Oregon CCA Gillnet Ban Initiative Backers Submit Changes to Gain Sport Support



By Terry W. Sheely
While grassroots enthusiasm seems to be spreading among fishermen for an Oregon ballot push to ban gillnets from the Columbia River, the petition itself appears still to be undergoing technical wording modifications and hitting delays in signature gathering efforts.

Originators of The Protect Our Salmon Act initiative, the Oregon division of Coastal Conservation Association (CCA), told The Reel News that they still intend to put an initiative on this November’s ballot. The time available to gather the 82,769 signatures is starting to crunch, however. CCA needs to file those petition signatures by July 2 to make this November ballot or restart the petition drive targeting another ballot date.

Changes have also been made in the ballot issue to appease opponents within the sport fishing community, chief of which is the Northwest Sport Fishing Industry Association (NSIA). NSIA could be an important ally in the uphill fight against the powerful industrial fishing lobby. A spokesman said that while his group is encouraged by CCA’s efforts, they remain troubled by CCA’s intent to continue mainstem commercial fishing, and will not officially support the gillnet ban as written.

Changes “based on their (NSIA) input,” however, are being made in the initiative wording, according to CCA spokesman Dave Schamp, “so we're hopeful that they will be supportive.”

At this writing, NSIA said they had not seen the changes but said they would review the ballot issue and “hopefully” come to an agreement with CCA on how to push for an end to bycatch waste in the lower river’s industrial fishery.

Schamp, the primary motivator behind the ballot drive, acknowledged that, “The main criticism of the Protect Our Salmon Act initiative has been that this isn't the right process for this kind of change. Many feel that the legislature should have another crack at changing the laws to protect the fish and fisheries.

“We don't necessarily disagree,” he said, “but last session's failure to make any meaningful progress is the main reason why we launched the initiative.”


NSIA employs a legislative lobbyists and has for several years been pushing for change through the legislatures in Washington and Oregon. Both NSIA and CCA are targeting non-selective bycatch wastes of non-targeted salmon, steelhead and sturgeon in the existing commercial gillnet fishery.

Where they differ is on how the problem could and should be fixed.

NSIA is taking its fight to the state legislatures, CCA is going straight to the voters.

The landmark push to eliminate industrial gillnets in Oregon hit a setback in the state Attorney General’s office which disagreed with wording in the initiative, and required CCA to rewrite the proposal narrowing its scope from statewide to the “Columbia River.” The AG ruling meant that petitions with more than 2000 signatures had to be thrown out and the effort restarted from scratch with new legal wording.

Last month the pro-sportfishing group said it was redrawing the petition to produce a stronger, tighter initiative that will be in line with state election requirements to focus on the Columbia. Schamp said they also added wording they hope will gain NSIA support.

CCA will continue the push to collect the 82,769 signatures that will put the gill-net on the November ballot this year, he said.

The CCA initiative in its original form would continue to allow mainstem commercial fishing, but forces the industrials to change gear, eliminating non-selective gill nets in favor of selective3 seines, traps and other live capture options that would allow non-selected fish to be released alive and uninjured. Sport fishermen have long been required to fish selectively and have a solid record of catch-and-release with minimum mortality.

Though it bans gill nets, the CCA ballot issue would allow selective commercial fishing to continue on the mainstem Columbia.

That caveat, while intended to dilute industrial opposition, is also the crux of NSIA’s objections. They want commercial pressure shuttled off the main river to selective bubble fisheries.

NSIA, which along with CCA are the two powerhouse groups advocating for sports fishermen on the Columbia, is withholding support of the CCA petition because of those differences over the gillnet ban and continuation of commercial harvests from the mainstem.

Before the CCA ballot issue was launched, NSIA had floated out an independent lobby push to convince legislators in Washington and Oregon to require the non-tribal commercial fleet to string their gillnets in specific terminal areas, out of the mainstem flow, where they could exclusively target hatchery fish that have been imprinted to return to net zones in river mouths, channels and bays off the mainstem.

Both groups want the commercials to fish selectively. The stickler is how.

Under the NSIA SAFE plan gillnets would continue to be allowed but would be forced off the main river and become selective by where they are soaked.

Under the CCA Protect Our Salmon plan gillnets would be banned and commercial fishing would become selective because of the type of gear used.

“The fundamental difference that we have,” NSIA spokesman Trey Carskadon told TRN, “is that the CCA approach calls for no gillnets whatsoever. In place (of gillnets) they want to use more selective means for commercial fishing in the main Columbia.

“The difficulty we have with that is that if the commercials are allowed to fish the main river with selective (gear) that means they will be (allowed) to extract more hatchery fish and because of catch balancing mandates the possibility exists that they will be taking even more hatchery fish and that will have (negative) impacts on sport fishing.

“By keeping nets in SAFE areas, in NSIA’s view, there is a distinct benefit to sport fishing interests,” Carskadon said.

