YOU GUYS ARE REALLY STARTING TO SCARE ME WITH THIS WITCH HUNT THAT YOU ARE CONDUCTING.I'M SURE YOU READ THIS MORNING P.I. BUSINESS SECTION REGARDING NO NET FISHING FOR SOCKEYE THIS YEAR.

SOME ONE HAD QUOTED THAT 35,000 KINGS HAD BEEN CAUGHT BY NON INDIAN GILLNETS IN THE 98 SOCKEYE FISHERIES AND I THOUGHT THAT IT SEEMED A LITTLE EXTREME THAT IN ALL LIKELYHOOD THAT PROBABLY FEWER THAN 75 BOAT PARTICIPATING IN THAT FISHERIES COULD CAUSE THAT MUCH DAMAGE SO I E-MAILED WDFG AND HERE WAS THERE RESPONSE

Subject:
Chinook catch in the sockeye fishery
Date:
Wed, 25 Aug 1999 16:02:37 -0700
From:
Evan Jacoby <JACOBESJ@dfw.wa.gov>
To:

CC:
COMMISSION@dfw.wa.gov


Dear Mr. Mouse:
Thank you for your recent e-mail to the Fish and Wildlife Commission regarding the chinook catch in the 1998 Fraser sockeye fishery. After 1997, during which 33,100 chinook were taken by treaty and non-treaty fishers combined (about 11,000 by non-treaty fishers), chinook release was required by purse seiners in 1998 and gill net fishers were restricted away from the near-shore areas where chinook were caught in 1997. The total non-Indian chinook catch in 1998 was 65 fish.

I hope this answers your questions.

Evan Jacoby, Legal Counsel

AS SOME OF YOU HAD ACCUSED ME OF BEING AN EVIL GILLNETTER, I AM NOT! I'M AN AVID SPORTFISHER THAT JUST HAPPENS TO FEEL THAT B.A.N. IS A BOGUS INITIATIVE THAT WILL DO NOTHING EXCEPT TO DESTROY A FEW PEOPLES LIVELYHOODS AND PUT MORE FISH ON THE SPORT AND TRIBAL DINNER PLATTER. IF THE NATIVE FISHERIES WERE INCLUDED IN THIS INITIATIVE I WOULD VOTE YES IN A HEART BEAT BUT AS IT IS WRITTEN IT IS A BAD IDEA!!!!!!!!!!!!

VOTE NO

Thank you for getting the misquote corrected. However I will still vote for the BAN. Its not just the salmon nets. Its all nets. Non-treaty net fisheries are only part of the problem but getting rid of part of the problem is a start. Make no mistake, the native american fishermen are against this initiative also. Thanks again for setting the record straight.

I would be willing to bet the numbers for the 1997 by-catch are very low and probably would double if they had all the correct numbers for the Point Roberts area alone. The commercial guys desimated the kings there in 1997 while fishing for sockeye. From what I heard they had more kings than sockeye. That is probably why they were not allowed to fish close in for the 1998 season. The only comment I heard was, they're Canadian fish, HEH! what difference does it make. Well as you can see now, a LOT. Abuse by a few fishers makes it really tough on everyone else. The attitude of having to catch the last fish going up river has got to change before we really see a difference.
Everyone is complaining about no fish in the Samish, go out into the channel and look at the nets strung on poles in the channel and you'd know why there are not any fish in the river. They cannot swim through MONO.

[This message has been edited by scotty (edited 08-30-1999).]

BETTER TO RUIN A FEW LIVELYHOODS THAN THOUSANDS OF SPORTSFISHERS FUN. I REALLY DOUBT ANYONE CAN MAKE A LIVING FISHING ANYWAY. GET THE DAMN NETS OUT!!!

Its amazing how narrow minded some people are its not just salmon we are talking about. Have you been out bottomfishing lately? Remember the cod that USED to be in the sound during the spawning? No the nets are great they aren't any part of the problem HA! I read the buisness section of the paper today and I'm sorry people are lossing there buisnesses but I have friends that loss there buisnesses when the building market fell. If there are no fish you can't fish end of discusion. They had to have known that the bottom was falling out when they noticed smaller catches and more peoople not being to make a living. And yea sure theres no bycatch and the throw back all the bycatch ha. Vote yes not only for the salmon but all the other species effected. Tight lines
Kevin

