area`s in early august for hatchery salmon ?

In Willapa? No...it will get a lot worse. Grays Harbor? Depends, I guess.

Fish on...

Todd

SBD...I know the salty dogs love their fisheries...but I think if we took a good look at the release mortalties involved in ocean fishing, especially shaker blackmouth and coho, we'd start looking a lot like those commercial fisheries that kill four fish for every one they actually toss in the hold...

Fish on...

Todd

I think Jane has a slightly different plan for everyone S/C that likes to catch fish than the one they would prefer. Much less to catch in much smaller area's is what I see coming down the pipe.

T in GH if you did August you would land right on top of the Summer Chinook. If you want to get a feel for what the real mortality for Chinook is in transition water is, ask Francis.

Seining is a tricky thing ( I did a lot of it years ago ) and mortality rates are dependant on location. In transition water you might as well gill net them as most will not survive to spawn. If you beach seine it is doable but it takes a lot of time and a proper location. If you rush it and bunch the herd the pressure in the net will literally squeeze them to death or run them out of DO. Never seen a commercial spend and extra half hour on a set to insure no mortality. That is not how they make money.

Rivrguy,

Good stuff! What were the issues you encountered in seining? It seems like seines would be easier to manage wild vs hatch.

Gill nets are easy to understand since the desired effect is to snag whatever comes in to drown or get snagged and whacked.
Tangle nets are another issue but I am not convinced of their superiority, at all. Too labor intensive with no up side to the fisher, gotta pull the net to untangle something while missing a catchable fish? Why miss a fish to save one? I would not do that and doubt most commercial fishers would either. I am years out of the game and would like to hear a commercial's perspective if I am wrong, right or elsewhere.

I hope everyone had a most enjoyable Christmas.
So where was I? Oh yah.

b. Long Term:

i. in general.

(d) Continue moving away from allocation-based fishery management to objective-based fishery management. This shift allows solutions that may improve both fisheries, rather than improving one fishery at the expense of another. This approach will require both sides to concede some ground on their stated positions in order to gain actual improvements in their fisheries. It will also require investment of additional resources in commercial fishery infrastructure and several years’ patience to implement changes.

We have seen additional resources going into commercial selective live capture tests since this was written a couple of years ago, This says that the long term goal is to shift allocation to objective fishery management and by doing so that may improve both commercial and sport fisheries. Preliminary results coming in this last year indicate that the improvement to both commercials and sport fisheries should be upgraded from may improve to will improve considering the possibility of upwards to 12X +/-more fish to catch. It also states that compromise will need to be part of the equation for improvement of both parties. Good time to work out other pertinent details like who fishes when ,where, location, and basic dates.

Todd used 10X earlier in this thread to illustrate a point so let’s use that.
Using the 2% incidental impact, Selective live capture would be able to harvest 10X more salmon than Gill nets killing the same ESA listed( of course the pending mortality rate from future tests will determine exactly if it will be 10X +or-)

The tribes are going to want their 50% because in 1974 Judge George Boldt decided in United States v. Washington (384 F. Supp. 312) that Belloni's "fair and equitable share" was, in fact, 50 percent of all the harvestable fish destined for the tribes' traditional fishing places. The following year, Judge Belloni applied the 50/50 standard to U.S. v. Oregon and the Columbia River.

The folks on here that don’t believe that this won’t be under the jurisdiction of US v Oregon management agreement meaning that the tribes and Idaho aren’t part of the process are dreamin.
For giggles and grins let’s say this is a hearing and here is your chance to present why the tribe should not be entitled to their share. Here is your chance to present an iron clad case connecting the dots between all your pertinent information for a slam dunk case. I’m not sure if anybody has wrestled 50% away from the tribes recently but Good luck trying.

Should when you lose--- that would be a win for the ESA wild listed because now that represents 50% that would normally have died in the gill nets will now live and continue their journey up river while 5X more fish are available to be shared by sport and commercial harvest in the LCR. Keith that should make you feel about 2 ½ X less frustrated. Ten year avg. sports have access to 18,488 harvestable salmon X2 ½ =46,220 for sports a considerable amount more fish to catch considering the future success of commercial selective live capture. We also have to consider that some years the maximum fish available to harvest wasn’t achieved due to fishery closures because of high incidental impact being hit to early.

