Sorry guys,I've never gillnetted and never seined.Im a lifelong resident whose been practicing catch and release since long before it was the law.I ran charterboats in Westport 1979-82.Before that I had a troller,so I know a little about lost jobs.The job I have now puts me on the Sound 4 days a week,and I usually sport fish the other 3.The point I was trying to make the other night is,if this inititive should pass,all it will do is shift fish from one net to another.You don't think the tribes will excercise forgone opportunity?Billy Frank Jr. said in the Sept 24 TNT that passage of 696 would result in more fish for the tribes.PR problems in light of ESA listing?Worked real well with the Makah whale hunt.There already is almost zero tribal enforcement of existing laws.Not a week went by last summer when I didnt see unlighted boats with 600' of corkline coming off the bow.THESE PEOPLE ARE ALREADY NOT HELD ACCOUNTABLE.I'm tired of calling tribal enforcement offices and being put on hold.It just seems to me,and quite a few other sport fishermen,that 696 is scape-goating an industry that is going down the tubes in this state anyway.We had huge runs up until the early 80's,and a pretty big commercial fleet,too.Then,massive habitat
destruction,human population increase,sea mammal population increases,predatory bird increases,and,of course,unrestricted netting in the rivers,resulted in a continuing decline in salmon and steelhead.I would dearly love to see the fish come back,but this is'nt the way to do it.This is'nt even a start.

Yeah right I'm going to let a bunch of part time gill netters most of whom use their part time business as a tax write off, and some of whom also keep their neighbors freezers full of illegal by-catch chinook they were supposed to dump overboard (and they think we don't know)in business NOT This may only be a band-aid on a big cut but its a start
VOTE YES 696

[This message has been edited by ramprat (edited 10-08-1999).]

The only down side I see is that it will wipe out a more organized lobby, commercials,that have some power in dealing with the tribes. That said, I remember the early 80's too when the coast guard had to guide the Edmonds/Kingston ferry across the sound because it was wall to wall nets. Boats strung the entire width of the sound. Nearly the same as the tribes stringing nets across the rivers. And as for laws, non-tribal laws are rarely enforced either. A shift of the resource? So? Commercials have repeatedly demonstrated a rape and pillage attitude. Same as the logging industry. It needs to stop.

Maybe if we ask are senators to get some federal fisheries agents out here it would help. I haven't seen one in years.
Also several biologists have said escapement is too low. We need to let more wild salmon up the rivers and let the river decide what is enough. The decreased salmon carcasses decreases the nutrients in the rivers. I plan to push for increasing escapement 50% for non hatchery fish.
When I-696 passes all the commercial enforcement will be watching the tribes.


[This message has been edited by Bruce (edited 10-08-1999).]

Actually Bigphish it is a start, although it probably won't put many extra redds in the gravel. The important thing is that 696 can create momentum. The voters are actually taking a part in policy making, likely because politicians and WDFW are afraid to piss anyone off. With 696 as a springboard, maybe we can take more effective steps in the future. It doesn't happen overnight.

Everybody's main concern seems to be salmon in Washington State, which is in essence the root of the problem as I readily agree. What I disagree with is the decimation of all commercial fisheries in Washington state. If this initiative would have been backed by science and a sincere desire to save the salmon in the greater Puget Sound basin I'd vote for it in a heart beat. But the way the initiative is worded it has more holes in it than a piece of Swiss cheese. I know most of you have never experienced life in the food chain but come on people where do you think carrots come from your ears%$#@%#&%$#%$!

Why is it you think that the Sierra Club,Washington state Charter Ass.,the Gov., Dept of Fish and Feather amonngst many others are against this endeaver you embrace so boldly?

I'm curious what does the "really big one" have to say on this subject as I know first hand at least 80 to 90 percent of the coast people are adimantly against it.Probably because they HAVE lived life in the food chain!



[This message has been edited by MMOUSE (edited 10-08-1999).]

If you think about it, the natives get half of the alloted catch. It doesn't matter if 696 passes or not. They still get 50%. It won,t change how many they get. Duck

The food chain....you mean Japan?

