The newer "tooth tangle" commercial nets developed and tested in B.C. in recent years are finally going to get a trial test on the present Columbia springer run. These nets are designed to be more discriminate than mono gillnets. They are composed of some type of material that entangles the fish by their teeth rather than the mortal gill snarl. They don't kill all entrapped fish as the gillnets do. If these nets are tended often enough the native fish entangled alive can be released; to an uncertain survival percent. 20 commercial net boats were selected via lottery to partake in this test netting at periodic intervals over the next 4 weeks, each with a fish bio aboard for observation. The alive released fish will be tagged and studied to get a percent survival rate to compare to Canadian studies. These nets are expected to be certainly better than gillnets for the native fish runs. The Columbia Tribal gillnet fishers were asked to use these also to portect the nates and they balked at it; won't do it because they don't have to as the commercial netters will (I would assume because they require more attentive work; can't think of any other reason - very unfortunate, and another native fish and public relations blunder by the Col. Tribes!). Some sport anglers are angry about these tests. I have mixed emotions about them. If they kill less nates that's good. But they will likely allow for longer commercial netting going on below our sportfishing and thus hurt our chances at worthwhile fishing. I hope the powers to be remember the much greater positive economic impact of viable sportfisheries!!! Why can't the commercial netters be confined to netting above the sport fleet instead of below them?!? I think sportsmen would be more than willing to give up fishing from about Corbett to Bonneville if the netters were restricted to that area, and we could then fish on unnetted runs from Corbett to the mouth of the Columbia. Lots to consider here for sure! ... Opinions?

You can read my So what? topic about this.

These nets were tested last year in Puget Sound by the (i think) Suquamish tribe, and the results were quite encouraging.
With the right incentives, the tribes should be willing to switch to the less lethal nets, but as you've said they are more labor-intensive. The biggest incentive I see is that the fish are alive at the time of harvest, and therefore fresher to the market place, perhaps commanding a higher price.
The down side is that the new nets are considerably more expensive.
Which Tribes are netting in the Columbia?

Tangle nets are likely better than gill nets. However, why not floating traps? This commercial harvest technique has close to a zero mortality ratio. It also does not require commercials to pull in large nets. It is a new technique and catch ratio's can be improved, while lowering wild fish mortality. I guess we need "baby steps." I will never be a commercial fishing advocate, however I feel reducing mortality on wild fish is important.

RT,

I think the Columbia River tribes balk at the tangle nets or any discriminate fishing method because they have adopted a position that hatchery fish equal native fish. That is, a hatchery fish spawning in the natural environment is just as good as a wild native fish spawning naturally. The science doesn't support that position, at least for steelhead. I don't know if there are any study results supporting either position for salmon. Most biologists don't support it.

If the tribes used the tangle nets, that would serve to undermine the position they have taken, and possibly tend toward subjecting their fisheries to some of the same protective standards that restrict the non-treaty recreational fishery. Naturally, that doesn't serve their interest in harvesting more fish.

Actually, with availble technology it's hard to justify either treaty or non-treaty gillnet fishing in the Columbia River. We've got plenty of engineering expertise to modify the fish ladders at Bonneville with fish traps. Harvestable hatchery fish could be removed there for treaty and non-treaty commercial fishing interests, and wild salmon and steelhead could be passed along unharmed to their upstream migration.

The big resistance to fish traps, or most alternatives to gillnets, is the ownership of the catch. Who gets the fish/money from the transaction? It's stupid, but we sacrifice conservation interests to maintain "traditional" commercial fishing like it's some sacred cow. The technical solution is dead simple. The social/economic equation is a political cat fight. So for the paltry few bucks realized from this fishery, we stick with an obsolete fishing method to placate an outdated occupation at the expense of wild native salmon and steelhead.

The regulators' mastheads should read, "Dumb****s are Us."

