Got an interesting letter from Trout Unlimited in my mailbox today - 5 pages worth and signed by Jim Derry, Bill Robinson, Ric Abbett, Jim Wilcox and Bob Johnson. They are urging that recreational sports fishers not support BAN. Their overall premise is that it is poorly written and will do more harm than good for recreational fishers.

According to the letter, one of the measures that TU has recommended in the Canadian/US fishing debacle is buy-out of 40% of the non-Indian Fraser River sockeye harvest. If BAN passes, they say the US gives up the non-Indian harvest and gets nothing in return.

The letter goes on to say that TU leadership (in WA) believes that developers will use BAN to convince the public that overharvesting is the problem to deflect attention away from habitat destruction, thereby undercutting TU's habitat restoration initiatives. They state that commercial fishers have been "ardent supporters of Washington's very expensive hatchery program....reduced political support for hatcheries will result in reduced hatchery production and fewer benefits for recreational fishers."

The letter raises the point that if nets are banned (which doesn't apply to the Indian tribes), how are recreational fishers going to get herring for bait? They also claim that elmination of the non-treaty commercial fisheries will result in the loss of funding for the Regional Fisheries Enhancement Groups. Each of the roughly 1700 non-treaty commercial fishing licenses contributes $100.00 to the pool of money designated for habitat restoration. These monies are used to match federal and private dollars for efforts to restore fisheries resources. Finally, they say that BAN is not supported by the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, the Recreational Fishing Industry Association and the Northwest Marine Trade Association and the charter boat industry on the Columbia River and in Westport.

Okay. I haven't lived in Washington all that long. What's up with this letter? Is TU in bed with commercial fishing? Have I been misled by BAN supporters? I'd like to have a better understanding of some of the past history around this. I have to also say that I'm not too happy about my TU membership dollars being used to generate letters like this.

I support the passage of B.A.N. However, anyone who thinks this is the solution to our salmon problem is flat out wrong.

What it will do is remove one of the many problems that we face if we really want salmon recovery. While commercial netting does indeed kill salmon, and lots of them, so does agriculture, logging, water quality degradation, habitat destruction, etc., and though it's impossible to measure, I would bet my GL3's that those indirect methods of killing salmon and steelhead kill many times more fish than direct commercial harvest does.

We need to realize that fact, and not let a quick fix like B.A.N. lull us into thinking salmon are coming back.

Agriculture is on the block right now, and the farmers are blocking damn near every bill in the state legislature right now that would restrict the water use of a farmer, or bills that would require fencing cattle away from the river banks or would require planting buffer zones on rivers in cattle grazing areas. If they (the farmers) don't voluntarily take a hit now, the feds will stomp them flat when they have to step in.

Does everyone remember what happened to the timber industry when the state failed to do anything productive to protect the spotted owl? This can happen to farmers just as easily.

Keeping more water and higher quality water in our rivers is the most important step to save our salmon and steelhead. Efforts to protect the water will have to include even more changes in forest practices, farming practices, and Clean Water Act permitting. Like any other laws, these don't do anything without adequate enforcement, and that costs money, money that seems to come from a smaller pile each year. I think people would be amazed to see how much could be done with the enforcement of existing laws rather than with a whole bunch of new laws that won't be enforced either.

Protecting water quality will protect habitat at the same time, as the same activities that cause poor water quality, like development and resource exploitation, also cause severe habitat degradation. If forest practices are changed to protect the amount and quality of water, habitat will be protected, too.

B.A.N. addresses one aspect of salmon survival, and that's dying in a non-Indian net. It will not save salmon and steelhead. However, it will save more than not passing B.A.N., so long as everyone realizes that it is just a step towards recovery, not the be all end all. Agriculture and Industry would like nothing better than everyone pointing at commercial fishers and blaming it on them, while they go along merrily screwing up rivers and necessary upland habitat.

Support B.A.N., but keep on keepin' on.

Fish on...
Todd.

