isnt trolling a selective meathod .. i see several "commerical sportboats" behind the jetty at tillamook with three rods out "trolling around". they sell what they catch..

other than calling someone a "poo poo head" hows this. Realize the commericals ALWAYS get what they want See: "state to spend 1.9 million on ways to IMPROVE commerical catch rates and decrease impact rates all during budget decline"

do'nt yall get it?

Lets say the state DOES find a way to eliminate the commerical impact on native fish.. what do you think happens then.. THERE GOIING TO GET MORE DAYS TO FISH.. possibly all of them.

This thread, was way back when, started about the 1.9mill being spent to research commerical techniques and instead it turned into Lead bouncer, freespool, and auntyM talking about whos more irrelevant and whose ideas are the dumbest.

Look accept several facts.

the commericals will today, and in the near future, kick everyones but in political gamesmenship.

the tribes simply dont care, they get to kill anyhting and they sell everything to pacific seafood.

no-body cares about fish politics, they care about schools.


so my suggestion is to find a commerical give him a big hug and BEG him to push for increased hathcery funding. Take all that money you send to CCA, NSIA or PTA, and instead pick out your favorite canidate and include a copy of you holding a salmon and a 100 dollar bill, with the note "everytime i catch one of these ill send you one of these"

then in any order: VOTE, attend a ODFW/WDFW meeting, volunteer at a hatchey (many times), meet your STATE rep by walking into his office (they are small time they will meet you), and VOTE again.

at that point you'll be making a difference, and perhaps we can convince the DFW's to NOT spend 1.9 million on reasearch and instead grow extra fish..

cause honestly people, if there were 1 million chinook in the CR right now would anyone care about all this other stuff.. geesh.

joshua

ps im not a commerical i own a marketing company that focuses on medical: pharma, hospitals, large clinical groups, ect.

ya and it`s pretty simple and all about hatchery funding

xample Deep River 2009:
The Deep River winter/spring fishery stock composition was based on VSI and CWT analysis with a total of 122 Chinook (100% of the catch) examined for fin marks and CWTs, and 12 CWTs being collected. The 2009 Deep River catch was comprised of 59.0% spring Chinook destined for Select Area sites, 13.1% upriver spring Chinook, 17.2% Willamette River spring Chinook, and 10.7% spring Chinook destined for the Cowlitz, Kalama, or Lewis rivers. Based on scale readings, verified with CWTs, the age composition of the catch was <1% Age-3, 37% Age-4, and 62% Age-5.

I still don't understand going in that direction??


Guess I don't understand what your saying Keith, but seining in the river would just remove the 59% from the equation and replace it with higher numbers of the others..Not sure how that's going to make anyone upriver happy.

no i didnt write this but how much more clear does it have to be ?, the only possible place for the commercials to gain more access to hatchery fish after they reduce release mortality is from the sport fisherman

(b) Continue to provide opportunities and resources to further develop selective commercial fishing techniques with a goal of reducing mortality of listed fish and increasing access to hatchery fish.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/policies/c3617_attch1.pdf

I keep hearing last years select area stats, wasn`t that a fluke? Seems like prior years numbers were mostly hatcheries planted for those areas. Bill

Hey poo poo head, just kidding. Enjoy reading your posts, your obviously concerned about these matters. Don`t agree with alot you say but it`s an internet debate right? I will NEVER hug a gillnetter! Shake their hand though, and have. I appreciate the fact that their fathers and grand fathers were instrumental in ending seining, weirs, and fish wheels on the Columbia river, this may be the reason why we`re still fishing the Columbia today. I`d also like to thank them for fighting against the re-introduction of these methods in modern times. I can only hope that their way of life can continue and be profitable in the safe areas. Bill

I think you would need to compare to lower river trib sport catch to get a good comparison, salmon stray we know that and we want them to..Keeps the genetic thing going and if we ever reopen old habitat this is how it gets repopulated. The main thing is how many hatch fish are harvested per wild mortality, people get stuck on mortality rate of gear but there's way more to it than that.

Mortality rate is almost irrelevant, so far as the fish care, when the LCR spring Chinook fisheries are limited by overall mortality...the only thing changing mortality rates does is change the amount of hatchery fish you can harvest on the way to killing your share of the wild fish...

And as boater has pointed out above, if the commercials are going to get more hatchery fish by going "more selective"...well, that will negatively impact sportfishing with virtually no concommitant benefit to the wild fish.

Fish on...

Todd

Pardon me... I just keep looking for the perfect world without any gillnets..... But that was CCA's plan in the beginning. That's what Gary preached... Guess they're just another group that follows the routines of the DFW's.... Thought there was change coming?

