rojo, the original idea was that the purse seines would be able to capture so many more hatchery fish than the gillnets due to lower mortality on the wild ESA fish that there would be no need to cut hatchery production.

This was the "wisest and best use" idea being pushed by sporties...who somehow failed to realize how this would make sportfishing considerably worse on the LCR since our ability to have decent fishing is premised by fishing over a LOT of fish...our efficiency sucks.

That would have hurt sportfishing, of course, but would not have lead to cutting hatchery production.

Now the proposal calls for NOT allocating more hatchery fish to the commercial fleet, which will lead to more hatchery fish passing the fisheries and ending up on the spawning grounds, which defeats the purpose that sporties were pushing this idea for in the first place, to get the hatchery fish off the spawning grounds.

Right, Francis?

Fish on...

Todd

When the only number that matters is the amount of dead fish coming out the back end, not the number of live fish going in the front, then all fishing methods are equally destructive.

Fish on...

Todd

Only way fishing can get more fish is find a better way to catch them, if it's not LNG then it's going to be coal who will need the impacts. We owe China a chit load of money and it's time to pay up.

I'm not sure where people got the idea that things other than hatchery spring Chinook don't die in purse seines...they do...including steelhead, birds, wild Chinook, and marine mammals.

Whichever happens to be the limiting factor on the catch at the time (upriver ESA spring Chinook, or ESA steelhead), the same number will die...and the same number of the other one will die while killing the limiting factor fish.

And more hatchery fish will be harvested while doing so.

And the tribes will not give a rip about purse seines in the Columbia River.

And the factors that actually affect the fish runs will be ignored.

Again, if you want to actually save any fish, and use fishing restrictions to do it, then get non-tribal commercial fishing out of the Columbia River completely...but don't forget that sporties kill more ESA Chinook every spring than the commercial fishery, and if sporty opportunity increases, so will the amount of spring Chinook they kill.

Most will be ok with that, as the increased sporty kill will come from removing the non-tribal commercial kill, and there are a host of benefits that come along with that re-allocation...but helping fish is not one of them.

Fish on...

Todd

No, you're not correct, it's just irrelevant.

This issue will be on the FWC's conference call agenda for Friday, and folks can listen in on the call to see what the Commission has to say about it.

Unfortunately the only way to listen in on the conference call is to go to Olympia and sit in a room where they will have it on speaker phone.

Fish on...

Todd

Selective fisheries work where they work, and don't work where they don't...they are not automatically better than some other fishery.

If the catch is limited by ESA steelhead mortalities, and say the limit is 100 fish, then they will fish until 100 steelhead have died.

If the catch is limited by ESA Chinook mortalities, and say the limit is 100 fish, then they will fish until the 100 fish are killed.

If ten steelhead are killed when 100 Chinook are killed in gillnets, then ten steelhead will be killed when 100 Chinook are killed in purse seines, or in any other type of net.

If the catch is limited by ESA impacts, whether they be on ESA steelhead or ESA Chinook, then the only factor that will change when the mortality rate changes is how many hatchery fish are harvested while killing the allowable ESA impact.

It's just math.

For some reason folks continue to believe that if the non-tribal commercial guys catch 10,000 hatchery Chinook now, and they are forced to use a tool with a lower mortality rate, then they will catch 10,000 hatchery Chinook later, now with a lower bycatch mortality.

That's wrong.

They will kill the same amount of whatever limits the fishery, and the amount of hatchery fish will change.

Fish on...

Todd

In this case the math is simple; it seems that the underlying assumptions are the significant variables.

Kind of like postulating that if all wild steelhead fishing was to go C&R the tribes would be forced by public opinion to gillnet only hatchery returns.....I heard that somewhere.

See, here's where the problem is.

They're not assumptions.

That's how all LCR fisheries are conducted.

They are limited by allowable ESA impacts.

Without understanding how that basic tenet of LCR fisheries management operates, there is no way to understand anything else about LCR fisheries.

Fish on...

