Well guys the battle has started as you already know but it is just starting to heat up.After reading some Editorials on Initiative 696 I have come to the conclusion that the media by way of letters to the editor opinions ect.. will be one of the big factors in educating people on the facts. I have seen far more letters from supposedly educated people that are so full of bull I think its time we stepped in and all of us with a pen start flooding these papers with the facts. Here is an example of a letter from the manager of the Information and Education Services Division of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. As you can tell from the letter, us sport fishermen are all greedy and the nets have nothing to do with the decline of the salmon. Lets all write letters to the news papers with the facts and not let these half truths and out and out lies kill the initiative we have all worked so hard for.
Another thing we can do if one of you guys can organize it, is get a bunch of us to go down to one of the News Tribune's editorial board meetings that are held every week day at 10 a.m. and discuss the truth. here is the letter I read yesterday......Comments?
The E-mail address to reply to this and other anti 696 letters in the tribune is letters@mail.tribnet.com

I-696 isn't about conservation
ANTHONY MEYER; Olympia
Re: "Salmon initiative has loophole for tribes "(John Carlson column, 7-28).
While it is convenient to blame net fisheries for the decline of wild salmon stocks, such finger-pointing only serves to distract attention from the primary reason for their dwindling numbers: loss and degradation of suitable spawning and rearing habitat
Initiative 696 is about allocation, not conservation. The net-ban initiative would simply take away the non-Indian commercial fisherman's share of the salmon resource and give it to non-Indian sport fishermen.
Carlson is correct when he says that "scapegoating one group of fishermen while benefiting another won't conserve the salmon." Poor habitat looks the same to salmon whether they are from a run that is plentiful or one that is protected.
ANTHONY MEYER
Olympia
(Meyer is manager of the Information and Education Services Division of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.)
08/03/1999

In the last 20 years the salmon and steelhead runs in the Puget Sound basin have dwindled to a fraction of what they were in the 70's and early 80's.Along this same time line the commercial net fisheries has also dwindled to a fraction of what it once was.The population growth in the Puget sound basin has grown expotentially in this same time period. Think about it????????

I would't be so quick to jump on the B.A.N. band wagon.

Life Long Steelhead Junky

FACT: Commercial gillnet boats rigged to catch Sockeye salmon during the summer of 1997 "accidentally" killed at least 35,000 Chinook salmon. That's more than the total number of chinook to survive the trip back to Puget Sound rivers to spawn the next summer. A few months later the National Marine Fisheries Service listed Chinook as a species threatened with extinction.
WE HAD ALL BETTER JUMP ON THE BANDWAGON JACK

Hey guys, everyones talking just about the salmon and steelhead involved but how about the thousands of true cod and polack that used to be in the sound. I remember seeing the depth finder on the old mans boat just black with fish you just don't see that any more. People may argue that the nets are not the whole problem and they are not but still are part of the problem and a dieing industry. Just because they are only a part of the problem mean we should allow it? NO. But we must also insist on proper logging practices and habitat restoration for me it a easy desicion yes to BAN. I'm willing to quit fishing for a while if it means I would be able to share that joy with my one year old son in the future, are the net willing to pull out for years for the betterment of the runs and fisheries? I think not its simple human greed. Ride the train until it self destructs. Well now that I got my two sence in tight lines and have fun
Kevin

MMouse,
The time frame to which you refer also coincides exactly with with the beginning of massive tribal netting of the streams of this area. Coincidence? I don't think so. There's more to the story than just "population" or "habitat loss" ( or netting, for that matter). It's a complex problem that can only be dealt with one step at a time.
SUPPORT B.A.N.

Just because commerial nets are only part of the problem is not reason to stop supporting the BAN. You have to start somewhere. It worked on the eastcoast. Commerial fishing in Washington state is a dead industry! Its like buffalo hunting. And its not only the salmon that are at stake. My favorite rockfish area is destroyed. They were shallow water copper rockfish. Some I had caught 5 or 6 times over the years. All it took was a couple of years of commerial netting. You know how long it takes to grow a 10 lbs rockfish? Not to mention the true cod that in the spring would swarm in the chum off the stern. The BAN is a step in fixing the problem. There will be other steps, some painful(paying to repair spawning channels) and some easy (stop putting tons of fertilizer on your lawns).

