#585464 - 03/02/10 01:58 PM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
BUCK NASTY!!
Registered: 01/26/00
Posts: 6312
Loc: Vancouver, WA
|
Holy moly Doc! You've created a monster! Contrary to popular belief I did NOT create this monster.... it's what we're left with after tribal treaty obligations and the ESA. I will go thru the mathematical convolutions of how this run is parsed up between 3 competing user groups, using as round a numbers as possible to make it easier for folks to wrap their minds around so that the allocations make sense. The first priority is ESA, and CR upriver spring chinook are managed with a fixed exploitaion rate (impact) of no more than 15%. ESA has determined that we can purposely "take" 15% of the wild run year in and year out without sending the recovery trajectory toward extinction. Doesn't say we're actually going to recover the critters with this harvest strategy, just that "taking" 15% will keep them from going functionally extinct. The next priority is the treaty obligation.... 50:50. The number of dead fish in our totes and boxes should not exceed the number of dead fish in theirs. There is no arguing that a poopload of hatchery fish are produced with your tax dollars for the singular purpose of fueling their eventual harvest. The problem is that there are way more of them available than we have the ability to harvest given the constraints of ESA. Because the tribe does NOT fish selectively (they take everything they encounter, hatch or wild), the allocation of "impacts" must be made extremely lop-sided to "help" balance the total numbers of dead fish on each side of the treaty. Of the 15% "take", we get 2% and they get 13%. Because we are allocated such a tiny impact, we are prevented from accessing the lion's share of the available hatchery fish. And even with an overwhelming share of the allowable ESA impact, the treaty tribes' NON-selective fishing strategy prevents them from accessing the lion's share of the available hatchery fish as well. *** Now let's look at how the numbers pencil out on a hypothetical runsize of 200K. Let's say the mark rate on this run is 4:1..... 80% of the fish are hatchery and 20% are wild. That means 160K hatch and 40K wild. ESA says we can't kill more than 15%, in other words 6000 wild fish. The tribes get 5200 of them and we get 800. They expend their allocation as direct harvest. We kill ours as incidental mortalities to gain access to far greater numbers (more than 800) of hatchery spring chinook. Of our 800 available fish, let's allocate them 50:50 between comm and sport. (There is still a stalemate between OR's 50:50 and WA's 55:45, but for the sake of round numbers, let's stick with 50:50) That means 1%, or 400 dead ESA springers for each camp. With 10% release mortality assigned to sports, we can handle up to 4000 wild fish before expending our allowable 400 dead fish impact. With a mark ratio of 4:1, that means we can harvest 4 times that many hatch fish.... i.e. 16,000 hatchery spring chinook in the box. Release mortalities assigned to commies are all over the map from roughly 15% with tooth nets to 40% with gillnets appropriately-sized for chinook. The exact mortality will depend on the proportionate time each gear type is fished during the season. For round numbers, let's call it 30%.... i.e. encounter for encounter, they burn their impacts three times faster than we do at 10% mortality. It means that they will only be able to handle 1/3 as many wild fish as we are allowed.... in this case, 1333 ESA fish. At a mark rate of 4:1 they can access 5333 hatchery fish with their allowable impact. Total harvest NON-treaty side is now 16,000 sport.... plus 5333 commercial.... plus 800 dead ESA springers. Total 22,133 fish killed. Of the 160K hatch fish available, sports access 10%, and commies access a little over 3%. That means about 87% of the hatch fish are left in the river. *** Now on the treaty side, they legally can harvest up to 5200 wild ESA fish. Of the original 160K hatch fish, we removed ours, leaving only about 139K for the tribes. Of the original 40K wild fish, we removed ours, leaving them with about 39K. Instead of the original 4:1, the mark rate on the remaining fish in the river is now only about 3.5:1 for the upriver tribes. Apply that to the treaty allocation of 5200, and they get access to roughly 18,200 additional hatchery fish for the box... roughly a little more than 11% of the available hatchery fish in the entire runsize. Total catch is 23,400 dead fish.... roughly equal to our own. *** This is the undeniable world of ESA and treaty catch-balancing as we know it today. Sadly, it gives all users a combined access to only one out of every four of the hatchery fish specifically created for harvest. Bottom line, we burn 15% of the wild run to gain access to 25% of the hatch run. Such a deal.... Here's a thought, why don't they quit planting hatchery springers in rivers that harbor wild springer populations and see how many wild springers they really have left spawning in 3-5 years...? Keith
_________________________
It's time to put the red rubber nose away, clown seasons over.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#585465 - 03/02/10 01:59 PM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: Somethingsmellsf]
|
Dick Nipples
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 27840
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
|
Thanks to human greed and avarice and obsession with status quo, sensible changes are not readily accepted.
