Jason,

You need to come to a meeting at my chapter here in Columbia County. You will never here bashing of commercial fishing or gillnetters. Like I said, we are oppossed to non selective harvest of ESA listed fish. We dont hate gillnetters, and we are not against commercial harvest.

It looks to me like you are making assumptions about the CCA. Look behind the scenes and get true facts about the CCA, and then tell me what you think.

coopduck is your Uncle Eric Jordan?

Jerry,

I've been to more Commission meetings than you've made ridiculous and ignorant statements about our fisheries...and that would take a lot of meetings.

As a brand new CCA Fisheries Expert, I wouldn't expect you to know it, but there are a lot of folks on these BB's who have been working in this arena for decades, not months, and know what they are talking about...and I hope that the CCA has a few folks like them in their employ, rather than rely upon you to voice their positions at said meetings.

Fish on...

Todd

Gee I don't recall ever stating that I was going to this meeting to so I could voice CCA's position. I will leave that up to you so called "well versed lawyers" to do that.

I just thought you might be at this meeting since the Wild steelhead management plan was on the agenda and I know that WSC has something to do with it. If your going to attend let me know so I can sit on the other side of the room! LOL

Also I see you once again neglected to read my reply on page 5. It was just a simple quesion......

What a cohesive bunch we are. This thing gave me a headache.

We better include BC in there, too.

I can tell you right now that the exploitation rate in AK/BC (combined comm and sport) for fall chinook bound for Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay is nearly 70%.

That is an atrocity!

Let me illustrate how stupid the entire scenario is for Grays Harbor. WA forks out all the $$$ and effort for raising fish, conserving habitat, and curtailing inside seasons to ensure the measly 14.4K escapement objective for the basin is met. All the while, 7 out of every 10 adults are caught in BC/AK before they ever swim over the bar at Westport.

As an example, let me show you how a total run-size of 50K chinook are currently "managed" by the state/federal/international fish czars.

Run size = 50K

BC/AK harvest = 35K

Terminal run-size entering Grays Harbor = 15K

Escapement goal = 14.4K

Available harvestable surplus 600 kings... incidentally that's only 1.2% of the total run-size. Talk about fighting over scraps!

Treaty share (QIN) = 300 kings

Non-treaty share = 300 kings to be divided by sports, white gillnetters, Chehalis tribe.

In years like 2005, 2006, and 2007, fishermen outside the basin are taking 7 of every 10 fish while the local inside users squabble over less than one fish between all of them.

F'd up?

Yah, you betcha!

Thank you for all you're doing Todd, and others of you as well. I appreciate anyone with dedication and education to work on the issues, regardless of what platform they use to be heard. No one should take any other groups hard work, efforts, and positive impacts for granted. I am taking a wait and see approach with CCA.

So how many people involved in this thread will be in Olympia on Saturday?

Or is this just more gum slapping by some people that like to see their name pop up on the screen?

In my opinion, either show up or shut up.

As I am often reminded I am a sports fisherman, not a scientist so I don't have to let the facts get in the way of my opinions. I do think however that an opinion that can be backed by facts is one that will be listened to. For GBL who is surprised by the number of salmon in Asian fish markets, check who has the largest chum salmon hatchery program in the Pacific, and the catches are reported. Pacific salmon abundance is probably at historical high numbers. There are no ocean salmon fisheries outside of any countries EEZ. I can assure you that it is enforced vigorously. There are no foreign salmon fisheries inside of the EEZ of the USA and though I am not sure they may be no foreign fishery of any kind in our EEZ. There is undoubtedly some catch of our steelhead and salmon by Japanese and Russian fleets operating inside of their EEZ. By far the largest interception of fish of another country origin is Japanese chums caught as bycatch in the USA pollack fisheries. To find the facts visit the NPAFC web site.

As for the other numbers being quoted they are available to the public on web sites but as Aunty M pointed out it is an effort to find them. The ADFG web site has a link to their mark/tag lab where data is available for all tag recoveries in Alaska fisheries, by fishery area, by date, and the location of where the fish was tagged. The Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission maintains data bases for all mark and tag recoveries in the North Pacific region. If you have a few hundred hours, sufficient computer power, and some understanding you can duplicate a part of the work that the chinook technical committee does for the Pacific Salmon Commission. You can also visit their web site and find yearly reports summarizing their work.

