Silverhilton....you are amusing although a bit arrogant.... I love how you came out swinging....Good man!

I appreciate your concern about my cranial capacity I really am fine. You might even be amazed that I have some formal education in the field of environmental science.
Of course we all want what's best for our own interests...isn't that what people are all about? lol OK...we are not in disagreement about any of this. I just wanted to point out that the tone of your post was to accuse us of being paranoid about how the government favors the commercials.

A lot of us believe that does occur, perhaps unwittingly at times. We had to fight for the larger allocation last year. That argument being that sportsmen contribute much more to the overall state economy.

Fisheries management is understandably a complicated and emotional issue. That is precisely why it is difficult for any government agency to manage the resource.

Please don't interupt our ranting in the future with a bunch of facts...

Now I have to get back to work. Peace

Goinfishin,

WDFW has the authority to board, or haven an observer on board, any of the gillnetters participating in the fishery. WDFW didn’t do that on boats when the owner/operator resisted. There is a term for that, but I shouldn’t print it on a family-oriented web site.

Gillnets let most of the steelhead through safely, but they have a high interception rate and mortality rate on wild spring chinook, which are also ESA listed. Tangle nets don’t kill so many wild chinook, which is a priority so that they can fish for more of the hatchery chinook. However, 4 ½" tangle nets catch many more steelhead than 9" mesh gillnets. The recovery tanks actually work pretty well when properly used for that purpose. So they “need” to increase the allowable impact on ESA steelhead in order to fish for more hatchery chinook.

I only fished for springers twice, and I didn’t “suffer” from the monitoring. Neither did the gillnetters, which was a problem, since some of them admit they don’t follow the rules when no observer is on board.

IMO, this is a stupid fishery. It is biologically unsupportable. It isn’t supported economically, either. Socially, it preserves a small piece of the dying non-treaty gillnetting “tradition,” at the expense of the broader based social benefit of many citizens enjoying fishing for spring salmon with lower mortality rates to wild ESA salmon, and almost no impact to ESA steelhead. If someone can explain an intelligent rationale for this fishery, I would so love to hear it. This fishery makes less sense to me than commercial buffalo hunting, which doesn’t harm other ESA species.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Anyone interested in reading about an observer on a commercial boats harvest on the Columbia River this last season should read : "The Reel News" latest edition available in G.I.joes or most local fishing stores. The article was by a gentleman who was on board a commercial boat during (1), 12hr. Netting period. That is (1). I was apalled by what he saw going in the box on the boat. Just a recap of what he saw were as follows: during a 12hr period : steelhead,9 dead out of 9, 4 of which were wild. sturgeon 2 dead out of 8. coho caught 113 of which 35% to 45% were unmarked , 10 were close to 20lbs. chinook caught were 6 . 1,190 pounds of fish were landed. Mortality rate for steelhead was 100%, all of the coho were thrown in the box including all unmarked fish. and 25% of the sturgeon floatedaway dead. The observer goes on to say he finds it remarkable this fishery is still in existence!! And this was just (1) commercial boat out of how many ? 175 to 200 boats commercial or more? in one 12hr. period. Its no wonder the steelhead and salmon are having a tuff time. It seems the commercials take what ever they can get in the nets no matter what the cost. Maybe thats why they dont want observers on board their boats . They dont want anyone checking their catches to see what really goes on. Go read it for yourselves and get the latst edition of " The Reel News" at you local tackle shops .

goin,


peace back atcha. It was a bad day. And yup, I'm arrogant.

Brilliantly said, Salmo.

If managers and commies had any brains, they would gladly implement some other form of selective harvest to

1) maximize profits from the resource, and
2) minimize management headaches

while having negligible impact on ESA "protected" stocks.

When will they realize that their $eason$ on hatchery $pring chinook can be maximized when their method$ allow the unharmed LIVE relea$e of ESA protected $tock$?

How about bringing back the fishwheels of days gone by?

Bottom line: If the goal is removing only hatchery chinook from the river, gillnets are simply the wrong tool for the job.

This would be akin to using a wrench to remove a phillips-head screw. WRONG TOOL!

Trying to justify tangle nets is like arguing a 3/8 in wrench is a better tool to remove that same screw instead of using a 3/4 in wrench.

Oh, and one more thing. Did I ever mention how much I really hate gillnets?


Here's why:







Get the picture?

Better send those pics to PETA or the folks who fought for the ban on animal traps...I would say a gill net is a great animal trap.

Salmo G. Thanks for your response. Illuminating as usual.

Good thoughts from everyone.....It has prompted me to do more research on the subject at least.

PNP- I understand your feelings on the subject. The main problem with these fisheries, ours included, is compliance with the regs. Sports fishing still has a much higher compliance rate than the commercials. Since a ban on commercial fishing for springers is unrealistic, an alternative approach may be necessary. What type of net is better? The most effective net for chinook seems to be a tangle net that kills steelhead. A gill net may save more steelies. Mesh size and color seems to play an important role. My final take on it for my .02 is that manadatory on board monitoring should be required of commercials. I found this interesting reading....

http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/commercial/selective/tangleprogress1.pdf

I have researched this in the past and read everything I could find on the topic.

