#586039 - 03/04/10 12:43 AM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: Todd]
|
Three Time Spawner
Registered: 07/01/09
Posts: 1597
Loc: common sense ave.
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#586045 - 03/04/10 12:59 AM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
BUCK NASTY!!
Registered: 01/26/00
Posts: 6312
Loc: Vancouver, WA
|
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.
I think I'm going to go and PUKE now............... Anyone got an extra set of hip waders around, this [censored] is getting deep........... Keith 
_________________________
It's time to put the red rubber nose away, clown seasons over.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#586047 - 03/04/10 01:01 AM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: Todd]
|
Repeat Spawner
Registered: 03/05/00
Posts: 1083
|
I'm proud to be a "hater". I"ve been a "hater" since back when Bushes approval rating was 90%.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#586116 - 03/04/10 12:21 PM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 05/31/08
Posts: 257
|
*** 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 was never calling you out eyeFISH…but you seem to be too dense to realize that. NOT CARING how we got to where we are is the same type of mentality that forces people to repeat the mistakes of those that came before them. You continue to think the tribes will be somehow forced to go selective….I was not arguing about selective fisheries within our fisheries, but once again you don’t seem to realize that the rationale for the extremely lopsided tribal impact allocation is NOT catch balancing. The rationale is that the tribes wanted to shore up their legally guaranteed right to fish. They were worried ESA would force them off the water in an equal fashion that it would the non-treaty folks. Well their treaty guaranteed them that wouldn’t happen, and because it was Dams, agriculture, water storage, and harvest (all nontreaty issues) that caused ESA to go into effect on these fish the federal government was supposed to ensure they had access to into perpetuity they had us over a barrel. Essentially they gave us 2% to ensure they had some vague form of political will to change some of the habitat issues. You seem to think it’s about catch sharing and it’s not about catch sharing AT ALL!!! PLEASE contact your Attorney General to get a better understanding of this. I am not calling you out; I am asking you to educate yourself on the matter. I am not trying to divide anyone, as you seem to do that yourself. I am simply saying….we have every opportunity to change things for the better through habitat protection (for everyone) and I AGREE with you that going selective is the right thing to do, and as you’ve roughly calculated, going Nontreaty commercial selective doesn’t access a whole hill of beans more hatchery fish DUE TO our constraining measly 2%...the big elephant in the room is the whopping tribal ESA impact allocation. I think the best thing is to remove the nontreaty commercial fishery altogether! With the Dam’s being nontreaty, with agriculture interests being nontreaty, with water user’s being nontreaty, with the majority of ocean fisheries being nontreaty, and outside that fact that we already tried to go to court over this…..what makes you think they are ever GOING TO WANT TO GIVE US MORE IMPACTS! Even if they go selectie (which I doubt) WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THEY WILL USE LESS IMPACTS THAN THEY USE NOW! We are the ones that got us into this mess….why should they give up anything? Oh I forgot, because they gave up all their lands in a treaty that ceded them to us, in exchange for the right to fish….and now they should give up those crumbs too…right. To quote you….Sad isn't it.... and a GD sorry shame at that.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#586176 - 03/04/10 04:29 PM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: rojoband]
|
Ornamental Rice Bowl
Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12621
|
What makes you think they are ever GOING TO WANT TO GIVE US MORE IMPACTS! Even if they go selectie (which I doubt) WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THEY WILL USE LESS IMPACTS THAN THEY USE NOW! We are the ones that got us into this mess….why should they give up anything? Well if harvest management is to have any meaningful conservation impact, the only way to put more fish on the gravel is to reduce the exploitation rate. Bottom line, the impact must be reduced to something less than 15%. I laid out a scenario that allows that to happen while increasing the number of hatchery removed from the system. If folks want to be defeatist about it from the get go, then I suppose it's a lost cause. Let's just pack up all our gear and go home. What's the point. I'm not quite so ready to give up. The only way we're gonna satisfy the harvest demands of the three stakeholder camps.... AND.... put more fish on the gravel by reducing the exploitation rate .... is to fish with maximum selectivity. We need to usher the tribes along to appreciate the benefits of selective fishing. Definitely more fish in the box for them, potentially more for us, and inarguably the only way to put more wild fish on the gravel. Anybody else have an alternative plan that accomplishes those objectives.
