Yeah guys come on over to ifish and read the stupidity posted there. It's under the "Nets" thread. Seems like there are many that believe it's just fine and dandy to gillnet. TimberMan,Osprey,Hey_Yall your input is needed on this! I'll probably catch hell for this but I don't care!
Stew

BAN ALL NETS

I thought that there were parties on both sides (okay, KT was alone on his side) that were very eloquent in their debate. It started out as him reporting that there weren't any numbers of chinooks caught in the nets, merely as a heads up for the sports fishermen. Then someone came along and questioned his good-standing as a sportsperson.

While KT was able to debate well with others on the other side, there were still the same usual folks who seemed unable to debate on an intellectual level so they resorted to character judgements and name-calling. Sad really.

I think it's all been covered before so there's no sense in heading over to Jennieland.

Give me the address to ifish and I'll give some input.

Matt

It's surprising how many ifishers caved into one guy with a very silly argument.Some pretty soft heads,I think.The softheads were more than offset by Dan and others,though.I think most of us know the attitude and impact of the commercials.
Who hasn't fished behind the netters?
They've gotta go.
There is little room or point to debate with people who are willing to kill the last fish for a buck.
If the nets ever go I will chuckle with utter indifference to the "plight" of the kicking and screaming commercial fisherman.

Heywood,

Eloquence, and persuasive articulation of one's viewpoint are trademarks of the legal profession. They still do not change the fact that gillnetting is a non-selective, wasteful, utterly destructive practice! Killertraylor presented an opinion that I, and many others believe is fundamentally WRONG It's not about sharing the resource, it's all about the welfare of the fish! Granted, forgoing the use of personal attacks is probably the best method of arguing one's viewpoint. Nevertheless, the coddling to KT by some of the members of ifish, in my opinion, is just their unwillingness to stand up for what is right in a public forum.

Matt, The address to the ifish bb is...
http://www.ifish.net/cgi-local/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=1

Hey Stew, stop throwing insults at people and and learn to be a bigger man!! Just kidding, dude. Does KT post over here? I sure hope not because if he does, I'll get pounded into the ground, too!

Whats the matter, did KT take your intellectual lunch money

It wasn't so much the gillnetting is okay idea it was him bragging about his rich friends doing it because they believed in it or some **** like that. Then he goes on to hammer unions,pro-choice and on and on. The guy hasn't got the balls to post that **** over here.
Fobb do you work in a chemical factory now? just wondering.
Stew

BAN ALL NETS

I personally see no sense in arguing this one, it's like when I used to argue with people by defending our gun rights. Never changed anyone's mind.
Why get worked up over something if it won't change someone's mind.
I know you are very passionate about this Stew, but you ain't gonna change his mind one bit.

Um sorry, 4Salt, but scientifically speaking, gillnets are one of the *MOST* selective fishery techniques being used today.

It just so happens that most net mesh sizes just happen to be right around the average size of the fish in the river.....killing any and everything close to that average size! I don't think mesh size is regulated...so it's all a mute point anyways.

I've got an entire book on just the "selectivity" aspect of fisheries techniques. I knew it'd come in handy one of these days!

Parker

parker,

"Scientifically speaking" nets are ONLY size-selective, NOT species-selective. Therein lies the problem.......

Face it folks, taking up this arguement in a sportfishing forum is silly. The banning of gillnets went on the ballot in Oregon several years ago and the largely-uninformed public voted it down.

KT has beliefs that are different than his own, and amazingly enough there are varying opinions on a lot of issues amongst the people in this and other forums. If there is going to be a debate on anything, it's best done between people who can do it intelligently and not by those who resort to name-calling and profanity. Profanity is nothing more than the minds inability to come up with an intelligent way of saying something.

Have you ever thought about the hypocrisy of a net? In one mans hand it's a tool to save fish and release them back unharmed. In another mans hand, it a tool that is used to be one of the most effective fish killing tools around.

Cowlitzfisherman

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

Parker,

"Scientifically speaking" that may be true. But here's one for you, Why was Bob "The really big one" so concerned about gillnetting the reds during the 2nd king run on the Kasilof? Logic would dictate that ONLY reds would be caught in this *most selective* of fisheries methods. It shouldn't have impacted the kings at all. Unfortunately, real-world circumstances don't always coincide with textbook knowledge.

I disagree, in that you can select for a particular species. Just change the net mesh size.

The problem lies when species are approx the same size.

I'm not arguing, I'm just being specific and trying to get *something* out of this B.S. in Fisheries degree. Gillnets are very selective - that's all I was pointing out. I'm not arguing the good/bad issue.

