incredibly ignorant is the only thing it could be.

Occasionally you make a telling statement, contrary to previous posts. We have just made a big step in the debate. Todd has amended his position, so that when extra fish are added to the overall return and sportsmen do not catch less fish, he can say "I told you so" . There are plenty of factors that could require adjustments including Political positions and advocacy of sportfishing groups. The primary objective of this policy is to save (not kill) as many wild fish as possible and still allow a sportfishery and the entrenched commercial fishery. If it was not the true objective, the plea from the director to use single barbless hooks would have no value.

The reduction of wild fish mortality is small in comparison, to the tribal impacts. Its easy to overlook what it means for a single tribe, who currently practice non targeted fish release in a successful manner and how it will be promoted to the other tribes. The really simple math would indicate that the 13% is the real objective and the rest of it is just building the trail to get there. Granted its expensive, unpredictable and has no guarantees, but to date NO ONE else has made a dent in the process. We collectively debated selective gear vs safe areas for more than a year and the answer may in fact be a combination of both. If it gets the cowboys out of the main stem and it provides a path for tribal selective harvest, then its a win for the fish, however small in the overall issue of recovery. If it reduces bycatch and allows for throwback after the implied or stated quota is reached, then its another benefit. Anglers should not just roll over and let the written word of the department be the final word. Sportsmen were actually not rewarded for being more selective. Being more selective kept the season open longer, because the impacts of the gillnet harvest could be reached very quickly, thus leaving too many hatchery fish in the river. The coincides with the position of NMFS who told several of the gillnetters they will either fish with selective gear or the plants will be cut back, which is the alternative method to reduce hatchery fish on the beds. At the very least, the fish that make it past the nets and sport fleet, shall allow another shot in the tributaries. Angler success will help protect the fish plants and the wild fish.

After reading your statements about gillnets and tanglenets which you hate just as much and how gillnets Kill most everything they catch? I find it interesting that you bothered to now redefine the word selective harvest for all of us. We get that you dont like the idea and we get that you dont think it will work as well as promoted. In fact, whatever you think about it does not matter because the language has been in the public domain for probably a decade. Feel free to waste your time with redefining something written into policy.

I didn't "re-define" selective...I told you what it means...which is really not much. Selective in this context means you keep the hatchery fish, release the wild fish and non-target species.

You can do that with anything, not just a purse seine...just so happens that purse seines are better at it. Calling a gillnet or a tangle net "non-selective" is flat out incorrect...the tool is not selective or non-selective, the policy of a particular fishery is.

If there's a wide open fishery where everything in the net is to be retained, guess what kind of fishery it is, even if you use a purse seine? It's a non-selective fishery...with a purse seine.

Fish on...

Todd

LB,

You going to address this question?

Keith

Keith,

I am not on the GRC, so I do not know the detailed discussions that might have occured about any or all hatcheries. In terms of the CR, you are expecting cca to do something in particular and I have to wonder if you are putting out the same question to all the other clubs and entities that rely on or are responsible for funding the federal hatchery program. Im betting your profiling is more related to me getting under your skin about something else.

While I have the occasional conversation or GRC report in a chapter about a particular hatchery it usually does not affect your primary interest in the sW. We are not in the habit of claiming that we saved a particular hatchery, (I havent seen anything in print on that.) since when it comes to budgets that we dont have control over, if we get private or public input its probably focused on priorities over one hatchery or another. Such priorities might include the HSRG status of the hatchery. We have a guy on the CRAG and even though a non member by the name of Bob Reid is on that,I have not heard much about it from friends. The hatchery hit list seems to go on every year, somewhere. The Nooksack might lose out this year and something else might be saved in lieu of it. Its not really the same as saving the commission, which is nothing more than a report card to members so they dont forget. Of course accomplishment are used in recruiting just like successful fishing photos are used to recruit more clients on a trip and successful letters and awards, advertising etc that are used to generate leads and referrals. We do it on the cheap. The only reason that cca ended up on the regulations book in 2009 was that GI Joe went out of business and I think we caught a break. Those who want to mock our methods should live their convictions and stop using the internet feedback, free product and advertising for recruiting and selling more merchandise. None of you are above it, if you want to survive. I dare any NPO to go thru a yearly meeting and no put your accomplishments for the year on the agenda. Your money will dry up in a heartbeat. Try and get a politician to go thu a press conference without bragging about him and his party.

like or not thats all Ive got. and I dont owe you that.