The chinook bycatch in the pollack trawl fishery is a concern that is being addressed by management. It appears that during the warm ocean conditions of 2005 and 2006 southern chinook stocks moved in to the Bering sea and were a significant part of the bycatch. I would add that people who have been looking at this problem for a number of years point out that years of low bycatch may be more of a problem than years of high bycatch. The size of the bycatch reflects the abundance of chinook in the fishery area. Low chinook bycatch is an indication of low numbers of fish. Any impact on a small population can have more effect than a larger impact on a large population.

Finally we have to recognize that the only way that WDFW can have an input in the solution of these problems is to maintain an active participation in the international panels that address these issues. It seems that in the last few years they have stepped up their participation.

Remeber what Todd said! The Chehalis system like other rivers can't handle anymore fish because of the limiting factor......habitat loss!

Now thats F'd up!

Randy, I will be there with 3 cars full of People. Most of them are clients that fish with me during the year.

And...the Chehalis System can hold more fish...period. I won't even argue the point.

As for CCA I look forward to the day when Todd and Keith decide to join!

JimB
CCA State Board Chapter Development Chair


Oh and Todd, there are some great and knowledgable folks working feverishly behind the scenes for CCA that were in the fishery wars before you were out of high school. We are in good hands.

This debate shows great passion among anglers. Here are some facts to thing about......

We seem to have a great concern for non-selective gillnet fisheries. Why? because they are one of the main reasons for a decline in native steelhead stocks in the lower Columbia river tribs.... Okay, that might seem like a valid point if there were some hard facts to back it up.........

I am very lucky to be able to fish tons of rivers when they are in prime shape. I have fished a ton of lower Columbia tribs for natives. Some years can be awesome with 25 fish days, and other years are a strugle to get 2-3 a day. Can it be said that on the bad years the gillnets took the runs? It is highly unlikely that in Feb/March a fleet of gillnet boats takes enough fish to kill an entire system. Look at the runs as a whole. Not just the Columbia tribs. If Steelhead are down in numbers as a whole in the entire PNW, how can the gillnets be a factor in areas that they do not fish.

Last year the Columbia river spring chinook gillnet fishery took about 5000 springers. Big deal. Lets say they killed another 5000 natives. The sealions killed 5 a day. there are how many sealions? I'm sure we can all do the math. The gillnets are not the problem. We are all part of the problem, but to say that getting rid of the gillnets will make it better is stupidity. Are gillnets the cause of the terrible runs this last fall on the.........

Nehalem, Trask, Wilson, Nestucca, Sliletz. Rogue, Umpqua, and every single river region wide. The nets are no more a responcible party than you or me. They got a total of 7 days to fish the river. Most of you that know anything about steelhead fishing the Columbia, are fully aware that steelhead, both winter and summer runs travel within 25 feet of the shore, and most of them travel in water less thatn 6' deep. When was the last time you was a net within 25 feet of the shore?


Here is the problem........

The Ocean has a current or flow pattern that is derived from wind patterns. Upwelling is created with strong Northwesterly winds. These winds are in a CLOCKWISE rotation in current. This clockwise rotation pulls food, rich in Nitrogen from the Ocean floor and distributes it southward from the gulf of Alaska to Northern California. When the jetstream moves too far north, it creates a change in the winds and can cause a counterclockwise roation of the current. This is a huge problem that happend a few years ago. It lasted about 4 years off the Pacific Coast. The upwelling brought tons of warm water to the gulf of Alaska. Draw a big counterclockwise circle in the pacific ocean and see which way all the warm water goes. Two summers ago we had a huge shift in the Jetstream and that gave us huge NW summer winds at the coast. This was a huge benefit to the Ocean food supply. This is the reason for the great returns of two year old steelhead this winter. You are all able to see the huge hatchery steelhead that have been caught this winter. Its not a fluke, it is the Ocean at its best. The springer fishery this year is predicted to have a great return because of the Ocean improvments two years ago. The fall runs next year are going to be crap because they are 4 year fish that had a tough go of things three years ago. One of my good friends is a fishery Biologist and studies this stuff like it was his own.

How can anyone expect to have fish return to a river if there are no fish to return. You can improve all the habitat you want, if there is no feed in the Ocean, then how in God's name are you going to get any adults to return.

If you don't water the Garden, how do you expext to get any fruit to grow.

the Ocean is the garden and the fish are the seeds. if your garden has no feed, you are done. We see these cycles in the Ocean, its time to watch them closely instead of pointing fingers at the gillnests. Yes, I'm all for banning the nets, but be realistic here. They don't even scratch the sureface of the problem.