Bruce and Board,

You said it well. If you're bleeding from your nose AND your femoral artery, you worry about the artery FIRST. The nets are like arterial bleeding of this state's fisheries. Too much more of it and the patient is dead.

Recreational fishing takes its toll, too, but the major difference is that you can have a SELECTIVE fishery with a hook and line with pretty low mortality rates. And look at the revenue generated for this state from recreational vs. commercial fisheries. There is NO comparison. Florida was able to turn their fisheries around and make a multi-billion-dollar-per-year industry out of it, despite the fact that their environment has seen little improvement due to explosive growth. This state has the potential for doing the same.

MMouse is confused about a great many things. Since I've not seen him post here before, I get the feeling he might be a gillnetter himself trying to turn the tables against BAN using whatever tactics he deems necessary.

It's not surprising that the tribes are leaning against BAN, since 50% of a much smaller catch due to lack of non-tribal nets, means the possibility of reduced catches for them as well. No mystery there. What I find mysterious is the lack of support from taxpayers and consumers, who almost certainly face higher costs for a great many things if severe restrictions and endless beaurocracy face all development, agricultural, and water-use issues facing us if the feds get too heavily involved.

The thing is that nearly all of us here support BAN. The secret is to convince other people to support it, too. Seriously, take some time and write some letters to the editor of you local paper. Someone has to balance the scales against the endless space given to commercial fishing interests. We REALLY need to see this initiative passed. Anyway, just my .02 worth.


Fish on..........

1. Nets kill fish

2. Dead fish don't spawn

Any Questions? Or should I say, What part of this don't you understand?

A clarification of the 50%

If you read the "fine print" of the treaties, or rather the interpretation of them by Judge Bolt, you will notice that what we catch does not directly affect what the Native Americans are allowed to catch. The interpretation reads 50% of the catchable fish, allowing for escapement (I'm paraphasing). The effect BAN will have on Native fishing, will be that there will most likely be more fish for them to net (more fish in the river, less escapement goals = more catchable fish).
This may cause you to wonder why the Native people would oppose BAN? In my opinion is they don't want to be the last group left netting, with all the scrutiny and focus being them and their fishing practices.
However, just because BAN may increase the number of fish killed by native nets, is no reason to oppose BAN. The initiative will still achieve its objective - more fish in the rivers.

I hate to mix the noble subject of fishing with the dungpile of politics, but if sportsfishers don't get involved in getting I-696 passed they're going to be wishing instead of fishing in the future. e.g. I wish we could jig for true cod in Puget Sound,I wish smelt-dipping was still permitted in the Cowlitz, I wish the Cedar
River was open for any kind of fishing, etc. The top priority of 696's directors now is raising money to get the message to the voters. Writing letters to editors is an important way to counter the misinformation, disinformation, and outright lies of the opposition. Ramprat, your comments and the positive posts that followed it were "right on." I'm in the Yes on 696(BAN) office several times a week. The people there are aware of the support for I-696 at this website and appreciate it. Thanks for sharing your information.

This is one that I just can't resist. Don't have much to contribute in regards to netting when it comes to steelheads and salmon, but I have an opinion based on a different experience.

My Dad has guided sportfisherman for the last 30 years down in the salt water estuaries of Louisiana for redfish and speckled trout. When "blackened" redfish were all the rage, the netters hopped on the program like vikings on a rape and pillage mission. In short order, they all but wiped out the redfish, and smoked the speckled trout population with their "rags".

There weren't any Indians netting any fish in this situation. Things got ugly down there when the sporties went toe to toe with the netters, and a few on both sides mysteriously showed up as fish food in the marsh. Not the way to handle it, but it all ends up in a happy story.

Amazingly enough, after the ban on gill nets went in to effect, our redfish and trout mysteriously showed up again in force. We have some of the best redfish and speckled trout fishing in the past 50 years. This is not a coincidence.

It's no different than the way the Indians netted out Upper Red Lake in Minnesota for walleyes. This place was a walleye factory, and is now a dead sea. The state came up with a neat plan to increase our liscense costs to re-stock a lake that we could never fish, because it was a tribal lake only. Is there something wrong with this picture.

Hard to release a dead fish. Show me a catch and release net, or one that can discriminate species of fish.

It's not the field of dreams, but "IF YOU TAKE OUT THE NETS, THEY WILL COME.


Tight lines and keep the fire burning.

