I received the following information from a CCA contact a short time ago about a bill to ban non-tribal gillnets from Washington waters will be introduced tomorrow. There are 24 Senators who have sponsored this bill! See below:



SB 5617 - 2019-20

Banning the use of nontribal gill nets.

Sponsors: Salomon, Braun, Van De Wege, Rolfes, Wilson, L., Rivers, Fortunato, Palumbo, Keiser, Das, Frockt, Randall, Warnick, Hunt, Honeyford, Brown, Cleveland, Saldaña, Nguyen, Darneille, Conway, Pedersen, Wilson, C., Liias


What can you do today? If your Senator is not listed above please send an email asking that they sign-on to SB 5617. If your Senator is one of the sponsors please send a quick email thanking them for sponsoring this important bill.


Here's a link to the bill:

http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2019-20/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5617.pdf

A quick read of the bill shows a buy-out process to be completed by Dec. 31, 2022 and effective Jan. 1, 2023 a prohibition on using gill nets as a means of taking salmon in state waters.

Um that is awesome!

Composed and sent to Sen. Tim Sheldon, 35th Dist.

Remember that the harvestable number remains the same; if the NI side (purse seines, reef nets, recreational) can't get the 50% the Tribes will. Foregone opportunity.

Foregone opportunity is such BS!! Which judge / agency signed off on that and what logic or law did they use to justify. Can we / someone use the plight of the Orcas to reverse that BS?

One thing at a time...

Where does the buy back money coming from?
Why does this have to take another three years when stocks are circling the toilet?

Unconstitutional and unfair in its application, in my opinion.

The current market price for a PS gillnet is roughly $20,000.

Somebody decides to fish in AK instead of WA, so his WA permit is renewed annually and he has no landings for a few years. That value is now diminished without warning to $1,000, then $500, and then $0.

I would love to see gillnets purchased back, but that needs to be done in a fair and equitable manner.

Whats to stop some one from enrolling in the buy back then apply for a canada/alaska permit and then just net up there instead?

OR

apply for a hali permit and then be allowed to have 3 to 1 hali to salmon as part of allowable by catch>?


Nothing.
Nothing is the answer.

Foregone Opportunity was part of the original Boldt Decision, as was Equitable Adjustment. EA is owed when somebody takes more than 50%. There is no EA if Foregone Opportunity is shown. You had fish to catch, you chose not to take them, then other side gets them "for free". The State was the one who first used Foregone Opportunity, in the early years of Boldt, when the Tribes did not have the actual power to take their share.

Pretty much everybody involved in management, and all the courts that reviewed it, agreed with Foregone Opportunity. Plus, and blessed by the Courts, the managers agreed to fish at MSY and that ANY fish in excess of the MSY goal was wastage.

Change the management paradigm. Reserve all non-adult salmon for SRKW. Harvest after the adults have passed by the SRKW. Let the whales eat first. Don't have to change escapement goals, just where you kill the fish.

Thanks Carcassman - was kind of a rhetorical question but you provided a knowledgeable answer. Didn't realize it was so set in stone (Boldt, etc.) or that "the other side" is now getting their paybacks. As always - seems it's the fish that loose.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't WA & OR pass initiatives a few years back to end the commercial fleet in the Columbia?

If I remember correctly the ODFW director torpedoed it because he has ties to the commercial gillnetters.

This is what I sent earlier.

[quote][Hi,

Please support this bill to eliminate this method of commercial harvest.
Gill nets capture critters by size rather than species and marked/unmarked.

Here on the Canal beach seines are are already in use to be more selective.
I have testified in favor of mark selective fisheries, barbless hooks, and leaving wild fish in the water on the sport side.

I believe the gill nets are no longer a viable method of harvest in this era. Harvest reform should have taken place years ago.

So please support SB-5617.

Warmest regards,
Hans/quote]

Well presented, slabhunter...I hope "Teflon Tim" Sheldon hears what you have to say.

Does anyone know where Rep. Brian Blake stands on this? Anyone remember what happened to Rep. Liz Pikes bills to prioritize recreational fishing when it went to Blakes committee?

Fire off an email to Representative Blake, then post his answer.....


Brian.Blake@leg.wa.gov

Did just that. Here is my email to Rep Blake:

"Rep. Blake,

I’m just curious, what are your thoughts on SB-5617, Banning non-tribal gill nets from Washington waters?

Thank you,"

AND HERE IS HIS REPLY:

"I support a market based program of willing sellers and willing buyers."

AND MY REPLY TO HIM:

"WOW, really?

Perfect politician…answer a simple question with some BS!

Thanks,

Your constituents"


You can try and figure out what the hell he's saying...

Pretty clear to me......he is not in support as the proposed legislation would not meet the willing sellers/willing buyers criteria he established in his response.

Officially now at 27 Senators signed on according to Bill Tracker

https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5617&Initiative=false&Year=2019

https://salmonchronicles.com/author/jbeath/

Anyone care to get the ball rolling on this one??

Fishermen trying to save Orcas because they love whales sounds an awfully lot like enviros trying to save Spotted Owls because they really love Spotted Owls, not because they wanted to stop old growth timber cutting.

Just sayin'...it rings just as genuinely as that to me.

When fishermen complain about gillnets for taking too many of their fish, but then champion gillnets because without them they won't be able to plant as many of their fish...well, you kinda have to pick a position sooner or later.

If the position is "I want what's best for me", that's ok...just be consistent about it instead of pretending it's about salmon, whales, gillnets, Indians, steelhead, Spotted Owls, or anything else.

Fish on...

Todd

Sure!
Ron Garner is in bed with the tribes and commercial fishing while at the same time, strongly against wild fish.
He will have the entire region shut down to sport fishing if people continue to listen to him.
This bill while having some support in the senate is probably a non-starter in the state house.
Gill nets will be banned some day but we will likely not live long enough to see it.

