Sounds like it might work, Oregon fishing in the Terminal area's and Washington going full ahead with the seining plan..

SBD, I can be dense at times but are you serious or joking?

I ask seriously, because although I have major issues with any gillnetting on the CR, i reluctantly support SAFE area fishing.

The terminal fishery harvest of hatchery fish seems to be something most of us can support, in concept at least.

Thanks,

Both after reading through some of the ifish posts, I guess the plan is to support the terminal fisherys with most down there expecting Washington to follow Oregons lead. Only problem is the terminals are mostly on the Oregon side in Oregon waters, so where would that leave WDFW. 100 years of the World Turns continues.

I'm just wondering who's the lucky person that gets to tell the WDFW Commision that the millions that have been spent on the seine and trap gear was all just a big mistake..

And the world turns........

Keith

And the world turns.

Folks, lets just try to keep the conventions going.

I think the CCA offerings bump things along.

Warmest,

you moving to Oregon to help them out leadbouncer ?, lots of boat ramps down there.

Do you ever have anything constructive to add to the conversation?


Fishy

i was being constructive

It sounds like if the commercials don’t get to fish in the main stem and be able to catch their 30-60 fish each, they and their families and the rest of the population of the surrounding counties will turn them all into jobless, alcohol and drug addicts once again. Part 2.

I could have just sworn that they had just testified in WA that they had to be Alaska to fish up there. They keep busy or they would be in some other line of work.

I guess they can flip their testimony from the WA commission to the Oregon legislature and nobody will notice.

Yes.

And as their "Rev" Irene Martin testified the economy in Wahkiakum County is so bad, so many suicides and murders, that they have to keep doing exactly the same thing. Apparantly the status quo is their salvation.

OK, and what about the Fall time? They catch a "few" more than that, quite a few really....

Keith

Girod and the other Senator are all over the place, mostly he's defending water use issues..

you would think that the small towns down there would want motels and restaurants full of people eager to spend money but they seem to think it`s more important for someone on unemployment to have a salmon dinner

After listening to whole thing I'd say were back to seines again..

going to be interesting listening to the comments from people who dont like to sportfish after gillnets after the new methods start fishing and take more fish than the gillnets do,

Just askin". Is there a reasonable overlap to look at combining SAFE areas on the OR side, river mouth terminal areas on the WA side, and some form, any form, of selective gear in the lower river. If, BIG IF, ESA impacts could be changed and if, if, reccies could fish before commercials but some reasonable catch limit is imposed at an "optimal yield" (not maximal) level?
Just until we have more information on what to do next.

Slice and dice the ideas.

Not sure why I keep stepping in but we have to figure this out or leave to the nextgen.

how ? less ?

Boater,
This is a really good question and I have to think about it to give my best answer. But it will involve using total hatchery fish catch rather than ESA impact alone so recreationals don't get shorted, and commercials still catch fish, along with moving towards terminal fisheries and some sort of lower river selective catch. And, my best wish, that the natives survive, and that we survive as well.

I see this whole thing more and more as a series of stepping stones and not one great final solution.

And if there is a question as to whether ESA impact measures can be altered, the answer is YES. I was alive during the original ESA legislation and think we have the cahones to enact change, as citizens now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cojones