But the only change is we're going to get fukkked with the selecitive fishing....

Keith

Throw everything out in the mainstem and the Boldt Decision is going to open a whole new can of worms when that 5-7% upriver stock jumps to 25-40.

Here`s some change for you to have nightmares over. The gillnetters who go to these selective fishing methods could become known or represented as the "saviors" of the wild fish. Crazy but in these times where we`re told less is more, up is down or whatever else seems to fit the agenda it`s a real possibility. Bill

How many gill net licenses on the Columbia R. are holding 2 state governments and their constituents hostage?

Like usual it appears that most on this thread are shooting at each other instead of the real target.

That target is CR gill nets and the relatively few licenses left.

If you want the gill nets out only with no selective fishery gear, a good time would be a coincided campaign when Blake’s CR committee convenes---- if ever.

"If there was no commercial fishery, would those (allowances) be used by the sport fishery? Yes."

http://www.hcn.org/issues/42.11/fish-face-off/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=

what would be wrong with that ??

Boater,

There has been some concern that with out commercial fisheries on the CR there wouldn't be as much funding for hatcheries and maybe hatcheries closed down according to some on recent threads.

Would that really happen in your opinion?

On the Columbia River- no way. That argument doesn't hold water.

Just look at who is harvesting the lion's share of in-river fish. THE TRIBES. Production will continue for them, irregardless of sport and commercial fishing.

The Federal mitigation continues whether there is no in-river commercial fisheries, or no in-river sport fisheries for that matter.

Then there is the hatchery production to meet the US agreements for sport and commercial ocean fishing from the mouth of the CR all the way up to the Gulf of Alaska.

The Columbia gillnetters are such a tiny portion of the whole CR fish harvest.

Mitchell Act funding pays for a LOT more than just the commercial fisheries...besides the sport fisheries, the Mitchell Act funding on the Columbia River supports virtually the entire CRTFC commercial fisheries, and treaty obligations will keep that money flowing.

It also pays for a lot of steelhead production, which is not part of any non-tribal commercial fishery, just sports and tribal.

Mitchell Act funding contributes greatly to commercial fisheries outside the mouth of the Columbia, too.

There also is a very well-known economic analysis of the fisheries and dollars produced by the various fisheries that result from Mitchell Act funding, and the sports fisheries by far return the most money to the economy, which is a perfectly good reason to keep the money flowing.

All that being said, I wouldn't be too surprised to see some sort of reductions if there were no commercial fisheries, at least in the programs that are mainly there to support commercial fisheries (e.g., SAFE area releases), but overall, unless massive changes were made, the net gains to sportfishing and wild fish recovery will far outweigh any reductions in Mitchell Act funding for the Columbia River.

I daresay that the removal of non-tribal commercial fishing in its entirety from the Columbia River would bode far better for fish and sportfishing than would continuing to throw money at a relic fishery like the non-tribal commercial spring Chinook fishery, which both hurts sportfishing and fish recovery...especially if the "selective commercial" fisheries take place, which will do virtually nothing for fish recovery, will continue to cost lots of money, and will negatively impact sportfishing, perhaps in a very significant way.

Fish on...

Todd

i dont think any would close and the impacts would be sent to the sportfisherman, what kind of total moron politician is going to stand up and say "since the non-tribal gillnetters are off the main stem and the economic benifit of these hatchery fish to the local communitys and companys accross the country is now tripled i want to close some hatcherys" ?

Thanks to all on thoughts of hatchery funding.

To me CR gill nets = chaos.

If gillnets were deleted from conversation of the CR fisheries most people on here are basically on the same page and could actually work together instead of against each other.

So why wouldn’t banning gillnets get the same results?

Numbers got rid of other fishing methods on the Columbia River in 1935.

Numbers should be able to get rid of gillnets today.

Is it really too late for that solution only?

LL...getting rid of gillnets would be very beneficial...replacing them with purse seines, or traps, or whatever else is the current "selective commercial" technique du jour will erase any of the benefits.

Until they are just flat out gone, "they" being non-tribal commercial fishers on the LCR, then it's just fancy and expensive rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Fish on...

Todd

For those concerned about changes/reductions, it's not like hatcheries are in some kind of stasis. Production ebbs, increases, and moves around the basin as policies - and politics - change. For better or worse, there's been big increases in the upriver trib area production, most of it Tribal driven I believe - Yakima River, Umatilla River, some other sites further upstream, for example. There is probably more spring and summer chinook production above Bonneville now than there's ever been.

IMO, most of this "no gillnets = no hatcheries" talk originates from the gillnetters and their allies. It's just more of the self-serving myth making those guys indulge in.