Amen Todd ! I could not agree more.

Fish on...

M

There is NO EASY answer but I will say this:

Chehalis river is the only, that I'm aware of, river system that has 3 entities using gillnets and are allowed to net both wild and hatchery salmon.


QIN and Chehalis tribes also gillnet steelhead, both wild and hatchery. Qin send fish caught numbers to WDFW, Chehalis tribe does not send catch numbers to WDFW.


MSY.....should be eliminated from WDFW vocabulary.....clearly used for commercial reasons.....grrrrrrrrr

The Nooksack has two tribes and the NI, the Skagit has 3 tribes and the NI.

Not disagreeing a bit about MSY. It is an economic argument; minimum investment for maximum (very short term) return.

If I'm reading this right, the CCA and their leader Nello Picinich (that support SB 5617) are at direct logger heads with Ron Warner and the PSA (that oppose the ban on commercial gill nets)...or is it just Warner who publicly stands in support of commercial gill netting? How can that be?
How many of the PSA rank and file are in line with their President? I sense it's a a shallow minority. We Recs practice selective fishing methods, while the Comms indiscriminately kill everything coming into their gill nets...including ESA chinook.
Pretty hard to get past that. What say you, PSA members? Are you in harmony with your leadership? Do you advocate the continued use of gill nets, especially given the peril facing the SRKWs and general depletion of our salmon resource? Speak up...

Just make sure you understand what Ron is saying...he's saying that if you remove the gillnets, you remove the State's ability to remove enough hatchery fish (recreationals can't even come close to doing it)...so you remove the ability to plant more fish (and planting more fish benefits orcas and recreational fishers).

Not saying I do or do not agree with that...just want to make sure we understand what he's saying.

Fish on...

Todd

Which take me back to my original premise...it's not about gillnets, or salmon, or orcas...it's about having more hatchery fish for sporties to fish for.

Fish on...

Todd

I've got to soundly agree with Bender here. How many dues paying members of PSA are smoking the same crack that Ron G is? Ron's argument that: Is flawed by reasoning that NI Gill nets are the ONLY method available to remove overly abundant hatchery fish.

1. Orca's will remove overly abundant hatchery fish Ron, that's the intent of increased production.

2. Non-selective gill nets remove hatchery fish, but they also remove Native fish indiscriminately, thus are counter productive.

3. In the event the Orcas become so bloated that they cannot eat one more fish, the recreational community could supplement the removal by way of increased limits and seasons.

Where is the absolute in all this? PSA has become a part of the ever growing problem and not part of the solution. Ron is as much a member of the Fish Mafia elite as the rest of the cronies who blather crap and pat each other on the back, all the while telling each other how important they are.

+2 on Bender's comments. Can anyone tell me of ANY non-tribal location in the state where there are "excess hatchery fish on spawning beds"? That's the biggest joke I've heard in some time....

I totally get the train of thought here.

But there is a glaring Achilles Heel to this argument. Eliminating gillnets does not in and of itself eliminate the harvesting power of the commercials to remove hatchery fish. However, it WILL once and for all incentivize (coerce?) them to FINALLY adopt a gear-type capable of selectively disproportionate exploitation rates on hatchery fish thru live-capture sorting techniques that allow the depleted ESA fish to escape unharmed.

Selective fishing and oodles of hatchery fish are NOT mutually exclusive as Garner's argument suggests. Quite the opposite.... complementary like hand and glove. The CR fish trap is a PERFECT example of CLEAN biologically defensible mega harvest of hatchery fish... deployed by design for mega production and mega harvest.... to terminal wipeout levels for hatchery fish, no matter how many are made.

There lies the real crux.

Who's gonna fish behind them. No one likes gettin' low-holed.

Well, given the ESA listing of Puget Sound Chinook any hatchery fish on the spawning grounds are "excess" and undesirable.

In part because of that perception and exacerbated by funding woes there has been a huge decrease in Puget Sound Chinook hatchery production.

Todd pretty much summed up the issue. If we want to produce more hatchery fish into the system (in addition to and/or in lieu of reduction of pinniped predation) under the current ESA and HGMP constraints there needs to be a way to ensure that hatchery returns spawning naturally need to be minimized.

Is use of gillnets the appropriate answer? The fact that they are non-selective certainly makes their use counter-intuitive but there may be circumstances where they are the best tool.

My gut says ban them.....my brain says a complete ban may have unintended adverse consequences given our current complex constraints.

Time for a tall glass of something to quell my conflicts.

A state gillnet ban only bans NI gillnets. There will still be the massive treaty gillnet fleet to perform mop up duties in the terminal areas to prevent the unwanted over-escapement of hatchery Chinook. Mr. Garner's testimony appears disingenuous to me.

The train tracks aren't coming together for me on that response. Exactly how are tribal gillnets performing mop-up better than NI gillnets achieving the same results? The fish don't know a tribal net from a NI net.

Tribal gillnets are used more terminally than commercial. There is nothing we can do about tribal gillnets. Banning NI nets is a step in the right direction.
I agree a dead fish is a dead fish which is why we need to fish selectively.

Tribal nets ARE commercial nets and tribal fishers can fish them wherever they want within their tribal U&A. NT nets can be used in the same manner at the direction of WDFW (season setting process).

Look, I am not advocating for gillnets but to the extent that hatchery fish need to be harvested it is a tool - not necessarily the best tool but a tool none the less which could be utilized under the appropriate circumstances to remove the State's share of those "excess" fish.

Speakers from both sides hit the nail on the head to make their points, and made me rethink.

It's not quite as clear-cut as my beliefs were before hearing the testimony. Give it a listen.