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

[ 04-17-2001: Message edited by: Salmo g. ]

RT I have questions about the test netting. As I've read they will require closer checking to insure survival of the nates. To insure survival the fish must be released sooon after netting or they will thrash and die in the nets. I am still against any kind of netting our rivers but hopefully this test will save natives.

the bottom line is when these nets are ok`d, the commercial fleet will be hammering every hatchery run they can, these nets are bad news for sports anglers, the bottom line is to benifit commercial netters, its good that less native fish will be caught, but, i think the percentage was .08 for commercial on the columbia this year for native fish before the fishery closed, just think with these nets it may be .01, that means more fish hatchery fish for the commercial netters before that goat is reached, these nets realy suck

They are still nets, and as such They have no place in my book. On another thread somebody mentioned that commercial fishing is a good thing because it enables people who can't fish for themselves to still be able to attain fresh fish. That makes about as much sense as saying that cancer is a good thing because it keeps Doctors employed. Besides why does it have to be netting? What about aquaculture or commercial trolling? Why do we have to use such a devastating method of harvesting fish?

fish will still be on the market, the indians dont eat all 50 percent of the fish they get, people need to be educated.

Good point Dogsalmon. It doesn't matter if we ban nets altogether, as long as we have the Tribes we'll have commercially caught fish, because the tribes don't have to play by everyone else's rules. They will always be allowed to net..... Right down to the very last fish.

Right on Salmo. I have written posts long ago suggesting Indian dipnetting (soft mesh) and commercial trapping at the Bonneville and John Day dam fish ladders, so as to enable release of native fish. The gillnets are just a senseless albatross. ...

ds, the Indians aren't getting their lawful 50% share of the fish. They are getting way over that in most places. In the Columbia, (Yakima, Umatilla, Warm Springs, other? tribes), they are getting a 13% ESA impact for netting the current springer run, while the non-Indians get a 2% ESA impact. Commercials about 1.1% and us sportfishers get 0.9%. As the Saturday Night Live character the 'Church Lady'
would say "Well, isn't that special! How conveeenient." What [Bleeeeep!]!

i know they are getting over 50%, but dont people know that they sell them to fish markets, to say there will be no fresh fish without non-treaty salmon netters is totaly false.

Someone please tell me why they cant split the hachery fish at Bonneville Dam with the tribes and the gillnetters (commercial) And let all wild fish go and let us fish the lower river. I fished 17 days look at Dollars that were spent on this fishery!!!! Bathtub Bob

Don't be fooled, guys... all nets are really bad, and even when the WDFW & commercials talk about fish mortality, almost all the time they're talking about what the fish look like when they're thrown back in the water... what they really need to do is keep them in captivity and study them for a couple of weeks... many times, netted or man-handled fish develop bacterial infections and die due to scale or protective layer loss... sometimes many days after being released. In salt water, massive scale loss can lead to dehydration. Another point to these "tangle" nets is that they need to be tended regularly to keep the mortality down... this has always been a big problem with commercials, too.

The following is an excerpt from Terry Sheely's article in the April 2001 issue of "The Reel News"... I think he says it well.

TANGLE NET BULL ROAR

WDFW is making some outlandish statements regarding nets and live fish release. It's not what they say it's what they don't say that's troubling.
WDFW's test of industrial tangle nets in Puget Sound and Willapa Bay indicates a slightly higher survival rate for netted fish. According to WDFW 55 percent of chinook and coho caught with a standard gillnet were still healthy enough to swim away from the boat after release.
By comparison. about 82 percent of the chinook and coho salmon released from a tangle net still appeared healthy.
Key words in those two department lines are. "healthy enough to swim away" and
"still appeared healthy."
When sport fishermen were arguing for hook and release fisheries WDFW required caught fish to be held for days in cages to see how many died after apparent healthy releases. And even then. when faced with the negligible mortality of catch-and-release fishing, rather than open more sport fishing opportunities, they denied the evidence and retreated to the comfort of their own old bad science.
The question is why aren't industrial netters held to the same standards, and since when is a "swim away" now considered a "healthy" release. Even 7th grade biology students can shoot holes in those findings. But not WDFW.
Even under the best case scenario that means 18 percent of all netted wild salmon, including ESA listed runs, will be killed by industrial boats and discarded.
18 PER CENT !!!!!!!!
According to WDFW 18 percent industrial mortality is OK.
OK!
This same WDFW just a few years ago found that a 1.5 to 3 percent catch and release mortality was unacceptably high to permit a catch-and-release sport season?
Here's the kicker. About the same time that industrial fishermen were being given attaboys for hooking salmon by the head, wrapping them in net mesh, hauling them onto deck, jerking them free of the mesh and throwing them overboard to "swim away"-- WDFW issued a press release warning sport fishermen not to touch, net, or beach wild salmon. The release from WDFW warns "Sportsmen are urged not to remove salmon with an adipose fin [wild] from the water and to avoid netting the fish. Netting causes the "loss of protective scales"
That deserves repeating. "Netting causes the loss of protective scales."
Hypocritical double-standard aside, shame on you Jeff Koenings. Shame. If you really want to save fish just pull the nets out of the river. The state economy won't even hiccup at the loss.