I don't know alot of the details about ban but I do know that anybody that starts saying habitat is the problem and not over harvest sounds a little off base. you have got to get the fish returning before they can use the habitat. the last time I was out on a river everything was there but the the fish. they have lots of habitat. O.K. some streams and rivers might be a little on the un friendly side for the fish but the rivers on the peninsula have great habitat. you watch any stream or river that for some reason or another doesn't get a commercial season on it's run of salmon or steel head and what happens. you get a "record run year"
then if the indians don't get there nets in the way,you can really get a nice run. several years later when the young return you watch and see there will agian be a surg in the number of fish. I've grown up on a small stream and know this from experiance!
I've heard the argument that the commerial fisherman only gets a few days to fish and can't possibly affect the numbers that much. common sence says that if you only have a small run to start with it don't even take that long to destroy it.and I'm not just pointing fingers at our commercial guys. the crooks that come from the otherside of the ocean and strech nets out for miles and take every thing and don't pay a penny for it. then there are the indians. It makes me sick to see the rivers pluged with nets and then you hear some idiot in the tackle shop saying how they don't take that many fish. anybody who believes that has been sitting behind the TV to much. they only report a few of what they really catch, go see for yourself. no this BAN won't stop them, but it's a start in the right direction and we can worry about them next. you gotta attack the problem one punch at a time. sorry I went a little over but it really boils my blood to hear people down play a good thing. I support Ban and will continue until I see something better comeolng!!!!!! am I the only one with ideas like this. I really hope not!!!!1

Yeah the ban sure didn't work on the east coast...Wake up.The redfish populations are way up and the stripers too. Commerical salmon fishing for kings/silvers in WA. is dead. Why don't they quit beating a dead horse. Its not viable. Make them sport fish and maybe Westport will be the salmon capital of the world again. Support the BAN.

[This message has been edited by Bruce (edited 04-13-99).]

I knew I left something out. proof that ban works. like Bruce said look at the west coast. and other states that did the same. we aren't the first state to try this. the proof is out there. Yes habitat is a major part of the puzzle but I really can't see it beeing as big as alot of people make it to be. look at the rivers that don't have the problems and where are the runs? I'm talking about the runs we had at the turn of the centry. You look at the numbers of fish harvested and you can't doubt where they went. you look at the harvest numbers from then untill now and it is only abvious what hapend. OVER FISHING!!!!! a good book to read that has alot of facts in it is MOUNTAIN IN THE CLOUDS by BRUCE BROWN.read it and you will have an entire new outlook of where they went. untill I boil over agian dcrzfitter

i'm truly disappointed in TU, the northwest sportfishing industry group, and the westport charter boat guys, although the westport charter guys were against the wild salmonid policy too, just to give some background on their views.

the idea that habitat despoilers will use this to not do anything might be valid, but there's another side to that too. as long as we have nets and high non-selective harvest in our waters the habitat damagers will continue to harp on overharvest. if we stop the overharvest, habitat damage will stand out even more than it does now, because there will be no whipping boys for them to go after .

the idea that we shouldn't support a net ban because we won't be able to get bait is crazy. personally, i would much rather have the salmon and bottomfish eating those herring than supporting net fisheries salmon feed. if we overharvest the bottom rungs of the food chain, how can we expect the upper levels of that chain to prosper.

is BAN perfect, i wouldn't go that far (i still think 640 was perfect) but it's a start.

buying back 40% of the fraser sockeye fleet is an idea i support, but will not stop other forms of netting. hood canal coho and chinook will continue to just be by-catch trash in chum fisheries. bottom trawlers will continue to tear up the marine environment and destroy bottomfish populations. this ban is not just about salmon. it will help restore many marine species not dependant on freshwater habitat, and help restore all levels of the marine ecosystem.

TU and the other groups are off base on this one, and imo on this issue will help kill the initiative and that will not help either. siding with commercials will not help one bit. i think the police should stop murders by siding with serial killers too <G>.

chris

I've been supporting BAN, too, BUT...
I am a long-time TU supporter, and I pay another $50./yr as an individual member to support NSIA, because they are responsible organizations (as well as the strongest supporters of sportfishing). As for those two,I understand and accept that they MUST be cautious in what they endorse, or they'll lose the respectable reputations they have earned in our legislative bodies and other forums! Going with emotions is easy, guys. If either of these, or other opposing groups, had been offered a chance to help draft the initiative the glitches could have been caught, and I'll bet we'd have a proposal that only the commercials would be against!
15 years ago, TU got slammed for opposing I-84,a totally illegal state initiative to overthrow Boldt (a federal decision). When I-84 passed in the general election, it went nowhere, because it was illegal, but TU lost nearly half its members around the state. I got the recent state letter, too, which emphasizes that we have our personal choice to make, but in good conscious the leadership can't endorse 696 as written. I know all the co-signers and there's not a one with an ulterior motive. These guys are avid salmonid fishers, and the NSIA guys are dependent upon sportfishing for their livelihoods; don't you think they've maybe given all this some very serious thought??? Vote your consciences, after looking at ALL the angles, but try to see where they are coming from.