It is sad to see any family's "way of life" disappear, to have that pride swept off the table forever, and have that long-lived tradition singled out as the sole culprit in a very complex issue.

The times we live in...

https://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=20190...aDN3PJ0cRyngyDM

Cue up 1:14:15.

Just one comment.... WDFW testimony was especially WEAK, demonstrating total impotence (either inability or unwillingness, take your pick) to lead on this issue.

Agreed. Pretty middle of the road, non-committal testimony, but I gotta think they are pro. The legislators surely had contact with them prior to submitting the bill. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. I'm surprised they didn't just sit this one out, at this stage anyway.
Tribal testimony surprise me, in that they are against the bill. I thought they would have preferred to be the sole gillnetters in the state, but instead I think they fear holding that title. Will make it easy for pro 5617-ers to point the finger at their non-selective fishery.

although pinnipeds were brought up, and environmental habitat issues as well, I was surprised none of the pro gillnet group brought up net's to the north of us, and the high ratio of Washington fish intercepted outside of the state.

Believe it or not, there's a very logical reason they don't complain about Alaska fisheries: They may partake in local, "hobby" fisheries, but most of those same guys and gals earn their bread fishing in... You guessed it... Alaska.

The Tribes pretty such support and prefer the NI Commercials to the NI recs. The netters all fish the same way, they understand each other. The rec side can fish selectively, which then puts the First Conservationists in a PR hole.

Unless the State and Tribes agree to change, the MSY management will continue. One fish above goal is wastage (and I have seen net fisheries prosecuted for 10 fish). So, without the NI nets the Tribes will be able to go 24/7. Or, if there are too many hatchery fish left after that, production will be cut. Or, maybe the God Squad will just as "F**k it. Go fishing".

I'm confounded by the "sports" can't harvest all the hatchery fish comments.

Sports catch rates have never been higher on the Columbia. The 360 flasher has sent harvest rates sky rocketing. We cannot exercise and grow our sport fishing priority when splitting a very small impact with a group that uses non-discriminate gill nets. Like said before, there are many ways to extract hatchery fish from the Columbia. The gill netter crowd says we will never change, and are holding Columbia river harvesting reforms hostage.

If they choose not to see the "writing on the wall" at this point and hang on for dear life only to feel victimized and taken advantage of later when it gets completely shut down, it's on them. Hard to think there is any semblance of earning a good living left gillnetting salmon. Most of the ones I know of have other careers because netting fish doesn't even come close to paying the bills.

Hard to sympathize at this stage of the game.

They've been told, "Find a better way... adapt or get left behind" for the better part of the past 2 decades.

Their response? Dig those heels in. Not gonna change.

Kinda reminds me of print film cameras and Kodak during the same time frame. That worked out well.... NOT!

Correct me me if I'm wrong cause I speed read most comments but, I have read no comment about the current budget funding and future funding for increased Chinook production to save the Ocas. Sounds like this legislation would have zero affect on production as long as the Governor is on board and the Orcas are in trouble. Sounds like the outfall of the "remove the nets and decreased production will follow" argument is moot. Starting now in the budget, millions more Chinook are being produced and will be be for the foreseeable future regardless of any laws banning nets and ESA restrictions.

Your analysis fails to include the Feds who hold the ultimate authority vis a vis those pesky ESA restrictions. But for them this would be an easy path to more production.

You mean the Feds could stop the mega production of Chinook in PS to save the Orcas? I think our almighty Gov. and tribes might not take kindly to that. Would be an interesting fight.

Yes, that is exactly the concern! I have written to that exact conflict in the past. NOAA/NMFS has obligations to protect and recover ESA listed species and has already established a position of minimizing the intrusion of hatchery Chinook genes into ESA listed "wild" genes.

Now the crisis of ESA listed SRKW. As I understand it approximately 80% of P.S. Chinook are of hatchery origin and those hatchery fish are critical to the stabilizing of the SRKW population and an increase is deemed necessary to recover them.

That necessary increase in adult returns can be met by increasing production and reducing competitive predation. What won't produce anywhere near the necessary numbers is an elimination of recreational fishing in parts of WA waters. The numbers are simply not there.

So that leaves us with increasing hatchery production which potentially runs into conflict with protection of ESA listed Chinook (a NOAA/NMFS mandate) and reduction of predation (pinnipeds) which runs headlong into the MMPA also administered by NOAA/NMFS.

Orcas? Puget Sound Chinook?? Pinnipeds???

That takes us back to your assessment. It will be an interesting shake-out but have you noticed who has been absent from the public discusson? NOAA's Regional Director Mr. Thom.

https://seattle.craigslist.org/oly/boa/d/belfair-puget-sound-gillnet-permit/6819844981.html

Fire sale!

I noted that Mr. Garner included the time worn phrase "Grow the pie" in his remarks that we need to recover our wild Chinook and produce more hatchery Chinook to feed the orcas, have viable treaty and non-treaty commercial fisheries, and a productive recreational fishery.

In case some have not noticed, we in fact have been fighting over the crumbs of salmon for many years now. With habitat degradation outpacing habitat restoration 10 to 1 and reduced ocean survival rates, crumbs is all there will be far into the foreseeable future. 20 years of Columbia River and Puget Sound Chinook recovery should give people a clear sense of that. Since the future of PS Chinook is crumbs, and the only thing about Chinook numbers that isn't crumbs is the high quality lip service given to the myth of recovery, it is a natural and logical question to ask why we have two, both a non-treaty and treaty commercial salmon fishing fleet in WA, where we don't have enough Chinook for even a healthy recreational fishery. I think SB 5617 is long overdue.

Out of the ballpark, Steve!