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey) "If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman)  The Keen Eye MDLong Live the Kings!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#586179 - 03/04/10 04:48 PM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
Dick Nipples
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 27840
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
|
Anybody else have an alternative plan that accomplishes those objectives.
Yes, get the non-treaty commercial fishers completely out of the Columbia River, have better spill regimes on the dams, and protect the spawning habitat we still have while restoring what we can. Fish on... Todd
_________________________
 Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#586181 - 03/04/10 04:55 PM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
Repeat Spawner
Registered: 12/12/09
Posts: 1025
Loc: Termite Country
|
Doc I think the key item to express here is how many viable wild spawners are put on the gravel with the use of selective gear. Both methods allow fish to escape and put some wild spawners on the gravel. Which method results in the majority of fish actually spawning?
One of the best points I thought you made was the impact gillnets have on ESA fish that are released and due to net damage never spawn.
I'm admittantly no fisheries expert but I see some things that need clearing up in my mind. If the fish released out of gillnets have a certain mortality rate yet the majority cannot spawn because of infection, exc, wouldn't that drastically increase the actual mortality of the nets? (well maybe not actual mortality but spawner viability) Those fish are technically released but never counted in the impact numbers, yet they still cannot spawn (by in large).
If those same fish are caught and released using selective gear and now have minimal damage, they can actually do what it is Mother Nature intended. That's where I don't understand Todd's argument about the switch not having any benefit for wild springers.
Todd, I understand you will say that the selective gear will allow the commies to go through more fish this way regardless and the end result will be the same amount of dead springers. But I still go back to catch balancing. If the tribes burn through their 13% because they kill everything they encounter, just how many more will the commies get before they hit their measly 2%?
In the end it seems to me that you would end up with a large amount of viable spawners in the non-mortality column not damaged by gillnets. Whereas with the gillnets,....well not so much.
Edited by StinkingWaters (03/04/10 05:02 PM)
_________________________
On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#586192 - 03/04/10 05:29 PM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: StinkingWaters]
|
Three Time Spawner
Registered: 07/01/09
Posts: 1597
Loc: common sense ave.
|
But I still go back to catch balancing. If the tribes burn through their 13% because they kill everything they encounter, just how many more will the commies get before they hit their measly 2%?
if the non-tribal 2 percent esa take was split 50-50 between sports and non-tribal commercials and both user groups had the same release mortality rate the actual harvest of hatchery fish would be split 50-50 also.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#586195 - 03/04/10 05:37 PM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: boater]
|
Dick Nipples
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 27840
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
|
There are two ways to get the commercial fleet out of the LCR...the first is to just get it wholesale banned, be it thorugh initiative, legislation, whatever.
That one's hard.
The other way is to stay on them all the time, chipping away at it from every angle, making it harder and harder, more restricted, more expensive, with less return, repeatedly...until it just doesn't make any sense for them to do it anymore.
You certainly won't accomplish it by making it easier and more profitable for them...they have plenty of help from the state and federal fish managers, they sure don't need it from us.
Fish on...
Todd
_________________________
Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#586234 - 03/04/10 07:26 PM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: Todd]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 13819
|
Reducing the 15% incidental take of wild ESA springers isn't essential for recovery. If it was, then legally NMFS couldn't have allowed it after the listings. !5% is a low exploitation rate for any but the most severely depressed chinook population. That might have been where some of the stocks were, but significant numbers of wild chinook make up part of each season's run. A lot of those wild fish may be the result of hatchery fish spawning in the natural environment, but once they succeed, both the law and management count them as wild. So long as increasing numbers of chinook are reproducing naturally, by definition, recovery is happening. BTW, much higher harvest rates are permitted on some listed Puget Sound chinook populations.
