NWP,

No offense intended, but when you say, "I think," please understand how different that can be from saying, "I know."

In previous threads, I've laid out a hypothetical case of harvest allocation. Doc did so in this thread. These allocations are based on the present regulations and policies and case law governing the LCR spring chinook fishery. So you "think" it will be different. Please take the necessary time to analyze a hypothetical case, and show your work. That is, if you reach a different conclusion, show what rule or policy causes your example to work out differently.

I'm a CCA member. Not because CCA is correct on the LCR selective commercial fishing issue. But because CCA brings important infrastructure and massive numbers that other organizations haven't been able to deliver. Make no mistake, CCA is wrong regarding the potential effects of its actions on the LCR springer fishery. But a course correction is possible, and I will support that. I don't bash you and the other CCA desciples for being wrong in these threads because it would not be constructive. Another thing, just because you think Todd pontificates about this subject doesn't make him wrong, or you right. The only reason Todd is correct and you aren't is because an objective analysis of the available facts reveal that conclusion. So don't change your thinking because some CCA opponents bash you. Do the objective analysis; seek the truth, and go where it leads.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

You know I've been biting my tongue long enough....

The myths spread by the haters is just getting out of hand.... as if saying them over and over again somehow will make them true.

I think regulars on this board fully realize that I don't knowingly post any "bull" apart from posts clearly made in jest. This ain't one of 'em. I think it's time to set the record straight on some of these ridiculous assertions.

"Selective fishing and the elimination of gillnets has nothing to do with conservation.... it does NOTHING for the fish"
BULL!

It saves wild steelhead, sturgeon, AND wild ESA-listed spring chinook. I repeat.... AND wild ESA-listed spring chinook. Anyone who actually believes the states' published gillnet release mortalities is living in a fantasyland of paper fish. The long term mortality from dropouts and releases from the gillnets is NOT legitimately accounted for.... the vast majority of those fish are good as DEAD. They are so badly damaged that even when they "survive", the odds of successfully spawning after another 4-5 months in a scorching fungus-laden Columbia River are nil. Transitioning to live capture methods that leave the fish essentially intact is the ONLY logical choice.

"Selective fishing with reduced impact will only allow the commercials to wipe out the hatchery fish eliminating recreational opportunity to catch the same fish."

BULL!

The boogeyman is NOT going to steal all your fish, folks! Whatever catch increases the commies achieve thru fishing "softer" will be constrained by catch-balancing with the tribes. As I've said before, until the tribe goes selective, this is a NON-issue. Remember that catch-balancing leaves 75% of the hatch fish in the river UNCAUGHT! Commercials currently take only 3% of the available hatch fish. Even if the commercial catch were to double, triple, or even quadruple (which won't happen due to catch-balancing mandate) it makes no substantive difference in the amount of hatchery fish left in the river for you and I to catch. You really think the "hot bite" fishing on 90% of the available hatch fish is gonna look much different than fishing over 97% of them. JFC.... who f'n cares when the sports are only gonna touch 10% of 'em.... TOPS! Regardless of how the commercals fish, by law we have to let the other 80-87% swim by our hooks and lines for the tribes.

***

And to rojoband for calling me out....

The ONLY rationale for the extremely lopsided tribal impact allocation IS catch balancing.... ensuring that they ALWAYS get theirs, and that ours NEVER exceeds theirs. I said nothing more and nothing less..... so I can't figure out what you think is so "wrong"... it is what it is. I could give a rat's ass about HOW we got there because it's irrelevant to the point of ensuring their take and making sure ours never exceeds it. Not sure why you needed to create another entirely worthless personal argument to further divide the board.

As you pointed out, the parties were given the option 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."

And if as you assert, the case was never ruled on by a judge, that just affirms the possibility that said agreement could be re-negotiated to maximize conservation, ensure treaty fishing rights to the maximum harvestable catch for ceremonial/subsistence/commercial purposes.... AND.... still squeeze out even greater harvest opportunities for NON-treaty users. It's just a matter of how small a narrow-minded box the stakeholders want to constrain themselves.... or do they want to think outside that box to fully realize the potential benefits to all parties, the fish included.