MMOUSE,

If it makes you feel any better, don't think of I-696 as a way to "save" our salmon. It might not do that, although I think it will help some. What it WILL do is assure that our state will no longer spend $40 to raise a salmon that will later be netted and sold for somewhere around $1 a pound. Do the math, it takes a 40 lb'er to break even. And that's only if you consider that the state will get back the entire amount the fish is sold for, which will never happen.

By contrast, a 40 lb'er on the end of a a recreational angler's line means that guy will most likely spend hundreds on tackle, lic, guide, etc. even if he can't keep the fish. Doesn't the state have an obligation to maximize the dollars they get from the harvest of their resources. Should they sell for a dollar what they could sell for ten?

What strikes me as a major reason to be pro-696 is nets don't release the "wrong" fish. They kill all fish that happen along. By-catch, schmy catch. Try telling the warden that the King you're packing out of the Hump this year is by-catch and see how far it takes you. It'll take you straight to a stiff fine. Yet the commercials do it regularly without so much as an "oops".

Anyway, I'm convinced you are a fan of nets and are only going with the whole Sierra Club facade to make it appear you are a fish conservationist. No conservationist would condone a fishing method that allows no chance for fish to be released, and that consistently kills the wrong fish and considers them "by-catch".


VOTE "YES" ON I-696!!!

BigPhish7, A lot of people would consider Billy Frank,Jr's opposition to I-696 to be a reason to vote for it. Maybe he said what he did because his wife is a highly-paid advisor to Gov. Locke. Locke has already said he doesn't think I-696 is necessary. After all, he's already got his net-loving commissioners in place. He's run the only resource-minded Director we've had in decades out of town, and replaced him with a new recruit from the commercial division of Alaskan Fisheries. It will be business as usual in Olympia unless I-696 passes. The Neah Bay community has a huge P.R. problem since the whale killing. A recent report in the paper indicated people are staying away in droves since the whaling fiasco. Tribal and nontribal businesses are hurting. In the past, co-management with the tribes has meant no-management. It's the major reason why the decline of both fish and big game herds can be traced back to the Boldt Decision. People with close ties to tribal leaders say that is changing. Personally, I would welcome co-enforcement. Why wouldn't it work to have tribal and nontribal enforcement teams citing anybody caught violating agreed upon regulations for fishing and hunting? More often than not, our game wardens operate in pairs. Granted, it would take a level of cooperation we've never attained with the tribes to date. There is nothing more frustrating for a sportsman than to watch the abuses you describe and to have no one willing to do anything about it. FYI, At an I-696 debate last night, a retired Fisheries enforcement officer told the audience that on more than one occasion he was told by his superiors to ignore violations of regulations by commercial netters. Sorry, we can't convince you to support I-696. Voting for this initiative will be the easiest decision I've ever made at the polls.

[This message has been edited by CedarR (edited 10-10-1999).]

CedarR, let's not put the blame on the Boldt decision for the decline of fish and game. I don't think so. As for enforcement, the natives don,t want the whites to have any jurisdiction on the reservation. If you was native would you? Duck

Mmouse,
I thought it was only the local Sierra club that doesn't like the ban. The national club is for net bans I hear. I-696 only applies to 3 miles offshore. Also please explain the food chain idea, I'm lost. Maybe its survival of the fittest.

[This message has been edited by Bruce (edited 10-09-1999).]

Duck, Thanks for taking time to comment. It's mostly a waste of our breath to argue about the Boldt Decision, unless it's being done in front of the Supreme Court Justices. I grieved for twenty years over it. Now,I live with it the same way I live with air pollution. Besides rooting for the Huskies, a man's got to breathe, fish, and hunt. Whether I-696 passes or not, the fish and wildlife of this state are going to have to be cooperatively managed by tribal and non-tribal groups or we can all watch them go down the toilet. Regarding your question about nontribals intruding into areas of tribal jurisdiction-- Most game violations occur off reservation; some tribal councils already contract for nontribal police protection, I don't know how either group would accept tribal/nontribal fish and wildlife cops working in partnership(in special cases it's probably already occurring). A lot of questions would have to be answered first.