4Salt - I watched the nets fish for 3 days and never saw 1 king come out of the nets. That's pretty much the definition of "selectivity".

Do some kings end up in the nets - you bet. No way a "football" king won't escape the nets - they are too close in shape to your average Red. The nets were placed very close to shore and at a very shallow depth - all measures to reduce the incidental catches.

Let's flip that around. Double the mesh size and I'd be willing to bet you'd get almost 0 sockeye and footballs caught in that net. Sure, all the 30-50 pound kings would be dead, but you've selected for larger kings and not sockeye. Gill nets are painfully selective for size....which can be related to species.

We do know for a fact that a good portion of big kings hit the nets, get tangled in some form or another, and drop out. Some say that's as high as %25. Hard to prove either way when you never recover a drop out fish.

We did see many massive wholes in the nets - probably from big fish smashing their way through. Those fish probably died as well.

The problems with nets are that they are indiscriminant and very selective. It's the indiscriminant part that we all have a problem with.

Let me just point out that there are more serious issues with the Kasilof. How or why the state can say there are no 2nd run kings in the Kasilof is way beyond me. No one really knows what happens to those kings as they net for the reds, as no one has studied it. No one knows what the 2nd run king population is, let alone if it can sustain a fishery. Someone needs to sue the state and get an injunction to stop all netting near the Kasilof so the fishery can be studied. Granted, doing so is about the same as signing your death warrant, so I can see why not many of the Kasilof guides are willing to jump right in on this issue. I don't think I'd want to piss off that many commercial netters.

I've been on the Kasilof way too many days when the nets have been out fishing. Funny how the river goes from full of kings to damn near empty. If the fish are not showing up in the nets, where do they go and what happens to them? We just don't know..and that's not a good thing!

Don't get me wrong. I don't like nets or the commercial boys. I was just stating my case for "selectivity".

Parker

[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: parker ]

Blue Stew :p , I went over there just now and replied. It wasn't the greatest verbage used, but I'd like some of his insight and wit to be directed at someone like myself and DanS. I've been too busy lately to slow down to read, and then reply.

The guy just likes tooting his horn about legalities. Remember, lawyers don't give a **** about morals. It's all about their clients' money. Since he's a civil lawyer, I'd probably bet that the majority of his clients are gillnetters, but they pay him with the money earned from their day jobs.

How anyone can defend a gillnet as a livelihood and a source of income really has to throw some BS, oops "propaganda", in people's faces.

I agree with whomever said that it's not about who gets the resource, but rather the welfare of the fish, granted, they are taking a public resource and making a profit off of it. Their profit, in turn, affects the entire community's profit because sports angling generates revenue gillnetters could only spank it to. Pissed off sportsanglers, or no fish, = businesses going under, unemployment going up, etc.

See, I can toot my horn too.

Heywood, granted he defended himself in a manner that's acceptable in forms of debate, etc. but that's what this guy is trained to do. Put me in a debate with Killertraylor about building websites, and I'd sound really professional as well He's a lawyer, so his job is to argue in a certain manner. DUH!

Stew, I still say to go test your swimming ability, but I'd bet the guy would just stand there instead of climbing into his boat. His mentality would be "touch me and I'll sue." Not because it's the right thing to do, but because it's LEGAL to do so. I remember when I was kid, how laws were constructed with morality involved. Now laws are just words with loopholes.

I'm sorry, but his profession has little to do with the situation. And the amount of knowledge that you have doesn't necessarily translate to your ability to present it effectively. It's like having an arsenal of ballistics at your disposal and you've got miserable aim.

There's no reason to take sides on this debate, as no one is going to come out of this and say "Wow, I used to feel really strongly about 'A' but now I feel strongly about 'B'", especially with the absence of facts being presented. Not that facts are so readily available, and statistics are the tools of their presentors.

Agree to disagree, and let it go. But the personal attacks are uncalled for. And immature.

'Yall, KT defends doctors, that have injured or killed people, against mal-practice suits. And he has bragged in ifish posts about his success rate in doing so. I don't know if there is such a thing as an honest or ethical lawyer, but I would be uncomfortable with one who also hangs out with and publicly defends gillnetters. ...

There is not such a need for gillnets that we can continue to allow the killing of native fish in them - and in the process just screw up sportfishing a lot of the time. It's now become senseless and wrong. It's simply time to ban them!

RT

Interesting discussion over there. (I first tried to log on, but mistyped "Ifsh.net". Don't go there unless you can speak fluently mit Dieter und Gunther, ja. OOOPS!) I don't mind a SUBSISTENCE ONLY fishery by the tribes, but are the fishers/rapers that they are talking about tribal or commercial?

Andy