Fish counters on site during the 1997 sockeye fishery said the chinook bycatch was closer to 80,000 fish. This figure was unacceptable to all concerned, so a lower count was released. From what I've read, this is a common practice in the fishing industry. The only debate is whose numbers are more bogus- the DFW's or those of NMFS. MMouse, you claim seiners had to "release" bycaught chinook in 1998. The mortality rate from that practice must make hook and line release mortality insignificant by comparison. While you were at it, you should have asked for the number of blackmouth, also chinook, and early-run steelhead taken during the late fall net fishery for chum salmon. I asked a DFW assistant director about that and he admitted it was a "problem", but spared me the bogus numbers. I raised the question when I noticed a tremendous drop in the number of bright fish I was seeing on the bank during the mid-Nov. to mid-Dec period. Sport anglers on the Sound reported the bottom dropping out of their blackmouth fishery as soon as the chum nets went in. Sportanglers paid the enhancement fee; commercials got the fish. Taxpayers foot the hatchery budget and then, if they can afford it, they get to buy their fish back from the netters. BAN(I-696) isn't about beating a dead horse, it's about corraling a "cash cow". It's not the complete answer, but it is the only hope. When I was gathering signatures for the initiative, the most frequent comments I heard were- It's about time! Where do I sign? and Can I sign twice?

[This message has been edited by CedarR (edited 08-30-1999).]

There used to be an industry that supported many, many individuals and their families....they were the Buffalo hunters. They honed their skill to perfection to where it was easy to kill thousands of animals in a short period as the hearded up during migrations......sound familiar?....are there any Buffalo hunters left?...if we don't make changes now, in 100 years, someone will be writing of how there used to be thousands of fish and how the gillnetters honed their skill to perfection.

[This message has been edited by RANDY (edited 08-30-1999).]

It doesn't stop at buffalos ... there were commercial hunters for deer, elk, and waterfowl too ... and to show that it isn't limited to animals, remember, there was a time when steelhead could be commercially harvested too ... fortunately, even in the 30's the state had enough sense to outlaw this ... and this is not about more salmon on the sporties dinner plates ... start clipping all fins and make C&R mandatory on wild salmon and watch me do backflips!!

Dredgers netted the straits back in the eighties and the bottom fishing has never been the same!!! True cod could be caught as fast as you could reel them up. It will take a long time for the fisheries to recover after the nets are removed. This is only the first step!!

MMouse,

Don't joke me. Sure you're not a gillnetter. Then maybe you're the brother of a gillnetter. In either case, you're so blind you cannot see that many more livlihoods are at stake if the sportsfishing industry in this state is ruined by commercial netting.

By your own figures, the number of netters is small. But the damage they do isn't small. So the whole state; the farmers, builders, loggers, sportsfishers, tackle retailers, and everyone else should suffer the consequences so that the commercial netters don't have to look for other work?

The way I see it, we should try FIRST what preserves the fish runs most and effects the fewest people. Sorry, but the government didn't try to put Henry Ford out of business to try to protect the jobs of Blacksmiths and Buggy whip makers. Clue in, dude. Commercial fishing is a DEAD industry. It is dying on the vine, and BAN is merely speeding up the process of weeding out the diehards that would fight to kill the last salmon on the planet.

Only a MickeyMouse sportfisher would vote against BAN, so I guess your name fits.......


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

You think its bad now its only going to get worst. I just got done reading an artical in the Seattle Weekly that the NMFS is looking to add four other species in the puget sound to the threaten list. Hake, true cod, polluck and possible herring. Nice ha. Now how you defend the commercials on this. You can't just blame it on the natives. Get a clue!!!!! BAN THE NETS

Kevin,

I read that same report. I'd like to see the netters argue that over-development of stream banks and poor farming practices ruined the cod and herring populations in northern Puget Sound.

Anyone remember fishing the Tacoma Narrows in the seventies in December for the True Cod? Talk about sore arms and backs!! You couldn't even hit the bottom before you'd get a hit.

Come to think of it, I used to catch more blackmouth fishing for cod than I can catch now when I fish for them. Hmmm, very interesting. I'm sure El Nino caused the True Cod to migrate to Zimbabwe the last twenty years, and their major predators, four to eight pound juvenile chinook salmon, must have followed them there.

Get with the program, guys. Farming kills fish, driving a car kills fish, flushing the toilet kills fish, and nets kill fish. Just because you can't solve all the problems at once doesn't mean you shouldn't start somewhere. Get the nets out. Period. Then on to step two, whatever that will be.

Fish on...

Todd.