#798501 - 11/07/12 08:23 PM
Re: Voters Could Still Ban Gill Nets on CR
[Re: eugene1]
|
Ornamental Rice Bowl
Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12619
|
Interesting that not one county wanted to ban 'em. JFC! That's more depressing than the Obummer win.
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey) "If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman) The Keen Eye MDLong Live the Kings!
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#798538 - 11/07/12 09:56 PM
Re: Voters Could Still Ban Gill Nets on CR
[Re: FleaFlickr02]
|
The Beav
Registered: 02/22/09
Posts: 2741
Loc: Oregon Central Coast
|
I guess folks just love gillnets.
I don't think it so much that folks down here love gillnets, as it is that more people buy 'fresh columbia spring chinook' than those who go catch them. The fear is that banning gillnets may affect availability of their salmon... Imagine the success of a ballot measure that 'bans' retail diesel pumps, because some people prefer to make it themselves.
_________________________
[Bleeeeep!], the cup of ignorance in this thread overfloweth . . . Salmo g Truth be told, I've always been a fan of the Beavs. -Dan S.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#798558 - 11/07/12 10:43 PM
Re: Voters Could Still Ban Gill Nets on CR
[Re: Twitch]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 3348
|
Of course, you're right, Twitch. My remark was tongue-in-cheek.
66% of the popular vote is probably pretty close to the percentage that don't sport fish but love to eat fish. Of course, to claim that they wouldn't have fish to eat without non-tribal commercial nets in the Columbia is more than a small stretch, but it's a very effective message. Folks also don't like hearing that a vote to ban gillnets will put people out of work, which realistically is only a mild stretch.
As I said, even if the sport lobbyists hadn't jumped ship, I doubt the measure would have passed. Kitzhaber's letter acknowledged the far greater economic impact of sport fishing vs. commercial, and I think that message resonated with a lot of politicians in both states. That may be the only progress that gets made in this deal, but it's encouraging.
Personally, I don't want to put the cowboys out of work. I would, however, like to see them change the way they do a few things, and I'd also like to see them pitching in on projects that net them more fish. There have been grass roots efforts to pick up slack doing things that WA Region 6 either can't afford or refuses to do ( Hump hatchery clipping and Grays Harbor ghost net projects, for example), and the cowboys are the only stakeholders who have refused to get involved, yet they still get to reap the benefits. That thar ain't right. Realistically, the gillnetters themselves probably aren't the ones putting up the money to run pro-gillnet campaigns (processors are probably providing the financial muscle on that side), but it would do a lot for my opinion of them if they would step up and get involved in projects that aim to ensure their own future.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#798559 - 11/07/12 10:47 PM
Re: Voters Could Still Ban Gill Nets on CR
[Re: Twitch]
|
Spawner
Registered: 09/17/10
Posts: 877
Loc: out there...
|
Could be, Twitch, but not many people buy that expensive meat. I think things would have been different with a coordinated attack in favor of the ban; but there was none that I saw. I did sees ads against the measure that showed a gillnetter talking to his boy about how the family's way of life would change if they couldn't fish, I didn't see any ads that favored the ban because it was non-selective in nature. At least the ball is in play and there is interest in moving forward with some alternatives. It's only a matter of time. Here's more history to it all: http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2012/10/measure_81_prompts_gillnetting.html
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#798567 - 11/07/12 11:49 PM
Re: Voters Could Still Ban Gill Nets on CR
[Re: eugene1]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 08/26/02
Posts: 4681
Loc: Sequim
|
In following various threads on PP, there are references to Region 6 and what it does or doesn't do on the lower Columbia. Only Pacific County, at the mouth of the river is in Region 6. Region 5 starts at the Pacific/ Wahkiakum County (Grays River area) and is the responsible region for all activities upstream from there. http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/regions/
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#798608 - 11/08/12 09:53 AM
Re: Voters Could Still Ban Gill Nets on CR
[Re: FleaFlickr02]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 08/26/02
Posts: 4681
Loc: Sequim
|
I, too, live in Region 6.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#798639 - 11/08/12 12:14 PM
Re: Voters Could Still Ban Gill Nets on CR
[Re: Phoenix77]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 01/17/04
Posts: 3751
Loc: Sheltona Beach
|
The WDFW Commission meeting today is being webcast on TVW. http://www.tvw.org/
_________________________
When we are forgotten, we cease to exist . Share your outdoor skills.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
1 registered (Salmo g.),
1237
Guests and
5
Spiders online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
11500 Members
17 Forums
72963 Topics
825537 Posts
Max Online: 3937 @ 07/19/24 03:28 AM
|
|
|