They already took the million smolts, it was decided a couple days ago, in fact they have been doing this for years.
So let's get the nets out of the mainstem.

Freespool, if you are a gillnetter, I would like to fish next to you anytime, but first you have to meet some qualifications.

That your net would never ever catch anything but the particular species you are setting for, such as, if fishing for coho, no kings, no sturgeon, no birds, no steelhead, and absolutly no lost nets. There are other methods that can be used to fish commercially that work and have almost no mortality or bycatch involved. You and I both know the tangle nets work poorly and how many fish really survive the liveboxs. Burn those dinosaurs and get a life. I am a little biased about the seals and sea lions so did not mention them in bycatch as I remember Hershel at the locks eating an entire steelhead run wild and all. I don't know if those fish ever recovered, doubt it.

Plans to regulate gillnets come around ever ten years, this, plan regulates gillnets to off channel net pen areas.
These areas were set up 10 years ago by the BPA, it planned to eventually move the gillnet fleet into these areas, but the netters have baulked at this idea.
SFS is a Legislative bill that would make these Safe Areas mandatory.
I can understand that there maybe parts of this plan that folks don't understand, but to be against it with no viable alternative plan is just plain closed minded.
This plan can work, please read about it and give it a fare chance, it would eliminate the annual battles with the commercials over LCR allocations.

So your against the SFS plan, but you don't have an alternate plan, brilliant, simply friggin brilliant.

I know, right?

Freespool,

You think gillnetting in SAFE areas is a superior biological alternative to traps at the locations I mentioned? And as far as access to the fish by the non-fishing public, they can be purchased from treaty gillnetters. That gillnet fishery isn't going away anytime soon, but that's no reason to continue the relic LCR non-treaty gillnet fleet. So whatdya' mean, "no plan?"

Sg

So switching the commercials to a mainstem fish trap fishery?
Commercials could really clean out the hatchery fish couldn't they?
And there wouldn't be any pressure to increase the commercial take, seeings that they are far more efficient at removing hatchery fish from the river.
Forgive me for not jumping for joy over this plan.

As a longtime watcher of these arguments, I have to throw in a bit. I love how those who bash "big government" don't want to admit that they are dependent on a socialistic program to keep far more people employed in these fisheries.

Following our capitalistic model that we cherish in this country would suggest that fish traps are more efficient and can be managed better and selectively for those fish needing protection. Yet, some fight against it.


Somebody gave me the phrase "cognitive dissonance" the other day for the process when we know something doesn't line up with our values, yet we continue as if it didn't exist. It seems to fit here, too.

NW Panhandler,

I'm totally against gillnets in the Big C but be careful with your analogy. Have you ever been targeting a particular species with a hook and line and made an incidental catch? Yeah, I know, chances are it can be released alive no harm but...I'm just saying.

I read the SAFE plan in one of the local magazines. I must say, its better to do something than nothing. A wise man once said God created time so everything didn't happen all at once (thanks for the quote Sg) but the time for gillnets in the Big C is certainly long over due.

Why spend all that money retooling to traps and weirs, why not just harvest at the dam and falls?

Salmo, do you think that those fish traps would be benefecial in those areas if they are prone to the massive flooding we have every year. Most of those "traps" that WDFW use at various locations took on heavy damage this winter from the flood and heavy debris.

Seems that those traps would only work in a "constant" flow river that doesn't fluctuate much.

Like I stated earlier, at least this is a plan to in the right direction to total removal of the gillnet fishery in the Mainstem.....

Freespool,

No one said anything about unregulated fishing with traps at the lcoations I described. So no, the commercials wouldn't be cleaning out anything. They would take what they're allowed - marked hatchery chinook, but not so many as to risk not meeting broodstock needs or upriver treaty fishing obligations and fishing in Idaho, where many of the fish originate. But they would generally be able to harvest more than at present.

And why spend the money? Regulated selective harvest is why. The cost would be small fraction of what BPA pisses away on SAFE and numerous other unproductive fisheries programs.

Jerry,

The Columbia flow is already managed; no flooding. The fish ladders still work. Simply retrofit trapping and sorting facilities at the top of the ladders.
Trap damage can be managed by keeping the traps out of the floodway. The trap at Merwin is being rebuilt. It could serve a selective harvest purpose if desired. The one at Cowlitz already permits sorting; it's a slam dunk. The Commission just needs to decide to do it. They have the authority. Willamette Falls would need the most work, but it would be an investment with a significant conservation payoff.

Sg

Dam and falls harvest would be the cheapest most efficient method, it would also be smallest carbon footprint.

Salmo, just an FYI there is currently not seperator at the Barrier Dam as it has been taken out during the retro-fit construction work to improve the hatchery.

Hopefully they will reinstall a new one, as it is now the fish can't get up the ladder at present.

Good point on the Columbia using traps but I just do not see that working on other rivers like the Cow, Lewis, Kalama ect....

Just my 2 cents

Jerry,

I expect there will be a new and improved separator at Cowlitz. The concept works, and works well. In fact, I doubt there is anything that works as well. That doesn't mean the decision-makers would go that route however.

Sg