When it comes to the utilities and the tribes, neither want to pay for clipping.

Sorry keith you are out numbered. We are going down that road and we should find out. There are a lot of groups who care a lot about fish and they do not like anglers or commercials. The feds are just asking for a lawsuit.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Keith

That's all fine and dandy.... I may be out numbered, just stating the obvious....

Keith

Why would they spend $$$$$$$$$$ on testing gear to selective fish when they don't have enough $$$$$$$$$$ to clip enough fish to make the program work? The only thing this circus is missing is a fat lady and somebody selling popcorn..

One thing that baffles me is why do we go on with the smoke screen, the smoke screen of percentages of mis-clips or non-clipped hatchery fish that we call "wilds".

It's bullshiat and everyone knows it...

IMHO, it should be unacceptable to release ANY hatchery raised salmonids that aren't fin clipped in some fashion, something that you can visibly I.D. that it's a hatchery fish. It's BS that they CWT tag and don't fin clip the %'s of fish that they do.... For god's sake, they're HATCHERY FISH! Better yet, all the do-gooders assume them for WILD FISH!

Keith

Well then the fish that are not clipped should be defunded. You'll probably get a chance to testify.
And you are wrong. We dont assume they are wild fish. There is no other category.

Yeah, just ask the general public when you're at the boat ramps... Most people don't even have the clue that there are fish that have CWT tags in their heads that aren't clipped in any fashion...

Keith

They dont know and they dont care. You see more fish than they do, so go testify.

Every person that cca signs up, helps pay for the lobbyists and lawyers that go to bat for your sorry ass on a variety of issues in DC. That includes sueing NMFS.

If the governor succeeds in dumping the dept in with Parks and Recreation, which apparently has a 60 million dollar hole, you'll wish we had triple the membership. The commission is on the block too.

??, didnt think you could back up your great theory

Troll

why dont you take a shot at explaining how it will work ?

You'd have better luck teaching a chip how to solve calculus problems.
The only way selective commercial fishing can't negatively effect sport fishing, is to relegate it to the SAFE Areas.
And I would support that action.

Better go get a brain scan Barney, I agreed with you.

You have lost Boater.

It ain't going to move to the SAFE areas, at least not in the near future...which is too bad.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. And when it becomes fully operational, it can do nothing but reduce sportfishing opportunity, at least for whatever species they are targeting at the time.

What would stop it from happening?
From it's conception some 14 years ago, the plan was to move commercials off the mainstem, the schedule for that has long since past.
Oregon just elected a Governor who supports the SAFE Areas as a means to remove the commercials from the main river and invigorate the economy associated with sport angling.

Here is a quote out of a report I have read.

“The Columbia River Select Area Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Project was initiated to provide salmonid fisheries for select or offstream areas of the lower Columbia River for public use with little or no negative biological impact to mainstem Columbia River fish runs.”

One problem they found was a high ratio of by catch per target fish with gill net testing in SAFE areas. Gillnets and by catch don’t mix unlike selective by catch that is set free and alive at a very high percentage rate.

The point of moving the fishing into the SAFE areas is that there are far less wild fish there, reducing the bycatch...if you use purse seines in the SAFE areas then you get double the bang for your buck...far less wild fish encounters, and a higher release mortality...and far less of an impact on sportfishing opportunity.

A win-win-win.

Fish on...

Todd

Another note...

I wish people would stop using the term "selective" as if it's something new, or different...

Virtually every kind of fishing gear is "selective"...dynamite is selective, if you throw back all the dead stuff you don't want...as are gillnets, purse seines, and hook and line angling.

The part that is important is to what degree they are selective...what is the relative release mortality of the gear you are looking at?

Gillnets are selective...but to the tune of killing 30 or 40 percent of the wild fish that are released.

Purse seines are selective...but to a hereforeto unknown release mortality, but most assuredly less than gillnets. They will, however, have an associated release mortality, EVERY type of fishing does...if you handle fish you want to release, some will die...period.

Calling gillnets "non-selective" and purse seines "selective" is not only irrelevant, but it's not true, either.

Fish on...

Todd

OMG,one of the next things you say will probably be that you are starting to wear a burnt orange cap.

The report showed a high ratio of sturgeon to target fish in the SAFE area gill net tests which was done many years ago. So I agree that purse seiners would do a much better job releasing sturgeon as by catch unharmed than gill nets.