Well said by salmo g. Considering where we are in our salmon management, I suspect that those who are now in charge of restoring/managing our salmon are the same ones who advised Coca Cola to change the original recipe. Maybe they're trying to bring back the Edsel, too

WA Chinook and steelhead stock have been listed since the early 90s. How do those stocks look now, after 20+ years of rebuilding? Now, compare that to species like the Whooping Crane, California Condor, California Gray Whale, Peregrine who were all listed quite a while ago. What is their current population versus that at listing? Whatever we have done for the last 20 years simply has not worked. Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is not all that smart.

"Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is not all that smart."


Hey. Isn't that the definition of insanity?

It's amazing to look at the historic pictures of commercial fishing in Puget Sound. Seeing guys waist deep on the deck of boats with Salmon that look to be pushing 30 pounds. Imagine, hundreds of thousands of those fish being taken out of the waters, without a single hatchery fish among them.

And look where we are now...

Yes, it is not right to put the sins of the fathers on the children, but it's also not right to blindly continue to rape a resource just because it is a family tradition.

Gill nets are NOT a solution to the problem, in the salt, or strung from shore to shore across a river.

Implementing and mandating selective fisheries across the board, and smart use of brood stock may not be perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. At least, it might put a finger in the hole until some better solutions are created.

Just got this from NSIA:





In This Issue
All Hands On Deck - SB 5617
Urgent Action Alert! We Need You to Contact WA Legislators TODAY to Protect Sportfishing Businesses!!!

Time is almost out to protect (your)
sportfishing businesses!
This Thursday, February 21, at 1:30 Senate Bill 5617, banning the use of non-treaty gillnets in Washington state, will have an Executive work session in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources and Parks. At this hearing the Committee will decide whether to amend SB 5617 and/or pass it out of Committee. If the Committee does not vote the bill out, it dies. We can't let this happen!

As you would guess, the gillnetters and their allies have been pounding the Committee with calls, emails and piles of misinformation.

SO PLEASE FORWARD THIS ALERT TO ALL YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA LINKS!

It is vital that you contact the following Committee members RIGHT NOW and ask them to vote SB 5617 out of Committee. Call or email each one! Sen. Van De Wege, Chair (D), (360)786-7646; Sen. Salomon, Vice Chair, (D) (360)786 -7662 ; Sen. Warnick (R) (360)786-7624, Sen. Honeyford (R) (360)786-7684 ; Sen. Rolfes (D) (360)786-7644 ; Sen. Short (R) (360)786-7612
Tell them:
SB 5617 is important to the jobs in the business you own/work for and for thousands of jobs in both Washington and Oregon.
Every other state in the lower 48 has banned non-tribal gillnetting for conservation and economic reasons. We can do better!
Salmon returns are at all time lows, Orca are dying, and our businesses are struggling. We can no longer justify or afford to continue commercial non-treaty gillnetting.
Do this now. By Thursday at 1:30 it will be too late and the only person you will have to blame will be in the mirror. More than half of the Senate co-sponsored SB 5617, support them by making the calls and emails today. As always, stay polite and respectful and focused on your industry. SB 5617 is not about treaty rights and is not at all relevant in your discussions with Legislators.


Sincerely,


Heather Reese, NSIA Communications

Maybe they need to ammend continued hatchery production even though nets are out? And No tribal nets below Bonneville dam.

5617 just passed in the Senate Executive Session, with modifications.

That's a long way from home, but I can't recall a bill like this getting out of committee in the past, so that's actually a pretty big deal. Color me surprised (so far).

Can't get a clean copy. This link will take you to the Senate Ag.,Water, Nat. Res., and Parks committee website. Click on SB 5617, then click on bill history, and then on Amds/Proposed Subs and click on PSSB for the current wording


https://app.leg.wa.gov/committeeschedules/Home/Documents/25275

Here's my rough summary:

The timeline for implementation is shortened. Gill nets can't be used in WA waters of the Columbia River starting Jan. 1, 2021. The buy-out format has been changed. It looks like gill nets will remain legal in other waters (Puget Sound, Grays Harbor, and Willapa Bay). Money available for developing new gear for the fishery with an emphasis on avoidance of non-target species, fishing mark selectively, low release rate mortality, and operational effectiveness. with priority for gill netters individually, as a group, or those who have tried seines and pound nets. Selective gear incentive restricted to seines, pound nets, and weirs. Statute talks to maintaining and enhancing hatchery production through removal of surplus hatchery fish.

The bill now goes to the Senate Ways and Means committee. No timeline yet, for that.

It’s too bad but not surprising that they gutted this bill. Making it only about the Columbia is just reaffirming the Commission policy that has already been in place but has failed in implementation.

CCA Washington still has not gotten off the ground like it has in other places. Why should Puget Sound be not be included in Gillnet and Pinniped relief? Our fisheries are on life support!

"The buy-out format has been changed. It looks like gill nets will remain legal in other waters (Puget Sound, Grays Harbor, and Willapa Bay). "


Wow, How do I find out who strong armed who, to get these 3 areas, (Puget Sound, Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay) removed from SB 5617, especially Grays Harbor.


The reason I keep mentioning Grays Harbor, Chehalis numbers are down AND there are 3 commercial groups fishing...….and the smallest group is the NT netters, and some of those just net part time. At NOF, 100's of staff hours plus 100 's of reams of paper are used to justify some hours for the NT, more money is spent on the process than the funds the NT fishermen get when the fish are sold...…...grrrrrr how stupid can it get???????

I'm sure there was a fair amount of arm twisting that went on to get the re-write of the original bill. Might not have made it out of committee without the changes. As currently written, it would remove gill nets from the Columbia and speed up the deadline. That's a step in the right direction.

The bill is now in the Senate Ways and Means committee. It has to be passed out of committee to the floor by Friday evening, March 1, or it won't see the floor of the Senate and would be dead for this year.

