Maybe it's time to jump on our Fish & Wildlife Commissioners rears! How many of you are fed-up with what's going on in the Columbia River Commercial Net fishery? Time after time, the commercial net boys are being allowed to take their share, plus another share, of our state owned resources in their "incidental" catches of our salmon and sturgeon. As sport fishermen, we are not allowed to take ANY "incidental or by-catch" in our fishery! So why the double standards? Is it even legal?

Isn't our state laws suppose to apply equally to everyone? If that's true, then why is our state Fish & Wildlife agency only allowing one user group (i.e. commercial fisheries) to harvest and take, an "extra quota potion" of a publicly owned fishery resource as a "incidental" or as a "by-catch" harvest, when other groups, like sport fisherman, are not allowed to do the same?

It's not like you, or I, could just walk in and purchase a commercial gill net fishing license, and have the same EQUAL OPPRTUNITY to catch and harvest extra shares of publicly owned state fish like they do. This opportunity only applies to a special elite group of commercial fishermen that have locked-up, and holds this very limited number of commercial fishing licenses to themselves. Why should these guys be allowed to sell or pass down a STATE ISSUED LICENSE that only allows them or their family to harvest our publicly owned state fish? How can the State even allow them to "sell" or "pass down" a state issued license? How can the state only allow a few people the rights to harvest publicly own state fish? Hell, this whole mess should be in the courts right now! Doe's the word "Monopoly" sound familiar to you? In my mind, this is a "Monopoly" of a state owned resource!

It appears to me, that this issue, along with others, should be legally challenge to stop this "incidental" taking of state owned fish, in our rivers. One answer may lay in what is said in RCW 77.04.013 (Findings and intent). In part, it states that; "The legislature finds that all fish, shellfish, and wildlife species should be managed under a single comprehensive set of goals, policies, and objectives, and that the decision-making authority should rest with the fish and wildlife commission. The commission acts in an open and deliberative process that encourages public involvement and increases public confidence in department decision making."

One could certainly make the legal argument that the "intent" of RCW 77.04.013 was to make sure that the Commission manages our fish runs "under a SINGLE comprehensive set of goals, POLICIES, and objectives". As it stands now, the Commission is allowing WDFW to manage our fisheries under 2 different sets of goals and policies. One is for the commercial fishery and one is for the sport fishery! There must be other applicable laws that could also be used to challenge this double standard. Do you think that we have any legal grounds to challenge the WDFW rules that allow the commercial fishery to have "incidental" or "By-catch" takes in their fishery, when we are not allowed any in our fisheries?

Remember, our anadromous fish stocks belong equally to everyone in our state, not just to a few commercial fishing licenses holders or their families (no monopolies)! I wonder just how well this type of double standards would hold up if it properly challenge in our court system! Even if we can't get the nets out of the Columbia completely, maybe we can at least attempt to stop the continued abuse and over harvesting of our fish stocks, which occurs every year in the Commercial "incidental or by-catch" Allotments that are given to the commercial boys each year in the Columbia River net fisheries.

Why must sport fishermen be forced to use methods, which prevent ANY "incidental" taking of public state owned fish, when the commercials boys are GIVEN extra quotas of fish through their own "incidental" take allocations?

What's your opinion on this one guys, do you think there's any hope, or do we just lay back again…. and again…and again, and let it happen? Lets all put on our thinking caps on and come up with some new ideas!

Cowlitzfisherman,

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

I may be wrong about this, but aren't the Columbia river fisheries decisions made on the federal level? (NMFS). I completely agree! The unfairness in fisheries management decisions ALWAYS seems to fall against the sport fisherman. Perhaps this is just another shining example of how money, influence and organization, always wins out against what may be morally right.

4Salt,

I believe that NMFS only puts the limits of the "incidental" taking of listed, threatened, or endangered specie fish in the Columbia River commercial fishery. I think that they leave the rest up "incidental" take or by-catch of the other fish stocks up to the Washington and Oregon fish and game boys.

Cowlitzfisherman,

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

gilnetting sucks, plain and simple. the new tangle nets are a joke, think about it, they are made to target the hatchery fish and those are the same fish we fish for and i think that stinks, i realize it`s great to let the native fish go alive but the fact is we dont need non-treaty nets, the tribes get 50% plus and that is plenty for the fish markets. IMHO i believe the only reason there are still non-treaty salmon netters is because it`s cheaper to let them net as compaired to buying them out and i think there are people in high places that benifit greatly from loss write offs at tax time. it`s not about fish, it`s all about money.