Here is a study done at the UW on stress factor of fish caught in gill nets affecting

reproduction.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01673.x/full

Thanks Rivrguy. Good explanation.

i dont recall anyone saying that the tribes would not get there share, plus your focusing to much of spring chinook as there are other runs of salmon in that river that this new commercial method will effect.

Let's not forget in the 2010 30 day samplings the "selective" testing handled roughly 16,000 Fall salmon... That's a lot of salmon for the little effort put in.....

Keith

You keep making the same statement and never make the point. Obviously, you expect them to continue fishing after 30 days. Yet now, both the tribes and cowboys fishing schedules are predetermined and published. They fish up to their estimated impacts (implied quota) and they are done. Its already been established the allocation methods will change in the long run. Its already been established by the Feds if the cowboys do not change to more selective gear the smolt production will be cut. Its already been established that commercial sport allocations will be equal. The commercials will catch their fish in the shortest time period possible and thats better for everyone. If you want the cowboys to fish last, then get off your ass and write a letter. In regards to fishing a few days in between sports, I would be in complete agreement, it sucks for a day or two after the commercials get out of the water. If however, they are limited to the safe areas, then the fish will determine their schedule and it will not conflict with yours. The eastern washington sports and the idaho sports must also be protected on the allocation. They will be because sports will advocate for that protection. Your lack of faith in the advocacy process is your problem, not the organization that you demonize. Most of the sport groups are working towards the same goal and results. They are working to make that happen no matter how long and how loud you complain. Cant wait for you to take credit for putting your boot up our ass and making it happen.

No, if you read what I wrote I'd think you would understand.

Let me help you, there was a small # of test fisherman used to handle the 16,000 fish... "If" and when they unleash the fleet their plan is to "take" more hatchery fish from the pie. You say the allocations between the cowboys and sporties will be equal and that's an assumption at best.. I'm not seeing it, they will take more hatchery fish and large #'s of those will come from the Lower LCR tribs.

Keith

You're off your rocker... I have no problems with CCA and some of their agendas. Some do make sense outside of the CR basin. I didn't agree with supporting the CR summer king non-ad clip closure until 100% of the hatchery fish are clipped, especially when they consider the wild run healthy... I don't support a barbless hook mandate as there's no evidence they have a lower mortality rate.

It's almost like the group is grasping for ideas or successes to stake claim to, IMHO....

Keith

It's almost like some special interests who is primarily responsible for killing 80% of the CR salmon and steelhead population, started a sportfishing group that's really just a smoke screen to divert attention away from what really needs fixing.

What LB fails to realize is that this conversation has nothing to do with the advocacy process...a process, by the way, that many of us have participated in for many years before people around here ever heard of the CCA, or the CCA ever heard of salmon...it has entirely 100% to do with what they are advocating, which is a POS proposal that won't help fish or fishing...

Fish on...

Todd

put in.................................. from the great communicator.


If you had read what eyefish and louie had posted you would have seen it. The TEST was to prove the fishery and the equipment could be successfull. Testing may not be finished and may or may not be successful, and we deal with the results in order to protect the wild fish and the sportfishing community. You have no idea how many of the fleet will be fishing. There are many more in the fleet right now who do not fish, because they would split up the impacts between themselves, just like the tribes do and the sports do. Those who do not fish now, may not be interested in switching gear and may not be eligible for a buyout or renewing their permits. There is no reward for changing gear, there is only punishment if they do not. You dont know how big the pie will be nor where the pie will be cut up. Part of the fish already come from the tribs and we have ways to protect those tributary fish, by adding surplus production to the safe areas and offset that with reductions from fish in the tribuataries. You have it easy. The only area in the state not affected by tribal harvest is SW Washington tribs. I guess maybe you dont care if the tribes fish with gillnets, but most of us dont like it much. We are unlikely to force a change on the tribes that the non tribal fishery is not required to make. Tribes have far more allowable impacts. Hardly in line or spirit with the Boldt decision. What ever amount of wild fish are spawning, a direct mortality of 15% on each return is much too high under the circumstances. It must be reduced.

