Originally Posted By: Todd
I appreciate the efforts, but a ban on gillnets and a plan by the Governor to save gillnets from being banned are not even close to being in the same ball park.

After all the reading I've done, the interviews I've heard, and the various reasons given by dozens of folks on all the different websites (all different reasons, too, mind you), I still have no idea exactly what the CCA was thinking by abandoning 81 and supporting a plan (Safe for Salmon) that they weren't supporting all along because it...drum roll...used gillnets.

You cannot, no matter how much you twist it, support 81 and the Governor's plan.

Fish on...

Todd


You have it wrong by geography. 81 will ban gillnets and allow selective gear. (in the main stem) I dont know for sure, but I think they included the safe areas in the ban. More debate went on whether seine could be used in Youngs bay for example.

The gov plan allows gillnets in the safe areas, ONLY and he intends to find more areas suitable for safe area net pens and put more fish in them. Some will likely be transferred out of the main stem, but the sports will keep most if not all of the impacts, allowing them to catch more fish. Now, thats not CCA original idea, but they were one of four groups on the coalition. NSIA pulled out for this plan along with the guides and NWS and so did half the money.

I think its an uphill battle, due to the money and the available water, but that the governors problem. Dont be surprised if a couple bays on the washington side, a bit north end up with safe nets.

They have had a ton of meetings and the board voted unanimously to switch to the governor plan and they had the money guy, on board. (not Parks) That said, a lot of folks plan to vote yes anyway, thinking that it can be unwound by the legislature. Now whether that throws a wrench in the govs plan, or creates a mess in the legislature, its hard to say.

Im not going to look for it again, but Oregon did pass two initiatives one year, about commercial fishing and they were conflicting. They ignored one for a little while, but as i recall, they finally had to defeat one of them in court.

google Oregon initiatives history or similar.

The big problem with 81 is that after 30 days, if you dont have a seine, you cant fish the columbia. Personally, I think a lot of netters would have bitched until they got a bailout and we would have a much smaller but profitable fleet, with a lot less impacts. Sport allocation was protected.

Now they just whine about the unknowns such as who bears the brunt of the sharing and the buffer, since the safe areas are not part of the tribal agreement and the allocation. It could all blow up, cause I doubt anyone is going to borrow or print money to fund the net pens.

What I hate about the new deal is that its status quo for the next 3-4 years of returns cause they have to raise fish for the safe areas. Which is a farce, since the increase in safe area plants over the last several years, are now the GD baseline. They already get more fish than the sports, even with the minority allocation in the main stem.


Edited by Fast and Furious (11/01/12 01:49 AM)