Why anybody would want gill nets over selective live capture gear just doesn’t understand the benefits.

In addition to these benefits above thousand upon thousand of steelhead saved by not throwing them away dead in the up to 66% mortality rate of gill nets and save countless sturgeon from bycatch mortality also.

DR Well we used tangle nets broodstocking with success as long as we were out of transition water ( the fish slimed up ) In transition the fish were OK BUT then as the days went on the rubs ( even hand prints from holding ) fungus up and the head area really was a mess. Second when lifting the net if you don't take up the slack and get under the fish you are squeezing the hell out of the fish when you bring it in the boat. Tangle netting in bays or transition water is not all that much better than gill nets.

Beach seining the first issue is location as you have to have gravel bottom. Mud just turns into a soupy mess that the fish run out of DO. If you do mud, yeah they may swim away but they don't recover to spawn.

Then you have loading and by that I mean how many fish are in the net. When you make your sweep you then bring the forward tail in and as the U shrinks the fish become bunched into the bow of the net. The faster you bring in the greater the massing in the bow and the damage to the fish. You need at least 3 ft of water at the bow and you simply sort by had throwing over the net the non target fish. As the load decreases you continue bringing the net in so as to be able to get your hands on the fish. If you dip net then your now adding stress plus hand sort, at greatly increased rate. If your in mud then kiss your ass good bye. In addition if your location lacks reasonable flow ( current ) then time is everything as the mass packed in the bow will run out of DO.

Purse seining? All the above apply minus the mud, just differently. Simply put it matters not if it is seined, hook & line, or whatever if you get Chinook or Coho in the transition between salt and fresh the mortality is huge. Whatever happens it seems you wind their clocks down and they may survive then but most don't survive to spawn. Now we did no in depth studies but captured brood and held them in 100% ideal circumstances and could not get past the mortality. Agency staff working with us did everything they could ( with more experience & skills ) and could not over come this either. Move upstream and the fish slimed up and we went to beach seines and snagging ( much different than your mental image at this minute as it was very specialized with location, tackle, transport ) and dropped down to around a 4% mortality.

Now the agency staff ( if any are still around ) were well aware of all this and this is why I find this selective thing so unreal. If you want to selective harvest their is only one way to do without losses. Fish wheels! They can be designed to sort and return to the stream rather effectively. All this net stuff is about trying to maintain the tradition harvest methodology of the INDIVIDUAL. Better they formed co ops, used restoration money for low interest loans to get a start up, and got it down to ZERO impacts on non targeted species.

Wish that they could have had some preliminary results on the longer term mortality studies.

I know that these purse seines have been modified. The handling of the fish sounds different than on this link.
I do understand the concept of the longer the nets are not fishing because of empting the nets of fish = less money.

Maybe an observer needed on these boats in the LCR. More expense for observer in addition to already larger crew.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir8QiLqPhjY

"Maybe an observer needed on these boats in the LCR. More expense for observer in addition to already larger crew"



I think you CCA guys need to have the punch analyzed after your next meeting.

Don't get your panties all tied in a knot.

If there is a concern then it should be at least be involved in the process.

Nothing to do with CCA.

LL their are two types of moralities. One at the time of intercept and handling. Second is if they go on to spawn successfully. We found that captured brood if held for a time and then released failed to spawn naturally. A study I read some time back in Alaska ( or some place ) had really high mortality in the bay but as the intercept locations progressed up stream it dropped way down. Until at the hatchery you could seine them up, sort & toss, with almost no mortality. There seems to be a link of some sort ( I am not a Bio ) between when & where the stress occurs as the fish goes from salt to fresh and the changes in the creature with the length of time until spawning after handling. Pretty much a hard link to.

This is why many of us who live in GH have issues with sport C&R in the bay with Chinook the most vulnerable. It is a math thing with harvest always and it matters little as to who or what places the stress on the creature and if the access to harvest is viable. Conservation or harvest, how / where, always a gut check.