Steeladdict,
From the third paragraph of the letter...
It is our firm belief that there are much more sensible and profitable approaches for both increasing the commercial harvest of surplus hatchery spring Chinook and increasing the protection of ESA listed salmonids in the lower Columbia River. Specifically, selective fisheries utilizing such existing technology as the fish ladders at Bonneville Dam, fish traps or fish wheels offer a proven means for commercial fishers to obtain their full allocation of surplus hatchery fish while having minimal impact on ESA listed species. Surely the agencies and industry can see the broad suite of benefits that will come from adopting fully selective fisheries in the Lower Columbia River, and the broad suite of problems that come with clinging onto the non-selective fisheries of the past.
Plunk,
As noted, "BA" is Biological Assessment, which is the letter that ODFW/WDFW sent to NOAA Fisheries justifying their request to up the ESA impacts from 2% to 7%.
Your questions about fish traps, etc....
The trap idea raises several questions:
1) Would that yield 50% each for the tribal and non-tribals?
I think the answer is yes, if they were used.
2) Would the tribal members trade fishing for fish?
Probably not, but they would be fishing if they used traps or wheels, just wouldn't be using gillnets. As for the best alternative that would have almost no ESA impacts, which is taking fish right out of the fish ladders at Bonneville, I think "no", they wouldn't trade fishing for fish.
3) What is the division non-tribal commercial versus recreational?
The division now is 60% recs, 40% commercials.
4) How would the commercial interests divide the booty?
Either cooperatively (split it among license holders, and split up work equally), or individually work traps/wheels until the total catch is harvested by all the traps/wheels.
5) Would the recreational interests trade fishing for fish?
Hell no.
My thought is that the trap idea is simply unfeasible because of concerns including those listed above.
It might be, but if the commercials want to keep harvesting fish, and especially if they want access to large hatchery returns that are mixed with small ESA-listed stocks, they're just not going to get much if they continue to use gillnets. They're always going to reach their ESA impact level long before the hatchery fish have been even remotely exploited.
Hook & line is interesting...but I doubt that the commercials would feel that they could catch enough fish to make it worth their while. Not a problem for me, but I think it would be for them.
"In the past this tangle net fishery has greatly exceeded its allotted impacts, even overshooting the allocation by 700% in 2002. While the only way to assure that this doesn't happen again is to have reliable observation and reporting on the commercial fisheries,.."
In the more recent past, the modified commercial fishery in 2003 exceeded the ESA allocation guidelines by a small enough margin to allow a significant but reduced recreational fishery. The combined commercial and recreational fisheries resulted in an impact substantially below the total allowable impact.
Handpicking facts to make an argument does little to promote credibility.
These facts were picked to show the danger of not having reliable observers, which they didn't have two years ago, and don't have now, not for any other reason.
"This fishery utilizes one technique, that of gillnets and recovery boxes."
Have the smaller mesh tangle nets been abandoned as a harvest method for the foreseeable future?
Starting the entire fleet with one size mesh, then changing the entire fleet to another size mesh is not experimental. Using various sizes of mesh, net length, soak time, and fish/bird excluders all at the same time among several boats so that different techniques could be compared at the same time is experimental.
This doesn't mention the other options, like wheels and traps, either, which ought to be employed if we're truly having an experimental fishery that is looking at all the options.
As noted in the letter, there is nothing experimental about this fishery. It is a full fleet fishery intended to harvest fish for money, and the BA is trying to justify tripling the ESA impacts so that more can be harvested for more money.
The nicest way I can say it is that Reg. 5, and their Oregon counterparts, are being...ummm..."somewhat misleading"....when they call it an experimental fishery.
Also, Plunk, the long quote you cited is from the "BiOp" that I referred to in the letter...they are the same document. I agree that it's pretty tough to request this increase in ESA impacts with a straight face and say that it's for anything other than catering to commercial interests.
Fish on...
Todd
Previous Topic
Index
