Gentlemen (I use the term loosely here) and ladies,

I have an idea for the start of a grass root campaign aimed at public awareness of Gillnetting in our rivers and the indiscriminate killing of ESA listed (wild) fish. I thought I would put it out here first, since I know you guys will be brutally honest in your feedback. So here it is:

1. Rent and create a web site called "NoMoreNets.org" ( I checked and the domain name is available) On this site, place information about the use of tribal gill nets in the rivers and how they are killing wild salmon for profit. Pictures of nets strung across rivers and of dead salmon thrown on the banks in great piles, ect. There can also be updated information added. The idea is to expose the REAL DEAL when it comes to tribal netting and dispel the myth of the Nobel Savage who is a brother to nature and concerned about conservation.

2. Rent two billboards (one north bound, one south bound) along the I-5 corridor and place notices on them to draw attention to the web site. They could read something like:

Gill netters allowed to KILL ENDANGERED SPECIES FOR PROFIT!
Know More
NoMoreNets.org


I feel like this would be a good start, to see if the movement gains momentum. At least creating some public awareness and perhaps some pressure to bring the issue to light.

Of course, this will cost some funds. I think initially anyway, it could be raised through donations. In addition, it will take a small group of specialized volunteers. Someone who can build and maintain the web site, someone to write the articles and maybe someone associated in advertising to get a deal on the billboards. The goal is to have it a totally grassroot movement, not involving any organized group like PSA or Trout Unlimited, as they just muddy things by introducing politics.

Well, there it is, in the raw. Let me know what you think.

Thanks.

It would never work seeing we just want to kill fish for ourselves instead of them killing fish for restaurants.

Our target audience cares more about the menu than ESA. Unless, of course, it's cute and has a cute name like Hershel or Cecil . Then the masses can spew their outrage and righteousness on Twitter over a Salmon dinner at their favorite $50 a plate establishment.

We are the ones with blood on our hands and not the masses that consumed their way to the current situation .

But, by all means, go prove me wrong.

If you want to see more fish, why don't you start a campaign to put additional restrictions on urban expansion or to get the Department of Defense out of the business of regulating in-stream habitat restoration?

Bay wolf...I think you have a great idea but as you can see from the responses it'll be tough getting even those who should be on your side-on your side.

I'm a believer that our fish should be the property of the residents of this state not some douche bag in New York's swanky restaurants.

We should have the right to catch the fish we paid for and feed our families first before any flyover state gets anything. I'd love to see a law that didn't allow any commercially caught fish or shellfish leave our state. Let the high sea trawler by catch feed the flyovers.

I'm all for getting the information out there so people are aware of what is really happening. There is no doubt in my mind that the public is absolutely uninformed.

Going beyond that is where you hit the wall. Even If you could have an educated public willing to put pressure on politicians to make changes, you still run into legal rulings that will stand in the way of the most meaningful changes that could be made. You might also watch public support erode when they realize what they'll have to pay to eat salmon after the primary means of grocery harvest is gone.

In the 80's it was a campaign called "BAN ALL NET'S"...............It's been an issue for a long time...............Good luck,

SZ

Remember the Tribes use nets almost exclusively to catch their fish.....

Those fish are caught at the Tribes usual and accustomed places, consistent with the Treaties and the rights therein. Not sure how much traction that's going to get. Certainly the Tribes won't like it, and they will not be shy about expressing their concern.

We can all agree that having more salmon would be great. But focusing on one method of capture (nets) while not recognizing much bigger, but more diffuse, impacts (habitat loss) is not a recipe for success. It just points a finger at one or two groups (Tribes, commercial folks), without focusing on the bigger picture (e.g., habitat loss, ocean conditions, climate change). That comes across as hypocritical, even though your intentions may be reasonable.

This is as grassroots as it gets.

https://www.facebook.com/Sportsman-for-Change-765847683441343/

Maybe better to re-direct your energy toward giving them a hand

Need to have a way to put a persons age on these posts.......

Some, like myself, have been in the Grays Harbor area BEFORE the Bolt Decision. All the things mentioned above have been talked about for 40 years.....The ban gill nets got shot down, when it was tried.

The best thing to happen in the past 40 years, was the Grays Harbor Management Plan.....one of the key parts to the plan was 4/3, 4 days of gill nets and 3 days no nets......problem is the QIN didn't buy into the plan, fault of WDFW not having a working relationship with the tribes,

Mother Nature also cases problems.....no rains, salmon school up in tide water......netting 4 days, 24 hours, QIN got more than their share. Need to have better fish numbers, quicker, so adjustments can be made. Would be nice if salmon numbers, both QIN and NT netters, kept track of "hatchery/wild" numbers....would sure be nice to know so "in season adjustments could be made. Sports have to record, W or H, which is stupid cause that information is not useable for 2+ years.

December to April/May....5 or 6 days of scheduled netting needs to be 4/3, both WDFW and the tribes need to be on the same page,

Sure would be nice to go fishing, in my usual and accustom places.....for a hatchery Coho or hatchery steelhead, ya know what I mean??????

Thank you all for the comments so far. Many good points and yes, much of this has been hashed and re-hashed. Maybe a better strategy is not the banning of nets, rather applying presure on the tribes through public education to use selective fishing methods. Any small step is a step forward.

I agree that there are many, many factors and factions that impact the decline in our fisheries. What I'm suggesting here is an effort to draw attention to a particular item that is directly and tangibly effecting wild fish stocks.

I think we can all agree how ridicules it is for sporties to follow all the regulations to reduce impacts on wild fish stocks, to endure closures and limited seasons all in an effort to protect wild fish, only to have the fish swim into a gill net and be killed. I don't believe the Bolt decision address the method in which the fish are harvested, so regulating the use of selective gear for tribal harvest in waters where ESA stocks can be encountered should be doable.