There are 550 permits, 150 of them fish right now... I've looked into the cost of a permit, if a guy could get his hands on one... I think they'll bring a pretty penny if and when all of this goes through...

Keith

Says you....

That says a lot about your level of understanding about cca in the first place. They knew about our issues for a long time. Its not their agenda we have adopted. The agenda is a local decision, the model used to achieve success is where cca national is important. Further, Ive read thru some other policies and actions that share many similarities. Oddly enough, its one of the many organizations that you have belonged to. Maybe you could explain why one of your organizations was succcessful in eliminating sport kill of wild steelhead and advocated (that word again) for a Feb 15 hatchery season on Puget Sound and yet have done nothing about the tribal gillnets that kill so many. How does a February 15 cut off benefit fish or fishing? You belong to TU and RFA and I cant remember either one of them supporting sports in the gillnet debate. In fact, TU was on the fense about 5127 although from the video, it sure looked like he favored getting rid of the commission. I also noticed you are not on the WSC board anymore.

http://wildsteelheadcoalition.org/mission.htm

http://wildsteelheadcoalition.org/bod-2.html

I agree, it's confusing the heck out of me....

Part of me is starting to think CCA is a wild fish activist group that could give a crap what happens with fishing as long as the wild fish supposedly have a chance...

Keith

Keith, there isn't one bit of scientific evidence that shows this harvest reform idea will save any ESA listed species.
There isn't even any scientific modeling to show this idea has any recovery merits what so ever, it's simply a faith oriented concept that sounds good to a lot of people, fisheries scientists however are not one them.

I'm with ya...

Sad but true...

Keith

Whether they use allocation impacts or not, there are only so many fish the commercials can catch. They do not take priority over sport harvest. They have to split the harvest between themselves just like the tribes do. If they do not renew the permit every year, its automatically retired. If the gear is swtiched to different gear, chances are not all of them will participate.

That law hasn't been written yet.. If they switch to "selective" nets, there will be some new rules to deals with.. Call it a hunch, but they WANT THE HATCHERY FISH OUT OF THE RIVER and the SPORTSMAN can't do it....

Can you WRAP YOUR MIND AROUND THAT?

Keith

You only have it half right. We are advocates for wild fish, but unlike Native fish society and a few others, we are not trying to cut hatchery funding or plants or close the seasons early. A lot of me already knows, you wont give an inch for wild fish. Its only a problem for you when they have to bury two or three years of summer run production at the cowlitz due to diseases. Just think when all the wild fish are gone, we can all rely on the great Chambers Creek winter fish, that havent had a shot of wild DNA in a very long time.

Others here can verify the south Sound and Hood Canal policy is not dedicated to wild fish recovery for several species. They will rely on hatcheries. The McKernan hatchery which raises chum was going to be closed. Both the tribes and Seiners group are now footing the bill to keep the hatchery open. Thats how bad things can get. Pay up or dont fish.

"It's almost like some special interests who is primarily responsible for killing 80% of the CR salmon and steelhead population, started a sportfishing group that's really just a smoke screen to divert attention away from what really needs fixing. "



Bingo...!!!

We have current laws. I hope your are not suggesting that more commercials going to the columbia would entitle all of them to more fish. When the impacts are reached they are done. Add more nets to the river and the impacts will be reached very shortly. I know its convenient to overlook the support that the commission has given the anglers and its important to remember, they set the policy for the allocation pecentages, which the directors negotiates with Oregon.

To refresh your memory this is a copy of the legislation that cca submitted in 2009 and was not acted on. In 2010, it was scheduled for hearings but did not make it out of committee. It was the same year the house committee took testimony on a commercial fishers competing bill and that was not voted on. We would be no closer to the GEAR being used than we are now, but the legislation would have been updated and strengthen support for sport fishing in this state and it was the CCA that brought forth this bill. New sections are new language, Amendments are underlined and repealed language has a line in it. Its 8 pages long. Most of the changes are on pages 1 2 3 4 and 8

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2266.pdf