On Weds. and Thursday I fished the lower Columbia out of Cathlamet. The fishing was terrible, but there seemed to be lots of fish aroound - at least according to my electronics. Near Skamokawa I saw a strange looking boat, recognized it from a distance as a purse sein type boat and went over to see what was going on. WDFW was conducting selective harvest research from this miniature seiner using an approximate (my guess) 500 foot long net. I watched intently as they finished one drift and carefully sorted the wild fish from the hatchery. My estimate, again, was about 70% Coho and a15% each of steelhead and Chinook from a catch of about 35 fish. I was impressed by the effectiveness of the gear. I also chatted with the crew a little bit and they said that on one drift they landed 82 total fish! I watched them use a dip net to release the wild fish with very little stress to them. It also appeared that the type of seine that they used imparted almost no scale loss. I thihnk this type of gear may have a real future for selective fishing on the Columbia. At least if someone says it does not, I know that will be false.

you said above that fishing stunk, what if the method you seen them testing was the method that the wdfw chooses to go to, how do you think sportfishing will be with 150 of these purse seiners fishing for the same fish thats sportsman are fishing for and keeping more of them than they do now ?

Folks need to be very aware of this fact...seasons on the LCR are set by mortality rates on the wild fish...no matter how they are killed, they will be killed, period.

Make a fishery more selective, and they will kill the same amount of wild fish...but the more selective they get, the more hatchery fish they'll kill while doing it.

I'm generally a fan of selective fisheries, when appropriate...but in a set of fisheries like those on the LCR, where seasons and exploitation rates are set by ESA fish mortalities, the only thing "more selective commercial fisheries" will accomplish is less hatchery fish for sporties...the same amount of wild fish will die.

That's why when some trumpet this type of development as some sort of "recovery tool" for wild fish, they are either lying, or woefully ignorant of how LCR fisheries work.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd -
excellent point that many folks seem to miss. The only real way that selective fisheries contribute to "conservation " of listed stocks that are managed with minimal allowable impacts is by removing more hatchery fish from the natural spawning populations while staying within those allowable impacts.

Of course if that is the way to achieve those "conservation" benefits then the managers need to give those fisheries that have the lowest release mortality the largest share of the allowable impacts. When the commercial fisheries become more selective (lower release mortalities) guess who will get more of the allocation pie because of the increased "conservation" benefits?

tight lines
Curt

Well...unfortunately there's a whole group of sporties out there who seem to think that either the State will restrict the commercials to the amount of hatchery fish they're already killing, thereby reducing their wild fish impact, or that, in a serious fantasy world, that the commercial fleet will do it voluntarily.

The whole "we've got to fish harder to get those pesky hatchery fish off the spawning grounds" in order to "save" wild fish arguments are about the least thought out, or most disingenous arguments I've ever heard...and as you have, I've hard some of the most illogical and disingenuous arguments imaginable.

This one takes the cake, though...and seems to have spawned an entire organization to support it.

Baffling.

Fish on...

Todd

Need I point out the most obvious, most cost-effective, and most effective overall way to keep those darn hatchery fish off the spawning grounds?

The point of it, however, goes directly to the issue of recovering wild fish, and not pretending to do so while fishing on blissfully, which I see clearly is the actual point of the position.

The idea that we just have to fish harder to save wild fish is like saying we need to go out and eat all the ice cream in the world to lose weight, so there's not so much fattening ice cream around. Of course, that only works if they don't make more ice cream.

Hint...it's not by catching more in nets or on fishing lines.

Fish on...

Todd

You all have missed the point. Selective harvest must take place in order to restore wild sticks while maintaining harvest; AND hatchery stocks will have to be harvested or face serious cutbacks in production or hatchery closures. What do you think will be said when 50,00 or more surplus coho hit the Cowlitz hatchery this year?

As a guy who has seen how effective gillnets are at taking salmon non-selectively, I was encouraged at how benign this small sein seemed to be at releasing the wild salmon. But you guys can turn even an informative report into something negative. It was just an observation. Get a life.

would you rather have a new selective commercial method at the mouth of the cowlitz catching all of the surplus fish ?, how would the sportfishery be on the cowlitz then besides dead ?