Huh? I can't believe what I'm reading here. I believe TU has serious ulterior motives in not supporting BAN, I'm just not sure what they are. I can't believe that any sporties would oppose 696.

Bob, I'v noticed your comments on recent enforcement on the Uppper Hoh. I was fishing the Upper Hoh last Thursday with a spoon and TWO wardens walked all the way down the bar in the middle of a torrential snowstorm to make sure I didn't have a barb. I was amazed. I cannot believe the pressure that river gets on the weekends. What's the deal with the size 4 (golf ball) corkie on top of two 3/0 hooks (no spacing) setups. I didn't know they made them that big. Caught a nice 6-7 lb Atlantic Salmon (quick fish), also saw a summer run hatchery taken. Fished Sunday in short sleeves, something that I has previously thought was impossible in Forks. Had the pleasure of getting my ear talked off by Missy Barlow, a walking history book of the Hoh Valley.

TK

Thanks for the historical perspectives and thoughtful responses. I'm not sure how I'll end up voting on this one, assuming BAN makes it to the ballot. I can understand TU's point of view on one hand, and on the other, I don't.

If in fact TU is saying vote against BAN so that we can focus on habitat, then they are just plain wrong. Sounds to me like the old divide and conquer mentality. Anyone with any smarts know that Mother Nature is the most interdependent system on earth. As TU says, you can not focus on overharvest to the exclusion of looking at habitat. Their arguement is sound, just as sound as saying do not focus on habitat to the exclusion of looking at overharvest. Both issues are critical to the comeback of wild salmonids. TU and all other comitted people need to pick the low hanging fruit first. I believe that is BAN.

I think one of the things going on is that TU has got itself in a bit of a bind. They have effected some good change in the past by becoming accepted in Olyimpia and not making too many waves. There is some strong opposition to this bill and I think TU has decided that they don't have enough muscle to push it through. Why burn pollitical bridges on a fight they don't believe they can win? Don't give up on TU because of this decision, BUT DON'T GIVE UP ON BAN EITHER! We are all going to have to work alot harder to get our salmon and steelhead stocks back to were they should be! Organized support for ban, wheather it passes or not, may well strenghten groups like TUs position by putting them in the positition of the moderate voice of reason. The more hell we raise the better TU looks to the State and maybe we will get ban through to boot.

Whew, what a bunch of quick responses!

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, though I used these exact words above.

Support B.A.N., but don't let it take the place of the other problems that fish face. Habitat and water quality are just as important. Support international treaties so that Canadians don't catch all of our fish before they get here. Practice good C&R techniques.

Finally, and most importantly, educate yourself and be an educator. Only people with an idea as to what is going on are credible to the people making the decisions that have to be made. Discussions like the one above, I think, are good ways for all of us to learn more about the scientific, political, and social aspects of fish recovery.

As I've said before, keep on keepin' on.

I'll talk to you in a few days. I think I hear a few spring turkeys calling my name!!
Good luck fishing this weekend!

Fish on....
Todd.

Even though i live in OR. We too, are facing the same problems. This sounds like the chicken or the egg, which came first. Distruction of natural spawning grounds or over harvesting. It's a no brainer. Both. Having worked closely with Weyco. in OR, I was able to see the destruction that was caused in the 50's, 60's and 70's before there were any laws that curbed past logging practices. Many (most) of the natural spanwing ground has been touched by logging. Not all destroyed, but touched. This combined with fewer returning wild fish due to over harvesting in the same time period (50's-70's) results in low numbers.
Coos Watershed is now working closely with Weyco. here in SW OR. After working with both sides of the problem, I can honestly say that it is getting better. Is the wild fish population increasing? Probably not, yet. However, it will with continued efforts from us.
I teach at a local elementary school, but donate a ton of my summer time to research for both Weyco., Coos Watershed and the local ODFW. Along with the STEP programs in 3 different streams and the Elk river hatchery. Not to mention brood stock collection on the SF, EF and NF of the Coquille river.

My motivation is my 5 year old son. I want him to be able to catch a wild steelie or Spring Chinook.

