I can agree with that also. Someday I will have to buy you a beer! I love a good debate.

Very well put and thats the only point I have tried to make in this whole thread!!!!!

Cant argue that.... BUT!

What good does it do if we continue to manage fisheries for maximum sustainable harvest?

Cyclic arguments make me light headed, in a bad way. I don't often contribute to the whole netting debates any longer, it's totally fruitless. I do want to add that I have not joined the CCA, for two reasons.

1) I'm having a real hard time finding any statement as to the strategy that will effectively bring more fish back. I haven't really asked anyone, because I'm not sure that I'll get a straight answer. What I do find on the CCA website is a push to have more banquets and sign up more members. But, with not having any idea of how they are going to fight, I can't justify sending them a check. I wouldn't bet on a boxer until I saw his jab. I was wondering, maybe the strategy is a secret that I have to pay money to discover, or maybe it's a secret because they don't want the "other side" to know what's coming at them. Maybe it's a secret because no body knows what they are going to do yet, all I know is that I don't know what their plan is, and that's of a great concern to me, even if it is only $25.00. Does CCA think they are going to apply a metric based on what was done in the GoM? Do they feel that this battle will resemble any thing they have done in the psat?? Honest questions here, I'm not trying to stir. I would gladly give and sign up everyone I know IF I knew what their objective truly was and the means to get there suited my position.

2) As this thread represents, and as Salmo has again brilliantly stated, fisherman are caustic towards each other over this issue. Why would I spend $25 dollars to enter into a larger argument with people who cannot seem to find any common ground. This is actually why I don't join clubs. Being a free member on this board (thanks, Bob, not sure the last time I posted that, if ever) is about as close to joining the club as I get. I can keep my anonymity here and because of that, can speak openly without any fear of loss. Better that than joining a club to speak for me, when actually they have an entirely different agenda that doesn't suit me. Or worse yet, just turns into a group of drinking buddies when you discover that you can't get anything done because of the deep fissures carved between people who hate nets and people who hate development. (sorry, I know that last sentence was a gross generalization, but it was more efficient than reviewing this whole thread, AGAIN)

Can someone please enlighten me?

Before you call me stupid, I already admitted that on another thread and beat you to it.

Thanks in advance

I will be in the J and L caravan!

See ya Sat. Big Daddy


Later............

My comments were addressed at Jerry, hence my quoting of his own comments. If I misinterpreted his personal feelings based on his posts.... well I'll take 51% of the blame for that. The rest I will lay on his doorstep, as evidence of the necessity to express oneself clearly and succinctly if you are going to debate important issues. I'm not sure why you thought I had something to say about Fishdoc, but I don't.

I do not now, nor have I ever, claimed to have intimate knowledge of the issues facing PS or HC or Skeena or AnywhereOtherThanHere salmon or steelhead. Here for me being the OP.

Jerry, FWIW, I'm in the same boat, and of the same opinion, as the people you mention from my area. My sole purpose in this discussion is to illustrate that our personal differences, and varying agendas, seem to me to be the main obstacle in our shared goals. There ARE some things we all agree on, if we can focus on them rather than their opposites perhaps some progress might be made.

Common ground? Let's start here.... habitat AND harvest are both important to the fish. Provide them some sanctuary to spawn/rear AND quit fishing them so damned hard. You guys want to turn this into a Miller Light commercial...

"Less filling"

"Tastes great"


JFC! It's not just one or the other.... BOTH of those critical H's must be addressed in any river system that you all want to argue about.

The other two oft-cited H's really are just smaller parts of those two bigger H's that determne whether or not we have healthy fish populations. (Hatcheries are really all about feeding the insatiable need to HARVEST HARVEST HARVEST. Hydro-electric dams are nothing more than another assault on the HABITAT)

Nobody can argue that the most important thing these critters need to maintain thriving populations is free-flowing access between a nutrient-rich ocean pasture and intact river systems with productive spawning and rearing HABITAT! You simply can't have salmon without rivers. Trash the infrastructure of the natural fish factory, and production will assuredly go down the $hitter. Without good habitat to support natural propagation of the fish, runs will remain in a state of perpetual depletion.

However, nobody can deny that harvest abuses are also a HUGE part of the problem. You can't maintain fish populations if all of your breeding stock ends up in fish totes! All the habitat in the world is worthless if we don't allow enough fish upriver to seed it!

Nobody can argue that historically we (comm and sport) have taken too many fish. The biggest argument among the users is who gets to do the killing and where the killing occurs. And when we perceive that we are not being allowed our "fair share" of the kill, we are quick to demonize the other user group(s) that are taking more than their fair share. We spend an inordinate amount of energy and $$$ lobbying for who gets to do the killing. And with each of the stakeholders asserting its right to maximize its take, enabled by a harvest-at-all-cost fish bureacracy, we end up overharvesting.... again, again, and again.

The great news is that salmon populations are incredibly resilient, and depletion from harvest abuses can be relatively quickly reversed... but only if the habitat for rebound production is still intact.

The same cannot be said for habitat abuses. Restoration/reclamation of degraded/lost habitat is a MUCH harder thing to reverse, both in terms of money and time... and given the demands of our hyperconsumptive, gotta-have-it-now society it has become nearly impossible to do so. It's much wiser and cheaper to protect, conserve, and maintain existing habitat in the first place. But as history has shown, society lacks the foresight, will, and discipline to do so.

Looking at it from the broader context of where we as a society ought to be inversting our time, talent, and treasure....