Boater,

There isn't a predominant wild run on the Cowlitz and I believe WDFW manages it as a hatchery river, as such, I doubt there will be any overall impact on the Cowlitz. If anything I would suspect they would increase hatchery production.

The way fisheries has been managed or mis-managed has done little to restore wild fish. Commerical and non-commercial fisheries are not going to go away. So, to close a river to fishing to restore wild fish isn't an option.

The best option, as pointed out by the HSRG, is to manage with selective harvest and hatchery reform. By taking hatchery fish out of the system, which are genetically inferior to wild fish and allowing more wild fish to spawn will increase numbers.

I think there will be as much hatchery fish to catch and in time, more wild fish as well.

Sooner or later you'll have to learn the truth...if you want it to be later, well, that's up to you.

If the fishery allows for 5000 dead wild fish...they'll die no matter what. You can harvest more hatchery fish...at the hands of the commercial netters, or seiners, or fish wheels, or whatever...but the same 5000 wild fish will die.

That is not "recovery", nor is it anything like recovery.

The folks pushing this at the CCA really need to learn how the fisheries and seasons work before they go too far...but I fear it's already too late.

Not only have they already gone too far, they've shown the same inability as you to take even the slightest bit of time or energy to learn how the fisheries work.

Get a life? That's the same type of brainless response that we always get from the CCA membership, if not their leadership...you can't cover up massive ignorance with one liner rejoinders, though I suspect you'll continue to try.

The same amount of wild fish will die...there will be less hatchery fish available for sportfishermen...and the resulting change in numbers of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds will be negligible...yet, when told from on high (Woodland) that this is the way to go, you all eat it up, hook, line, and sinker.

Fish on...

Todd

We will just have to let the numbers show the success of the test fishery then.

What would you propose and if so, why hasn't another group pushed long and hard for this?

i realy dont put much faith in what the HSRG says.

Who are you asking, and what are you asking about?

I think I know, but I want to be sure before I answer...

Fish on...

Todd

Todd -
I was at the WDFW commission meeting in 2008 where they decided to increase the recreational share of the allowable impacts on the Columbia River spring Chinook - in effect transferring allocation towards the sport fishery. I clearly recall the debate that lead up to that decision and it was clear to all that were there that the deciding factor was the due to the sport selective fishery and the lower release mortality on the wild associated that fishery which removed more hatchery fish from the system per dead wild fish (per ESA impact).

There is little doubt in my mind that the decision would have favored the commercial fishery if it had been selective and had a lower release mortality than that associated with the recreational fishery. Given the mortality that might been seen in some of the commercial selective methods being pushed I would not be surprised to see that sharring percentages of the allowed impacts reversed and potentially a doubling or more of the commercial share of the hatchery catch. Such a move would only be consistent with Commission actions the last two years that has been so popular with the recreational community.

As you alluded to the devil is always in the details.

Tight lines
Curt

I agree wholeheartedly, that's why I wish those pushing for selective commercial gear would not just accept, with no facts or logic behind it, that it will be better for the fish, or for fishing.

At best it will be negligible for "recovery", and a seriously reduced sportfishing opportunity.

At best.

Explain that to them, however, and you get the responses like above...

Fish on...

Todd

The devil is always in the details, so true.....JMO and the reason I never joined, but to me it seems like CCA felt that by requiring commercial harvest to be selective that would in turn get rid of all commercial harvest. You've hit the head on the nail here Curt....if you force the commercial industry into the selective gear corner and they turn to gear types that are more selective than recreational gear then both the proposed Hatchery Reform Policy being proposed by WDFW and the revised NOF policy dictate that they should have a shot at more of the non-treaty share. I felt that most of the quick membership growth was due to the fact that folks felt CCA could simply "get rid of" commercial due to the reason I mention here, but I don't feel you'll ever get rid of them. In fact you may have ruined a good thing by forcing them to go selective....as Todd points out, the same number of wild fish will die, and as the commercial selective gear takes out more and more hatchery fish as it becomes more selective....what happens to the sport fishery? Without a specific allocation of hatchery fish, it will suffer. And if the goal of hatchery reform and NOAA is to remove hatchery fish at a higher proportion than we are currently doing....with a more selective commercial gear that can do that....well you already said it...the devil is in the details. If history is a lesson I believe purse seines were legal on the lower columbia in the past....its just the gillnet lobby was able to get them banned through the legislature as they were too effective at catching all of their hatchery fish being produced and the gillnets wanted their fare "share". Funny how things seem to repeat themselves.

rojo, and you are now touching on where I think our energies ought to be focused...removing non-tribal commercial fishing from fresh water areas, completely.