One of the sponsors said "...it needs a tremendous amount of support for that (getting out of Ways and Means) to happen..."

I looked at the Ways and Means committee hearing schedule and the bill isn't on the calendar any day this week. Looks like the Senate is going to be in Caucus all week. Would think if there is any hope down the road, it will be added to the Committee calendar.

Same can basically be said for the 100's of staff, commission, and volunteer advisor hours being expended for WB. Getting to be very little value in return. The gillnet fleet is on its way out, it's just a matter of time, now. SalmoG summarized it VERY nicely in his recent posts on Ifish, but I don't wanna steal his thunder. Mebbe he'll copy and paste here.

Politics! $#*$)#&$)#(&$)#($

Add to that another full round to get WB rid of nets in the future, then another round for Puget Sound, and so on. Shoulda done it once and for all, instead of stretching it out God-Knows how many years.

With SRKW goals, and the economic vitality that sport fishing provides over commercial business, it surprised me they watered it down so much. It seemed the time was right to get it over with once and for all. I shoulda known better.

Is this what you meant Eyefish?

In a word, yes. Hatchery and wild fish can co-exist. They can co-exist best in systems where a means of separation is present so that returning adults can be separated according to their hatchery or wild origin. A harder condition to meet is that they will also co-exist better when the wild populations are abundant relative to the numbers of returning hatchery fish. Likely candidate river systems include the Cowlitz, NF Lewis, Clackamas, McKenzie, and possibly other Willamette basin rivers too, where migration barriers exist or could reasonably be retrofitted to permit adult fish sorting.



I suppose we all would like to have wild runs that are healthy enough to not only be self-sustaining, but abundant enough to support a significant level of harvest (however many significant is). I don't think that is realistic in the PNW world that we have made. In WA's heavily populated Puget Sound region, wild runs that could support harvest every year and sustain themselves have not been present for 50 years, and longer for certain stocks. I read that the Puget Sound treaty tribes list naturally self-sustaining wild stocks that support a significant tribal harvest is their recovery goal. I don't know if they actually believe that's possible, but I've been around this all my life, and I think such a goal is delusional. That train has left the station, and it's not coming back.


It's not coming back because the human population continues to grow unchecked. And local, state, and federal agencies approve 10 projects that indirectly or directly degrade fish habitat for every habitat restoration project. Anybody should be able to do that math, and it doesn't bode well for the kind of wild fish population recovery the agencies and tribes have been talking about.


Regarding the question of can we have hatchery fish without wild fish? Hypothetically, yes, we can. Until the inevitable occurs. Despite backup systems and near fail-safe mechanisms, hatchery fish kills continue to happen. And they always will. The best that can be done is to reduce the frequency, but eliminating them is not possible. To think otherwise is as delusional as thinking wild stocks will be recovered to support large harvests. So the prudent manager and conservationist will do all he or she can to maintain as many of the extant wild populations as possible. Remember that intelligent tinkering includes saving all the parts.


Regarding the on-going squabble between Jacksalmon, Gun,rod,bow, and Big Game Fishing and commercial Chinook fisheries, we have to consider that the existing situation is not desirable or meeting the perceived needs of either sport or commercial fishing interests. People like to talk about "growing the pie" instead of fighting over the crumbs. That necessitates being blind to the facts that we have already been fighting over the crumbs for the last 2 or 3 decades. Most commercial salmon fishing has been relegated to the status of hobby fishing. As things get worse, which is likely, they will continue to fish until they feel they can no longer absorb the financial loss, probably depending on how well they are doing in the Alaska season, where many, if not most, actually earn a living from fishing. The state fishery agencies can't regulate the commercial interests out of fishing because they read their enabling state statutes as requiring commercial fishing. Some interests will read that as commercial fishing down to the last available salmon, profitable or not.


Sport fishing can exist at some level with really low abundance of salmon and steelhead. The only question is how many anglers will find it worth their time and interest to participate when the prospects of a successful fishing trip drop to unprecedented low levels. Think, for instance, of fishing for Atlantic salmon in Maine, where catching one fish for a week's fishing, or for a season, becomes the mark of success. How many will do it? I don't know, but it will be a lot less than are fishing today. Especially if that fishing is catch and release only, like fishing for wild steelhead in WA state is now.


I think Jackchinook is on the right track advocating for an end to commercial Chinook salmon exploitation when sportfishing seasons have been curtailed. The notion of all parties "sharing the pain" of low abundance is just a way to rationalize on-going diminishing returns that deliver a desirable outcome to no one. So it will take state legislation to end any part of commercial fishing since the agencies won't do it. There currently is a bill in the WA Legislature that intended to end non-treaty commercial gillnetting in the state. The commercial lobby, being as strong as it is, has so far weakened it to apply to the Columbia River only, which would allow the practice to continue in Willapa Bay, Grays Harbor, and Puget Sound (where there are few non-treaty gillnet fisheries any more). So commercial gillnetting will end, either by legislation or lack of profitability. It's a matter of time, and how many crumbs remain.

Followed up with:

Meanwhile I think it's high time to embrace some of Jacksalmon's perspective and channel his energy toward a positive end. The pie will never be large enough. I listed reasons that should be persuasive enough. Since we have treaty right fishing that is federally protected and we can't do anything about it, why on earth do we need a non-treaty commercial troll fleet and gillnet fleet? There is not a shortage of commercially caught salmon. Either we wait until it is so unprofitable that they hang it up, or we humanely legislate them off the water. The former means salmon will be in such low abundance that sport fishers won't bother either, while the latter preserves an opportunity to save a reasonable amount of recreational fishing.

Bi-state workgroup/committee from both commissions on either side of the big river decided to exempt the CR from the gillnet ban yesterday. Pretty de-moralizing.