Or if doing the right thing and banning nets is too tough a pill for you to swallow, then how about requiring industrials to use the new floating box trap. Tested during the tangle and gill net comparisons floating box traps had an amazing 100 percent survival rate for released fish. The floating box trap captures salmon by funneling them into a small webbed chamber. If it had the highest survival rate then why isn't WDFW requiring it. Possibly because it caught the fewest fish.
Anybody suspect that the tangle net test is just a little feel good smoke and one-way mirrors that WDFW will use to justify continuation of the industrial fishery. That's not a question.

We have put an end to strip mineing and clear cutting. Netting in the rivers must stop also.
I am not one who likes to start rumors but I was talking to a gill netter just yesterday. I said so you will be testing the new tangle nets. His reply was "Bull **** that is all a lie. There may be a few guy using them but most of us are still using gill nets. You are being lied to bud."
Is there any way to check and see if the wool is being pulled over our eyes???
I will be watching the columbia with my binocks. Where are they bringing the fish in to port I want to see the net my self.

RT
I'm new to this board. Have been advocating live trapping on another board with zero response. It really lightens my heart to read of so much support here. Sorry to say just talking won't make it happen but it has to start somewhere.
I hadn't learned of the floating live trap study until today glad to see someone at least looking into it. My version of trapping would be to modify the ladders at the dams and share dollars with Indian and non Indian based on treaty rights and historic landings by individual commercials.Tributaries down river could be harvested in the same manner mostly using existing hatchery traps.
What a shot in the arm this could be to ESA fish and non-targeted fish and wildlife not to mention a viable unprecedented sport fishery on the Columbia!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for the chance to express my thoughts. Jim

Sad fact is, the commercial's still run the state when it comes to salmon. Just like the timber industry runs the forest service.

There's lots of sad facts all around humanity. The human race has evolved so much further along with technology than social responsibilty evolution that it's shameful! ... This 'netting alternatives' issue is clearly one of the stupid ones. There are obviously better ways to appease user groups with technologically superior methods for protecting native fish runs. But noooooooo! They gotta remain stupid. For traditional stupid's sake. ... Same for over-populating the world. We have the technology to avoid that impending disaster. We have among the more intelligent factions knowledge of it's dire importance. But we also have the sociological idiom of senseless tradition and the 'right to lifer's' affective protests. What a mess of idiots that surround us! Can wisdom ever win out over idiom?!? ... Excuse my angry expression from within over these things. Just can't help but to vent sometimes.

RT

Just two points: The 50 split on allocation doesn't go much further than the Boldt decision. It hasn't every really been put into place in any area. Both sides just use it as a weapon of last resort if things get to far out of hand. For example, even though Boldt doesn't even apply to the Columbia River, tribes catch less than 15 percent of the coho returning to the Hood Canal. The sport openings far outweigh the tribal openings for that run.

Also, the simple fact of the matter is that tangle net just DON'T WORK. Read the research paper that backs up the WDFW press release on this issue. The test fisheries in the South Sound and by the Suquamish off of Seattle caught far less fish overall in the tangle nets than they did in the regular nets. It would then logically follow that the tangle nets caught less natives. And, the process of keeping alive non target fish is so larbor intensive, it would be hard to imagine in a real commercial fishery.

Here is a shortcut to the study: http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/fish/commercial/selective/tangleprogress1.htm