Period.

They serve no useful purpose but to line the pockets of a few and cause problems for the many, including the fish runs.

Fish on...

Todd

the biggest myth floating around the cca camp is that when the commercials go to a more selective way of fishing with a lower release mortality rate that they wont be allowed to catch any more fish than they do now.

You only have had to been through the CR commercial/sport battles a few times to see that the commercials have continually been demanding "parity" with sports fishing's harvest. "50/50" has been their testimony, particularly on Spring Chinook.

They were given it with Summer Chinook, and they're above 50% on fall chinook and off the chart on coho....

Implement commercial methods that have an equal or less mortality rate than hook&line and the commercials will likely get what they want ONE HALF of the spring chinook harvest.

And since we're up against the limits of the catch-balancing agreements with the Tribes, there's no "surplus" of hatchery springers to give to the commercials without impacting sports fishers.

What sports anglers are guaranteed to get through "selective commercial harvest" is an invigorated commercial fleet, more competition through the year and harder-fought allocation battles without end.

"Selective harvest" advocates began with the faulty premise that commercial harvest is necessary on the mainstem Columbia River and went south from there.

Really too bad....

Don't be surprised if they get more than half of the 2% allowable impacts on ESA spring Chinook...the argument we've been winning on in order to get 65/35 or 60/40 the last several years is that we're more selective...

What happens when they're more selective and use our argument...which wins...against us?

Fish on...

Todd

We start eating pinks and chum?

Optimal foraging theory ya' know, mixing threads and all now.

Sg

this looks pretty pristine, you may want to check it out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzOP1nYHGj4&feature=related

If removing hatchery fish from the mainstem is the goal, then why invent new ways to play with your food?
The focus should be on removing these hatchery fish at the dam and falls.
This would be the most efficient, smallest carbon footprint harvest method, and would have zero effect on LCR sport anglers.

Another naysaying contest.
Maybe we should recommend a less selective harvest method? Dynamite perhaps?

When there are something like 20,000 wild springers on the spawning grounds, and over 150,000 hatchery springers that don't get caught...how much difference will catching five or ten...or fifty...thousand more hatchery fish make on the spawning grounds?

Hint: None.

This is especially true when I believe the HSRG recommends no more than 15% of the entire spawning population should be hatchery fish.

In that case, the non-tribal commercials would need to harvest 147,000 more hatchery springers.

This, of course, is impossible.

Even with dynamite.

Not to mention that the upstream treaty tribes probably wouldn't be too cool with it.

I know I sound like a broken record, but here goes again...

Why are sportfishermen jumping for joy over a program that would have no benefit to ESA spring Chinook, and would make sportfishing opportunities diminish?

Hell, even WDFW and ODFW admit that the entire point of this is to allow the commercial guys to harvest more fish, and make more money...why is there a handful of sporties who are the only ones who think this is a good idea, besides the commercial industry and their caretakers?

Fish on...

Todd

because they dont believe the part i put in bold in the news release below, on coho alone they could harvest the crap out of lower river hatchery coho and then you could kiss good coho fishing goodbye, we dont have a catch sharing agreement with the tribes for coho, we just have to make sure that 1/2 of the upriver run gets above the dam

August 28, 2009
Contact: WDFW Region 5 Office, (360) 696-6211

Tagged salmon may point way
to new commercial fishing gear

VANCOUVER, Wash. – Anglers who catch a salmon bearing a jaw tag or a colored “spaghetti” tag near its dorsal fin can play an important role in a new study of experimental fishing gear now under way in the lower Columbia River.