If you ban gill netting and the result is better escapements for wild fish then that will put the First Conservationists into a bind. Same with the use of traps. Having actual evidence instead of models might create problems.

You know, I've been making empty threats to quit buying licenses every year lately. Sometimes, it's after reading that a joint committee of shills has, yet again, decided to trump the will of the citizens and kill gillnet reforms, like this year. Other years, it's after reviewing the outcomes of North of Falcon and finding that another fun fishery has been taken away to provide for a commercial welfare fishery of some stripe or other. Whatever the case, it's abundantly clear that I am getting access to less opportunity each year. Meanwhile, old fees increase, and new fees get implemented, allegedly to benefit programs for which they are named, but eventually revealed to have been nothing more than a general increase in a not-so-clever disguise. Whatever the case, I eventually cave and buy my license, practically begging them for more of the same treatment next year.

Why do I allow myself to be suckered like this? Will I ever learn?

E-mail sent by an articulate buddy.... feel free to use all or parts thereof.

Dear Commissioners,

It is my understanding that yesterday, by a vote of 4-2, a joint-state committee recommended the return of non-tribal gillnetting to the lower mainstem Columbia River during the spring and summer seasons and an increase in mainstem gillnetting during the fall season and that this recommendation was made despite historically low spring, summer, and fall chinook forecasts.

Because this recommendation directly contradicts promises made to Washington sportsman—for which they paid in the form of increased regulation and financial contributions—and because it violates common-sense fisheries management, I urge you to reject the recommendation, uphold the 2012 bi-state Columbia River gillnet reforms, and fulfill the promises this Commission made to each and every citizen of Washington State.

I trust you will do the right thing and would welcome the opportunity to speak with you more on this issue

-----

Feel free to borrow / crib from.

RW

I wish I could say this is shocking, but it's not, not even a little.

With both Departments failing at most opportunities, and any bill that may have any good effect at all being gutted down to being worthless by the Legislature, that brings us back to the initiative process.

That's had pretty schitty success so far, too.

Fish on...

Todd

Step 1....There you go...….started out, complete ban on NT gill nets in all of Washington State.


Step 2......Pull Puget Sound, Grays Harbor, and Willapa Bay, from the original SB 5617......but leave Columbia River as the area to MAYBE get rid of the "walls of death".

Step 3......Whole SB 5617, shot down !!!!!!!


I realize the CR is a lot of people wishes to be net free, I mean who doesn't enjoy a "up river bright" for a bar b que. The problem was this was a 2 State thing, what seemed good, got shot down, again....

I said it before.....maybe a small step would have been better, Grays Harbor is the perfect place to have started a NT gill net ban. Three gill net groups work the "walls of death", QIN, Chehalis Tribe, and NT......NT is a very small group, less than 15 netters, might have been a start to have some NT nets gone.....now back to ground zero...….

Save the Orca's. A well ran emotional campaign could derail the nets. CCA built great momentum and had WA flipped. OR went backwards when Kahbiltzer got caught banging one of his employees and Kate Brown took the helm. Coulda woulda shoulda.

On another forum it was brought up to send your license to the governor with a note that you won't be buying another one. Fine idea. I'm going to make copies and send them to the commissioners, my legislators, and the governor along with a note that I refuse to subsidize the commercial fleet with my license fees next year. I can handle a year off...I live close to Canada.

Instead of just sending in the license, let them know where you will be spending your recreational money. From the Governor's perspective, if you give up fishing in WA and start (say) golfing or gambling instead that money stays in-state so there is no loss.

On the other hand, if that license money, gas money, food money, lodging money, and so on goes to AK, BC, OR, WY, MT, ID or whatever then it does become an economic drain that might get their attention.

I sent one to the director and the gov telling them their mismanagement was a big factor in leaving the state. Oddly enough nobody has responded

Well, the bill's been watered down to exempt PS, WB, and GH. The only basin left is the CR.

Guess again....

WFWC just voted 5:1 y'day to undo the CR gillnet reforms put into policy in 2013

Wonder how many of them know what the mechanics of gillnet harvest even looks like? How the hell anyone believes this gear-type can be responsibly/morally/ethically deployed when fishing over ESA-listed stocks is beyond me.

https://youtu.be/cUCXlK3kod0?t=102

But staff told them that GN's are the greatest thing since sliced bread. and will MAGA.

I have yet to see the Senate or House bill to increase WDFW fishing license fees and General Fund appropriations. I don't want to miss the opportunity to oppose funding for WDFW. The Department and the Commission have decided they can just stick it to the tax paying, license buying constituents and not deliver services, i.e., recreational fishing and then add insult to injury by taking our money and spending to subsidize commercial fishing. I'm buying BC and MT fishing licenses this year.

NEWS RELEASE
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/

March 4, 2019
Contact: Tami Lininger, 360-902-2267

Commission approves modifications to its Columbia River salmon fishery policy

SPOKANE – The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission has agreed to allow the use of gillnets during the fall salmon fishery on the lower Columbia River while state fishery managers work with their Oregon counterparts to develop a joint long-term policy for shared waters.

The commission, a citizen panel appointed by the governor to set policy for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), took that action and received public comments on proposed hunting seasons for 2019-21 during a public meeting March 1-2 in Spokane.

The commission's action to extend the use of gillnets was one of a number of recommendations for Columbia River fisheries developed by a joint committee with members of the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission. Oregon's full commission will also consider the recommendations when it meets later this month.

Commissioners from both states are working on an overhaul of their respective Columbia River salmon management policies, which are designed to achieve conservation goals for salmon and steelhead, promote orderly fisheries in concurrent waters, and maintain and enhance economic stability in sport and commercial fisheries.

