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.