AuntyM, I've commented on the use of seines selectively before...I thought it was this thread but maybe not.

It could happen in a couple of ways, but it's a lot of work. You either have to push the corks down to let selected fish out, or dip 'em out, which can be pretty damaging. Either way you'd have to be able to determine the species and whether it's clipped or not to decide what to do with it.

I've released seals, jellyfish, and birds this way from a seine. No harm, no foul. (no pun intended) That's also how they get dolphins out of the tuna seines, from what I understand....push down the corks and out they go.

Imagine, though, 1000 pinks and 3 native steelhead/chinook in a seine. You'll never see the steelies until they land on deck.

Thanks AuntyM,
Someone had brought up what the commercials return to the fisheries so I looked it up. Licence fees are $680 for purse seine and $480 ea for troll or gillnet. And out of those fees per RCW77.95 comes a $100 surcharge that go's to the regional fisheries enhancement account for enhancement projects. So its not much that they return

AuntyM,
I have another question for you. I tried to find the info but havent had any luck. Do you know if the state is meeting there goals on the commmercial licence buy back program??
http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/lic/econassist.htm
It seems that this program could have a great effect on the fisheries.

"What if it was 800 pinks and 203 wild steelhead? Would it be worth the effort then?"

Even 25 steelies would be worth it. They have to see them first, is the problem. I know what 1000 pinks looks like, and a few steelies in that bag, especially if you don't dry it up first, are impossible to see. I think as long as you DON'T penalize them for the few they miss, they might be willing to make some efforts to save them in quantities. Otherwise they end up selling them as humpies anyway because there's no market for the steelies.

"I would have far less objection to commercial fishing if they put some effort into fishery enhancement and more responsible harvesting."

In this state I know of absolutely none, short of the the licensing fees. Alaska had some pretty promising "aquaculture" projects in S.E. when I was up there, primarily with chums. I don't know what the status is these days, but it was initially funded with money from seine boat operating licenses.

As far as responsible harvesting, the operators do what the regs. allow. Why the regs. allow what they do I have no idea (rationally speaking).

I talk about the property tax that the citizens pay.... not commercials.....

Well, I am from Seattle. Have only lived in Idaho 2 years..... And since Idaho has 4 dams being threatened with breaching, I would think Idahoans DO have a say in all this....

And how would you feel if I used that assanine statement about Indians, or Blacks, or Hispanics???? I can hear your "you are a racist" comment now..... What is your interest in the tribes Aunty? I have a feeling you are a part of one, or someone you are related to...

Funny you make judgement on me and the only difference between you and I is the side of the subject we are on..... You make statements no better than the ones I do...

MC

That statement abouit my son and my ability to raise him crosses the line. Good ass whooping material there..... I do not attack you personally when it comes to your family...

My beef, for those with such simple minds that they have to have it s p e l l e d out for them is this, and only this...... I do not think that anyone deserves more "rights" than others simply because of their race. Now all you do-gooders out there have been preaching this since the 60's, and rightfully so. You have just failed to include ALL races in this, and caucasions for those of you that do not understand, is a race....... I say we all need to be on an even keel when it comes to life period.
How about the other thread about 1.1 million going to a tribe of 250-300 (which is it? shouldnt they know?) and a reservation that is only 100 acres...... 100 ACRES??? They already have 4 fulltime officers, and the Feds give them a grant of 1.1 million for an additional 4 plus boats??? That really makes sense doesnt it, especially with the red ink and cutbacks already in law enforcement throughout washington state..... But you just go on believing what you do. I never thought I would change anybodys mind anyway. I just speak what I feel on the subject that is presented. You really ought to be ashamed of yourself for the statement about my fathering of my son. I teach him that no one is better than anyone else, and that he has to earn his place in society... He is not granted it at birth. Hopefully, he will not be like a majority of kids today that think the world is owed to them on a silver platter and that work is simply for parents to do so they can buy toys for their kids.
Aunty, where is your comment about the statement he made (very derrogatory) about me? I guess if I was Indian, then you would be there to defend me?