The haters want folks to believe that a more responsible, fish-friendly harvest method is somehow going to be BAD for the resource. Say it to yourself a couple dozen times. JFC.... it sounds pretty GD stupid doesn't it. The only thing driving that camp's ridiculous position is GREED..... the perception that somehow their piece of the action will be threatened by doing something good for the fish. From a more global perspective, the same selfish and obstinate mentality among every camp that takes a piece of the run ANYWHERE is what's killing the fish at every life stage! Nobody wants to make the sacrifices that are good for the fish for fear that it might cost them, or somehow benefit someone else more than it benefits themselves.

Sad isn't it.... and a GD sorry shame at that.

Selective fishing is coming folks, whether you like it or not. Don't be deceived by the haters.... it's good for the resource whether it's about CR springers, OP steelhead, Puget Sound chinook. It has been endorsed by the commission, embraced by WDFW, and is getting the attention of legislators. Get with the program or get out of the way.

Instead of fighting it, use your collective energy to come up with innovative ways to maximally apply the strategy for the betterment of the sport and the fish it depends on.

This is eyeFISH and I approve this message.

I understand what you are saying Todd. Tribal nets will still be in the river and they are still allowed to kill 15% of the ESA impact, nets or no nets.

They only get 13%, but same difference.

My question to you is what of the impacted ESA fish that were "released" out of non-tribal gillnets as opposed to being released from purse seine gear? They just get scooped up by the tribes?

It has nothing to do with the tribes. All fishing techniques have an associated mortality, including purse seines. Reduce the mortality to 33% of what it is with gillnets? No problem...now they'll just encounter 3 times as many. It's not about how many fish they catch, it's about how many they kill. They have a limit, and they will not only fish right to it, they'll be encouraged by WDFW to do just that. It's the ENTIRE point of this.

What about the extra hatchery fish taken off the spawning beds?

Triple, quadruple the amount of hatchery fish caught by the non-tribal commercials...it doesn't matter. It will be a drop in the bucket relative to the amount of hatchery fish that still show up on the spawning beds. Purse seines and sportfishing combined don't barely scratch the surface of the flood of hatchery fish we cram in the Columbia River.

What about the benefits to wild steelhead and sturgeon?

Yes, it will benefit both of the, especially steelhead, which I hold dear above the rest, to be honest. However, the CCA is selling this as good for ESA springers and for sportfishing for springers, and frankly, they are either unbelievably wrong, or horribly dishonest. As I've said many, many, many times...if they said "we realize this will do nothing for springers, and will screw sportfishing for springers, but we're willing to do it anyway due to the benefits to steelhead and sturgeon"...well, at least they'd be honest about it, and we could have a conversation about it. As a steelhead advocate, I appreciate the value of selective fishing by the commercials on the LCR...what I don't appreciate is the CCA selling a broken down Toyota and calling it a brand new BMW. In the long run, it hurts all the advocates from all the organizations, and just wait to see the mass exodus when the Portland area crowd finds out that their spring fishing just got a lot worse, and no more springers made it to the spawning grounds. The CCA will take a massive self-inflicted hit on that one, and I reckon they'll still list it as a "WIN!" on their long list of ..."wins"...in quotes for a reason.

What are the actual chances of convincing the treaty fisherman to switch to selective gear after successful use by the non-treaty fishermen? Even possible?

My opinion? No chance. They have no reason to, and if push came to shove, they can shove all of us...non-treaty commercial and sporties...right off the river at the drop of a hat.

I would say that getting the non-treaty commies totally off the river (although I would applaud that) and the dams removed is just as much pie-in-the-sky as anything else proposed here.

Boater, in his usual tactless way frequently posts the WDFW news release which clearly states that the reason they are trying to develop a selective commercial fishery is specifically to increase the commercial catch of hatchery springers.

The colored fonts are a nice addition to the threads' overall readibility.

The colored fonts are a nice addition to the threads' overall readibility.

I for one like my facts in black and white.

Oh I do.