Todd - I disagree. As Fish Doc indicated, if M-81 passes, commercial netting will still be allowed in the Safe areas, but those would NOT be gill nets. So, if M-81 passes and the Gov's proposal is implemented, the commercial folks would be limited to the Safe Areas with whatever gear is legal, as long as it's not a gill net. So these two measures are not mutually exclusive.

Don't feel bad, it took me awhile to get to where Fish Doc landed a long time ago.

The Gov's plan is to use gillnets, not seines.

81's plan is to outlaw gillnets.

The Gov came up with the plan to counter 81, not complement it.

Fish on...

Todd

If the initiative is passed, gillnetting in Oregon will be banned, period, is my understanding. That would include Safe Areas on the Oregon side of the Columbia. That means other alternatives for commercial fishing in Oregon could be developed.

If the initiative fails then the frog is in the pocket of Oregon's governor to do what he promised - and I'm skeptical of him doing things right. I'll guess we'll see how it turns out.

Never the less, gillnetting is alive and well on the Washington side of the Columbia until altered by a new policy or future statute, regardless of what happens in Oregon.

I also think that NSIA's and the ANWS "anti" position on the initiative is stupid. They should have just stayed out of it. Every time a master politician (like a governor)
is trusted in such a controversial issue, I end up being disappointed. We always seem to hear a political phrase like "There is new information.........."

If 81 should pass, then the Guv's true colors will show soon thereafter.

If he continues to promote shifting comm fishing to off channel areas, he is a man of honor.

If he goes sour grapes upon passage of 81 and reneges on his plan (minus gillnets, of course) then he's just another POS politician.


Go Oregon GO!!!!!

If M-81 passes, I swear to never make another Orygun 40 post for as long as I live.

http://www.fishermensnews.com/story/2012/11/01/todays-catch/setting-an-example/132.html

As we reported in this space last month, Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber has asked the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission to ban commercial gillnets on the main stem of the Columbia River.

Washington’s two candidates for Governor, Democrat Jay Inslee and Republican Rob McKenna, as well as Washington’s current Governor, Christine Gregoire, have chosen not to comment on the plan’s closing of the valuable resource. However, three Washington State legislators who appear to take their responsibilities to their constituents more seriously are State Senator Brian Hatfield and Representatives Brian Blake and Dean Takko, who wrote the following letter to Governor Kitzhaber. Next month we’ll report on the results of their efforts.

Dear Governor Kitzhaber:

Although it may be unusual, we three Washington State legislators are contacting you to express our deep concerns about your proposal relating to commercial fishing on the Columbia River. We represent the constituency in coastal southwest Washington State. A good number of the people that we represent at Washington’s Capitol are commercial fishermen.

Respectfully, we believe that your proposal has been put forward with good intentions. However, we also believe that rather than help conservation, if implemented, your proposal will harm the fishery on the Columbia River.

Commercial fishing methods have undergone serious change in the recent decade. The fishery on the Columbia has been effectively managed for escapement and conservation. Your proposal will have no positive impact on conservation, despite what you may have been told. Commercial fishermen are doing an excellent job of complying with regulations. The real mortality numbers speak well for the commercial fishery.

These small businesses are probably the most regulated in the country. Many of these fishing families have been doing this .... http://www.fishermensnews.com/story/2012/11/01/todays-catch/setting-an-example/132.html

The three musketeers or the three blind mice?

That letter certainly validates the choices I made in the little blue envelope I dropped off at the courthouse today.

You have it wrong by geography. 81 will ban gillnets and allow selective gear. (in the main stem) I dont know for sure, but I think they included the safe areas in the ban. More debate went on whether seine could be used in Youngs bay for example.

The gov plan allows gillnets in the safe areas, ONLY and he intends to find more areas suitable for safe area net pens and put more fish in them. Some will likely be transferred out of the main stem, but the sports will keep most if not all of the impacts, allowing them to catch more fish. Now, thats not CCA original idea, but they were one of four groups on the coalition. NSIA pulled out for this plan along with the guides and NWS and so did half the money.

