The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission today stood firm on its 65% sport/ 35% commercial deal struck in the BiState Committee for Spring Chinook allocations on the Columbia River. As you know, the Oregon Commission backtracked on the agreement and is now insisting on a 60/40 split. The states are at a stalemate and anglers have been left in limbo. (See Bill Monroe Article, which you can forward to your Legislators -
http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregoni...m_on_sprin.html )
Things might get worse. The Washington Commission, in light of the Oregon Commission's unwillingness to abide by the agreed terms of last year's agreement, has prohibited the Director of WDFW from negotiating fisheries.

THE POSSIBILITY OF A SPRING WITHOUT A SALMON SEASON IS REAL!!!!!!!!!!!!

This would be a disaster in every sense of the word for anglers, the sport fishing industry and the economies of Oregon/Washington as a whole. We cannot let this impasse destroy recreational fishing in 2009. YOU NEED TO MAKE YOUR VOICES HEARD!!!!!!!!!!!

Let your representatives in government know how loosing seasons in 2009 would affect you. Let them know that the allocation debate between commercial and sport interests and the inability of these two Commissions to come together has already caused enough collateral damage.

Let them know, that they can take immediate action and put this debate to rest forever by passing SAFE for Salmon. http://www.leg.state.or.us/findlegsltr/home.htm , http://www.leg.wa.gov/legislature

2008 with its shortened seasons was horrible. 2009 is shaping up to be disastrous. Call, write, email and/or visit your elected representatives and save our 2009 fishing seasons. Offer to arrange a SAFE for Salmon briefing for your elected official.

Let them know Oregon and Washington need leadership for Real Solutions, where everyone can win, especially the fish.

You might also thank the Washington Commission for being faithful to their agreement with their Oregon counterparts. commission@dfw.wa.gov


If you have a date booked or plan on fishing the Columbia in April and May please contact the above people and lets get Safe for Salmon passed!

Here is the best comment from Commissioner Zane Smith in the above Newspaper Article.......

"Commissioner Zane Smith of Springfield elicited a gasp from a listen-only audience in Clackamas when he said the sportfishing industry (specifically Joe's) could sell batteries and auto parts instead of fishing tackle whereas netters downriver were isolated from other income".

Frankly I buy my batteries at WalMart and my Auto Parts at Schucks!!!!

Everyone is getting their panties in a bunch... Things will work out, heck the Big C is open through March 1st anyhow if anyone wants to catch their February springer.....

Keith

Yeah let me know when that happens......

Not being smart here, but I see at least two problems with safe for salmon.

1. Keeps gillnets in the Columbia, its time for the gillnetters to figure out how to selectivly harvest salmon if that is what they are fishing for and actually be able to release all other fish unharmed........... Stand up, no more nets.

2. The fish that are to be put in the net pens on the lower columbia are coming right out of the normal plants on the Cowlitz and other lower columbia tribs.......The gill netters sure are not paying for them, you are........Stand up for what is rightfully yours.

BE SURE TO THANK THE WASHINGTON FISH AND GAME COMMISION, THEY ARE STANDING UP FOR YOU. Write or email your legislators and ask them to stand up for the commission.
commission@dfw.wa.gov

360 902 2269 and 360 902 2448


Encourage your friends in Oregon to stand up also and go to their legislaters. It is time for us all to get involved.

Chuck G

Member CCA and Kitsap Poggi Club

Chuck, I agree that the use of the most harmful, least sustainable method of commercial harvest needs to end on the mainstem. I believe the Safe for Salmon proposal is to add fish to the Select/Safe areas from the tributary hatcheries (Mainly Willamette stock.)

Does it make a difference? You be the judge.
IMHO the Safe for Salmon plan would remove the mainstem net fishing below Bonnie for the early season.

I believe the nets should also be curtailed as the sturgeon stage before attempting to spawn.in May. I've testified about how salmon seasons should not IMHO be placed on top the spawner sturgeon.

Both wild steelhead and sturgeon would benifit, as well as the salmon.

I'm all for that senario.

Safe For Salmon plan is not just a dream, or a work in progress, it's a workable plan that is on the table.
It doesn't exclude any harvesters, so the publics access to the resources is preserved.
It may kill as many ESA listed salmon, but it will also kill a larger portion of hatchery fish.
It's impact on steelhead or sturgeon will be near zero.
Opposing this plan with no viable alternative is nothing more than supporting the status quo, which is not acceptable

SAFE for Salmon
by Bill Monroe, special to The Oregonian
Saturday September 20, 2008, 2:00 PM
Here is the text of the SAFE for Salmon's white paper, a proposal to move gill nets off the mainstem Columbia River and benefit everyone, including the netters:

Columbia River Fisheries....A New Vision

• Jim Martin, retired chief of fisheries, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

• Rod Sando, retired director Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources and Idaho Department of Fish and Game

• Bill Shake, retired assistant regional director, Fisheries, US Fish and Wildlife Service

• Don Swartz, retired fisheries manager, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Columbia River salmon fisheries are in chaos

• Fisheries agencies attempt to balance sport and non-Indian commercial gill-net fisheries within tight Endangered Species Act (ESA) constraints.

