Usually, if a tribe wants to step up their fishing in a place like the Columbia River, it won't matter to the non-tribals much, since the new tribe's share will come out of the existing tribal share...just one more mouth to feed on the tribal 50%.

The difference would come into play if either the new tribe is fishing for a stock that previously had not been targeted by the tribes, or the 50% share was being underutilized and now will be more fully utilized.

If you look back over the years of tribes trying to establish treaty rights, their biggest opponents are always the other tribes that already have treaty rights in the same U&A.

Fish on...

Todd

Thanks... Are the tribes currently catching 50% on all stocks that are considered upriver...Coho..Steelhead..Fall ,Summers..etc

1. Yes, there will reduced opportunity for tributary anglers as more production is moved downstream. That is the net result of the HSRG plan recomendations, which CCA rightly or wrongly, now holds up as the Holy Bible.

2. No, the Tribes will not hollar as these shifts are entirely below-Bonneville fish. These fish - such as Willamette River stocks for example - are not covered by either the Treaties or the US-v-Oregon Management Plan.

The Tribes are INDEED very concerned about the harvest of fish destined for above Bonneville, thus this year's new 'catch balancing' strategy, and less hatchery fish harvest for mainstem anglers.

in the spring chinook fishery on the main stem columbia its well documented that sports get a bigger share of the esa take of upriver fish than the lcr gillnetters, why wouldnt the cca want to reduce that ?

I heard about that two years ago. Also heard they were selling the steelhead to a dog food manufacture.

Verify

boycott.

My statement and your question are not compatible.
Based on the current gear, cca is supporting that sports have the higher esa allocation. When selective gear is adopted and the wild fish are not getting hooked in the nets, I dont know what they will ask for. I wouldnt tell you if I did. All you do is complain.

If all goes well and we make other improvments and CR fish multiply, there will be an ongoing struggle to keep wild mortality low. At some point, the wild ratio will be so high, we could be talking about wild sport harvest, rather than risking dead fish after dead fish after dead fish. A limit of ONE, could be a mandatory keep or not....

I think that plastic herring introduced on the radio, will be very popular.

so they think the the lower esa take amount that the LCR commercial fisherman take is worse than the higher esa take that sports take ??

Im sorry I thought we having an actual conversation here. Play games with someone else.

ok, i will rephrase my question, you said,

Based on the current gear, cca is supporting that sports have the higher esa allocation.

my question is why ?

Duh, the economics of tens of thousands of angler trips benefit the many.

I suppose you actually believe that a majority of gillnet released wild springers survive all summer and spawn succesfully.

Any commercial handling of mainstem wild fish will result in mortality.
Remove "ALL" commercial harvest from the LCR mainstem, and shift the 2% mortality allocation to the sports.

no, i think they kill there esa take just like sports do but they kill there`s alot faster than we do because they have a higher release mortality rate and that translates into them keeping way less springers than sports, there is a huge difference in getting rid of gillnets and getting rid of gillnets and replacing them with a more selective fishing method, look at the chehalis river, ive read reports where 1 out of 10 coho were hatchery coho and then read where people want the commercials to go to a more selective method, do they think the 1 and 10 will stay the same ??, it could go up to 1 in 30 or more but i guess thats the modern way to think and thats not to think about the outcome.