I'm OK with chipping away at the LCR commercial fleet anyway possible, but it's been obvious to me for several years that it really comes down to an allocation issue and making the highest and best use of a scarce resource. (No matter if the springer run hits one million, it will still be a scarce resource.) Society does itself a disservice allocating a large share of a scarce resource to subsidize a few antiquated gillnetters on the LCR when there are thousands of recreational anglers who would use many days of recreation and spend millions of dollars to harvest what the gillnet fleet (or alternative selective fishery fleet) does in a few nights or days. It ain't pretty, and the greedy sportsmen card will be extensively over-played, but in the end society needs to face up to the illogic of allocating such a valuable public resource to such a small, entirely subsidized, private interest group. BAN the nets. It only makes sense, today, tomorrow, for all the future.
Sg
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#586235 - 03/04/10 07:31 PM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: Todd]
|
Carcass
Registered: 11/30/09
Posts: 2267
|
GAMES OVER,
I think I figured it out.
Most of the pieces are in this thread.
So easy a caveman can do it.
Thanks to all that contributed a piece to the puzzle.
_________________________
The world will not be destroyed by those that are evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.- Albert Einstein
No you can’t have my rights---I’m still using them
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#586241 - 03/04/10 07:44 PM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: Todd]
|
Ornamental Rice Bowl
Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12621
|
Anybody else have an alternative << HARVEST MANAGEMENT >>plan that accomplishes those objectives.
Yes, get the non-treaty commercial fishers completely out of the Columbia River, have better spill regimes on the dams, and protect the spawning habitat we still have while restoring what we can. Fish on... Todd I guess I should have made myself more clear.... give us a better harvest plan that lets more of each years wild return actually hit the gravel, while preventing more of the hatchery return from straying onto that same gravel. Spill and habitat protection/restoration/reclamation are no-brainers that EVERYONE here supports. Spill is already federally mandated. The habitat front can always use a helping hand. But all the habitat in the world is useless if you don't seed it with productive spawners. Not quite sure how eliminating the commies helps anything. By your same argument that eliminating gillnets does NOTHING for the fish, eliminating the commies by the same logic also does NOTHING for the fish. The impacts are simply transferred to the remaining NON-treaty user. Pretty convenient for us, and utterly crappy for them. But impact-neutral for the fish.... the same amount still die. Try again? And as Keith so astutely pointed out many threads ago, the commercial fishery has been the driving force for hatchery production. Without a viable commercial fishery, there is no incentive to maintain current levels of artificial propagation.... in other words fewer hatch fish for us to harvest. So that really begs the question, Keith. Do we get rid of gillnets or do we get rid of the commercial fishery? On the one hand you say we need a viable commercial fishery to insure sustained hatchery production. On the other hand you seem to support gillnets as the preferrred gear-type. Is your preference really for them to continue exclusively using gillnets to get the deed done? Or do you just want them off the river?
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey) "If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman) The Keen Eye MDLong Live the Kings!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#586255 - 03/04/10 08:20 PM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 05/22/05
Posts: 3776
|
Take a really close look at the Mitchell Act, try to find anything that says the mitigation is for the commercial fishing industry, it does not, it does however say that it's mitigation for the damage that dams incur.
So saying that without a in river commercial fishing industry, hatchery plants will disappear is false.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#586264 - 03/04/10 08:44 PM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: Illahee]
|
Ornamental Rice Bowl
Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12621
|
Not sure how much teeth the Mitchell Act really has.
We are already producing far less mitigation fish than the Act obligates us to. Who's enforcing the production obligation?
Moreover, commission-sanctioned hatchery reform is headed toward production levels commensurate with our ability to selectively remove them fom the adult return. Bottom line, the state does NOT want to be in the business of artificially propagating fish that no one is gonna be able to catch.... kind of goes against the grain of leaving 75% of the hatch fish in the river unharvested.