By reporting tagged fish, anglers can help researchers determine survival rates for chinook and coho salmon released from three types of commercial fishing gear being tested by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).

Anglers can keep the fish if allowed by local fishing regulations, but are asked to inform WDFW of their catch by calling the number printed on the colored tags.

“Two major goals of this study are to test the gear’s effectiveness in catching fish and to determine how many salmon survive after they are released from it,” said Pat Frazier, a WDFW fish manager who is directing the study. “Our immediate focus is on the gear’s effectiveness, but recovery of tagged fish will help to inform future studies.”

Supported by $200,000 in federal funding, the one-year pilot study will test the effectiveness of floating traps, beach seines and a modified version of the purse seine – all of which corral fish while leaving them free-swimming. Once contained, fish can be identified and released by type or species with a minimum amount of handling, Frazier said.

That is not necessarily the case with gillnets, the primary type of gear used in commercial fisheries on the lower Columbia River, which snare fish by the gills as they encounter them, Frazier said.

“The ability to release fish unharmed is important to maintaining sustainable fisheries on the Columbia River, where many runs are listed for protection under the federal Endangered Species Act,” Frazier said. “Commercial boats could actually catch a lot more hatchery-reared salmon if we can find new ways to reduce mortalities of protected wild fish.”

Working with area fishers, WDFW will conduct the pilot study through Sept. 27. Boats and gear involved in the study will be identified as part of a research project.

Frazier said the pilot study is likely just the first step in a multi-year effort to identify – and likely modify – commercial fishing gear for possible incorporation into the fishery.

“Some of this gear has been used on the Columbia and elsewhere in the past, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it will meet today’s standards,” he said. “Figuring out what works and what doesn’t is what this study is all about.”

boater, from the State DFW's perspectives, this is the only reason for this idea...to give the commercial guys better access to the hatchery fish.

The funny part is that I don't even fish the LCR for salmon, and have given up long ago on the trib fishing down there with all the crowds of people and subpar fishing...the only fishing I do down there is steelhead fishing, and this selective fishing would improve that...so even though I don't really have a dog in this fight, and if I did it would probably be in favor of it just because of the steelhead...salmon and salmon fishing be damned...I still can't just sit by idly and watch a group of sportfishermen not only shoot themselves all about the feet, but shoot all the other sportfishermen down there who have been duped into thinking this will somehow be good for salmon or salmon fishing.

Fish on...

Todd

Just bumping this thread up for someone.

i know what you mean, we should start a new group and call it "sportsman with common sense" and to be a member you have to have common sense, from what i read on the boards i`d say our membership would be about 10

Boater's post of the WDFW news release simply reinforces the idea that WDFW considers river recreational salmon fishing as something coincidental to commercial salmon fishing in this state, and not something considered as a management goal based on its intrinsic social and economic values.

To borrow a phrase, GDITMMM!

Sg

If they go to purse seining like the first post was talking about they will be catching way more fish with less work. Sorting seined fish is easier than picking a gill net.

Aunty,

You're right in that gillnetting is the most cost-effective fishing method for the commercials. They have and will continue to resist change. But that doesn't mean they won't change if they can see profit potential in switching.

In Puget Sound and SE Alaska, purse seining is lots more expensive (capital and labor) than gillnetting, but it's worth it because seining catches more fish than gillnetting. The same could be true on the LCR, altho it remains an unknown for the time being.

Still, this argument among recreational fishermen is the totally wrong discussion to be having. We're acting stupid and might as well be working for the opposition. As freespool posted, and I'm paraphrasing, it's a social and economic disservice to be developing a seining alternative to gillnetting. The only goal of such a plan is to transfer more of the economic benefit of hatchery salmon to the present LCR gillnet fleet.

If the goal truly is selective removal of hatchery salmon to prevent them from mingling with wild salmon on the spawning grounds, the best location to do that is already known and almost completely developed. Sorting facilities and traps could be readily retrofitted to the Bonneville and Willamette fish ladders, and would require even less modification at Cowlitz, Lewis, Kalama, and Clackamas. The sorting and selection would then occur upstream of the LCR recreational spring chinook fishery, maximizing the social, economic, and biological return. And small things, like financing the change, is there for the asking, but the agencies won't ask, being the lap dogs of the gillnet fleet.

