#629193 - 10/20/10 08:38 PM
will selective com. fishing ruin sportfishing ?
|
Three Time Spawner
Registered: 07/01/09
Posts: 1760
Loc: common sense ave.
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629224 - 10/20/10 10:45 PM
Re: will selective com. fishing ruin sportfishing ?
[Re: boater]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 05/22/05
Posts: 3781
|
Will commercial selective harvest methods ruin sportfishing?
I really don't think so, commercials are headed for the SAFE Areas, where harvest methods impacts really don't matter very much.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629226 - 10/20/10 11:03 PM
Re: will selective com. fishing ruin sportfishing ?
[Re: Illahee]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 04/25/00
Posts: 5078
Loc: East of Aberdeen, West of Mont...
|
Will commercial selective harvest methods ruin sportfishing?
I really don't think so, commercials are headed for the SAFE Areas, where harvest methods impacts really don't matter very much. Really?????? Tell me where those SAFE areas are in Region 6......ie: Willipa Bay and Chehalis River and on the Humptulips side....lot's of sportsmen would like to know!!!!! Thanks...........
Edited by DrifterWA (10/20/10 11:04 PM)
_________________________
"Worse day sport fishing, still better than the best day working"
"I thought growing older, would take longer"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629228 - 10/20/10 11:20 PM
Re: will selective com. fishing ruin sportfishing ?
[Re: DrifterWA]
|
Three Time Spawner
Registered: 07/01/09
Posts: 1760
Loc: common sense ave.
|
Will commercial selective harvest methods ruin sportfishing?
I really don't think so, commercials are headed for the SAFE Areas, where harvest methods impacts really don't matter very much. Really?????? Tell me where those SAFE areas are in Region 6......ie: Willipa Bay and Chehalis River and on the Humptulips side....lot's of sportsmen would like to know!!!!! Thanks........... they have looked at the idea, check page 8 http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2008/08/aug0908_14_safe.pdf
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629289 - 10/21/10 11:40 AM
Re: will selective com. fishing ruin sportfishing ?
[Re: McMahon]
|
clown flocker
Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 3743
Loc: Water
|
Depends on how many C&R fish the Bio's don't see in the nets, might be the reason they want a few more years of testing. NMFS getting all kinds of info out of this.
_________________________
There's a sucker born every minute
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629290 - 10/21/10 11:44 AM
Re: will selective com. fishing ruin sportfishing ?
[Re: Illahee]
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 09/20/05
Posts: 251
Loc: Columbia City
|
Will commercial selective harvest methods ruin sportfishing?
I really don't think so, commercials are headed for the SAFE Areas, where harvest methods impacts really don't matter very much. Really don't matter very much? Where have you been? perhaps you missed the Monthly OSP report regarding the "chronic problem" of gillnetterss leaving the SAFE areas in the dark for the main river, then skewing the numbers to the extent the Bios are shaking their heads over the high numbers of upriver ESA fish showing up in the SAFE catch. SAFE for who? The gillnetters? Certainly not the fish. We had a Bio at our CCA meeting who openly admitted that boats with observers had 80% more Steelhead in the catch than those boats without observers. Imagine that! You have often stated that Steelhead have not been commercially fished by the lower river commercials since 1972. Well guess what? They are still caught in nets. Do any of you naysayers on selective harvest give a $hit about Steelhead? Or juvenile Sturgeon? Fish on! It's all about filling your tag isn't it? Keep the faith!
Edited by Jhook (10/21/10 11:44 AM)
_________________________
Otherwise I'm retired!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629293 - 10/21/10 11:54 AM
Re: will selective com. fishing ruin sportfishing ?
[Re: Jhook]
|
clown flocker
Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 3743
Loc: Water
|
We had a Bio at our CCA meeting who openly admitted that boats with observers had 80% more Steelhead in the catch than those boats without observers. Imagine that!
? Your losing me with this statement, since observer data is estrapolated.
_________________________
There's a sucker born every minute
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629295 - 10/21/10 12:00 PM
Re: will selective com. fishing ruin sportfishing ?
[Re: Jhook]
|
Dick Nipples
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
|
"Selective" commercial fishing is not a very good term...all types of commercial fishing, including gillnets, are "selective"...the only difference between the gear types being their relative release mortalities on non-target species.
For some reason many folks have glommed onto the idea that gillnets are "non-selective", and that purse seines are "selective", and that's as far as they're willing to go into the conversation.
