LB,

Some wild fish will die, but not enough to be limiting. In the absence of significant ESA mortality, the usual legal guidance will set allocations, presumably along the lines of 50:50. Non-treaty allocation between sport and commercial would most likely be set according to respective political influence.

Freespool,

It isn't about what is or isn't absurd. Some people think that treaty fishing rights in the 20th and 21st centuries is absurd. It's about what's adjudicated unless the tribes assert otherwise, and the states do not object. If OR and WA are not objecting to treaty fishing downstream of Bonneville, it's probably because they have concluded that the tribes would prevail in adjudication. But it hasn't happened yet.

Todd,

Although improbable on the Columbia, it's technically possible.

Sg

The problem with "responsible fisheries management" is that it's almost always technically possible...it's just so rarely ever done.

Fish on...

Todd

I think its interesting how ONE solution requires one type of allocation method, but another solution is allowed to revert to a different set of rules.

Safe area gillnets
Selective live capture LCR
Selective live capture in Safe areas
No LCR commercial harvest
Bonneville fish ladder

I also find it interesting that with all the increases in Safe area net pen production and a future Colville hatchery, none of those extra fish is going to make a difference in the allocation of "the usual legal guidance" or "respective political influence".

that would make the most economic sense, we could have full spring chinook, summer chinook and fall chinook and coho seasons and make the LCR a sport fishing destination in washington and use the new commercial methods for mop up fisherys for fish that are not needed for a full sport season, they would fish after the sport season.

"and use the new commercial methods for mop up fisherys for fish that are not needed for a full sport season, they would fish after the sport season."


Good Luck with this, the test fisherman said they would need to fish on the front and peak of the runs to make it work. It's in the archives now, if the state wants to go ahead they have been informed what it will take to make it work.

LB,

Glad to see you find it interesting. Maybe soon you will begin to understand how it actually works and what's happening.

Sg

SG Im not dismissing your projection that allocations guidelines would change under specific circumstances. In fact, your projection only validates what I have said on many occasions. I listed the alternatives, to point out that the allocation model is not set in stone. Thanks for helping me make that point.

Establish sustainable harvest policies so they do not continue to undermine other improvements such as habitat hydro and predation. Predators and commercial harvest have one thing in common. No upper limit.

Its certainly not worth the time and money to go thru all the testing, just to save 1% of the impacts. If the Feds had no objective to get the tribes on board, they would not have gone around Koenings and set up the testing with the Colvilles. Its not just about the columbia either. The process is no different than establishing a state law that get adopted by other states and even other countries. Gillnets are getting banned in other countries. Ive never heard of a river in Alaska being netted like the rivers in Washington. If the Squaxin tribe can net in a bay on net pen fish, than so can other tribes and the cowboys. Plenty of changes are possible that would increase the pie, or save money producing the same amount of smolts.

The debate here is driven by the personal agenda. Instead of looking forward to putting more wild fish on the beds, resolving the harvest issues on the Columbia and on other waters, so that other issues like dams, hatcheries, habitat, and predators will get more focus, the focus on harvest reform is being moved around like a shell game.
The opponents attack the position, the people and the outcome. They want to change your goal to their goal. No excuse is too small. When one fails they bring up another. Dividing anglers on the issues is the first priority.

The only workable plan I've heard yet came from Bruce Jim a Tribal leader on one of the compact calls, he said selective fishing wasn't the way to go. He said if were getting to many hatchery fish on the remaining 10% of the spawning habitat then we need to open up more grounds, and it wouldn't take much even getting 5 or maybe 10% of it back would almost double what we have now.

Cheap talk for a group that took a bribe from the Feds to drop their federal lawsuit against the dams. 900,000,000 dollars.

Did he promise in writing to put a cap on their harvest?

Another example of limiting what they are willing to do to solve the problem.

Put harvest last, so hopefully we wont have to change. Like Salmon are the only fish being overharvested.

Still waiting for the workable plan from other groups?




" Cheap talk for a group that took a bribe from the Feds to drop their federal lawsuit against the dams. 900,000,000 dollars."


and ask yourself why would the feds offer money if the dam's aren't a problem?

Jeebuz, LB...I read stuff that you write, like the last two posts, and I seriously start to wonder if you have suffered a massive head injury.

Fish on...

Todd

They DEFINITELY ARE A BIG PROBLEM. BPA knows they are a problem, hense they spend billions of dollars on mitigation. They are NOT the only problem. You know they take decades to get approval and funding to tear down dams. Maybe you should go beat up on the guys who want to ship all kinds of farm products and coal through the river. The are just as much the enemy of fish as the dams are.

Lot's of projects that could be done in the estuary that wouldn't involve putting anyone out of work, just need $$$$$$ and a very large barbaque grill since some cows might be homeless.

A worthy objective. Spend 90% of your time on that issue and you have a much better chance of success.

ya i know but it sure does sound good

will selective com. fishing ruin sportfishing ?

yes it will.

you saying no clearly states that you dont know whats going on and or you plain dont care about sportfishing.

Care to go into detail and describe that further?

Keith

what i find amazing is that if i walked into a room full of sportfisherman and said i dont want to give the commercials any more fish i would get booed out of the place

Nice troll boater.