[This message has been edited by CedarR (edited 10-10-1999).]

It's always interesting to see how someone's thoughts or ideas about political issues regarding the outdoors stirs up the pot. I enjoy hearing all sides. Wish we could come up with answers...but it doesn't look like that will happen for a while.

How do I see it?? Well, I just got done sending Yes-696 a $300 check if that's any sort of a hint.

The initiative is certainly not a cure-all, but it will bring our returning fish one step closer to the spawning beds ... getting them on the beds and what happens from there is another issue, but if they can't get to the rivers, all we do for habitat and the like is moot.

The two major pro's in my eyes are 1): the economic factors that Dan covered well and more importantly 2): fish get freer passage into the river systems ... although in many cases, these extra fish will be harvested by tribes in those areas where in-river netting occurs (such as the streams in my area), I think that the importance of getting fish into severly depressed watersheds that even the tribes leave alone outweighs the bummer that the tribes will likely reap some benefits from the passage.

However, it must be noted that we do have options here too. No where in the Boldt Descision (as far as I know anyhow) is a mandate of what models must be used for our management goals. A next step would be to change the way the fisheries are managed in this state from maximum harvest based models to optimum yield type models which would increase escapement goals and ultimately cut the number of fish that we deem "harvestable" ... with commercial (read as "kill as many as possible") interests out of the picture, this is much more likely to happen ... perhaps the state would do this on it's own (as they have done in the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska fisheries - another area with heavy harvest by both user groups), or maybe through other avenues ... litigation? Another initiatuve to emplace this as our official mangemnet policy? Federal intervention? Don't laugh ... it happened October 1 in Alaska!

The recovery of salmon in all of Washington's waters is like a puzzle ... to put it together, you're eventually going to have to have all the pieces you'll need ... and removing unselective harvest practices is one of those pieces ... so we'd better start gathering them and then get a game plan together for assembling them.

As for the locals on the coast MM ... you'd better take a wider sample ... I know of a lot of people supporting the issue. And even in the most commercial oriented communities (Hoquiam and Aberdeen), my drive through those areas last week only presented me with one sign opposing 696 ... compare that to several dozen opposing 695 (license tabs for $30) ... an issue that most people say is surely going to pass.

Even if it doesn't pass this time around ... it will, mark my words ... commercial fishing is no differnet than the commercial hunting that took place decades ago. It ended, as will the commercial fishing ... maybe if we don't have to spend millions subsidizing the commercial industry and pour countless other millions into restoration efforts that (in some cases) would not be needed with 696's passage, the legislators won't have to find a way to make up for the lost revenue of the $30 tabs we will soon have.

Regarding I696: I will be speaking on behalf of Yes on 696 at the invitation of the sixth grade class at Lynnwood Intermediate School Gym, 18638 44th Ave West, Lynnwood, Wa. The "Election Forum "99 with the League of Women Voters" will be on Oct. 13th 7-9 pm. I would appreciate any supporters that could attend. There will be someone there from the No on 696 to represent the comercial fishing intrests and I'm aure that they wont be alone. The League of Women Voters has come out against I696 so this might not really be a non-partison forum. If anybody is intrested in the fight we will be facing visit http//www.noon696.com and read their propaganda Thank you in advance for your support.