The logical alternative is elimination of the LCR gillnet fleet, but avoiding that conversation is like ignoring the elephant standing in the room.

Sg

I think that's about the only worthwhile discussion to have at all on the LCR...they provide no service that is necessary to anyone other than a small select bunch of themselves, subsidized by all the rest of us.

The real reason that sporties are in favor of this...they're just too ashamed to say so...is that they have an addiction to hatchery fish, and they fear that getting the commercials out of the Columbia will lead to cuts in hatchery production.

That fear is what is driving this...not some mystical concern for wild fish, especially in light of the fact that this program wouldn't save one single wild fish.

If they would at least be honest about it, we could discuss it...but continuing to hold onto an illogical argument about "fish recovery" is a more comfortable position to argue from than the truth, when the truth has nothing whatsoever to do with fish recovery.

Fish on...

Todd

this is total bunk, they will be able to catch and keep more fish than they do now, what part of that is so hard for you to understand ??

Todd,

Heck, we're all addicted to hatchery fish. Without 'em we get no eaters. Seems like another example where education is the key. The Mitchell Act will keep CR hatcheries busy for eternity. No amount of wild fish recovery will obviate the need for them. There is no other way to compensate for the FCRPS impacts. Some hatchery production reductions may be in order, but wouldn't be noticed if the gillnet fleet evaporates.

Gee Todd, CCA could really use someone with your talent and abilities.

Sg

Sg, based on the memberships' responses on several boards about this topic, I suspect if I told them the sky was blue they'd run and ask Gary if it was true, and then he'd probably say it was orange and then they'd all argue with me...if I thought there was some reasonable modicum of receptiveness I might consider it...but I haven't seen it...as a matter of fact, I typically run into a quite the opposite, and militantly, too, I might add.

If the States and the commercials figure this purse seine thing out, I can't wait to see how the membership reacts when...at best...fishing gets worse for them with no benefit to the ESA salmon.

It could get a lot worse than that, too...wait until they get their seasons slashed in half when the "more selective" commercial guys start getting, at a minimum, a 50/50 split on the ESA impact allocations...that's the part that sucks even more, because based on how the allocation talks have gone the past six or seven years, they'll be entitled to it.

Fish on...

Todd

i bet his phone was ringing off the hook lmao

Maybe DFW will see just how much money sporties contribute when there are no hatchery fish to fish for. The meat fisheries will go away and so will the people. The weekend crowd will go away and so will the money they all spend. The only one's left will be the fly fishermen because they don't care if they catch a fish or not.

Doug,

Thanks for reminding us of the upside in all this. Lots of uncrowded water to fly fish.

Sg

It's not the labor, it's the capital investment. The gillnetters want to be subsidized for new gear.

Additionally, two articles last week in the Washington media show pretty clearly the commercials want an additional subsidy -- additional ESA impacts for the 'alternative gear' guys as a reward for making the change.

Of course, those extra ESA impacts will not be coming out of the gillnetter's existing share. No, of course not. You will instead see the gillnetters lobbying WA/OR commissions to shave a couple points off sportfishing's share and transferred to this experimental alternative gear fishery.

"They were given it with Summer Chinook, and they're above 50% on fall chinook and off the chart on coho...."


Boater, You are aware of course that we just went thru one of the biggest ocean and Buoy 10 coho fisheries in recent years. The gillnetters are still mopping up and the sports have gone home. The gillnetters are lucky to get $1 a pound for silvers now. Do you suppose they will keep on fishing if the price drops below that?

You and Todd make a good team. You want more fish to catch and Todd wants to eliminate hatchery fish. So who gets what?

You may also be aware as I'm sure Todd is that Oregon has a law that guarantees equal access to the fish.
don't know about Washington. Bill Monroe has been hammering this home for years. So you guys really think that the States will allow commercials to catch them all and leave the sports with nothing? This spring on the Columbia was one of the best seasons in years. And it was all above I-5! We still didn't reach impact and left a buffer.