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey) "If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman) The Keen Eye MDLong Live the Kings!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#586285 - 03/04/10 09:47 PM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
Spawner
Registered: 02/06/08
Posts: 511
|
I'm not really sure that there is a production obligation in the Mitchell Act, but rather an expectation of some hatchery obligation that has developed over the years. The entire act is only four paragraphs long and its purpose is " To provide for the conservation of the fishery resources of the Columbia River, establishment, operation, and maintenance of one or more stations in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, and for the conduct of necessary investigations, surveys, stream improvements, and stocking operations for these purposes." The Mitchell Act A 2010 view of the meaning of the act could easily deal with acts to preserve natural populations to conserve the fishery resources rather than the view of the 1930's and 40's that some number of millions of hatchery fish needed to be produced to conserve the fishery resource. After all, it is the status of the natural populations that actually controls access in any fishery, read 15% allowable impact versus something higher if the populations were in better shape.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#586296 - 03/04/10 10:00 PM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: OncyT]
|
clown flocker
Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 3731
Loc: Water
|
Section 2. The Secretary of the Interior is further authorized and directed (1) to conduct such investigations, and such engineering and biological surveys and experiments, as may be necessary to direct and facilitate conservation of the fishery resources of the Columbia River and its tributaries; (2) to construct and install devices in the Columbia River Basin for the improvement of feeding and spawning conditions for fish, for the protection of migratory fish from irrigation projects, and for facilitating free migration of fish over obstructions; and (3) to preform all other activities necessary for the conservation of fish in the Columbia River Basin in accordance with law.
Wow No wonder they built hatcherys, Grand Coulee sure doesn't qualify as free migration path.
_________________________
There's a sucker born every minute
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#586317 - 03/04/10 10:30 PM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: OncyT]
|
Free Prostate Exams
Registered: 01/06/10
Posts: 1544
Loc: Sequim
|
Long but good day at work. Now to read the fun stuff.
Besides the Mitchell Act, can anyone reference the administrative/regulatory law that is pertinent here?
I recall that part of the background behind the CCA Oregon proposal hinged around the legal requirements in Oregon to provide for commercial harvest. Thus, no wording to ban all commercial fishing. Also, there had been a previous attempt to do so which flopped. Another attempt to do so seemed doomed.
I have read and thought about the positions, and still think that selective fishing is a practical first step.
I am not a fisheries expert, but I am a reasonable and reasonably smart guy, probably like most of us here. If an explanation is so complicated that I can't follow it, despite trying, then others will get left behind as well.
So far, I think the arguments against selective fishing are thoughtful, but assume too much and are adversarily oriented. I think the arguments get pretty skinny. Doesn't mean they are wrong, but the logic is not clear and more evidence would help. Doc's algorithms seem more enlightening. Numbers work for me.
It is worthwhile to slice and dice these arguments, but I think it is a waste of our time to read personal attacks, and lowers the value of the arguments. This isn't a battle, and most here are trying to find the closest approximation to the truth.
Thank you to all who are working to move this along.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#586321 - 03/04/10 10:41 PM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: Doctor Rick]
|
clown flocker
Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 3731
Loc: Water
|
Doc RicK
As far as non tribal, last report I saw I think the sports industry caught about 18000 and ended up with 71% of the availible impacts. Commercial ended up with just over 8000 including the terminal fisheries using 29%..Not sure where the room to improve is and if its a fire hydrant the commercials won by a squirt.
_________________________
There's a sucker born every minute
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#586325 - 03/04/10 10:48 PM
Re: CR spring chinook 101... REQUIRED READING
[Re: Salmo g.]
|
Three Time Spawner
Registered: 07/01/09
Posts: 1597
Loc: common sense ave.
|
A lot of those wild fish may be the result of hatchery fish spawning in the natural environment, but once they succeed, both the law and management count them as wild. So long as increasing numbers of chinook are reproducing naturally, by definition, recovery is happening.
but, if you do have unclipped offspring of hatchery fish driving the wild population wouldn't it make sense that the wild population would crash if you pulled the hatchery fish off the spawning grounds ??
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 registered (),
779
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