• Sportsmen are frustrated by reduced fishing seasons, abrupt closures and increased license fees.

• Commercial fishermen are frustrated by mainstem constraints on protected salmon and steelhead, putting harvestable hatchery salmon off limits.

• Environmentalists object to bycatch of protected fish and genetic impacts from too many stray hatchery salmon mixing with wild salmon on spawning grounds.

• Businesses suffer devastating economic losses when the states of Oregon and Washington curtail salmon seasons. Sportfishing supports nearly 31,000 jobs in the Pacific Northwest. Many are directly tied to the Columbia River.

• The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Department proposes to raise sport license fees by 20% in 2009 and the Washington Fish and Wildlife Department will soon follow. But anglers balk at paying more for less fishing. Steep decreases in angling license sales snowball into lost opportunity for everyone.

There is a Better Way

The solution is to move the lower Columbia River commercial gill-net fishery entirely into off-channel, terminal fishing areas called SAFE (for Select Area Fisheries Enhancement). SAFE is an experiment-turned-success. Oregon and Washington could then use the limited main stem ESA impacts to maximize sportfishing opportunity on hatchery fish. Impacts in this context refer to the total mortality on a listed run of fish, including hooking mortality from released fish as well as kept fish.

Terminal fishing in SAFE areas such as Young's Bay, near Astoria, Oregon, has been used for years to supplement the commercial fishery. For example, according to ODFW figures, in 2007 SAFE area fisheries contributed 62% of spring chinook commercial harvest and 26% of fall salmon harvest in the Columbia River. In 2008, the SAFE percentage of commercial harvest is even higher.

Increased hatchery releases and improved survival rates in SAFE areas would ensure stable and profitable commercial fishing while adequately supplying markets. Even better, lower river netters are able to catch salmon in their prime, at top market value fresh from the Ocean. Profitable SAFE fisheries, in turn, would reduce wasted steelhead and cause fewer juvenile sturgeon mortalities.

This change also generates millions of dollars in economic value from sport fishing and tourism to local Columbia River communities from Astoria to Portland and Ilwaco to Vancouver. Expanded sport fishing license sales help stabilize the financial status of the fisheries agencies and their conservation mission.

This strategy holds substantial additional conservation benefits. Sport fishing involves just minor bycatch mortality of non-targeted species such as wild steelhead, sockeye and sturgeon. Because sport fishing removes more hatchery fish for each incidental wild fish handling mortality, the number of stray hatchery fish on the spawning grounds is reduced. Reprogramming more hatchery fish to lower river sites also reduces stray hatchery fish on the spawning grounds. Most of the returning hatchery fish in terminal fishing areas will be caught in the commercial fishery after the fish pass through the sport fishery, further reducing strays.

We know that in a period of changing climate there will be increasing variability in run strengths and many surprises in the future. Managing a sport fishery across a full season allows for better economics with a lighter touch on the resource. It also allows quick response to changed run sizes much more easily than if a front-loaded, intense commercial fishery has already used up a substantial portion of the ESA impacts allocated to the non-Indian fishery. This change improves managers ability to respond to surprises with less dramatic economic and social disruption.

This change can be phased in and mainstem fishing allocations shifted as new, increased salmon production returns to the SAFE areas. This will facilitate an orderly transition that is fair to all parties. This strategy will provide an equitable solution to a very heated and contentious controversy.

A Little History

Before the Endangered Species Act listings and the US v. Oregon allocation agreements with Columbia River treaty tribes, there were ample fall chinook and coho stocks to allow liberal sport and lower Columbia River gill-net fisheries to co-exist. However, several factors have changed.

First, allowable harvest rates have been severely reduced to support ESA rebuilding of salmon/steelhead stocks primarily decimated by habitat loss and hydropower mortality. As a result, lower Columbia River fisheries harvests are limited to well below 10%, with some fisheries, such as spring chinook, limited to just 2% impact on listed fish. When the handling mortality of sport and gill-net fisheries combined reaches 2%, the spring chinook season is over. Sport fishing seasons get shorter each year.