Quote by Salmo g.
Any change seems to run the risk of failing someone somewhere.
Todd, why not come out and tell everyone to join WSC cause that is the same stuff they push.
United we stand divided we fall, just like the last 140 years.
Fishy What sensible change are you talking about? No help to ESA springers, more springers for the commercial guys, less for the sporties? Paid for by us, the sportsmen and taxpayers? You call that "sensible change"? That's what I call a stupid idea, and change just to change something, even to make it worse, is not a "win"...it's shooting yourself in the foot. Therein is the usual problem in this conversation...the CCA zealots continue to push for something that will do nothing but hurt the fish, the fishing, and the sportfishing economy, and when that is pointed out all they do is whine about it and talk about something else. Why? Because they don't understand how any of this stuff works. Francis spelled it out pretty clearly above, yet he still supports it...even when he clearly understands why it won't help anything whatsoever. That's the strangest part to me. Fish on... Todd
_________________________
 Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#585486 - 03/02/10 03:07 PM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: Todd]
|
BUCK NASTY!!
Registered: 01/26/00
Posts: 6312
Loc: Vancouver, WA
|
Francis spelled it out pretty clearly above, yet he still supports it...even when he clearly understands why it won't help anything whatsoever.
That's the strangest part to me.
Fish on...
Todd
I agree.... I consider Doc quite the educated fellow in the real world..... Keith
_________________________
It's time to put the red rubber nose away, clown seasons over.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#585515 - 03/02/10 05:11 PM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 05/31/08
Posts: 257
|
No...
Just helping everyone else on the board to understand that as long as the tribes harvest CR upriver spring chinook NON-selectively, there is no getting around the fact that 75% of the hatchery fish will be left in the river.
It doesn't matter one iota that the NON-treaty gillnets become more selective. The number of fish harvested on the NON-treaty side CANNOT increase in any substantive measure because of catch-balancing.
The biggest constraint on recreational opportunity is NON-selective tribal fishing.
Most everyone doing the mathematical mental masturbation on this issue does so within the context of fishing for scraps.... a 2% sized pie. Think outside the box for just a moment folks. What if that NON-treaty pie were able to be enlarged by 2- or even 3-fold?
And no, I didn't just fill my self-prescribed supply of medical marijuana, folks.
Think about it? Why do the tribes get 87% of the ESA impact? To subsidize their NON-selective fishing strategy and still achieve catch balancing.
If they fished with even a modicum of selectivity, catch balancing could be achieved with fewer dead ESA springers than the ridiculous 15% impact allows. Probably enough to double or triple the impact allocation on the NON-treaty side, and actually put MORE wild ESA springers on the gravel.
Imagine how much NON-treaty harvest opportunity expands in an allocation scenario of 10% treaty, 4% NON-treaty, and 1% "bonus" for the gravel.
Hell if I'm gonna dream, may as well dream BIG..... 6% treaty, 6% NON-treaty, 3% "bonus" for the gravel!
Now there's a win-win-win!
How would you like the recreational impact share doubled or tripled? Bet that would buy a lot more days on the water, or perhaps even a 2-fish bag for at least part (all?) of the season?
The status quo leaves 3 out of every 4 hatchery fish unharvested.
If we can't harvest them, what's the point in making them in the first place?