The change in policy affects allowable commercial fishing gear and the allocation of catch between sport and commercial fisheries, among other adjustments. Conservation measures remain unchanged, and no additional fishing pressure was approved beyond the annual amount allowed in full compliance with all salmon and steelhead Endangered Species Act requirements and sustainable fishery management practices.

The Washington policy, approved in 2013, intended for the commercial fishery to have completed a transition from gillnets to alternative gear this year and be relocated away from mainstem Columbia River areas. However, the use of alternative gear has not yet been refined and the off-channel areas have been determined to be unsuitable.

The commission modified that policy in response to a comprehensive performance review conducted over the past year. Without that action, fishing rules for Washington and Oregon would have been incompatible, because Oregon plans to allow the use of gillnets during the upcoming fall season.

The recommendation approved by the commission at the meeting in Spokane will allow commercial fisheries to proceed similar to 2018. A maximum of 70 percent of the fall chinook catch will be allocated to the recreational fishery, the same amount allocated under Oregon's policy.

Washington commissioners also agreed to retain the recreational fishery's share of 80 percent during the spring chinook fishery. The allocation for the commercial fishery was set at 20 percent with no commercial fishing in the mainstem Columbia River unless the in-season run-size update for upper river spring chinook is more than 129 percent of the pre-season forecast of 99,300 fish.

Additionally, the commission made the use of barbless hooks voluntary in Columbia River fisheries as soon as possible, but no later than June 1, 2019.

Five Washington commissioners voted to approve the recommendation: commissioners Kim Thorburn, Barbara Baker, Robert Kehoe, Donald McIsaac and Jay Holzmiller. Commissioner David Graybill voted "no," and commissioners Bradley Smith and Larry Carpenter abstained.

Details of the motion that passed and more information on the Columbia River Policy Review can be found at https://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/.

Prior to that decision, the commission was briefed by WDFW wildlife managers and accepted public comments on proposed hunting rules for deer, elk, waterfowl, and other game species. The commission is scheduled to take final action on those proposal at a public meeting April 5-6 in Olympia.

For more information on the season-setting process see https://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/regulations/seasonsetting/

The commercials need to get the gillnets back on the mainstem for the impending coho mop up in the lower river.... and pulling all the stops to get it done.

What a joke

I just watched the video of the CR hearing and LIMITED public comment. The current brain trust occupying the seats on that commission as well as those occupying the upper echelon of salmon management at WDFW are an embarrassment to salmon conservation.

HUGE step backward.

Policy isn't failing, you dimwits! The guys charged with its implentation are failing. If staff had just done what the policy directed them to do, we'd be so much better off today, esp in the arena of alternative gear. No one had the balls to just make the alternative gear happen, or incentivize/coerce the commercials to switch over. Just more excuses about how it can't/won't work! Just enabling folks to NOT change!

And now those same sorry excuses are being used as the catalyst to abandon ship. J F C.... talk about ridiculous!

Time to lobby the Legislature to not fund WDFW. The only way to get their attention is $$, and if the Department has no General Fund dollars, they might decide to stop biting the hand that feeds them.

Interesting to watch things like this play out. That said after capturing Chinook by hook, tangle net, traps I can tell you there is only one method ( other than a barrier system ) that can be truly selective. Fish wheels pure and simple everything will fail dismally.

I know that some of you feel I'm a zealot, too radical and outspoken. I agree that my passion and, well, anger, causes me to use words that are harsh. I don't apologize for my passion, I do if my words have offended.

However, until the recreational community (ALL OF US) start pushing together as a unified front, the merry-go-round of willful mis-management will continue.

We cannot rely on PSA, or CCA or WFA or any other politicized group to be our proxy. We are the largest, and potentially the most influential group if we can only stop the in-fighting and polarization into splinter groups.

United, we can make real change. Divided, we continue to get ignored.

The legislature IS the problem, whores on both sides of the aisle sell us out as much or more then the Commission and the Governor. Until campaign reform and tribal and commercial lobbies no longer prostitute out our political process NOTHING will change. Bob R

Only way to get the tribal money out is to legalize gaming statewide and kneecap their slush fund

Once again, you have an uphill fight with legislators as they will never get the money from non-tribal casinos that they get from tribal interests. Bob R

I know what I can do. That's not buy a license this year and help fund wdfw. This is bullchit year in year out we continue to purchase these licenses in hopes of having some fish to chase. Opportunities are running thin and we are loosing more fisheries every year. Wdfw simply are not doing there jobs and wasting money on stupid [Bleeeeep!]. I'll take my license money elsewhere. If I'm craving some salmon or steel I'll pay a tribal guide and get my eats from them. I feel this is a "pissing up a rope" situation with fish and wildlife anymore. fishing licences are not going to be raised this year because fish and wildlife knows that they can't raise license fees for less fish and opportunities in return. They better figure out a plan quick before they can't sell licenses anymore. I could see this catching on pretty quick. This seems like the only option at this point bay wolf.

If you think that wdfw cares if you buy a license or not you are woefully mistaken. Getting enough people to get on board with this is a lost cause. Of course it will mean that a few won't be on the water, but that just makes more room for the rest of us. Work for election reforms or not, but changing the current situation by not fishing locally is a losing strategy, and what makes you think going to Alaska or British Columbia is an answer? Because their salmon and steelhead situation ain't much better. A guide there may or may not put you on fish, but that doesn't tell you much about how they are dealing with fewer fish as a general rule. I try to do what I can, I attend the adviser's meeting for the areas I fish and provide input, learn lots I didn't know, meet other fisherfolk in my area, and attend the "dog and pony shows" that wdfw and the commission put on. These are more frustrating, but given the option of not saying anything other then on social media at least i have given it a chance to work. Bob R

Bob you sound like you got your head as far up your @ss as WDFW.

