The annual springer allocation war begins.

Went to the Commission webpage and say no mention of CR spring chinook in any of the published agendas. I suspect we should see something at the Feb meeting. Doesn't leave much time for us to get our ducks in a row.

By no means am I saying we should cede any of our historic impact share, but there are other mechanisms to increase the recreational season and hatchery harvest on these fish. We burn a lot of time energy and money fighting with the commercials over our "fair" share of a 2% impact on wild fish. Maybe time to change tactics to get WAY more bang for the buck over the long haul?

Mark my words.

Maximizing the potential recreational harvest opportunity lies in minimizing our release mortalities. This is a discussion that should be elevated to the attention of commissioners every chance we get to give public comment on this fishery.

Eyefish-
If folks are successful in converting the Columbia River gill net fishery to more selective methods linking harvest allocation to the lowest release mortality could well bite the recreational fishers in the rear.

I continue to believe that across the State the card that we as recreational fishers must continue to stress is the highest economic return of the State's investment in hatchery produced salmon is to maximize recreational opportunities.

BTW -
Like everyone else here am looking forward to capturing a springer or two for the table in a couple months.

Tight lines
Curt

I'm pretty sure the matrix is sliding and based on run size and was agreed on by both commisions a few years back.

Yes impact allocation is based on "The Matrix". Not gonna change... it was already agreed to as SBD noted. I believe this is year 4 of a 5 yr plan.

What I am saying is that at ANY given impact allocation, sports can maximize our seasons by lowering our release mortality.

Lower mortality allows us to stay on the water longer while still staying within the impact cap specified by the matrix.

http://www.critfc.org/text/usvor.html

All 3 of CCA's Ballot measures are back at the Supreme Court now.

The commission is well aware of the possibility of minimizing the recreational release mortality. Ironically it has been invariably the commercials that have brought this to the commissioners attention including at the Friday Jan 6th public commission meeting.
I agree that some of that money afforded the commercial testing should go to test the mortalities of recreational gear types to try and increase allocation also.

The tribes are entitled to "a fair and equitable share" of the resource


This is what has limited the nontribal catch for the last 4 or 5 years and I don't see any indication they are willing to budge, at least intill the current agreement expires which I believe is in 2015.

As I asked before, in a typical year doesn't the mark rate increase over the run? E.g. doesn't the ratio of wild/hatchery go down over time? If so, wouldn't we be better off with the rec season later in the run to maximize our time/minimize our wild impact? I could be wrong, I haven't looked closely at the data. Smalma?

Differential mark rate is not part of any of the pre-season harvest models. The mark rate is presumed to be fixed.

What does happen in the harvest model by delaying the season is that each day of delay increases the number of encounters per day. By delaying the season, the impact gets used exponentially faster.

Example, if we were to give up all harvest in Jan Feb and Mar, it would only buy 2-3 days in the second week of April.

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/OSCRP/CRM/FS/11/110404wf5.pdf


Might help and confirms what Doc just said.

Painful to read that report. If 911 = 48% of the commercial quota then the full quota was about 1900 fish. JFC! 1900 fish split between 80 some boats that actually reported landing even ONE spring chinook. WTF? If you averaged it out, that season amounts to only 23 fish landed per boat. What's the point? In the great grand scheme of working all year, no single boat is gonna miss those fish.

That the state would EVER spend the time and money to go thru all those convuluted gyrations to assess, monitor and enforce a gillnet fishery with a boat limit of 6 fish is just beyond rational thought! And for what? To subsidize a handful of gillnetters fishing for a hobby. GMAFB, man!

http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?p=3971394#post3971394


Lots of people feel that way...

Thanks for the info.

Sportfishers are paying a CR salmon/steelhead endorsement. Some of that money should be used to study hooking mortality.

Leave the unmarked fish in the water has not been studied so no reduction in associated mortality. How about going barbless?

Too many whiners in Oregon wont go along with the barbless. Doc keeps posting about his hang back method, but its illegal in Oregon. To bad the governor did not clean house when he moved in.

Oregon spent a bunch of money doing a hooking mortality study, to bad it goes against some people's agenda.
My advise is do your own study, or STFU.

Last couple of years I've trolled barbless out of Cathlamet.

It is not rocket science. Barbless minimizes handle; slack line and the unmarked fishes are free, untouched.

For Sure. A study needs to be done to see how many actually live to spawn after encountering sport or commercial gear. Washington sportfishers are paying the CRE to fund the gathering of data.

The ODFW did exactly that, it also found that it doesn't make a difference in what hook you use, it matters where you hook the fish.
This study took several years to complete, and it's been peer reviewed.
People make assumptions about this study, in an effort to discredit the findings, probably because it differs from their agenda , but the reality is they are wrong.

Anyone have an actual citation for the ODFW hooking mortality study or a URL to the .pdf?

What usually gets tossed around as "proof" in these discussions is the so-called "Toman study" which was neither written by Toman nor designed to look at barbs as a distinct factor in the mortality equation.

There can be no doubt that barbless hooks inflict less tissue injury upon extraction. The ease of removal also significantly reduces the handling time required to get that fish on its way. With or without a study, common sense tells you they're simply better for the fish.

If they truly make no difference, why are they required for ocean fisheries in OR/WA? the CR sturgeon fishery? all marine areas of WA state?

Thanks to you Francis, I actually called one of the leading scientist that did that study.
I ran all your malarkey about them not doing this or that, in particular your point about them not using barbed and barbless hooks.
You need to call one of those guys up and stop making stupid assumptions about a study you don't seem to know much about.