MC

As I understand it there are no native Americans. Peoples emigrated here from Asia, then western Europe and on and on. I think a good way to resolve treaty rights would be to have a percent of Indian ancestry cutoff. For instance; if someone has less than 50% Indian ancestry they woud not have treaty rights. Over time treaty rights would be fased out in a relatively benign manner.

This thread is borderline to being closed[not because of Aunty], if we can't keep it civil and productive I'll close it.

A-M,Thanx for opening my mind !Just needed a little help to look at the BIG picture .
Ron H.

AuntyM you will have to use that icon on you next with CFM. Too cute

Thinken the same A-M

Because of who then Jerry ( I respectfully ask?).
She sputs off about my insulting comments, but she states things like Just one quote of hers from a recent post. I could go thru all posts and have several pages....

She is the poster child for double standards if I ever saw one.......

File that complaint Autney (I will pay the filing fee)..... Dribble, dribble, and more dribble.....

Please close the thread Jerry...... Even I am getting tired of this one.....

MC

AuntyM,
I would totally agree that the 50% number is to high. But out of all the groups fighting over the fish I think the Indians rights would be the hardest one to get changed. And after looking at alot of the facts on the issue I myself would think there would be more benifit to have them on our side. I now save my hatred for a little group based out of Duvall that I think has a better chance of destroying our sportfishing privledges. And I almost hate to say it because I will probably get slammed of this.But if It were up to me I would sign ownership of all state hatcherys over to the tribes. That little group in Duvall would have a much harder time shutting them down I think If the tribes owned them.

What a great idea! WT would have to sue the tribes!!! I like it.

So AuntyM please correct me if my numbers are wrong. If commercial fishing was turned over to the tribes as you mentioned.And they have the right to 50% of the catch that would not increase there percentage but instead of the sportfisherman and commercials splitting the remaining 50% as it is now. That would leave a full 50% to the sportfisherman.That sounds like a great plan to me. But one small thing I would add before turning the commercial fishing over to them is a total gill net ban. They would have to get the 50% out at see by trollers or possibly the modifed purse seine operation. The only fishing that they would be allowed to do in the rivers would be ceramonial maybe 1% of the catch.

AuntyM,
I dont know if you looked at the linc I put up earlier in this thread.But It talked about the state getting rid of fish traps back in the early 1900's in favor of seiners and gill nets. It said they did this because the traps were to effective and the cause of reduced fish runs.It also said something about the gill nets being more selective(right). The linc is pretty interesting reading for about the first half. Its also posted on the other board your on under the heading "fishing history" Whats really funny about reading the first few pages is that if you took out all the dates listed you would know they were not talking about modern day.

Aunty here it is so you wont have to look for it.
http://www.msaj.com/papers/commfish.htm

Grandpa,
So you like that idea huh .Well here is anouther one you might get a laugh out of. Remove all signs that refer to "Hatcherys" from the hatchery locations and replace them with signs that read.
WASHINGTON STATE
Captive Breeding Program
For the Enhancment of NW Salmon Runs

I think that may be a good public relations move.

Aunty,
Reading that sure made me wonder what would the fisherys in this state would look like now. If the state would have upheld there contract (treaty) with the tribes in the first place and the tribes would not have had to get the fed's involved. But whats past is past and we will never know.

Auntie,

Thank You. I appreciate and respect your apology.

I hope everyone on this board will recognize that WT is made up of real, honest, hardworking people who are doing something they all believe in, working to preserve Washington's wild fish resources and habitats. I hope all of you that disagree with WT's positions can at least acknowledge that simple truth.

As far as the answer you seek, auntie, it IS coming. Please recognize that it is not a question of an "acceptabel hatchery." It is a question of an acceptable hatchery PROGRAM. That requires a complicated answer that requires input from a lot of quarters, and I'm not going to be pressured into making it prematurely.

At this point you'll just have to trust me that I'm taking it seriously and it's coming.

Ramon Vanden Brulle,
Washington Trout