It is getting better, but we must pay attention, and act accordingly.

scaly, appreciate your comments about TU and NSIA but i'm still very disappointed.

the problem isn't that TU and the other groups didn't endorse BAN, but they came out strongly against it. i understand that BAN is controversial, but TU and other sportfishing groups could have just stood on the sidelines with a comment like "we will let individual members decide it on their own" or something like that.

to me, TU in washington state has some problems. this isn't the first time i've been disapponted in a decision by them over a controversial issue. i seem to remember the WA council of TU coming out against the decrease in annual and daily wild steelhead retention on north coast rivers a few years ago. i remember being so disappointed that i decided not to become a member, and i was just forgetting that and thinking of joining until this... and i'm sorry, in my mind this is unforgivable. just my opinion of course.

i would have thought sportfishing groups could have stood firm against commercial netting, but i guess not.

the points raised in the original post that quoted a TU letter weren't that persuasive, and i thought they were short-sighted... especially the bait issue.

chris

Chris: I think I've heard you speak at a hearing or two and was impressed with your level-headedness - so I suspect you are still open to any new facts. Why not join us at the Rainshadow TU meeting at the Sequim Senior Center at 7pm, Tues. the 20th, where you can see the whole 5 page letter. Wheeler didn't misquote it, but only used portions that backed up his argument. The state council has not settled on a "BAN stand," but is asking chapters to discuss the issue and take a vote at their April meetings. Of course, members will have the input going back to state, so please, guys, don't stack the crowd with outside dissenters. Otherwise the meeting's open to the public as always, and I'm about to ask Bob Ball if he could do a program for that evening.
I would like to see State TU go neutral on 696, but that would appear a cop-out, given their involvement in sportfishing. As for the wild steelhead issue you mentioned, I sure don't remember it, and it does not sound like TU! If you have more info on it, please let me know.

Scaly, read my post more carefully. I quoted from the letter almost more verbatim and I wasn't trying to make an argument one way or another. I was asking for information and opinions, of which many have been offered. That said, after talking with a lot of people who are current TU members, most of them are dang pissed off that TU funds were used to produce this document and several are thinking about cancelling their memberships. One of the things I admire is taking a stand on something. Seems like TU is taking the middle road. That's why our politicans for the must part suck, 'cause they don't have the intestinal fortitude to do one thing or another. You can't run with the hares and the hounds, an old Irish saying. Seems like TU's following the same kind of path, which rather disgusts me.

Wheeler, I am a member of TU, and as I understand it I am going to have a vote as to wheather or not my chapt. supports ban. I understand what you are saying though. I feel like that letter encouraged members to vote against ban. I am very dissapointed in it.

scaly,

thanks for the invite, maybe next month (gonna be fishing on the 20th *g*). i'm glad you clarified that TU hasn't yet made a decision and are letting the chapters vote on it. hopefully, the people who wrote the letter will get an earfull from members, and TU will support BAN.

as for the wild steelhead issue i mentioned, at the hearing in olympia, a spokesman speaking on behalf of the WA council of TU did oppose the more restrictive retention regs on the quillayute, hoh, and clearwater systems. i did recheck on it today, and it did happen.

maybe your chapter can take more of a conservative role, and become a voice for wild steelhead protection on the peninsula. i wish you luck, and i'll try to get to one of those meetings coming up (i hate driving through sequim though <G> )

chris

This just confirms my view of T. U. They are an absolute JOKE. They endorsed Mike Lowery for Gov. back in 92. What does that tell ya. A took a friend of mine to one of thier Fund raisers a few years ago and he bought a trip for silvers on the Satsop. Turns out the guy sponsering the trip didnt even own a boat. Needless to say he never got the trip or his money back. So my opinion of them is awfully low. Their views on BAN are a joke.

CAB: I don't blame you; I'd sure rather fish, too! I'll look into the retention issue. The chapter's just newly resurrected,and still the east Peninsula group, but we'll get more involved w. the coastal rivers as we grow.
Wheeler: My apologies for misreading your post! Guess I saw it as missing the stronger points of the letter, which most board readers can't see. Like the US/Canada Treaty implications, and the part about the Florida sportfish being very different (non-migratory, etc.), and the loss of funding for the Reg'l Fisheries Enhancement Groups (whose other funding, besides license fees, was just cut to hell by the Senate this week). In an earlier letter, there was concern over tribal take of the "saved" fish under the "foregone opportunity" clause, in some areas.
Surely there can't be a more complex issue than our NW salmon/steelhead situation. I eat, sleep and live fish, but even I can't stay up with all the puzzle parts! So I welcome letters like this, from leaders I trust and who are even more devoted,to give me all the possible angles so I can make my own best decision. As for middle ground, maybe I was unclear, but was trying to say that the state council (TU) does NOT want to take that position -- the cop-out way -- and I think you'll see that they ultimately don't! It's that fortitude that has caused major problems in membership, but they've stuck with their consciences, or with the judgment of the state members. That still remains to be seen, likely by May.
Peace!