"Selective" fishing really means the difference between intending to release or avoid non-target species (selective), or intending to kill whatever enters the net (non-selective), but even that is a bit of a misnomer, as time and place restrictions can be used to "non-selectively" harvest whatever is around, when whatever is around is almost entirely, or entirely fish targeted for harvest.
Some more selective means of harvest will lead to far more encounters with non-target species, so any decrease in relative release mortality for non-target species will be overwhelmed by greatly increased encounters with those fish...e.g., if the relative release mortality is halved by using different gear, but encounters are doubled, then there is no conservation benefit to the non-target critters...the same amount will die.
In fisheries that are constrained by hatchery fish harvest quotas, the more selective the gear, the less wild fish will die. In fisheries that are constrained by ESA impacts, it will make no difference to the wild fish whatsoever, there will be no conservation benefit.
They're all just tools, not answers...use the tools properly in appropriate fisheries, and they'll help...use them in the wrong way or in inappropriate fisheries, and they may hurt the wild fish worse.
It would be refreshing if those who are constantly arguing about this issue would shift their ideological mindsets from "are selective fisheries good or bad?" to "when do selective fisheries make sense, and when do they don't?"...and then advocate accordingly.
So, my answer to the original question...selective commercial fishing will not ruin sportfishing in and of itself, nor will it save fish or sportfishing in and of itself...when it's used properly, it may help both fish and fishing, and when it's used improperly, it may hurt both fish and fishing.
Fish on...
Todd
_________________________
 Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629300 - 10/21/10 12:20 PM
Re: will selective com. fishing ruin sportfishing ?
[Re: Todd]
|
Spawner
Registered: 08/30/10
Posts: 658
Loc: Grays Harbor
|
+10 Todd!
_________________________
Taking my fishing poles with me to a body of water that has fish in it is not an excuse to enjoy the scenery.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629312 - 10/21/10 01:02 PM
Re: will selective com. fishing ruin sportfishing ?
[Re: Todd]
|
Repeat Spawner
Registered: 12/12/09
Posts: 1032
Loc: Termite Country
|
"Selective" commercial fishing is not a very good term...all types of commercial fishing, including gillnets, are "selective"...the only difference between the gear types being their relative release mortalities on non-target species.
For some reason many folks have glommed onto the idea that gillnets are "non-selective", and that purse seines are "selective", and that's as far as they're willing to go into the conversation.
"Selective" fishing really means the difference between intending to release or avoid non-target species (selective), or intending to kill whatever enters the net (non-selective), but even that is a bit of a misnomer, as time and place restrictions can be used to "non-selectively" harvest whatever is around, when whatever is around is almost entirely, or entirely fish targeted for harvest.
Some more selective means of harvest will lead to far more encounters with non-target species, so any decrease in relative release mortality for non-target species will be overwhelmed by greatly increased encounters with those fish...e.g., if the relative release mortality is halved by using different gear, but encounters are doubled, then there is no conservation benefit to the non-target critters...the same amount will die.
In fisheries that are constrained by hatchery fish harvest quotas, the more selective the gear, the less wild fish will die. In fisheries that are constrained by ESA impacts, it will make no difference to the wild fish whatsoever, there will be no conservation benefit.
They're all just tools, not answers...use the tools properly in appropriate fisheries, and they'll help...use them in the wrong way or in inappropriate fisheries, and they may hurt the wild fish worse.
It would be refreshing if those who are constantly arguing about this issue would shift their ideological mindsets from "are selective fisheries good or bad?" to "when do selective fisheries make sense, and when do they don't?"...and then advocate accordingly.
So, my answer to the original question...selective commercial fishing will not ruin sportfishing in and of itself, nor will it save fish or sportfishing in and of itself...when it's used properly, it may help both fish and fishing, and when it's used improperly, it may hurt both fish and fishing.
Fish on...
Todd Best response I've seen you post on this topic yet. So, that said, how do sportfishers go about advocating for a change in policy to shift to hatchery harvest quotas from ESA impact quotas? Or would it even make a difference? Seems to me that the use of selective commercial gear in fisheries limited by hatchery harvest quotas would serve to benefit wild fish. What would be the good or the justification for ever limiting a fishery by ESA impacts as opposed to hatchery harvest quotas knowing that the mortality rates of selective gear are far less than gillnets?
_________________________
On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629315 - 10/21/10 01:14 PM
Re: will selective com. fishing ruin sportfishing ?