(

So the Chehalis is in Puget Sound? My map must be broken..

No but the Gillnet fishery on the Chehalis is as big if not bigger than the streams in the Puget Sound. Remember I was quoting what someone stated as the Number 1 problem for our fish......habitat not gillnets.

Wow Kev, this coming from a Top Notch Fishing Guide like yourself. Someday I will remind you off this comment........

Since you seem to have the numbers, how many springers did the sporties catch in the Columbia?

Well If you were "quoting" Todd it was a Mis-quote. He advocates dealing with fisheries issues on a basin by basin basis.

I can't imagine anyone that would argue with the idea that harvest is the main problem facing the Chehalis system, much the same as it is our number one problem here on the OP. To apply his thoughts on Puget Sound issues to the Chehalis is simply adding your personal dislike of him to the debate, which once again clearly illustrates the biggest challenge facing sportsfishers in Washington. We can't get along with each other long enough to get anything meaningful accomplished.

I don't think I ever stated I had any mis-lke for Todd or anyone else on this board. So I guess the question would be then if we are going to specifically use quotes, What would be the limiting factor in other fisheries basin by basin? Bet ya most would say including Todd that the limiting ffactor is habitat.

You talk about the OP. Well would it not be an improved fishery region wide if you could get rid of the nets from the Hoh, Bogacial, Sol Duc, ect or is it simply not the problem and its all habitat? I have fished over there with various Guides who are friends and let me tell you nothing is more of a let down than to be fishing the Hoh and have to row around the gillnets!

Overharvest is the limiting factor everywhere in Washington, Oregon and Idaho........not habitat.

I have seen various habitat improvement areas on several rivers including the Green, Cedar, Skykomish as well as others and the escapement numbers don't seem to improve.

I find it very interesting that every river needs a "number" set by biologists for escapement and that systems can't support anymore than that number. Who managed these river 100 years ago? Bottom line is like everything else I feel its just about the money, spending it here and not spending it there.

Just my .02 cents

Jerry,

You go out and find one time where I've said that habitat is the limiting factor in the Chehalis system, and I'll buy you a beer.

When you instead find the numerous times that I've said the Quinault Tribal netting is the proximate cause of declines in the Chehalis system, especially late coho and winter steelhead, you will then apologize and buy me a beer.

It will take even less time to research than all the other stuff you haven't researched...shouldn't take you more than ten or fifteen minutes, max..and, if you think the CCA will change that one bit, then I have a bridge to sell you, too...

Jim, I hope you are right about the leadership behind the scenes at the CCA...I know there are some really good folks involved there. What they really need to do is either get their ignorant self-appointed new experts on the internet to stop sharing their ignorance with the world, or take them aside and give them a little of the education that they've gathered up over the decades.

Either way, the distinct level of ignorance shown by the '$25 experts' on the various BB's is what will be shared by those 'experts' at Commission meetings, where they won't be doing anyone or anything any favors, including the CCA, other organizations, sportfishing in general, or the fish.

Credibility is how you get managers to listen...not knowing what you are talking about not only destroys any credibility you may have had, but hurts the credibility of the rest of the fish and fishing advocates, too. We have enough trouble as it is without having to waste time and resources requesting that the policymakers ignore what others are saying on our behalf so that we can actually get down to business.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. Another note for the new experts...almost all of the work I do for the organizations I belong to now centers on battling Oregon, Washington, and the feds over the archaic and destructive lower Columbia River gillnet fishery, fighting to have its impacts reduced more and more each year, while hoping eventually to just have it eliminated.

When I worked at the State a good portion of my work centered on taking the licenses away from commercial fishers who either played loose with the rules or failed to fulfill the necessary qualifications to participate.

Many of the "new experts" seem to think that I must be a commercial fishing advocate because I keep insisting that they stop bashing where it's not called for...what I am is an advocate for the truth, and the bending, twisting, and outright fabrication of the truth by those "new experts" is just one more obstacle that sportfishing advocates have to overcome to get meaningful work done.

Jerry,

You are not going to get rid of the tribes. Not gonna happen. Even discussing it is taking time away from discussing solutions that benefit the fish. I have to think logging has caused some problems on the OP wouldn't you?

Puget Sound Steelhead have fallen on hard times the last 10 years with little or no harvest. Yet you claim harvest is there limiting factor. I don't get it.

Are you a biologist? didn't think so, why do most biologist claim lack of habitat as the limiting factor.

Does your guide service practice catch and release? If you don't than by your own admission your part of those that are overharvesting.