So dream on. CCA is here to stay! And trust me Gary doesn't lose sleep over your opinions!

answer me this, why is the wdfw trying to get the non-tribl gillnetters to go to a method with a low release mortality rate ?

considering the gillnetters are getting about 1/2 of the sports coho esa take i`d say they are going to keep fishing, we didnt use all of our esa coho take, you probly already know that what we dont use goes to them.

I don't want to eliminate hatchery fish...I want the supporters of this ridiculous idea to at least admit that it will do nothing to help wild ESA spring Chinook, and that they are unjustifiably afeard of losing their clouds of hatchery fish without a robust commercial fishery...pretending otherwise is getting tiresome.

Fish on...

Todd

You have seen the light! We (sports) have killed all the Coho we want, and there are still fish to be had. If they kill them with gillnets they also kill Steelhead and wild fish. If they go selective they only kill hatchery. Is that difficult to understand?

I guess to minimize impacts. So is ODFW. Next question?

Gary is not involved in the day to day operation of CCA. He has a business to run. Im happy to burst your bubble. So much for the know it alls.

It wasnt even two years ago, we all heard, ITS THE DAMS. So how is your battle going? Yet, some have time, to complain about people they dont even know, or work with. Some, keep repeating the same rule of 2% assuming the government and the fishing organizations cant reduce the limit of 2% to 1%. Its like car emissions. Reach the goal, raise the bar. They give no weight to the effect that selective harvest has already had on certain tribes. At the same time, acting like two different sets of rules would save any fish. If the commercial fisherman are given 50% of the allocation of hatchery fish, CCA will not fold up and go home. Its not an allocation fight. There are other fish and bottom dwellers to save. But, Im sure the detractors will continue to tell us, how and where CCA will fail. Doing nothing, is failure.

After two years, one of which was spent raising money to hire people to do our work, (which was also complained about)...and after WE saved the commission from one man rule of the entire dept. they are still complaining. Who gets the credit for getting rid of the former Director? Perhaps it came to the governor in a dream... CCA was another voice in DC to remove thousands of ghost nets from Puget Sound. OH! Big deal! Three volunteer members, represented sportsmen through the entire NoF process, all the way to the final meetings in California. Secured a humpy season on the Green River and increased the total amount of fishing season available by more than 10 months.

Rather than preaching about their own SOLUTIONS and PLANS, they continue to degrade some senior citizen, who broke with conventional wisdom and convinced the most successful marine conservation organization to work with US and on our behalf. They are doing everything wrong! Wah! The self proclaimed experts are still crying about not getting their way. They would also be wrong to assume that membership is of the opinion that selective harvest will completely solve the problem. Leadership has spoken of it, to the many members. There will be other battles. Listening to the detractors of the said organization, one might assume the organization is in a stiff legged march into battle with zero research, zero awareness, zero planning and zero credentials. Like its their first picnic. What the detractors fail to remember is the actual chances of banning commercial fishing out of the box, (2007) since it failed twice in the past. That might have been part of the problem, since so many experts said CCA would amount to nothing and FAIL. The possibility of ratcheting up the heat, if results do not improve, are not part of the collective thought process, only failure. No thought of the possibilities, only short comings.

I have to wonder, how a new business owner, active fisherman and officer of a nonprofit group, could delegated so much time, to ridicule membership and leadership of another organization. There is no election. Those who disagree, are free to organize and recruit their own members, raise money, elect officers, form a mission statement and position statements and go about hiring attorneys, lobbyists and various experts to draft legislation to ban nets on the Columbia River and everywhere else in the state.

Perhaps if we made the selective harrassment of wild spawning steelhead illegal in Washington rivers, year around, we might save one extra wild fish and some of you, would have time to ban the nets and tear down the dams. But, I suspect, some of you would rather pound the table harder, expecting different results. We will never know how many people will never join, how many ideas and volunteers will never come forth. Nor will we be able to predict how many problems wont be solved, because of the constant complaining and harrassment of members.