Second, the majority of main stem ESA impacts have been allocated by state and federal agencies to tribal fisheries for ceremonial/subsistence, as well as tribal commercial harvest.

Today, there simply are not enough ESA impacts to allow both stable, dependable sport fisheries and substantial lower Columbia River commercial gill-net fisheries in the mainstem. The frustration is growing at ODFW/WDFW Commission hearings, Columbia River Compact meetings and in both state legislatures.

The Economics

Analyses show that the greatest economic benefit for each harvestable salmon results from sport fishing. For each 10 wild fish caught and released, only one dies from handling in the sport fishery. Some studies have shown the mortality can be as low as 3% when fishing with lures rather than bait.

Large mesh gill-net fisheries have roughly 40% release mortality and 14-18% mortality with smaller mesh gill-nets that capture the fish by tangling the teeth. However, "tooth nets" for salmon-sized fish act as gill-nets for the smaller co-mingled steelhead. Bycatch mortality for juvenile sturgeon and other species is also an ongoing concern.

Today, for every hatchery spring chinook fish caught and kept in the sport fishery, anglers have on average, spent eight days of fishing! Each day of salmon fishing contributes roughly $175.00 into the economy for gas, bait, food, lodging and gear. A commercially caught salmon will usually sell for $30-$150 per fish at the dock, depending on species and season.

The Pacific Northwest is growing rapidly, with projections to double in population by 2040 and quadruple by 2100. Rapid growth and the demand for high quality, Alaska-level salmon sport fishing is sure to intensify conflicts. The states must look to the future and formulate their plans for the next generation of fishermen and true salmon/steelhead recovery.

We can double the sport fishery and provide the same number of salmon to the market (or perhaps more). It's a win/win for both commercial and sport fishermen for the long term.

Hatchery smolt releases can be moved into new and existing SAFE areas in the lower Columbia River to enable commercial fisheries to catch just as many fish as they do now in the mainstem, with far more dependability, less environmental harm, lower harvest costs and higher economic value.

ODFW studies show that moving coho salmon smolts from upriver hatcheries to release points in Young's Bay terminal SAFE area doubles overall survival into Ocean fisheries and quadruples overall harvest benefit, including substantial expansion of the Ocean, Buoy 10 and in-river commercial fisheries. At a time when Ocean coho fisheries are severely restricted, a doubling of hatchery fish survival would benefit every community on the Oregon and Washington Coast and would be an economic boon for lower Columbia River communities.

So Why Are We Stalemated in Controversy?

The Oregon and Washington Commissions share management responsibility for the benefit of citizens while protecting and maintaining these natural resources. They recognize that serious conflict exists, but have been unable or unwilling to take decisive action to break the deadlock. They recently sponsored a "visioning process" involving some stakeholders to guide future decisions. However when this vision was presented, the Oregon Commission refused to include it as an option. Thus, citizens are forced to seek solutions from the legislature. Recently, however, ODF&W staff has suggested a strategy similar to this proposal with respect to spring chinook.

Lower Columbia River commercial gill-net advocates recognize the current value of the terminal area fisheries. However, they cite the crowding problems in the terminal areas and the desire to fish traditional places where their fathers and grandfathers fished. Crowding can be reduced by adding new SAFE areas and deploying part of the fleet on alternate days. Sport anglers support the development of new commercial terminal areas to spread out the harvest opportunity for commercial fishermen.

The reality is that the current conflict will eventually lead to a total elimination of the lower Columbia River gill-net fishery, as it has everywhere else in America. That has been the long-term fate of market hunting and commercial fishing in freshwater.

So, why not just wait until the conflict intensifies to the breaking point, eventually eliminating non-tribal commercial gill-netting? Because inaction sacrifices a valuable opportunity to convert surplus hatchery fish, uncaught in the sport fishery, into market value. We unnecessarily eliminate rural jobs in fishing and processing. We lose the incentive to reprogram hatchery fish into terminal areas with the resulting increase in survival and fisheries contribution. And we suffer far too many hatchery strays mixing with wild fish on the spawning grounds, which will eventually result in environmental lawsuits that could well shut down hatcheries critical to the region's fisheries.

Most of all, we endure years of increased conflict, management gridlock, lost fishing/economic opportunity and severe funding shortfalls in agency budgets resulting in reduced fishery production and poor conservation program quality.

Waiting is not worth it.

We Can Do This... Now!