It's going to be hard for any wild runs to recover when they have been netted to damn near extinction in alot of systems. I agree that habit loss is a factor but the biggest factor is the lack of fish left. It's no different with steelhead then what we have seen happen in the last ten years to the chum runs. When they found value in the roe, the fish went away quickly. Alot of things have changed since the boldt decision but the #1 factor is over netting. Anyone who can't see that is wasting time trying to convince many others. Now on top of that they have pushed us all into a few select rivers to fight over the scraps til they are gone.

I agree, anyway to get the word out about the tribes over harvesting is good.

I would like the trawlers to stop the plundering, stripping the oceans of our public resources.
Terminal harvest of salmon and steelhead is dependent on ocean conditions.
Why allow harvest of prespawn pollock, squid, and herring along the coast?

IMHO these are the nets that do the greatest amount of damage to the habitat. Ocean conditions vary. IMHO the coho this year were so small because they were not able to feed along the migration path. Man needs to quit extracting the food from the ocean pasture.

Back to to the topic. I'm okay with the gillnets going away from our rivers. Especially in a warm water year like we had this past season.

I was looking at the NOAA image in the sockeye article, nwsportsmanmag. Shure looks to me like the fungus grows along a gillnet pattern.

This thread does a great job of illustrating the conundrum that faces sport anglers who want to make a difference. If you propose an organized effort to increase public awareness of a controversial issue, for every person willing to support your cause, you'll get 10 reasons why nobody should bother. It's as if the only thing individuals can agree upon is that the situation sucks, and we aren't willing to get behind change if it isn't the change WE want most immediately.

If you take your issue up with a well-established recreational interest group, they won't speak up loudly, because they can't afford the political backlash that comes from taking a controversial stand. Pretty frustrating and discouraging deal.

Maybe all we need is an example of how a person can have a different opinion about something but still be able to support another person's efforts toward positive change. How's this:

Bay Wolf: Although I believe marine, mixed stock fisheries and habitat issues are the greater impediments to salmon conservation and recovery when compared to tribal gillnetting, I also believe that the Tribes transitioning to more selective gear in their terminal fisheries could make a meaningful difference, so I support your efforts.

FF2 - I might agree with your last statement, if that's what BW was trying to do. But BW has said no such thing. He/she did not say that the proposed effort is to encourage the Tribes or the commercial folks to forsake their nets in favor of more selective gear. The effort seems to focus on eliminating nets without a corresponding alternative that would allow Tribal/commercial harvest to continue (presumably with less non-target mortality). So the effort seems to focus on getting rid of nets, and presumably eliminate Tribal and commercial harvest.

If BW would like the Tribes and the commercial folks to use more selective gear, what would he/she suggest? Fish wheels? Rod and reel? Spears? No such alternatives have been identified, suggested, or proposed.

Maybe I have it wrong, but what else can we conclude, other than the elimination of salmon harvest by two user groups? If that's the case, I'm sure you can see where that leads. If recreational anglers can advocate for the elimination of two important user groups, those same user groups can advocate for the elimination of sport fishing. So that sword cuts both ways......

Slab--I agree completely. My remark was regarding them throwing overboard their salmon bycatch. Imagine how many IFQs could be bought out by saving the halibut bycatch

Let's see, hatchery fish race to the hatchery. Shouldn't be any better place to selectively harvest

Again, thank you all for the great comments. This is a great forum and I value the input. I'd like to address a few comments:

FF02: Thank you. Yes, it does highlight the various views and diverse priorities of our fishing community. And it can be frustrating. It's like having a car stuck in the mud, and the passengers arguing each of their methods to get it un-stuck, all the while none of them are going anywhere.

I appreciate your comment about cooperation. It is the only way to make any progress. The tribes and Commercials privately disagree on things, but they agree to have a united front when dealing with the state. That is a major advantage they have in negotiations. Sportsmen are so diverse in their agenda, the state, tribes, and commercials find it easy (and laughable) to ignore us.

Coho: I believe in my second post on this thread (dated 11/30/15 at 8:20pm) I clearly stated that a strategy of pressuring the tribes to move to selective gear was a better course of action rather them attempting to eliminate all harvest. I'm fully aware that trying to eliminate any group from the fisheries is at best incredibly unlikely and in all probability, impossible until all the fish are gone.

What do I propose to replace gill nets? Well, of course each system is different and would need specific methods. But in general there are:

Weirs, Traps, Wheels and tangle nets to name just a few.
An interesting side note to this point; Considering the historic record of "traditional Salish tribal fishing" For many tribes the harvest of fish was a village wide enterprise. Everyone played a role, and everyone benefited from the labor. The entire tribe would turn out to build the various traps, or weirs, or to construct and man the fishing platforms used to harvest the fish. " Much different than today, when a few guys in motor boats drift monofilament gill nets and sell the fish (and or eggs) for a profit, often just to subsidize an income.

So, yes. I'm proposing a very small step, in a very localized direction. It will not fix all the problems. It may not even phase the money /influence powered groups. But at least it is a try. Better than just staying stuck in the mud!

To get any organization to change, you need to go after thier greedy pocket book, Go after thier money, thier slots. At the current time they have sole exclusive rights to a billion dollar industry yearly, if you take that exclusion away, And let all non tribel card rooms, bowling ally's, bars, hotels, restraunts, ect have them and tax accordingly. This is what we need to take to the negoating table.
With all the money they now make, they will continue to grow and expand control, Just recently Fawn returned from DC for there appeal for ownership of lake Quinualt. Money for lobbing will grant these and many more requests...

In negoations both sides need barging chips, ours is removing the exclusive rights to slot machines.