I suspect that a good many very qualified folks wouldn't touch the CCA with a ten foot pole because of the harrassment they receive from often uneducated but very passionate CCA folks...I tend to choose where to throw my support, time, and energy behind those who do what I believe is useful and helpful, and shy away from those who aren't...

I think the CCA was helpful in keeping our Commission structure at least as good as it is, and I appreciate their concern about ghost nets...but to think that ghost nets would never go anywhere without the CCA, or that the CCA "saved" the Commission is self-aggrandizement in the extreme.

There have been individuals and organizations working on getting out ghost nets, and actually getting them out, long before the CCA ever came to the PNW...putting out a position paper supporting their removal and having the guy who actually does it speak at a CCA meeting doesn't all of a sudden turn ghost nets into one of Gary's "wins"...it's just supporting the right thing, like lots of other folks and organizations do.

There were many individuals and organizations...including the CCA...who participated in the debate to keep our Commission structure, and there will be lots more work to do on it in the future, too...I hope the CCA continues to help with that, but leaves the sort of ridiculous arrogance about it that LB brings to the subject at the door, or they'll continue to alienate the very folks who could help them become a first class organization.

Fish on...

Todd

What is arrogant, is to infer that I am keeping you from joining. Nor is anyone else. I challenge you to find one professional in the business, that wont join because of me. That means a real name and a title.

"CCA was another voice in DC to remove thousands of ghost nets from Puget Sound. OH! Big deal!" [one sentence]

Todd Quote-
and I appreciate their concern about ghost nets...but to think that ghost nets would never go anywhere without the CCA,

"There have been individuals and organizations working on getting out ghost nets, and actually getting them out, long before the CCA ever came to the PNW...putting out a position paper supporting their removal and having the guy who actually does it speak at a CCA meeting doesn't all of a sudden turn ghost nets into one of Gary's "wins"...it's just supporting the right thing, like lots of other folks and organizations do. END Todd Quote

It would appear, you dont know about every meeting or application that was written or the letter from NW Straits Initiative, thanking CCA for their support. How could you... If anything, I understated CCA involvement in my original statement. Again, with the cheap shots, Gary is the founder and Washington Chair. Just like Microsoft is more than Bill Gates. However, Gary had reason to smile.

Ive seen the tapes of the legislative hearings. The CCA head count and the CCA speakers add up to a big win. But feel free to link to your or WSC testimony to keep the comission, in case I dosed off. Im dam proud of the results last year and I have the minutes on my cell phone and the emails to show for it. You bitch and denounce whenever it suits you and Im not gonna roll over and shut up. A bunch of 25 dollars experts, did more than you thought we could. Its certainly wasn't your network or membership base that woke up sleeping fishermen and hunters in every county in the state. The calls were 9:1 against the bill. No one in Olympia expected us to win that.

I dont see you telling your customers not to show off your lures. Nothing wrong with being low key, just dont expect anyone to get excited about something you arent able or willing to promote. Asside from fishing gear.

Ya I suppose C & R for wild steelhead was a good idea. But it also didnt keep you from targeting them during spawning season.

I think you need to look outside of your CCA shoebox and see the other thousands of individuals and many other organizations who are working on those subjects, and many more...

Your self-centered tone would be like me saying that no one ever caught a steelhead before I started a company, and that no one has ever caught a steelhead since without my company's lures...

Fish on...

Todd

Todd,

Please, as a personal favor, back off a minute. Of course CCA didn't do it alone. We all know that. But you and I and everyone else also knows that CCA brought one thing to the Legislative issue that no one else did - numbers. And the numbers made a positive impression, and the numbers may have (impossilbe to know) carried the outcome.

There are more than enough legitimate disagreements to go around. Most of the energy spent on those is and continues to be counter-productive. We'll be better off to focus energy on the cummulative strengths of the aggregate of sportfishing organizations. That is the ONLY thing that pays off in moving us closer to our mutual conservation goals.

All this petty bickering aimed at detracting one another's efforts should earn several posters a trip to the woodshed.

Sg

I acknowledge that CCA played a part...what I don't acknowledge is the "never would have happened without the CCA" attitude that seems to pervade LeadBouncer's opinions and posts.