If you have ever asked, "When are we going to do something about gill-netting and shorter sport fishing seasons?" the answer is now. You need to care enough to call the Governor and state legislators of both states, talk to your fishing buddies about doing the same and write a check to support our selective fishing campaign to SAFE for Salmon! PO Box 4, Oregon City, Oregon 97045. SAFE for Salmon is a campaign to effect this change in policy. It is managed by a coalition of sport fishing organizations including: Association of NW Steelheaders, NW Guides and Anglers Association, OR Council of Trout Unlimited, Puget Sound Anglers and Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association. Funds will be used for: economic analysis, lobbying, message development, outreach to sportsmen's groups, working with economic/tourism interests and coordinating with legislative supporters and agencies. For more information, to donate money and/or to volunteer to help please call SAFE for Salmon at 503 631 8859 or toll free 866 315 6742.

Some will just continue to complain and not support this campaign....others will make a difference. Which are you?

About the Authors

We've spent a cumulative span of nearly 160 years of managing fisheries and advocating conservation programs. We have watched this conflict intensify and the management agencies suffer from "bunker mentality", sticking doggedly to the status quo when everyone else sees the need for change. This can be done and our economy and conservation will benefit greatly. The Pacific Northwest can become a sport fishing economic engine without the reduction of fish available for the market or commercial fishing jobs.

It has to start someplace. It has to start sometime...

Revolution calling!

Safe Areas are off channel, bycatch is near zero.
Areas have to cleared of underwater debris, no nearly zero chance of loosing a net.
Here's a list of fish advocacy groups that are supporting SFS plan.

Northwest Steelheaders
Fish Northwest
Northwest Guides & Anglers
NSIA
Oregon Trout Unlimited
Ore. Marine Trade Assoc.
Oregon Wild
Puget Sound Anglers

Aunty would you change your support if CCA supported the "ideas" that are in the SAFE plan?

Just a question...........

At least its something on the table......more than I can say about CCA and their plan for the Lower Columbia!

No idea what the CCA Lower Columbia plan entails. All I get from CCA is requests for a donation for the upcoming banquet season.....

But this is another topic all together.

The main problem I see with the SAFE program is it prolongs instead of hastening the day gillnets are prohibited in the LCR. Market hunting is an anachronism, and the LCR non-treaty gillnet fishery is the poster child of a commercial fishery whose time has expired. Every one of those potentially harvestable hatchery chinook could be harvested from traps in prime market condition at Willamette Falls, Bonneville, NFL Merwin trap, and Cowlitz salmon hatchery at truly safe and sustainable harvest rates. Keeping the buggy whip factories (LCR gillnetters) in business because they occur in rural counties is asinine. Might as well be putting gold into an old mine that's been played out long ago to maintain those mining jobs. Idiocy!

Sg

So that's Salmo and Aunty for the status quo, so it's two to one.
A plan is way better than no plan.
The publics rights to access those fish carries weight with the decision makers.
There is no alternative ready to replace gillnets, off channel safe areas have been in operation on the LCR for over 10 years, they are a good option to mainstem fishing.
So far all I've read is a bunch of hot air, let's see some scientific data that shows Safe Areas bycatch levels.

would you guys stop with the "public's right to access these fish" crap? the public has ZERO RIGHT to those fish, much like we have no right to fish recreationally.

let's say i want to eat grass carp. they raise them in hatcheries, but it's illegal to fish for them or have them in your possession. by that logic there is a requirement to have some kind of fishery on them because they are put there with public money.

What are the observers going to observe? Gillnetters catching hatchery fish?
I would suggest you familiarize yourself with the Safe Areas, and how they operate, there is over tens years of data, so if there's a red herring you won't have any trouble finding it.
Being against a plan to remove gillnets from, without having a alternate plan is just plain ridiculous.
Plans don't come around very often, rejecting a plan with no other plan seems to me would be a vote for the status quo.

IMO Safe is at least a start in the correct direction. Baby steps to removal of the LCR Gillnet fleet, Baby Steps.

Still waiting for the high bycatch numbers you mentioned.
So it's status quo for you Aunty?
It's been ten years between "Plans" I'm all over this one, might not live to see another one.

It puts them in the ten year old Safe Areas, out of the mainstem, where their impacts on ESA listed species is nearly nothing, and bycatch is next to nothing as well.
What more do you want?
Or is this really about the Gillnetters themselves, and not their nets?
Please give us less personal opinions and more data that would support your opposing position.
From my perspective your coming across as nothing more than sour grapes.
So what's your plan?

So it is the gillnetters and not the nets.
I'm convinced you don't know squat about SFS plan,in fact I doubt you even read it.
Sill waiting to hear your plan.

Safe plan sounds great to keep Gilnets out of the main river, but it also takes millions of chinook smolts away from upper willamette hatcheries that desperatly need them. There are pros and cons for every plan.