The fishwheel would be impractical.

There are two methods that can work, depending on the type of area being fished.

In smaller rivers, a fish trap would be the ideal method, although when tested, it was deemed inneffective by WDFW ON PURPOSE. (They tested the method in an area that obviously wouldn't be successful)

A fish trap. Two nets set into a "V" shape to funnel fish into a box where fish can be live sorted. Very simple. Requires two boats to set the trap. Mesh is closely woven. Would work in the upper Columbia and many tribs.

For the lower Columbia, a purse seine not drawn tight and not pulled out of the water. Requires a second, smaller boat for the sorting the live fish.

Any method that is more labor intensive will be fought by the commercials. I say, give them the choice of more labor/equipment or give it up altogether.

Just my .02

Goinfishin,

I'm not ready to accept that commercial gillnetting where 2/3 of the catch is ESA listed salmon and steelhead is inevitable. This fishery is unjustifiable due to its impacts to bycatch. The targeted hatchery spring chinook are still available to other fisheries without the lower Columbia gillnet fleet. Most of the fish are bound upstream of Bonneville, where a treaty net fishery occurs, and beyond the point of migration for most of the intercepted steelhead. This is not an argument for the treaty gillnet fishery on those same fish, but an acknowledgement that it happens, and will continue to happen, anyway. The spring chinook bound for lower Columbia tributaries are available to recreational fishing in the Columbia and the respective tributaries.

The lower Columbia gillnet fishery is anachronistic, unnecesary to make biolgoical, economic, and social use of the chinook fishery public resource. If you've read my posts over the years, you'll know that I'm not opposed to commercial fishing; I'm not even opposed to gillnets. But I am opposed to stupid gillnet fisheries like this that are not biologically, economically, nor socially justifiable.

As fish advocates and conservationists, we owe it to ourselves and our children to continue to pressure the WDFW Commission to rescind this mistaken fishery.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Amen Brother Amen

Aunty

Could see how the fishwheel thing would be impractical in the tidal portions of the lower river... they wouldn't work as well on the incoming tide. They would still be a viable option further upriver as a means of live capture and sorting of the catch. Maybe the tribal fishery could be prosecuted with these devices.

I agree wholeheartedly with you on the trap and seine suggestions.... I have been advocating their use in Cook Inlet to reduce the obscene Kenai/Kasilof chinook bycatch encountered during the sockeye gillnet season.

FNP,

Just curious. On several occasions this fall at John's River, I noticed a guide boat (big sled). The guide looked kinda like you. The reason I ask is because the name on the boat was eye-fish, and my understanding is that you are an eye doctor. I think there was even a drawing of an eye on the boat. Any connection?

The tribes used to dip net at Celilo (sp) Falls, why not let them dip net in the Bonneville fish ladders. The white commercials could do the same thing, can not get to much more selective than that. Hell we could even make a machine that does it for them. Of course why are we doing it for commercials, now they get to sell the fish and do nothing. I've always thought this to be one of the most selective ways to fish. The tribes could also do it at the Ballard Locks, this way the count would be more accurate and NO Chinook by catch. Why do the simple fixes get so easily overlooked????

NEN

Why not pull them out at the dam fish ladders?? Sounds silly but iit would be very efficient.

Very observant SlabQuest.... you are right about the connection. For the record, fishNphysician, eyeFISH, and KeenEyeMD are all aliases used by the same fishing-addicted Aberdeen eye surgeon. A bunch of you guys that put in at the 28th St boat-launch drive right by my office to go fishing. The name of my Alumaweld sled is eyeFISH because that's pretty much what I do..... those two items occupy the vast majority of my available time.

You were mistaken on a couple of counts, though.

1) I do not have a picture of an eye on the boat, although I am seriously thinking about getting some decals made to match my business logo... two salmon swimming around an eyeball.




2) I am not a guide. I fish strictly for fun... wouldn't dream of turning my favorite hobby into a JOB. Besides, I could never get even a double boatload of clients to pay me the $$$ I would have to give up in forgone income from just one day in the operating room. And for what... just to go fishing?

FNP,

That is one cool logo. I would definately put it on your boat. I just assumed your boat was a guide boat because of its looks and graphics.

New question for you....

When you go from Aberdeen (28th St. launch) to Johns River, do you follow the shipping channel past the airport and turn left past the goalposts, or are you able to follow the shoreline past the Chehalis and come up the south side of the bay?

Let's not lose track of Aunty's point about WDFW/ODFW request to triple netting impacts on ESA-listed LCR steelhead. Time to get busy on those letters to the commission and the gov.... whomever he/she may be.

You know, if you assume that the commercials are going to harvest 20,000 fish (more than they actually did), and that their cost to catch these fish was 30% of the gross, then their income from the fishery would be about:

20,000 *25lbs/fish *$4/lb = $2,000,000/yr. If their costs are 30%, then they net out about $1,400,000

If you assume that there are 20,000 spring salmon fishermen, for $70 per fishermen, per year, we could afford to buy out the commercials.

$70 bucks per season, and you get no nets, and a probably a full season.