He added, “CCA believes hatchery reforms are inadequate because they allow for more commercial harvests. NSIA believes hatchery reforms (coupled with off-mainstem netting) are viable, based on the findings of our advisory team which includes retired ODFW fish and wildlife directors and fishery managers.

NSIA’s “Safe For Salmon comes down to conservation by eliminating mainstem commercial gillnetting which will reduce bycatch issues, which would transfer the (positive) impacts to the sport community and that would certainly broaden their season,” Carskadon contends.

“Conservation measures,” he added, “are already in place through the formulas that are handed down. That issue is dealt with. It comes down then to an economic issue and the greatest economic benefit would be to continue to get commercials their fish and (get) more mainstem fish for sports. That would be a win-win.

Carskadon points out that, “While there is a desire on both our parts to work together the initiative that is out there right now is something that we can’t support, at this juncture as it is now written.

“That doesn’t mean that we will lobby against it. We won’t We need to overcome these differences,” the NSIA spokesman concluded, “and that may mean that we both have to move to a different place, NSIA closer to CCA position or CCA closer to NSIA position.

“We’re still talking with them and relations have improved,” Carskadon pointed out. Schamp said CCA plans to unveil the final version of the revised petition to NSIA soon and hopes the changes will result in that group’s support.

Fishermen on both sides of the river are also hoping for a look at the CCA changes and hoping to see a united push by sports fishermen that will force the states to control commercial bycatch waste.

I like my plan better than either the CCA's or the NSIA's...

Ban all non-tribal commercial fishing in the Columbia River.

The much vaunted "public" that the commercials talk about when they say that they just flat out must fish the Columbia will be serviced just fine by the tribal fishers who aren't going anywhere on the Columbia.

It's short, not confusing, and there is no question about what its effects will be on helping out wild fish.

Fish on...

Todd

“Conservation measures,” he added, “are already in place through the formulas that are handed down. That issue is dealt with. It comes down then to an economic issue and the greatest economic benefit would be to continue to get commercials their fish and (get) more mainstem fish for sports. That would be a win-win.


This seems to be a concept that the Coastal Clammers Assocation can't get a grip on. NMFS sets the allowable impact rate, everything above and beyond that is an allocation issue.

And this whole time I thought SBD was a CCA member.......

Keith

It is encouraging to see in the article some common ground that hopefully can be expanded upon between NSIA and CCA. Hopefully they will be able to work together now and in the future.

SBD.........You always come off as acting knowlegeable, yet say nothing. If you are so smart please go over each item with your likes and dislikes, and then tell us why or what we can do to improve our thoughts and positions. On your posts try to say something and let us know what is on your mind. I try to follow your posts but am tired of clicking on urls that are of no interest to me personely. This is one CCA member that is serious about learning about what is going on and wish to help where I can. For instance, Todds post, I like it simple and to the point, don't know if it would work, but I can understand it. Thank You

am glad to see trey addressing this issue because it is huge not only in the catch sharing agreement fisheries but all of the fall fisherys also, thank you.

I dont have an opinion on SBD other than that I liked the foil hat avatar. The gun not so much.

I think it would be great...would be greater just to send 'em packing, they don't have any "right" to be there.

Fish on...

Todd

If the rep from NSIA needs to explain it to CCA then not much left for me to add there..Now I let you go back to blaming all your woes on the high seas driftnet fleet thats just right over the horizon. Or video's of a tribal terminal fishery that needs to eliminated so those fish could go spawn..

Again smart remarks and little of merit. Note to self, I have accompanyed both lobbist's NSIA and CCA together in at least three Representives offices on the same day, they may be closer together on issues than you think.

I think most all the groups out there are virtually identical on the "issues"...it's how they go about attacking them, and the effectiveness of their chosen routes of attack, that are the controversial parts.

Fish on...

Todd

Both groups might get there wish, record catches in the terminal fisherys on the Oregon side, and hearing through the grapevine that there some seiners pointed this way for the Washington side..Contension should end and the stocks should be fully recovered in five years..

Eliminate all non-tribal commercial fishermen, and then issue small "commercial cards" to sports anglers. Let us catch and sell to the markets...

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/min/1603624338.html



Me sarcastic... ...You want to buy my boat?

He is, he just thought it meant Coastal Clammers Association.

Sorry SBD, couldn't help it. Too easy.

True thing.

No the title Conservation needs to be earned, something I haven't seen yet, and yes I'm watching CCA Louisana site. Not impressed to say the least!

Arrogant aren't you. You presume from your padded chair, that volunteers in another state are not working or interested in conservation. The website is updated by volunteers, who have jobs. You spend more time complaining about other people than anyone here. I have yet to read about anything you have been involved in. If you have all the answers, Im sure you could have gotten a job down there. We could have shipped your perch next day air.

What hit a raw nerve, LB. But your right if people are going to talk the talk they need to walk the walk.