On a side note, looks like Canada has opted to close the Fraser River. Seems the 6 million fish they were expecting is going to be less then a mill. You would have a hard time tellin me this isnt from over fishing somewhere. I just got back from the Thompson river area i didnt see the stripmining logging and mass population crap you see down here. (though I am not saying that isnt a problem-potential problem).
It's interesting because the 2 main fisheries left for Puget Sound gillnetters are Fraser River sockeye and Hood Canal chum.One is paid for and owned by the Canadians and one is paid for by us taxpayers. In my book Puget Sound gillnetting is nothing more then welfare.Is our state going to open the Point Roberts fishery? What a joke if they allow any fishing up there for fish we do no research on just so a couple hundred guys can make a couple of thousand dollars each and in the meantime bycatch fish that we would get fined and have our gear taken away for catching.
More responsible population growth? Lower impact living? Yes we need to cram this down people's throats with a sense of urgency.BAN is not about overlooking these issues.Quit unscrupulously scooping all the fish out of the water? Hell yes

Just to cut to the chase, I can't believe that any of us sports-fishers can not see the logic in supporting BAN.
And believe me there are sports guys out there that honestly believe that they have something to lose by voting yes on the BAN initiative. I know, because I have had heated discussions down at the " Marina" on just this.
We have to get everyone tuned in to vote Yes in the coming election. Lets all do what we can with either donations of monetary value, or by spreading the news.


------------------
Steve Ng....The FishNg1
99 F-350 4x4 SD, 18ft Alumaweld Formula Vee Sled, 115 Yamaha.

Bring Back the buffalo!!!!!!!!! Vote yes on BAN

Some of you guys must be livin' in FantasyLand if you truly think that the passage of BAN bring any more fish to the spawning beds.If we could really ban ALL nets,there are very few people that wouldn't fully support this inititive.But,we all know deep down who will really benifit from the passage of BAN,and it aint the fish.Us sport fishermen will probobly get a few more chances,but the tribal nets stretched almost bank to bank will surely continue to decimate the once great runs.I have lived here all my life,and have been intimitly involved with both sport and commercial fishing since the early 70's.You are right,commercial fishing(for non-tribal fishermen)is a dead industry in Washington,and probobly should come to an end.But,to single out a very small precentage of the problem,in what appears to be a blatent effort to get a few more fish available to sport fishermen,is not the noble cause that BAN supporters make it out to be.Just how many of those "35000 kings caught during the sockeye fishery" do you suppose were taken by non-tribal,american fishermen?Will BAN stop interception by Canadian and tribal sockeye fishermen?By the way,I havn't commercial fished since 1979,but I am on the water,river or sound,5 days a week.

Sure, its not a cure all but its a start. It will give us more leverage with the native american and Canadian commerials. Other options will follow. Maybe putting pressure on companies not to buy native caught fish or their export. Maybe a ban on bringing sport caught fish back into the states from Canada will be next, unless their commerial take is decreased. We have to start somewhere. I know this is not "THE" fix to everything. But most of us are tired of the hurry up and do nothing that has occurred over the last 20 years. Save Our Salmon!

[This message has been edited by Bruce (edited 08-18-99).]

I agree with Bruce and many others. this will not be a fix all but is a big step in the right direction. Allso I think it will bring back allot of fish. just look at the states that have done the same and now they are having record runs!!! how can anybody argue with the facts? Allso the entire fight isn't to save the salomon by doing away with the nets. what about all the other fish and sea live that is dramatically impacted by nets? o.k. I agree the only thing the nets are good for is seals but that's another topic. as for Canadian caught fish that are native to washington, maybe if we passed this and showed them how well it really works then they just might follow and you never know they might have the very same thing happen that has happend to EVERY state that has passed the same law. Oh-my what a thought!!! As for the Indians we can hit them next we gotta get the fish back to the river then we will get them up the river then we can go from there, who knows by that time I think most people will realize it's not ALL habitat but then some people refuse to use common sence and it's hopeless to think they will. o.k. I've spoke my mind. untill next time.


dcrzfitter

Please don't miss understand me . I support B.A.N. just wanted you know that in the not to distant future Native hatcheries will be putting more fish back into the ocean then the state will be doing. I also know that there is a injustice on the way and how often they fish.