Todd

You don't speak for the "educated here on the board", as there are plenty of folks, notably Smalma and Salmo g., who both agree with me. They also agree that the increased commercial harvest of spring Chinook will hurt sportfishing opportunities.

Note that the "interesting letter" we are talking about here is Gov. Kitzhaber's letter that DOES NOT support banning gillnetting...it's supports moving gillnetting, and more hatchery production, into the SAFE areas, and leaving the mainstem fishing to the sporties, and giving the sporties whatever ESA impacts are left there (hopefully more than are there now).

It'll all come out in the wash, I just want to make sure folks know what they are supporting, what the results of getting their way will be, and the difference between that and what they might think they are getting.

Like I said, I have no problem with gillnets being taken out of the Columbia River, I have a problem with forcing the non-tribal commercial guys to use an even more efficient way of harvesting fish when what we ought to be doing is forcing them to get into another line of work altogether.

Fish on...

Todd

Ah, I see. It is my assumptions and/or lack of understanding that is the problem.....which lands me amongst the great unwashed. (Please don't miss the sarcasm.)

Todd, one thing you and I do agree upon is that there are bigger factors at play. But we have to keep working all of the angles and I personally think this has the potential for helping to turn around the status of ESA listed runs as well as decrease the impact on other bycatch.

The Gov's letter is a Johnny Come Lately POS intended to cloud the initiative effort and confuse the electorate - said it before and saying it again.

I'm not speaking out against anything...except for the fact that this initiative stops far short of doing something really useful, which is getting rid of non-tribal commercial fishing in the Columbia River altogether.

Fish on...

Todd

I would have just called it a no confidence vote in CCA's management team.

You would; and I'm not the least bit surprised.

Don't forget, he had the legislative opportunity to guide a (his) solution and was out not willing to engage.

Since he decided not to lead he should quietly get out of the way.

Todd I agree with you to some extent however, your assumption appears to be that only the limiting non-target species will be by-catch mortality. I agree that if the limiting factor is 100 ESA listed steelhead that 100 ESA listed steelhead will be killed. However, in that example fewer of the non-limiting species will be killed than would otherwise be killed by the non-selective gill nets. Also Aunty M's mention of the number of lost gillnets that continue to kill is another part of the equation that results in a net gain if gillnets are banned for non-native commies. So a gillnet ban can have some potential impact on recovery but I agree it's not as likely to be huge in and of itself unless it's coupled with other actions.

Like you say, the best outcome of all would be the loss of this outdated way of making a living. As has been said on this board before, no developed countries sill allow commercial hunting of land mammals. Why we allow commercial hunting of fish is unclear. IMHO it's primarily because we can't so easily see the outcome of continued commercial over harvest of a finite resource when the resource is under water.

Purse seines are nets, too...and they get lost, too...and they continue to fish when they get lost.

"No nets" is how to get rid of bycatch and unintended mortalities due to lost nets...no nets of any sort.

Fish on...

Todd

For you history revisionists, when Safe For Salmon was being leveraged for adoptuion by the Oregon Legislature, the Governor was Ted Kulongoski.
And the primary reason it failed was due to the anti lobbying CCA applied.
So what's CCA's position on Doc Hastings Save Our Dams bill?

It's because gillnets are the vast majority of nets that have been used in the past...I hope you don't think that purse seines magically don't get caught on reefs, rocks, and stumps, especially in something as shallow as the Columbia River.

Use seines, and you will lose seines.

Fish on...

Todd

I don't think seine nets (in which at least one end tend to be attached to an actively manned vessel) get lost at the same rate as gill nets. Also, I don't think a lost seine net has the same destructive potential as a lost gill net. But I agree getting rid of all netting would be better. I for one see the current efforts to get rid of gill nets as a good start that could lead to something more. At the very least, the general public is now learning a bit about salmon and salmon recovery even if the information is incomplete and sometimes biased by one side or the other. At least a discussion is being had which is way better than what we have just a few years ago when such discussions were generally limited to boards like this.

The Feds set impact levels and if the commercials don't use them, the sporties will. And if the non-Indians don't kill them the Indians will.