There is a certain amount of harvestable salmon and steelhead available. Three groups split the fish; sport, tribal, and commercial fisheries. The commercial and sport fishers split 50% of the harvestable catch. The tribes are allowed the other 50%. This is how it is suppose to be, however, we all know that this is not the case in all situations.
Hatchery fish are provided for the sole purpose to provide fishing opportunities and to be harvested. If this inititive passes, it will eliminate commercial harvest. This will allow more opportunity for sport and tribal fishing, even if WDFW disagrees with that statement. Sportfishing, I don't believe, can not make up the difference for the lack of a commercial fishery (although it certainly will be fun to try). Tribal fishers will be allowed to catch more fish too.
HOWEVER, this will be a great opportunity to change the way fish are managed in Washington. Our hatchery plants could be decreased and yet, still allow more harvest because of the missing commercials. This will bode better for wild fish because of less competition by hatchery smolts for food, space, and predation. Some of the money not spent on hatcheries could be used for habitat restoration. We would be able to eliminate mixed stock fisheries that take wild fish indiscriminantly. We would be able to mark all our hatchery fish and push for the tribes to selectively harvest their fish. All this time, OUR ENDANGERED wild stocks could improve while allowing economic growth by promoting sportfishing and our intrests. Some of this money could go towards enforcement and we could pass some laws that do more than slap the wrist of poachers. The answers are available. If fish managers were allowed to manage from a scientific point and not a political one, our rivers would once again be filled with fish. Bob is right. Anybody ever walk down a river covered with literally thousands of dying salmon carcasses. Those carcasses provide many of the nutrients that will allow healthy offspring. When we constantly commercially harvest millions of pink and chum salmon and sell them for 15 cents a pound when Alaska and Canada have already harvested more than the market can handle, perhaps those fish should be let to die and fortify our rivers for future generations of salmon and steelhead. Chinook, coho, and steelhead would certainly benefit from those rotting, stinky carcasses more than the commercials will.

IT's starting to bother me. I can't understand why so many of the replys keep saying that if I-696 passes (which I endorse)that the natives will get more fish. Wrong ! Wrong! wrong!!!!!! They will still get 50% please understand this 50% it does't change the amount of fish they that is eligable.That's not hard to understand.Duck

------------------

The Boldt decision gives natives 50% of the allowable harvest and it tells the state that it can't interfere with native harvest practices, except for conservation purposes. That gives us some options if we want to continue to decrease non-selective harvest after 696 passes (I hope). First, like Bob said, re-define what is allowable harvest. This will effect sportsfishing as well as native harvest. It seems that the harvest model used now tries to cut it too close and sometimes fails. An example is last July's "emergency opening" for Chinook on the Hoh. A September snorkel survey by the park found a total of 23 adult Chinook in the lower 13 miles of the south fork. And I'm sure everyone knows of times when the nets were allowed to go in one or more too many times. Second, why can't the state make use of the "for conservation purposes" clause in the decision? There are already dozens of stocks with ESA listings in the region. Do we need more purpose than that?
It would probably help a lot of us if we found out more about how the harvest numbers are calculated in Washington. Does anyone have any sources for this information?

Hey Duck, I know that just simple straightforward mathamatics can explain that 50% is still the same no matter how you look at it and I understand your confusion. There are some things that you are not really looking at realistically. One thing you have to ask is do you really think sport fishers will actually be able to catch "their" 50%? If we don't what do you think the fish managers will do? Remember the Maximum Yield model they use for fish harvest. If one group can't harvest the fish, the group with the ability to do so (ie: tribal netters) will get the chance. To justify this point here's a quote I got from the NW Fishletter that came out June 2, 1999 that really upset me. The section was about the US/Canada salmon treaty and unfortunately I think it's a good example of how the managers really think:
"Alaska will cut its SE Alaska troll catch of chinook by around 25 percent, in return for an abundance-based management approach that allows for fewer cuts when more fish are available. That could mean Columbia River tribal fishermen would be able to fish for another 50,000 fall chinook every year."
So in this example the commercials only cut their fishery back and the simple results were yup, that's right, more fish for the tribals!
Also, Duck, If the nets are out and there are many more fish around 50% of 1000 is a lot more than 50% of 100. Yes, that also means more for us as well! I think the bottom line really is that getting the nets out is the first step (probably the MOST important step), this removes a large amount of the politics that have really impaired our fish management policies in the past. Then we can move on to management policies that help the fish and will allow the return of unhealthy stocks of fish as well as maintaining the healthy stocks that already exist.

PS: if anyone is interested the NW fishletter is a regional report that comes out regularly and really contains a lot of info on fish management and the brutal politics that are going on now, especially on the Dam breaching fiasco. Here's the web site:
http://www.newsdata.com/enernet/fishletter/fishltr82.html

Go I-696!

Duke