Fish on...

Todd

Sporties have killed all the coho they want? Maybe at Buoy Zooey or in the ocean but what about the folks who fish the rivers upstream of the gillnet fishery?

There are folks who don't own boats, folks who get seasick, and those who just prefer small river fishing. Couple that with a desire/preference not to fish in a mixed stock fishery and they may not see letting the gillnetters "mop up" as a good thing.

a few of us are concerned about that especially if they go to a method with a low release rate that will allow them to take more fish, alot of stuff going on doesn't make sense to me, how bout this one, some puget sound chinook salmon populations have up to 70 percent hatchery fish on the spawning grounds so the brilliant idea is to change all the harvest on them from here to alaska to selective hatchery fish only fisherys to fish that 70 percent down, common sense would tell me that if they do that and i`m fishing for those same hatchery fish at one of the river mouths that there aint going to be to many hatchery fish to fish for, our problem is that we need a big agregate of fish to have good sportfishing and if you take that away sportfishing will suck, we have some real problems that we need to realy think about before we act.

this kinda reinforces that, the state isnt stupid and they know that with the catch sharing agreement with the tribes that there is only one place that the non-tribals can get more hatchery spring chinook and thats from the sports,

(b) Continue to provide opportunities and resources to further develop selective commercial fishing techniques with a goal of reducing mortality of listed fish and increasing access to hatchery fish.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/policies/c3617_attch1.pdf

Todd,

Spot on.......... Best post of the year.......

Keith

Watch out for them hatchbox coho..............

Keith

What has been done or is being done about the Canadian recreational and commercial fishery impact on Salmon returning to the Columbia River that just get hammered on all the way back home?

Just the way it is? Lost cause? Great to be them, sucks to be us?

Rick

thats a whole new problem.

Personally, I think it's the majority of the problem.

it is a big problem but we better be carefull how we address it.

Now that is a stunner coming from you.

ok, lets make sports selcetive fall chinook on the columbia, make the whole coast selective fall chinook and every fishery up north that has any effect on columbia river fall chinook selective and see how many hatchery chinook you`l be fishing for when they return to the columbia, do you think there will be more hatchery chinook or less hatchery chinook returning to the columbia ??

No. My proposal is you can only fish for any Salmon inside the mouth of your home rivers in "poison water" where it actually takes some fishing skills and all of the "Salty Dog's" can only fish for bottom fish! All Gillnet boats must become floating roach coaches, licensed only to sell food and drink on the rivers and catch fresh water sea lions, seals and bats in their nets.

That way no one impacts anyone elses Salmon in the Ocean.

Ah Bow Picker fish and chips, now that's a really good idea Nanook.
Gillnet boats reconfigured as floating roach coaches, makes more sense than helping them become more efficient at catching hatchery fish.

Someday, sooner than later perhaps CCA will push to make them more selective as well. Everyone can be seine netters and we can mark 100% of our hatchery fish heading out of the Columbia.

One big problem though after that happens we'll actually get to see how few of wild fish exist in the Big C and tribs. Science is already leaning towards the complications that hatchery fish are putting on the wild fish spawning beds.....

Keith

Remember, too, that it is not just Canadians or Alaskans who catch non-local fish up there.

If ALL salmonmid fisheries were limited to the stream of origin we could restore wild stocks where possible and harvest all the hatchery fish produced there.

I got it!!!
Lets let the commercials selectively fish and only keep the wild fish, that way there will be more hatchery fish for us to attempt to get to bite. Oh, wait i forgot the problem is selective harvest, not just selective harvest but that and CCA harrasment!
All the other usual suspects can breath easy we found the culprits here.

Hey with everyone inside they could actually make a darn good living doing that versus their seasonal hobby of raping fish with gillnets just because they are still licensed to kill everything in their path in the Columbia River.

I am not anti-commercial fishermen or native american tribal rights fishermen.

I am anti-ain't-making-a-living-with-gillnets fishermen in the Columbia River.

Selective fishing is dip netting them at the fish ladders or rod and reel only.

Define "wild" Salmon in this day and age. Steelhead is a different story.