Umm....don't know if anyone ever told you were wrong eyeFish, but you are wrong as to why the tribes get 87% of the ESA impact. History lesson: After US v OR came down and guaranteed them treaty rights to fish and then Boldt came down and guaranteed them a 50% share, but then Snake River falls got listed under ESA in the early 90's. The tribes said ESA didn't apply to them, as US v OR guaranteed them harvestable fish....and the states sued, guessing that Boldt caselaw would require the feds to split ESA sharing 50:50.....EHH!! Wrong!! The judge ruling on the case pulled the litigants into his court and said he was going to decide in this order of priority: 1. Conservation 2. Tribal ceremonial & subsistence 3. Tribal commercial 4. Nontribal fisheries Or the parties could work out an impact sharing agreement themselves. So based on this the States went into a room and negotiated the sharing impacts with the tribes. Hence the current rate of 2% we get as that's what we negotiated. The case was never ruled on, as you can see the judge was going to give the tribes essentially preference for ALL of the ESA impacts, and they wouldn't technically have to let us have any ESA impacts as they were both #2 and #3 priority. We get 2% simply because the tribes LET US HAVE some. Furthermore the essence of what is known as Boldt II.....we f'd up the habitat and so our ESA impacts are used through habitat destruction and so we're off the water. We don't sit on a very justified position of bargaining for anything, especially additional ESA impacts. Just part of your CR springer 101.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#585517 - 03/02/10 05:20 PM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 11/02/01
Posts: 247
Loc: Columbia Co. Oregon
|
The first priority is ESA, and CR upriver spring chinook are managed with a fixed exploitaion rate (impact) of no more than 15%.
The next priority is the treaty obligation.... 50:50.
Folks trying to actually understand CR springer harvest management, should read over and over what EyeFish has written. One point I will add about catch balancing is this - That 50/50 catch balance requirement, which stems from US-v-Oregon, applies ONLY TO SPRINGERS HEADED ABOVE BONNEVILLE. Got it? Springers bound for below Bonny trib fisheries, the Willamette system and the lower river SAFE areas are NOT INCLUDED in the catch balancing agreement. So how many spring chinook are we fighting the gillnetters for?According to ODFW for 2009, the gillnetters took: Mainstem Columbia 4150 springers for 53,541 pounds
SAFE areas 4175 54,901 poundsIF you attributed the highest possible price to those 4150 mainstem fish, $8/Lb., the total ex-vessel value is a meager $428,000. All this over a half-million dollars.
Edited by OntheColumbia (03/02/10 05:21 PM)
_________________________
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#585518 - 03/02/10 05:29 PM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: rojoband]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 12/15/02
Posts: 4000
Loc: Ahhhhh, damn dog!
|
I find it amusing that anyone that has joined CCA is labeled a zealot or a fanatic. You can argue that models of how you perceive things are going to happen til all the fish are gone but doing the same ole thing has not worked for 140 years.
The grand Pontificate r Todd has spoken and we should all be grateful for his attention to this problem because he has achieved so much in the past.Oh wait why are we debating this if you have already solved this issue? Because you have not.
Fact is your too busy beating on your chest saying look at me instead of really doing the hard work.
Remember your not the only one that has given to the resource and not once have I tried to gain anything from it personally.
Untied we stand and just like the last 140 years divided we fall.
Fishy
_________________________
NRA Life member
The idea of a middle class life is slowly drifting away as each and every day we realize that our nation is becoming more of a corporatacracy.
I think name-calling is the right way to handle this one/Dan S
We're here from the WDFW and we're here to help--Uhh Ohh!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#585519 - 03/02/10 05:33 PM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: rojoband]
|
Dude, where's my boat?
Registered: 11/05/00
Posts: 2354
Loc: Seattle
|
Good stuff rojo...
_________________________
Team FROGG TOGG/Pfluegger/Goite Anti-Poser Posse
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#585522 - 03/02/10 05:39 PM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: rojoband]
|
BUCK NASTY!!
Registered: 01/26/00
Posts: 6312
Loc: Vancouver, WA
|
No...
Just helping everyone else on the board to understand that as long as the tribes harvest CR upriver spring chinook NON-selectively, there is no getting around the fact that 75% of the hatchery fish will be left in the river.
It doesn't matter one iota that the NON-treaty gillnets become more selective. The number of fish harvested on the NON-treaty side CANNOT increase in any substantive measure because of catch-balancing.
The biggest constraint on recreational opportunity is NON-selective tribal fishing.
Most everyone doing the mathematical mental masturbation on this issue does so within the context of fishing for scraps.... a 2% sized pie. Think outside the box for just a moment folks. What if that NON-treaty pie were able to be enlarged by 2- or even 3-fold?
