Jesus christ, Gregiore is a sportfishing advocate you jackasses !! she was not the governor 20 years ago when [censored] really started going south.
You republicans need to look beyond the end of your nose and clean up your own [censored] yard before you start pointing fingers !!

Peace
Fly

So what are you really arguing about?

You just described EXACTLY the scenario we were discussing... salmon brokers trading multi-species stocks across basins and borders. That's the only point we were trying to make... the specifics are dwarfed by the broader picture. And that broader picture tells us that catching the other guys fish is stupid and we need to stop making deals to come up with some convoluted equalizing judgment to balance it all out on paper.

Bottom line.... the fish aren't made of paper, and the deals made on the allocation table don't always unfold as planned. There are always winners and losers. But one thing's for sure.... the fish have historically taken the hit time after time.

Thankfully, the trade you described is actually a step in the right direction of rightfully getting fish back to the basin of origin. But as for the notion about the US giving up a bunch of commercial share for sport share, YGTBFK, right?

You really think the bulk of those US-born coho and chinook they traded for are actually intended for our hooks/lines? Think again.

I thought Koenings had resigned, at least from WDFW. Is he still on the commission. And if so why?

Resigned from WDFW? Yes.

Appointed to the PSC? Yeah, that too.

http://www.ncsteelheadalliance.ca/file_download/24
http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=2453

Examples of what has happened over the years from tribal terminal fisheries to mixed stock ocean fisheries in Canada and Washington State.

Second link is great.

Really gives the reader a "pig picture" perspective.

Man have we screwed it up.

Not much has really changed, fishing methods and new groups but same old same old.

I'm generally not a pessimist because I'm an optometrist, BUT, I don't believe we will see any changes in fishery resource exploitation off of B.C. and AK until Alaska falls on really hard times with their anadromous stocks statewide. From my experience chit gets done when things are bad and people are motivated. Chit could get done now, but certain people don't really give a rat's ass and only see dollar signs. Yes, they are disillusioned, but it is what it is.

It's all politics. There's nothing else you can say, really.

I can see this issue seriously being addressed 20 years from now. I'm a firm believer in the theory that a new generation of fishery managers are taking control and things may be a little different.

I doubt it . The root of the problem is or capitalist society placing no value on anything other that it's value in dollars.

Way too much gloom.

If the last two years has improved in many areas. Improvements have been made, that at one time, people said could not be done. Changing the fish and wildlife commission outlook was one. It was longer than two years, but it did happen. It no longer served the will of commercial fishing, so they tried to get rid of it. Olympia gave us no chance of saving it.

A recent article written about the life and work of Founder Walter Foundren III, talked about his vision of sportfishermen as the stewards of the resource. He had witnessed the passive approach to fisheries from within the Federal Fisheries Managment System. It frustrated him. Rather than protest or ignore it, he felt the best way to change it, is from the inside. He proved that the more people that are involved, the more could be accomplished thru the committees, policy boards and political influence and funding to make the impossible, possible.

I agree that over the past 15 years or so the composition of the Commission has changed, and now they accept some things as a matter of course when a decade ago they looked at us like we were insane when we even mentioned them...some things are really vital and need immediate attention, but it's good to remember that many things are a marathon, not a sprint, and they will take time.

The old guard is still there, amongst the sporties and the managers, but it gets smaller and smaller every year...that's why educating fishermen and managers is so important, we don't want the old guard in either replaced with more of the same.

Fish on...

Todd

Jeez, even Haig-Brown knew when he wrote Return to the River in 1941 that WA and OR fish headed far north into Canada and AK. For someone at Dr. Koenings' level of achievement it seems incredible that he wouldn't know of any interception of Washington chinook in AK. Indeed, hopefully he's learned otherwise.

Hey Doc,

Back from chasing butts in my 15 year old boat (i.e. I'm not in the boat selling business). Anyhow, I found myself being fairly caustic of late, which is not good. Sorry bout that. I guess I was surprised at your post because it suggests to me that you have just discovered that most of our Washington fish are caught north of here and our harvest rates are generally low. Maybe it isn't true that you just became aware of this, but that was the impression I got from your post.

So to my usual gripe with you and Fly; were you aware of this when you guys targeted the GH bay sport Chinook fishery for closure? If not, would it perhaps have changed your perspective a bit. Remember, the issue here is whether we recreational anglers stick together and quit torching each other's fisheries. In light of just how small the recreational fisheries are, shouldn't we really target the bigger issues, like the fisheries you have brought to light for others that weren't aware.

I have consistently said there are bigger fish to fry. This is one of them.

I'm off to kill ESA listed Chinook beginning the 12th. Cya on the water.

Fully aware.

And it still doesn't change the perspective of being good stewards of what shows up at our doorstep each fall. Are you still stewing over no king retention last year? JFC are you saying that because AK and BC whack 'em to unsustainable levels, we should return the favor in kind? Sorry, but two wrongs don't make a right.

For the record, the damage done by AK/BC fisheries is outside the purvey of NOF. In these meetings, we can only act with sound stewardship within the scope of NOF.

That doesn't mean we ignore the AK/BC interception issue.... we simply pick that fight in another venue. That's the awareness I'm trying to raise with this post.

When your done killin' your ESA kings, I welcome your active participation in that fight... but just realize it ain't gonna happen at NOF.

+100000000000000000000

JFC... I just checked the PSC website today. Can you believe he's still there?

http://www.psc.org/membership_commissioners.htm


United States Commissioners

Mr. Olney Patt Jr. (Vice-Chair)
Mr. David Bedford
Dr. Jeffrey Koenings
Mr. Larry Rutter

While some commissions are better than others, the fundamental problem with them (as long as your perspective suggests their membership should be changed) is that they are appointed. Croneyism practiced among people who have historically crapped on our fisheries will likely only beget more crap. I tend to think (hope?) the tide of thinking among the younger politicians is turning for the better, but I hope it's not too late by the time they get an opportunity to appoint their own cronies to these positions.

I'm not sure how I missed it the first time this thread came around, but I would like to send out a HUGE +1 to those advocating for terminal commercial fisheries. While I agree that the changes this would require seem prohibitively expensive in the immediate term, I strongly believe this sort of reform will be required if there is to be a long term for our fisheries.

Perhaps I'm naive (wouldn't be the first time), but I can't imagine why commercial outfits wouldn't support a change in that direction. Their jobs would become much safer, they would be much more efficient, and they would not need to do as much sorting (that's got to be a messy job that any of them would gladly give up). The biggest win for them would be financial. Think of how much more profit they could earn if they didn't have to pay to maintain and fuel fleets of fishing boats. Perhaps the potential increase in profit would be incentive for the commercial outfits to invest in the changes required to make terminal harvest a reality. OK... that's a bit of stretch, but I don't think any stretch should be considered out of bounds, given that the status quo (assuming our best scientific guesses are near the mark) will see every last fish in the sea harvested or wasted within 40 years. For my part, if called upon, I would support a license fee increase (I know, get a rope) to help make this happen.

Commercials don't deserve all the credit.

The obscene exploitation rates on PNW salmon stocks in northern intercept fisheries happens in recreational as well as commercial mixed-stock fisheries.

It would sure be nice to catch those fish at home.

Like ff02, I realize that terminal fisheries are just a pipedream at this point in time. Institutional inertia is hard to overcome even when it's clear that drastic change is what's best for the resource.

The track record of the human experience is that depletion is preferable to reform. This is proving to be true even in the management of recovery of ESA species.

Sg

TTT