While interesting, that's pretty much irrelevant.

This topic doesn't have anything to do with a long list of accomplishments that may or may not actually be accomplishments, or may or may not actually have anything to do with the CCA's efforts...it has to do with the inability of many in the CCA to do the simple math, and somehow conclude that when the commercial guys catch many more hatchery fish, downstream and in front of sportfishermen, sportfishing will not only not be hurt, but will in fact improve.

Fish on...

Todd

Did I forget to address keith in my post. So sorry lord. I am unworthy.

prick.

I promise you that being called a prick by a dipshit like you results only in large amounts of chuckling at this end...have a great night!

Fish on...

Todd

Toddster, I have to disagree with you on this one. Gill nets kill whatever they snag. The tool is non selective. Gill nets are non selective. It's kinda almost part of the definition of gillnets. They snag the gills of whatever swims into them and then they drown and die. Then we eat them.
This is my perspective as a former gill netter.
Tangle nets may be better if carefully attended, but fish drown if the nets are not tended very carefully. Just a different size mesh on the nets.

Rick, they do not. Gillnets have an associated release mortality that is high, probably in the neighborhood of 40%, at least...but that doesn't make them "non-selective"...it makes them selective with a 40% release mortality.

"Selective" is a term of art, and co-opting it to mean "purse seines are and gillnets aren't" doesn't chage that.

Fish on...

Todd

OK, I get what you are saying. But if they are not tended very closely they kill everything 100%. Let a net soak for 4 hours while to go to another set and everything is dead when you come back.
I think purse seines let fishies swim around and not drown if not as closely tended but I have never purse seined so cannot speak from experience.
All in all, I think this reasonable person thinks seines are way more selective than gill nets. YMMV.

PS This post does not speak to ESA mortality in figuring catch limits and I fully agree with you on that , "just the law, mam."

A "reasonable person" might think that, but part of the reason they would is that people keep saying it...repeatedly...and then argue when it's suggested that they use the word properly.

The fact that there is a large contingent of advocates out there who don't know what "selective fishing" means, but keep saying it, ad nauseum, does not somehow convert the word into what they want it to mean!

Fish on...

Todd

...and even if a fishing technique had a 99% release mortality...it's still selective if you take the wild ones out and throw them back in the river...

Being "selective" and "relative release mortality" are related, but not interchangeable terms.

Fishing with barbed treble hooks has a higher release mortality than does fishing with barbless single hooks, but fishing with either of them is "selective" if you release the wild ones, or non-target species...

Fish on...

Todd

Well put.

My take: "Selective fishing" does not fix everything, or even most things, or anything. There are still ESA limits that are independent of how the ESA catch is caught. If they are caught selectively or not, it does not change the ESA limits.

Methinks the problem is with the ESA process.

Rolling off topic a bit, how does it work that we let the state manage it until it becomes endangered then NOAA takes over? The state of WA has never managed any endangered species back into health. What is the financial motivation for failure in that?

The State usually "manages" for maximum harvest opportunity, or, worse, doesn't manage at all, just keeps setting the same season and doesn't monitor what's happening.

Someone starts a petition with NOAA stating that the particular species they're concerned about is going in the $hitter, and they'd like to see the Feds step in with the ESA and save them.

The State does a big study on the critter, and comes up with a great management plan to save them, one that they present to the Feds and say "see, you don't have to impose the ESA, we got it covered!"...and sometimes this study is the first time that the State has actually even looked at the critter's life history, or population status, or relative abundance.

Fish on...

Todd

I think you have to look a little farther than the "States" management. The "State" meaning the WDFW s ability to manage stops at the point the managing starts to step on the toes of big money interests.

i realy dont see how sportfishing can improve with the commercials taking more hatchery fish, maybe a 25 dollar expert could explain ??

You guys should get off this roundabout before you run out of gas. This is the essentially the same thread over and over and over. Eventually, it will get locked or peter out and then someone will start another one that is exactly the same.

The roundabout thread; good name for it!