It seems we invest way too much in the arena of allocative battles over who gets to kill the last fish. If even a small portion of those resources could be re-directed toward habitat protection/restoration, we would be far better off over the long run.

Jerry,

That's a reasonable question. BPA spends millions of dollars on habitat improvement other than the most glaring habitat problem, which is the string of 8 federal dams on the lower Snake and lower Columbia Rivers. Admittedly they are spending money there too, but it's at window dressing levels for experimental or pilot projects to try to improve fish passage. They are having some limited success. Overall it doesn't matter how many millions of dollars are spent if the money and effort doesn't address the root cause of the declining fish populations. The root cause is ineffective downstream juvenile fish passage due to slackwater reservoirs, increased water temperatures, increased predation, and injury and mortality from passing through hydro turbines. Fix those and salmon and steelhead populations would rebound up to present habitat productivity and capacity unless harvest rates were preventing them at that level.

BTW, a fishwheel was installed and operated on the Skagit a few years ago. Unfortunately it didn't work out very well. Fish wheels work best when daily flow fluctuations from warming and cooling are minimal. Add hydro fluctuations and it becomes nearly impossible. Also, fish wheels need turbid water. I thought the Skagit was dirty enough in the spring and summer, but apparently fish see pretty well. Really dirty rivers like the Susitna are better for fish wheels.

Traps are good. Expensive, but effective. Contrasted with gillnetting, which is very cheap, and you can see why the commercial fishery prefers nets.

Your key point about having habitat without fish to fill it continues to ignore that on your subject river, the Green, escapement goals for chinook and wild steelhead are routinely met. Please explain what the benefits of more fish reaching the spawning grounds would achieve in terms of river basin productivity, capacity, diversity, abundance, spatial structure or any other parameter that measures a salmonid population's status. The only parameter I can think of that would be improved by prohibiting all net fishing is that more fish would be in the river and available to be caught by sport fishing. That is not a productivity issue. That is an allocation issue. That is a gillnetting versus sport fishing issue, and has nothing to do with the health of a fish population.

Fishpolelease,

I don't think you're stupid. I haven't joined CCA yet either. I might; I'm a member of fly fishing clubs and conservation organizations. I can spare $25 when I get the feeling that CCA will be more than a flash in the pan. I don't know, but simply hope that CCA is holding its cards close to the vest so as not to tip its hand. When I get wind that a viable strategy is brewing, I'm in.

FNP,

Here, here! The 4 Hs are really 2, and then there's the third H, History from which we as a society refuse to learn. And then within our fishing community we can't seem to resist painting over everything with either the broad brush of all Harvest or all Habitat. And like it or not, there isn't and never again will be enough fish to go around. Society (thru our WDFW Commission or more likely thru the voter Initiative process) needs to make the tough choices about how to allocate scarce fishery resources today and into the future.

Sg

Ok then if escapement goals on the Green are met for Chinook Salmon even with the massive gillnet fishery in August, then why does the river close to ALL fishing for Sportsman for Chinook if the escapement goal is met each year?

Answer: Simple the Green river can't meet its escapement goal with both gillnets and rod and reel! Us sportsman haven't been able to fish "that" section on the Green now for almost 20 years now and the excuse was always "low escapement" straight from the Green River biologist.

Escapement being met on Wild Steelhead? Wow several hundred nates is all the Green needs to sustain a healthy stock?

Jerry,

This is my last word to you...take 1/10 of your arguing passion, and apply it to research...you will find that virtually all you hold as the "truth" is in fact, not.

You are doing the CCA, the fish, and the fishing harm when you continually spout off about which you are very ignorant.

Fish on...

Todd

I don't think I ever said that I represented CCA Todd! Maybe thats your ignorance for assuming that I was?

Jerry,
There has been a limited Sportman's season on the lower Green for Chinook the last two or three years. Besides when the rest of the river was open the "Sportsman" resembled the present day Skok on many of the holes.

Damn, Jerry...I bet reading comprehension was never your strong point, was it?

Did you find all those times I said that habiat was the limiting factor in the Chehalis basin?

That's what I thought.

Fish on...

Todd

Understood OneMoreCast but there has not been a season here in the Auburn area for longer than that. The last time a sportie could fish it was for steelhead only and release all kings............1985 or 86.

And yes sporties on some rivers have no excuse for their behavior. But talking about the Skok wouldn't you agree that half the problem on the Skok is that is is the only oppurtunity to river fish that time of year for Chinook?

Todd it was a comparison to your example on the Puget Sound. Thought the last post was your last word to me. Comprehension? perhaps you do not comprhend what you typed 5 minutes ago huh?

More like 1989 or 1990. Is there not a huge surplus of Kings in the Skok system?

That I do not know.....are there?

'89 '90 sounds about right. Thought it was earlier than that.

I used to catch lots of summer steelhead during the salmon season on the Green.

I wish the system in Auburn was open during August thru October for Steelhead only as they now plant most of the summers out of the Soos Creek hatchery. And yes I realize that it will never happen again due to the enforcement nightmare it would create.

Jerry,

If I am understanding you correctly when you talk of overharvest it seems to me that you have an allocation issue more than a conservation issue.

Is that your intent?

Not wnating to get into a debate like yesterday just wanting to understand your issues a little better.

Joe

IMHO Allocation and Conservation are the same. You can't have Conservation without proper Allocation and Allocation intereferes with Conservation.

Bottom Line for me is I am really tired of Sportsman as a user group alway getting "whats left".

You are NOT alone Jerry....

and that misunderstanding is a BIG problem.

I coundn't agree more