[Re: StinkingWaters]
|
Three Time Spawner
Registered: 11/01/06
Posts: 1563
Loc: Silverdale Wa
|
Nice todd.....best I have heard on this yet.
_________________________
Never leave a few fish for a lot of fish son.....you just might not find a lot of fish-----Theo
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629324 - 10/21/10 01:36 PM
Re: will selective com. fishing ruin sportfishing ?
[Re: StinkingWaters]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 05/22/05
Posts: 3781
|
Best response I've seen you post on this topic yet.
So, that said, how do sportfishers go about advocating for a change in policy to shift to hatchery harvest quotas from ESA impact quotas?
[/quote]
It will change when ESA threatened and listed stocks recover and are delisted, thinking otherwise is sheer fantasy.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629325 - 10/21/10 01:39 PM
Re: will selective com. fishing ruin sportfishing ?
[Re: Illahee]
|
Repeat Spawner
Registered: 12/12/09
Posts: 1032
Loc: Termite Country
|
Best response I've seen you post on this topic yet.
So, that said, how do sportfishers go about advocating for a change in policy to shift to hatchery harvest quotas from ESA impact quotas?
It will change when ESA threatened and listed stocks recover and are delisted, thinking otherwise is sheer fantasy. [/quote] ,....and current policy/regulations have helped to recover those listed stocks how?
_________________________
On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629334 - 10/21/10 02:00 PM
Re: will selective com. fishing ruin sportfishing ?
[Re: StinkingWaters]
|
Dick Nipples
Registered: 03/08/99
Posts: 28170
Loc: Seattle, Washington USA
|
SW, it's a variation on the exact same thing I say every time the issue comes up with regards to the lower Columbia stuff going on now...it is a very INappropriate place to do it for any reason other than increased commercial harvest...it's the only factor that will benefit from doing it there.
As I said above, many folks have just flat out accepted, with no knowlege of how the fisheries there work, or even what "selective" means, that purse seines will save the Columbia River, and that you're a "gillnet lover" if you try to explain to them even the most rudimentiary factors involved in coming to a useful opinion on it.
Wherever there are ESA fish present, you will need a permit from the Feds to conduct a fishery. The permit is called an Incidental Take Permit, and its only two functions are to determine thru consultation whether or not the proposed fishery will cause the extinction of the ESA fish present, and if not, then to set out the amount of ESA fish that are allowed to be incidentally taken...i.e., killed.
So long as there are ESA fish present, this is how fisheries are conducted...and will continue to be so conducted unless the ESA is repealed (not likely), the states agree amongst themselves to further limit their catch to levels below what the ESA allows (also very unlikely), or the fish are delisted (unlikely to recover, more likely to be delisted in the more common way, by going extinct.)
Fish on...
Todd
_________________________
Team Flying Super Ditch Pickle
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629335 - 10/21/10 02:09 PM
Re: will selective com. fishing ruin sportfishing ?
[Re: StinkingWaters]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 05/22/05
Posts: 3781
|
The war on the environment is over, suggesting we consider circumventing the ESA just shows what little understanding of how our fisheries are controlled.
The reason why the past recovery efforts on the CR have failed is simple, the federal government will not adhere to their own regulations.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#629336 - 10/21/10 02:13 PM
Re: will selective com. fishing ruin sportfishing ?
[Re: Todd]
|
Repeat Spawner
Registered: 12/12/09
Posts: 1032
Loc: Termite Country
|
Perhaps that is true Todd. I have just never heard you say that the use of seines would be better for wild fish in fisheries that are constrained by hatchery harvest quotas. Which raised the question in my mind;
Then what good do ESA policies do for wild fish?
If truly selective gear can be used to decrease the mortality rates on wild fish then why would we not limit the fisheries based on hatchery quota? Is it possible that less wild fish would die in the process of reaching the quota using the selctive gear? Or are you saying that more encounters with non-target species using the selective gear will just offset any decreased mortality rate benefits? Do purse seines really capture more fish than a gillnet strung across a river?
Why is it not possible to use some sort of combination of the two policies? Catch your quota and you're done and kill the alotted amount if wild fish and you're done?
_________________________
On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 registered (stonefish),
1395
Guests and
2
Spiders online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
11498 Members
16 Forums
63779 Topics
645378 Posts
Max Online: 3001 @ 01/28/20 02:48 PM
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index