And no, I didn't just fill my self-prescribed supply of medical marijuana, folks.
Think about it? Why do the tribes get 87% of the ESA impact? To subsidize their NON-selective fishing strategy and still achieve catch balancing.
If they fished with even a modicum of selectivity, catch balancing could be achieved with fewer dead ESA springers than the ridiculous 15% impact allows. Probably enough to double or triple the impact allocation on the NON-treaty side, and actually put MORE wild ESA springers on the gravel.
Imagine how much NON-treaty harvest opportunity expands in an allocation scenario of 10% treaty, 4% NON-treaty, and 1% "bonus" for the gravel.
Hell if I'm gonna dream, may as well dream BIG..... 6% treaty, 6% NON-treaty, 3% "bonus" for the gravel!
Now there's a win-win-win!
How would you like the recreational impact share doubled or tripled? Bet that would buy a lot more days on the water, or perhaps even a 2-fish bag for at least part (all?) of the season?
The status quo leaves 3 out of every 4 hatchery fish unharvested.
If we can't harvest them, what's the point in making them in the first place?
Umm....don't know if anyone ever told you were wrong eyeFish, but you are wrong as to why the tribes get 87% of the ESA impact. History lesson: After US v OR came down and guaranteed them treaty rights to fish and then Boldt came down and guaranteed them a 50% share, but then Snake River falls got listed under ESA in the early 90's. The tribes said ESA didn't apply to them, as US v OR guaranteed them harvestable fish....and the states sued, guessing that Boldt caselaw would require the feds to split ESA sharing 50:50.....EHH!! Wrong!! The judge ruling on the case pulled the litigants into his court and said he was going to decide in this order of priority: 1. Conservation 2. Tribal ceremonial & subsistence 3. Tribal commercial 4. Nontribal fisheries Or the parties could work out an impact sharing agreement themselves. So based on this the States went into a room and negotiated the sharing impacts with the tribes. Hence the current rate of 2% we get as that's what we negotiated. The case was never ruled on, as you can see the judge was going to give the tribes essentially preference for ALL of the ESA impacts, and they wouldn't technically have to let us have any ESA impacts as they were both #2 and #3 priority. We get 2% simply because the tribes LET US HAVE some. Furthermore the essence of what is known as Boldt II.....we f'd up the habitat and so our ESA impacts are used through habitat destruction and so we're off the water. We don't sit on a very justified position of bargaining for anything, especially additional ESA impacts. Just part of your CR springer 101. Like I said in another thread, we mess with the tribes, we mess with a time bomb...... Let's not speed that time bomb up... Keith 
_________________________
It's time to put the red rubber nose away, clown seasons over.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#585535 - 03/02/10 06:54 PM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: OntheColumbia]
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 05/31/08
Posts: 257
|
The first priority is ESA, and CR upriver spring chinook are managed with a fixed exploitaion rate (impact) of no more than 15%.
The next priority is the treaty obligation.... 50:50.
Folks trying to actually understand CR springer harvest management, should read over and over what EyeFish has written. One point I will add about catch balancing is this - That 50/50 catch balance requirement, which stems from US-v-Oregon, applies ONLY TO SPRINGERS HEADED ABOVE BONNEVILLE. Got it? Springers bound for below Bonny trib fisheries, the Willamette system and the lower river SAFE areas are NOT INCLUDED in the catch balancing agreement. So how many spring chinook are we fighting the gillnetters for?According to ODFW for 2009, the gillnetters took: Mainstem Columbia 4150 springers for 53,541 pounds
SAFE areas 4175 54,901 poundsIF you attributed the highest possible price to those 4150 mainstem fish, $8/Lb., the total ex-vessel value is a meager $428,000. All this over a half-million dollars. Umm....once again no. Don't read what he said because he is wrong on how and why we got to a 2% ESA impact. See what I said in post #585515
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#585542 - 03/02/10 07:45 PM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: ]
|
Dick Nipples
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 27840
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
|
Doc can't be wrong, he belongs to CCA, and CCA is never wrong about anything, don't you read the posts ?  Although I do congratulate CCA for supporting the sunrise, it occured again today, and without CCA, it simply would not have. I heard they had an email campaign insisting that the sun rise...which it did. Get the presses rolling on the new and improved "list of wins"... This issue is not about the CCA or any other organization...it's about a shitty idea that will be shitty for fish, and shitty for fishing...and if the Vatican supported it, I'd take them to task for it, too. Fish on... Todd
_________________________
Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#585556 - 03/02/10 08:16 PM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: Somethingsmellsf]
|
Dick Nipples
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 27840
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
|
I find it amusing that anyone that has joined CCA is labeled a zealot or a fanatic. You're not a zealot for joining the CCA...you're a zealot when against all fact and logic you support a plan that will be bad for both fish and fishing...and the reason you support it is because some folks who know very little about Columbia River salmon fisheries in the CCA tells you that you should...and when shown the utter fallacy of holding such an opinion, you resort to cool little cliches that have nothing whatsoever to do with this proposal. Paving the entire Columbia River and giving the fish roller skates would be a "change", too...should we all "unite" behind it? Fish on... Todd
_________________________
Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#585560 - 03/02/10 08:34 PM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: Todd]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 12/15/02
Posts: 4000
Loc: Ahhhhh, damn dog!