Well, I just added another line or two to my post, if you still feel that way after re-reading my post I guess insulting people on line is all you got. Another big intelligent man behind a keyboard. Like I said before, I go to meetings and state who I am. If you have a problem with me expressing my opinion (without telling you that you have your head up your ass) well then come to a meeting. Then you can tell me that to my face if you have the guts. Bob R

I would recommend anyone with an open mind to read the thread titled, "Good News,CCA Loses Again" that is on the Washington discussion section of Bloody Decks, another fishing forum. It certainly gave me a new outlook on banning non-tribal nets but not being able to do anything about tribal nets. Interesting to read. Bob R

That's your own opinion and I respect that. I've lived in Washington my whole life and I see this state going into the $hitter more and more everyday. The outdoors are my life asides from work, and seeing how this state manages our recourses, fisheries and sweeping chit under the rug is a joke anymore.
We buy these licenses for fishing opportunities right? Seems like we are losing more every year. Why help fund something and not have any help in return?
I got no problem telling you to your face.
I'm the wrong one to call out.

Yeah, telling me I have my head up my ass is certainly "respecting my opinion". You are exactly the one to call out. Bob R

I often ponder the question of why sport fishermen are so inclined to be antagonist towards each other. I really is quite detrimental to gaining any political advantage.

Gentlemen,

I understand the emotions are high, believe me when I say I'm right there with you. But turning on each other is exactly my point about why we as a community are alway taken advantage of. We MUST stand united or we will continue to be walked on.

There are so many issues in our fisheries that it is near impossible to stay focused on any one problem, and then to exert all our collective force on that issue.

If I might, I would like to suggest two strategies that I believe almost everyone can agree on. And by agreeing on, we can make a consolidated effort to work toward.

1. We need to have the Commission meetings held on weekends rather than during the week. I believe we could dramatically increase the number of participants, and our voice, if the Commission meetings were conducted on Saturday or Sunday. I don't want to start a conspiracy theory, but I find it odd that they want them during the week when most people have to work.

2. We need to continue to press for total transparency in ALL meetings, deals, transactions and discussions involving fisheries. Most all of the destruction we've witnessed in our fisheries have occurred in agreements and discussions which HAVE NOT included the public in the room. Remember, we are supposed to be EQUAL PARTNERS in the fisheries, yet, more often then not, we (rec. fishermen) are left out of the meetings. Yes, we have "representatives" but almost all are part of the "swamp". We need to have these meetings OPEN, thru live video, or open seats, so anyone can see and hear what is discussed and what is agreed to by whom.

Of course, there will be resistance. There will be reasons why these two things can't happen. But, they are only excuses to keep us in our place. But we see what staying in our place has gotten us, and our sport that we all love. So, let's not turn our frustration and anger on each other, rather, lets commit to turn our energy and force on those who are creating this anger...

I agree 100%. How long has this been going on though? it's as we're fighting a war we can't win, with no signs of budging. No plan of attack from the states end whatsoever. The rugs gettin full.
My apologies bob, maybe I came off strong.

There is one thing that the politicians, the Commission and the Department fear...and that is bad press. Or even having a lot of this out in the open. The "public" Commission meetings are covered by video feed and aired. The last thing they want is an overflow crowd of angry recreational fishermen being broadcast..once the word gets out, the other media outlets will show, they won't pass up on confrontation.

The first and most important thing we MUST change is having the Commission meetings changed to weekends. That way, we can get the greatest number of guys to participate.

We might get a handful more anglers at Commission meetings on a Saturday, but I doubt it would be many more than you see at weekday meetings. For every guy/gal currently, actively involved, there are at least two more who are no longer actively involved, because they've been completely demoralized by how fruitless their efforts were. For every two of those, there are about 50 more who simply aren't ever going to get involved in advocacy work. I don't care what sort of advocacy work you choose; 10% of the people do 90% of the work.


Another 90/10 comparison that really hurts our cause is that only about 10% of the public ever goes fishing (might be less than that among younger generations), while a vast majority buys occasional fish commercially. Some of this majority would be sympathetic to our cause if they were educated about the plight of Pacific salmon (and the lowly angler), but most folks don't have a clue (or much of a care, really).

Simply put, public perception is generally not sympathetic to sport fishing interests. They don't fish, and they don't care, so long as they can pay exhorbitant prices for fish at the store once in a while. This is why our pleas and threats fall on deaf ears. We are the minority, and if you look at it that way, the system is working precisely as designed.

Will no longer support any PSA activity, after Ron's letter on Support of Gillnetting.

I can speak for Bob R and his wife Melanie...they have been going to many Commission meetings and also take the time to go to the NOF in Region 6. They both have spoken at not only the Commission meetings but also many NOF meetings, always to positive items that would benefit conservation and sports persons.

Dealing with WDFW can be a real frustration, some of us have been "fighting the fight" to get funds spent for mitigation on the Wynoochee. There is a pot of money, about 2.4 million, that is for steelhead and Coho. THIS MONEY HAS BEEN IN A FUND SINCE 1992, not one penny has been spent for what it was intended to be spent for......grrrrrrrrr

There are 2 primary agencies that "supposedly meet" to get this money spent. WDFW and QIN are the 2 agencies that are involved. The public is not allowed at these meetings, so we don't know the issues that have stopped this process for 26 years. The Commission is well aware, and have said "get this matter taken care of"....nothing...…

Some of us have ask the questions over and over...…"black hole"....Ron Warren, and other WDFW personnel, have knowledge of this and continues to do nothing.


NT Gill netting needs to "go away"....plain and simple, WDFW and our Commission took away years of gains in a 5 to 1 vote.....grrrrrr

In the fish advocacy arena, it’s way more like 1:99.