[So, my answer to the original question...selective commercial fishing will not ruin sportfishing in and of itself, nor will it save fish or sportfishing in and of itself...when it's used properly, it may help both fish and fishing, and when it's used improperly, it may hurt both fish and fishing.]

"When it's used properly" is a huge statement! I agree with Todd on this one statement. However the commercial industry has alwys been considered by the managers to be a self reporting, transparent fishery that would ALWAYS sell their catch to a licensed buyer therefore their reports are taken at face value. Really?

The sport numbers are extrapolated because of economics. It simply isn't possible to check every fisherman. If you look back at the LE letter that was submitted several years ago and the replies from both agencies it was obvious they are not interested in changing the reporting sytem. It is a joke!

Another assumption being made is that seines will take ALL the fish. Anyone been out on the Columbia recently since the mop up fishery took place? What the hell do you think is going on there? do you think they might get most of the fish? (And kill a few Steelhead in the process)

I agree wholeheartedly with Todd on the selectivity process but to assume the impacts will remain the same and we will just kill them all is a bit of a stretch.

I was at more than a few of the compact hearings and if anyone thinks Idaho is going to sit still while seines kill all the fish they toss in the mix, think again. They have made it pretty clear they are tired of releasing millions and watching us kill em all.

And 50% or the harvestable fish still belong to the tribes last time I checked. I sure wouldn't get my drawers in a wad over seines killing all the fish below Bonneville.

As for the lower tribs? do you really prefer Mop up fisheries with a gill net? Been on the Lewis the last few days?

If truly selective gear can be used to decrease the mortality rates on wild fish then why would we not limit the fisheries based on hatchery quota?

**We have to remember...WDFW and commercial fishing interests are in the business of harvesting fish for the market, not recovering fish. Read every single press release from WDFW regarding what is happening on the LCR right now, they come right out and say that the point is to increase commercial harvest of hatchery fish...period. They're not even pretending otherwise...they don't need to, they somehow have hoodwinked enough sporties into doing it for them.**

Is it possible that less wild fish would die in the process of reaching the quota using the selctive gear?

**If the quota is 2% of the ESA listed fish, then it's 2%, no matter how they die...the quota is set by the amount of ESA fish killed, not by the amount of hatchery fish caught.**

Or are you saying that more encounters with non-target species using the selective gear will just offset any decreased mortality rate benefits?

**Not necessarily, I was just giving an example of how reduced release mortalities may not result in any less dead released fish.**

Do purse seines really capture more fish than a gillnet strung across a river?

**Per set? Maybe, maybe not...probably not...but that's not the relevant question, much less a relevant answer. Over the course of prosecuting the fishery, the entire point is to make the answer to that question an emphatic yes by taking longer to kill your share of the ESA fish and capturing more hatchery fish while doing so.**

Why is it not possible to use some sort of combination of the two policies?

**Sure, but the political and legislative hurdles are almost too large to even contemplate.**

Catch your quota and you're done and kill the alotted amount if wild fish and you're done?

**That certainly wouldn't help wild fish much**

Fish on...

Todd

This topic makes me vomit in my mouth. People keep asking the same questions and not understanding the answers. Then, they suggest something that cannot be physically or legally be done. Then, someone corrects them and the cycle begins again.

The last thread about this EXACT topic has 25,000 views and people still don't get the basics.

And boater, yes, you are trolling which isn't actually helping or educating anyone. Feel free to keep swinging at the hive though.

Just frustrating...

Hey man I'm no bio. I'm not some Keyboard Kommando claiming to be the be-all/end-all when it comes to fisheries management. Just a fisherman asking questions and trying to gain an understanding.

My question was simple. What have the current ESA regs done to enhance recovery?

You answered it.

So if the Feds won't adhere to their own regs what's the point of having them?

Especially if we can focus harvest using selective methods and policies that do less harm to wild fish than the ESA regs do now?

Unfortunately, the ESA does not mandate "recovery"...it mandates "non-extinction", and the space between the two can be at times incredibly massive.

So long as the LCR ESA fish are at least at replacement level, the ESA will not mandate anything beyond that...

Fish on...

Todd

That I understand perfectly.

Although my question wasn't regarding ESA impact quotas. It was in reference to hatchery harvest quotas.

Perhaps I should have framed the question better.

If the fishery is limited based on a hatchery harvest quota would less wild fish die in the process of reaching the quota using selective gear as opposed to gillnets?

My first question you answer perfectly, thank you.

Basically WDFW doesn't give a flyin' fugazee about the sporties and the ESA policies seem to be used as a justification for the use of antiquated commercial fishing methods.

,........................... and there you have it.

i agree and this issue needs to be better understood instead of just jumping on the selective fishing will cure all bandwagon.

I certainly agree with you there.



But it ISN'T based on that!!! They WANT the hatchery fish out so there is no desire by anyone (with power) to stop the harvest simply because a set amount of hatchery fish have been caught.

I believe your reference to "it" is the CR correct? I imagine that all commercial in-river fisheries are not based on an ESA take quota correct? None of my above posts have been about any specific fishery.

My larger point KD is why do we focus our energy on selective vs. non-selective when the ESA policies and regulations (or lack of adherance to) seem to be a major obstacle to recovery?

Many of you seem to think that eliminating the non-treaty commercial fishing industry will solve these problems. As someone already noted above, do you think that treaty tribes are just going to let those fish available for harvest swim upstream? Especially when there is a market for the product? IMO you guys are dreaming.