Okay ... here's a discussion my roomate in Alaska (another fishing guide) and I were having ... the Boldt Decision only specifies the RIGHT TO HARVEST ... not the RIGHT TO NET ... perhaps the Indian lawyers see BAN as being able to have some effect legally under the decision's language ... maybe that is the real reason they claim to be against it??? Any thoughts? Todd???

Bob, this is a fine line. It doesn't say by what means they can harvest. With all do respect you and I and every fisherperson in the state united are still and never will be able to touch the native americans. I know this doesn't read well but it is reality. Why don't we strive harder to work with each other than to fight the reality. The non Indians will never win this one .

I have not been around long enough to witness how good the fishing was in Washington in
the 70's. But I am sure the the natives were fishing long before that. Don't get me wrong I support BAN. I feel we need a reduction of nets before it is too late. Be cool.
Randy

So what's your point, Randy?

Ban all commercial net fishing and limit tribal netting. They were here first! I know they have abused this privilege a in past years and populations have increased.But the state could have them run more hatcherys. I dont hve the answers just thoughts. Tight lines.
Randy

First we have to stop the commercial netting, then work on the "native" harvest. Who knows who was here first (Kennewick Man?), and I don't care. It is discriminatory that one group of people in the US can do something that everyone else can't. Where is the ACLU when we need them. I wish that I had two sets of rules to live by. Off my rant now. snit

The "right to harvest an equal share" from the Boldt decision comes along with the right to use any method, within reason, to harvest that equal share. The state tried, with absolutely no success, to limit tribal harvest to traditional tribal methods. Not only did the state get a stern lecture from the court for being a poor loser, they paid the tribes' attorneys fees for trying that argument.

A possible reason for the tribes' reluctance to support BAN could be that: 1) commercial fishermen (non-tribal) pay a lot of taxes and license money that does make its way to hatcheries and habitat improvements, 2) no commercial fishermen means none of this money gets there, and 3) less money means less fish.

Tribes get half the fish, regardless of their origin. Both tribes and the state put a lot of fish into the river systems, and less fish overall means less for the tribal nets. I guess it also couldn't hurt them politically to side with commercial netters and maybe earn a favor or two that they could cash in on later, since commercial netters obviously have some serious political pull in this state of ours.

By far the best way to commercially harvest salmon is fish traps. You put the trap across the river, catch everything, then release unharmed the non-target species. There would be virtually no bycatch of depressed fish, birds, seals, skin divers, whatever. The problem is that the money derived from such a fishery would have to be divided up among a tribe's fishermen, since everyone can't have a fish trap on the same river. Big Frank over at the NWIFC doesn't think that's a good idea, so it doesn't happy. He feels that the fishermen should all go out and fish and everyone should reap the rewards of their labor. I can see the appeal behind that idea, but it results in all kinds of fish, other than the targets, being netted and killed.

Since the state can't regulate methods, and nets work best to catch fish and give individual fishermen their just rewards, that's what we'll continue to see.

By the way, does anyone know how the Muckleshoots did out in Elliot Bay?

Fish on...
Todd.

The reports I've seen indicate between 2300 and 2500 chinook were taken in the six hour tribal fishery on Elliot Bay. Approximately half the fish taken were natives. One 42 pound chinook was caught by the netters. If they had been using fish traps this hog could have been sent upriver to spawn. It doesn't sound like the fish were too scarce as tribal fishermen reported "steady" success all night long. Here's one for the conspiracy theorists. Some have suggested the state never intended to open this fishery for the sportsmen. Just announce the season and then close it to show how science is being used to manage sensitive stocks. Sources close to the tribe said they could have taken just as many fish in their test fishery as they had in the past, but the state shortened their fishing time and announced the sports closure almost immediately. It will be interesting to see how the Game Department uses their science to justify commercial fishing for severely depressed Fraser River sockeye at Point Roberts this year. I hope they have the same level of concern for fish of Canadian origin. One more note on the Elliot Bay test fishery, apparently there was more mixing of stocks in the bay than was expected. A number of tagged fish, not from the Soos Creek Hatchery, were taken in the nets. More than likely, wild stocks were similarly mixed.

Reply to Frasier River sockeye comment. From what I am hearing there will be no fishing allowed on the run this year.The local seiners are putting the nets back into the lockers. That is more politics than science. With the BC priemer, Clark, resiging for others reason, the cooperation should get better. He was very negative against American fishing in Wa and Alaska.