|
Right and your not a zealot yourself for playing the Columbia dam lottery, like any one of the dams is ever going to come down.You may as well start paving.
You espouse the wsc party line like it is some kind of holy grail all while dictating to us mere mortals like we don't have a clue about anything unless you have directed it our way.
Pontificate and blather away since you have worked on this problem for sooo long why has it not been solved?What gains have you made?How many fish have you saved?
I see you whine and cry about some fish out on the OP like it is an appendage all while pointing toward the other guy that would pursue that resource in another legal way.
Divided we have continued to fail.
Fishy
_________________________
NRA Life member
The idea of a middle class life is slowly drifting away as each and every day we realize that our nation is becoming more of a corporatacracy.
I think name-calling is the right way to handle this one/Dan S
We're here from the WDFW and we're here to help--Uhh Ohh!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#585568 - 03/02/10 08:58 PM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: Somethingsmellsf]
|
Dick Nipples
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 27840
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
|
That response is exactly what I've been talking about all along...leave out any sort of facts or logic, and just react passionately...and incorrectly, too, I might add...whenever anyone questions your unyielding, even if incorrect faith in a program that is factually and logically wholly unable to meet the ends that it proposes to serve.
That, my friend, is the voice of a zealot.
Fish on...
Todd
_________________________
Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#585575 - 03/02/10 09:21 PM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: Todd]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 12/15/02
Posts: 4000
Loc: Ahhhhh, damn dog!
|
Just because it comes out of your mouth does not make it fact and certainly not logical. I don't have to keep beating the horse and you and I will probably never agree on much,except that we disagree.
Logic and fact like you are the only one that can claim those,please.Zealot.
Divided we continue to fall just like the last 140 years.
Fishy
_________________________
NRA Life member
The idea of a middle class life is slowly drifting away as each and every day we realize that our nation is becoming more of a corporatacracy.
I think name-calling is the right way to handle this one/Dan S
We're here from the WDFW and we're here to help--Uhh Ohh!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#585576 - 03/02/10 09:25 PM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: Somethingsmellsf]
|
BUCK NASTY!!
Registered: 01/26/00
Posts: 6312
Loc: Vancouver, WA
|
Just because it comes out of your mouth does not make it fact and certainly not logical. I don't have to keep beating the horse and you and I will probably never agree on much,except that we disagree.
Logic and fact like you are the only one that can claim those,please.Zealot.
Divided we continue to fall just like the last 140 years.
Fishy To me it's as simple as Common sense vs. Dreaming.... CCA is brain washing with all these figures.... Time will tell, but I'm 99.9% certain we'll be saying, I told you so...... Keith
_________________________
It's time to put the red rubber nose away, clown seasons over.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#585584 - 03/02/10 09:44 PM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: stlhdr1]
|
Three Time Spawner
Registered: 01/05/07
Posts: 1551
Loc: Bremerton, Wa.
|
Todd, All the dams gone, very good for fish, no argument, but since that is less likly than snow in Hade's, give us a scenario as to how we can do better on the Columbia.
_________________________
A little common sense is good, more is better.