I think its an uphill battle, due to the money and the available water, but that the governors problem. Dont be surprised if a couple bays on the washington side, a bit north end up with safe nets.

They have had a ton of meetings and the board voted unanimously to switch to the governor plan and they had the money guy, on board. (not Parks) That said, a lot of folks plan to vote yes anyway, thinking that it can be unwound by the legislature. Now whether that throws a wrench in the govs plan, or creates a mess in the legislature, its hard to say.

Im not going to look for it again, but Oregon did pass two initiatives one year, about commercial fishing and they were conflicting. They ignored one for a little while, but as i recall, they finally had to defeat one of them in court.

google Oregon initiatives history or similar.

The big problem with 81 is that after 30 days, if you dont have a seine, you cant fish the columbia. Personally, I think a lot of netters would have bitched until they got a bailout and we would have a much smaller but profitable fleet, with a lot less impacts. Sport allocation was protected.

Now they just whine about the unknowns such as who bears the brunt of the sharing and the buffer, since the safe areas are not part of the tribal agreement and the allocation. It could all blow up, cause I doubt anyone is going to borrow or print money to fund the net pens.

What I hate about the new deal is that its status quo for the next 3-4 years of returns cause they have to raise fish for the safe areas. Which is a farce, since the increase in safe area plants over the last several years, are now the GD baseline. They already get more fish than the sports, even with the minority allocation in the main stem.

The Gov's plan would only "ban" gillnets in the mainstem Columbia during certain times, or during certain fisheries...like the spring Chinook fishery. When they are netting for coho they'll be right back out there in the mainstem.

81 bans gillnets everywhere, including the SAFE areas...

The Gov's plan is to save gillnets, 81's plan is to ban them.

Why do you think the Governor waited until now to back SFS?

Fish on...

Todd

I seriously doubt much is going to change without Tribal approval and they don't seem to behind any plan that increases sport catch below them and they vote.

Sporties have a treaty or signed agreements with both states that say how the fisheries will be managed intill a certain date? I'll take that bet..

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.co...-fishing-142357



Lots of unanswered questions like what happens when you try and mine more hatchery stock out of the mainstem with a non selective furbag season going full swing thats taking 15-20% of the run.

Guess we should just wait intill Nov 7 then if Measure fails and Tribes stomp on Govs plan we should have plenty of material for about a 2000 post thread..I also think CCA's big money backer got a better deal from another group but it's to early to tell whats going on there... Gotta just love CR politics.

You are completely wrong. The governors plan bans gillnets from the mainstem, period! All year! Where do you get your info?

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20121101/OPINION/311010059/The-tribes-view-Abundance-will-save-salmon-not-greed?odyssey=nav|head

The heat is on!

I checked into your assertion. The old Safe for salmon plan put the gillnetters in the safe areas during spring. This plan goes beyond that and eliminates gillnets all year round. Selective gear is part of the plan down the road. The language would not have been left out of this document, if springers only was the plan. I can also tell you, cca never would have left the initiative, for springer only deal. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/news/2012/October/101212.asp

Well, maybe inslee would fold, but McKenna wont.

I believe extracting more hatchery fish gets us to the catch balancing threshold sooner. Thus, fewer ESA listed fish are impacted in the lower river. So more wild fish will will get a free pass upriver.

Also, the above article you linked says the tribal fishers are concerned more about sales? Even though, Measure 81 explicitly excludes tribal gillnet fishers

Tribes don't like the language where no buyer can purchase a gillnet fish even though the supreme court ruled it wouldn't apply to the Tribes. But that doesn't mean a buyer or restaurant wouldn't be afraid to purchase it not being absolutely sure of it's source. There was no need for that language to be included in the measure if it wasn't going after the Tribal Fisheries.

Yes, the the language was necessary. Essential to document the source for enforcement of the measure.

No worries if a business is on the up and up.

Would you eat clams or oysters from uncertified areas? Documentation of harvest is a no brainer...