SW,

The LCR non-treaty gillnetters fish the same area as most of the recreational fleet. So if the commercial fleet fishes more days and harvests more hatchery fish, then on any day that you, Todd, and I fish the LCR, there will be fewer harvestable fish around. It will directly and adversely affect the recreational fleet, but it won't make any difference to the ESA fish, nor to the treaty tribes fishing above Bonneville Dam, unless the commercial selective fishing takes off beyond anyone's wildest expectations.

It would also, as mentioned earlier in the thread, adversely affect fishing in Idaho. The only benefit of the LCR commercial selective fishery is more commercial harvest. Also touted is the beneficial reduction of hatchery fish spawning in the natural environment.

Sg

I understand what you are saying Salmo and I respect your opinion on the matter. The proposed selective commercial gear use in the LCR will not benefit wild fish because, as it stands the ESA policies will still allow them to kill the same amount of wild fish no matter what gear type is used. I am not arguing against that point.

Although as I stated before I am not specifically talking about the LCR situation.

Are there not other fisheries that are regulated by hatchery harvest quotas that could stand to benefit from from non-treaty commercials using selective gear types?

I have no idea what limits the commercial fleet in say,..... the Chehalis. Would this type of gear use stand to benefit that watershed?

Of course there will be a negative impact on keepable hatchery fish for us sportfishers but a positive impact on wild fish. Basically the more effective the netters are at successfully releasing wild fish the more hatchery fish they will be able to kill. Both the commercials and sporties are given a certain % of the mortality rate. DFW and north of falcon or whoever else is involved make a run size estimate than decide what % of the mortality rate each fishing party gets and that determines how many hatchery fish can be kept. For every so many hatchery fish caught they figure a wild will die during the hook,fight and release process. This is what has had me worried about CCA. CCA has pushed for this selective netting stuff but its kind of a catch 22 if you ask me. I am all for wild fish but it sure is nice to have long seasons for springers and summer kings that eat good on the table. I just don't see wild fish numbers on the columbia to rebound to a point where we can kill them anytime soon due to selective netting. With the exception of the fall URB's. Only way this would make me happy would be if the netters mort. rate is dropped considerably. Either way we will be screwed.

I think the answer to that question is evident, but at what cost?

Are you ready to put down your rod for the 10-20yrs it would take to have harvestable stocks of wild fish? I'll readily admit my selfishness and that I am not.

Are we going to undergo a worldwide campaign to keep people from eating fish? Not likely (although I do like the reports I see of land-based salmon farms).

Not a very likely solution.

When this thread started, it was more of the same, regurgitated crap we have been slinging around for months on this topic. As it has progressed, however, I have seen some signs that suggest the two sides may be getting a bit closer to an understanding on the issues at hand, which is encouraging.

My two cents:

- The current test fisheries will benefit wild fish by removing more hatchery fish from the spawning redds.
- In this case, sportfishing will likely suffer.
- The same number of wild salmon (not steelhead) will die in these fisheries as would in a gillnet fishery
- This would seem like a lost battle, but I should think that if these methods prove effective at significantly reducing wild mortality per contact, they will be implemented in other fisheries that are NOT managed to ESA impacts, and in those fisheries, they should prove to be wins for wild fish and sportfishers alike.

In other words, we may need to lose this battle in the short term to win the war in the long term.

Good point, but the commercial industry depends on hatcheries, so I don't think they're going anywhere. Any solution that seeks to eliminate commercial fishing or breach dams is doomed to failure. There's simply too much money behind commercial fishing and dams.

So would I, I've got no problem C&R'ing fish all day. In fact I prefer to do so in most cases, but that's not what I asked.

If there were a moratorium on all fishing to recover wild stocks there would certainly be a restriction on C&R fishing as well since there is a mortality rate associated with hook and line fishing.

25 years of C&R on wild steelhead hasn't recovered diddly squat.

In a mixed stock fishery over hatchery and wild fish, when the wild fish are not listed, and the hatchery fish are divided between user groups, then the more selective all the fisheries can be, the better...in most cases less wild fish will die, and there will be maximization of hatchery fish harvest, which is what they are there for.

This won't always be the case, and the example I've used the most would be the recreational fishery at Sekiu, especially when there are lots of wild fish around.

If you have to release wild coho, but catch and release ten of them to harvest two hatchery coho, you have likely killed more wild coho than you would have if you were just allowed to harvest them directly, since the recreational fleet likely has a 50% mortality rate on bait caught wild coho in the salt.

That's a situation when a selective fishery makes no sense.

In cases like that, you really have to look at the stock compositions that are around...when wild fish greatly outnumber the same species of hatchery fish, you have to math out what will kill the most wild fish...bonking them, or releasing a lot of them in order to bonk your hatchery fish.

Several years ago there were two proposals on the table for Grays Harbor tributary steelhead fisheries...one that allowed sporties to bonk one wild steelhead per day, and one that allowed them to bonk none...I don't recall the numbers they expected to be handled, but the numbers showed that a bonk fishery would result in a shorter season with more wild fish killed, and less hatchery fish harvested, than would the longer season with wild fish release.

In that case, a selective fishery made the most sense...more wild fish spawned, more hatchery fish were harvested, and we got a longer season to do it over...a win for everyone except the trophy hunters.

Fish on...

Todd

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBwKrXh4Z34


This is the guy that pushed CCA's last ballot measure to ban nets on the Columbia. Wonder what "Shootem Dead Fred" thinks about all this. High Sea's Drift Nets wiping out our fish while the CG stands by? This guy is a crackup..