Kitsap Chapter CCA
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#585602 - 03/02/10 11:03 PM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: N W Panhandler]
|
Dick Nipples
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 27840
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
|
Easy enough...stop killing so many wild fish, stop flooding the spawning grounds with hatchery fish...that will solve about 20% of the problem.
Assume the dams will stay, which is a pretty good assumption to make...spill when the smolts need to go out, improve fish passage on all the dams to facilitate upstream migration, and protect the habitat in the spawning grounds that is still there.
That will give you the biggest bang for the buck than any techno-fix, by far, probably a factor of ten, if not 100.
Restore the spawning grounds that will help the most...and that includes restoring access to some grounds that are cutoff by smaller dams with poor or no fish passage on the tributaries.
Those helpers are some of the reasons why I dislike this idea of selective commercial fishing on the LCR so much...it doesn't address any of the factors that limit the productivity of the wild fish.
The same amount will (or more precisely, will not) spawn, the change in the amount of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds will be negligible, if that, and just to kick a ton of salt in the wound, it will further subsidize commercial fishing on the LCR and will make sportfishing even tougher.
As an added aside, we all agree that sportfishing generates much more money for our local economy, and this will just take many tens of thousands of dollars away from that and convert it into a handful of bucks for a handful of commercial fishers.
We all know what it will take to recover ESA salmon in the Columbia, we just lack the political will to do it. When I say "we", I mean everyone, not just fishermen...we as sporties have the political will, but we're a very small minority in the overall scheme of things.
I have no problem with going after the low hanging fruit, especially if it's just a start...I have no problem recognizing that eating the biggest apple starts with the smallest bite...unfortunately making the LCR commercial fishers go more selective is like attacking the apple by biting a tomato...the apple doesn't even get a mark on it.
NWP, and others...you've seen the numbers, you've seen how it pans out...no benefit to wild fish, reduced sportfishing opportunity, reduced sportfishing dollars...yet you keep on pushing. I can only imagine that it's because you really want to believe the fantasy that reality will shift when the CCA says it will...if it's something else, please enlighten me.
I don't care who has a good idea, and neither do the fish. I also don't care whose idea it is when it's a really bad idea...and neither do the fish.
If you really want the CCA to be a force to be reckoned with, then learn about the issues they're tackling before blindly accepting the party line, a party line developed by those who clearly don't know how the fish and fishing on the Lower Columbia River work.
Like I said in the "ocean selective" thread, I generally am in support of selective fisheries, but only when the selective fishery makes biological sense at least, and throwing in a little economic and social sense doesn't hurt, either.
Commercials going selective on the LCR won't satisfy any of those things, biological, economic, nor social...if someone could show me even the smallest iota of how it might, then we could at least have a conversation about it.
If someone would do as I suggest and say that we all realize this will do nothing whatsoever for spring Chinook, except for making sportfishing worse for them, but they're willing to make that sacrifice for the wild steelhead and sturgeon that are caught in the gillnets, then at least they'd be both honest and correct...and I might not even argue with them if that's what they said...hell, I'd probably even support it since I value the wild steelhead in the Columbia far more than I value a sportfishery for hatchery spring Chinook.
That being said, I think it gives all sportfishing and conservation advocates a kick right in the sack when an up and coming and very popular sportfishing/conservation organization either takes actions that are in direct opposition to what their membership thinks they are doing (saving spring Chinook and improving sporfishing for them), or know they are being deceptive on that count, but are selling it that way, anyway.
I'm afraid that the answer, from what I've seen, is that those who have chosen to support this just don't understand how the fish and fisheries on the LCR operate.
The entire reason the State is pushing this is to improve access to hatchery springers for the commercial fleet...it's the single, solitary reason...and not only that, they continually say so in their press releases and documents about it, yet the CCA and its followers continue to applaud the WDFW while ignoring everything that it says on the subject.
I also have no doubt that if this experiment becomes reality, and sportfishing on the LCR for springers goes further into the toilet, and no additional ESA springers show up on the spawning grounds, that the CCA will still gladly list it as a "WIN!" on their happy list...they've had a track record of doing that for a looonnnggg time in other states.
Fish on...
Todd
_________________________
Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 registered (28 Gage),
629
Guests and
3
Spiders online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
11505 Members
17 Forums
73112 Topics
827562 Posts
Max Online: 6695 @ 03/13/26 11:11 AM
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index
