I posted this message on another board a couple weeks ago and got some interesting conversation out of it. So I will post it again here hoping to get more input.
I would be curious to hear opinions on what would happen if these rules were made law. It could be called the "Fish conservation rules for harvest in Washington State rivers and marine waters".
These rules are applicable to all marine waters and rivers, as well as any lakes or reservoirs accessed by rivers where anadromous fish runs are present.
Rule: 1) All hatchery produced anadromous fish will be marked in a way to easily distinguish them from wild fish for the durration of their lives. The only
exception is to hatchery raised wild fish used exclusively to recover wild runs.
2) All fishing, whether commercial or recreational, shall be conducted in a way that allows at least 70% of all untargeted species caught, to be released alive with reasonable expectation of survival to spawn.
Exceptions to this rule would be:
-Fishing for bottom dwelling fish in water greater than ?? deep.
-Fishing in the main stem of the Columbia River.
-Treaty protected tribal fishing for personal consumption and/or religious/cultural
ceremony but not for commercial sale.
-Other exceptions may be necessary, I just can't think of any now.
3) Some way of expressing in words how to change the escapement goals to maximize natural production everywhere.
Now I will explain what I think this would do: This forces all hatcheries to mark all fish in some way whether tribal, or state controlled. Then it forces everyone to fish in a way that minimizes bycatch, and stops killing so many threatened fish. I used the seventy percent number because that is the worst case I have heard through any of the studies on recreational C&R studies. Maybe that number should be modified or some additional language could be added to protect recreational fishing from court challenges from environmental extremists. I exempted deep-water bottom fishing due to the near 100% mortality rate associated with some species. I exempted the main stem Columbia because of many reasons. Mainly because it could end the rec. fishing for Hanford reach Chinook and because of the fact that half the lower river belongs to Oregon. The exception for tribal fishing allows for ceremonial
fishing using traditional methods (meaning any way they want to) but does not allow a tribal commercial fishery using unselective methods.
These rules would benefit some runs more than others would. For instance, most Puget Sound rivers (if not all) have no catchable surplus of wild Chinook so only selective forms of fishing would be allowed during Chinook runs. But for a flip side, the peninsula rivers healthy runs of both native and
hatchery fish therefore tribal gillnetting as practiced currently would continue. But all marine water fishing would still have to be selective due to mixing of stocks. Notice how I am trying hard to stay away from mentioning different types of fishing. I do not care how you fish. If they can figure out how to make a gill net comply with the rules, more power to them.
Why this would pass a vote: It in no way can be misunderstood as a fish grab for recreational fisherman. It in no way changes the allocation of harvestable fish to one group or another. This is only about conservation of wild populations in trouble. The only positive affect this would have on
recreational fishing is the potential to hook and promptly have to release more wild fish. It also does not necessarily put anyone out of work. I am not naive enough to not recognize that some commercials will not be able to afford to switch to different gear, but so it goes when your livelihood depends on a natural resource. It also effects everyone equally, tribal and non-tribal so there is no perception of special privileges.
Why this would hold up in court: I am not a layer, and I am far from an expert. But the research I have done has made me come to believe that this would hold up because of a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States, WASHINGTON v. FISHING VESSEL ASSN - 1979. This is the ruling that vacated
(overturned) the Boldt decision but essentially ruled the exact same way judge Boldt did therefore everyone still refers to it as the Boldt decision. More information was obtained per the following rulings: PUYALLUP TRIBE v. DEPT. OF GAME, 391 U.S. 392 (1968), WASHINGTON GAME DEPT. v. PUYALLUP TRIBE, 414 U.S. 44 (1973), & PUYALLUP TRIBE v. WASHINGTON GAME DEPT., 433 U.S. 165 (1977). I won't go into great detail about
everything in these cases because I get a head ache deciphering all the legal jargon, but the key phrase is:" The right to fish at all usual and accustomed places may, of course, not be qualified by the State . . .. But the manner of fishing, the size of the take, the restriction of commercial fishing, and the like may be regulated by the State in the interest of conservation, provided the regulation meets appropriate standards and does not discriminate against the
Indians." Since these rules are clearly a conservation measure, and they do not take away any fishing rights, they should hold up.
I am aware that since I am not an expert in fisheries management or law that something written in this could be in error. I welcome any criticisms and correction on my facts (constructive criticism please) by those who know different than I. The legal info I obtained from this web site: http://www.cnw.com/~katwood/issues/legal/case_law.html I can not confirm the accuracy of this website but I have no reason to believe it to be inaccurate either. Maybe if this were more of a serious proposal instead of just an idea thrown out for all to read, I would be more motivated to study it
further.
Q @ A I recieved from the previous post.
Q)Sounds kinda like Indians in puget Sound couldnt fish or....?
A)It would not affect the indians ability to fish, just the methods. From what I have read, purse sein used in combination with sorting the trapped fish while they are still in the water should comply with the rule. Also, the quickly developing fish trap method would comply and possibly some others.
Q)I also am not sure how the differance between Mooching with herring for blackmouth and bottemfishing could be seperated ,
with this mean barbless or restricting rules would apply to say fishing for ling's or rock fish ?
A)First, a blackmouth should never be mislabled a bottom fish just because it
spends much of its time near the bottom. And some wording could be added to define that if nessessary. If you are fishing for blackmouth in 200 feet of water, any blackmouth caught that are not legaly harvestable will survive 70% of the time, therefore in compliance with the rule. Now if you catch a rockfish while salmon fishing and it comes to the surface with its swim bladder hanging out its mouth, well thats a bottom fish and exempt, therefore in compliance with the rule.
Q)What can be done about the destruction of kelp beds and the like, with this idea.
A)Non-selective bottom draging gear would not be allowed in water shalower than the maximum depth you can bring a bottom fish up alive. If that number is say, 50 feet, than all the bottom in less than 50 ft of water would be protected. But as far as the rest of it goes, I have thought hard about it and have not been able to figure out a way to add deep water areas to this bill without comletely eliminating rec. fishing in those areas.
[This message has been edited by thinker (edited 05-31-2000).]
Just kidding ya. You have some good ideas there and you should send a copy to the WDFG where it could do some good.
Previous Topic
Index
