Gillnets are attached to boats, too...we're not talking about set nets fished by tribal fishers in rivers here.

Fish on...

Todd

ODFW commission likely on board with Kitzhaber proposal to restrict gillnetting Scott Learn, The Oregonian 08/10/2012 11:42 AM

With an anti-gillnet ballot measure looming, Oregon's Fish and Wildlife Commission is quickly pursuing Gov. John Kitzhaber's new proposal to move gill-netters off the lower Columbia River's mainstem.

In a news release this morning, commission Chairwoman Bobby Levy said the commission will work with its Washington state counterparts to "develop rules that reflect the Governor's proposals as well as the many legitimate interests among the public."

 "The governor has turned to the Fish and Wildlife Commission to come up with a solution and that's what we intend to do," Levy says in the release.

After years of controversy over gillnets, the commission is acting fast: It will meet via teleconference at 2 p.m. Tuesday for a first discussion of the governor's proposals, issued Thursday.

Public comments won't be allowed at the meeting, but the agency will have a live audio stream for people to listen. As the rules are developed, there will be "substantial opportunity" for public comment, Levy said.

The commission could reject the governor's proposals, but that seems unlikely. At this point, Kitzhaber has appointed five of the seven commissioners, including three that started their tenure in June.

Kitzhaber wrote to the commission and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Thursday. He asked the commission and agency staff to develop rules that phase out non-tribal commercial gillnets in the mainstem of the lower Columbia River.

Instead, Kitzhaber wants gillnet use to transition to off-channel safe areas such as Youngs Bay. These areas are stocked with hatchery salmon, so gill-netters could still haul in a healthy harvest without inadvertently catching wild, endangered fish.

Among other steps, the governor wants ODFW to evaluate whether more hatchery fish are needed to supply gill-netters' needs needs and whether they need more or larger safe areas along the river.

The move would also leave more fish for recreational anglers, including many who have lobbied for years to get gill-netters off the main stem. Kitzhaber wants the commission to work with Washington state and develop new rules by the end of this year.

The governor's proposal gets ahead of the November vote on Measure 81, which would prohibit commercial gillnets in the lower Columbia, including in the safe areas.

Brett Brownscombe, one of the governor’s natural resources policy advisors, said the ballot measure prompted Kitzhaber to raise the issue this year instead of 2013, when it was scheduled for the Oregon and Washington commissions to consider. 

Both the ballot measure’s solution and the gillnet status quo “are not acceptable to him,” Brownscombe said.

The governor hasn’t taken a position on whether gillnet opponents should back away from the ballot measure, Brownscombe said. But “if going through the commission now is something that can help avoid an acrimonious and divisive ballot battle, he’s all for that.”

The ability of gillnet opponents to get the measure on the ballot -- a surprise to some -- boosts the political chances for the governor's proposal, which is similar to other proposals that sank in previous legislative sessions.

Stop Gillnets Now, the group behind Measure 81, likes Kitzhaber's plan but is evaluating the details and the governor's ability to execute it. The commission has rejected gillnet restrictions in the past, campaign spokesman Jeremy Wright said.

"We have to evaluate whether they can actually get it done," he said. "There's a healthy skepticism among those who have worked on these issues for years -- good fish policy has gone to die at the ODFW commission level."

The governor's proposal raises the possibility that Oregon could proceed with rules that bump gillnets into safe areas at the same time voters are voting on a ballot measure in November that forbids using gillnets in those same areas.

The measure does not change Oregon's constitution, however, so if voters passed the initiative, the Legislature could modify the rules to allow off-channel gillnet use. Anti-gillnet groups would likely support that if the commission adopts the governor's proposals.

Gillnetting opponents also could choose to back away from supporting the ballot measure, if they're confident Kitzhaber's proposal will stick.

Salmon for All, a key gill-netter group, a key gill-netter group, is also evaluating the proposal and hasn't taken a position yet, President Jim Wells said. 

In the past, they've opposed being shunted solely to off-channel areas, saying it wouldn't provide enough salmon. But now they're in a tough spot, facing a ballot measure with more severe restrictions.

Aunty -
I have not really change my thoughts on this whole issue. Unlike you and Todd I find the Merry-go-ride of plowing the same ground over and over both uninteresting and unproductive.

As an aside I all ready hearing that to ease the potential move away from gill nets that public dollars should be spend to help the commerical fishers with any gear change overs. No can really be surprised that our decision makers would be looking in that direction. Of course once they invest in such a move they would have to see to it that the fishery remains profitable .

As always I remain an interested observer.

Curt

I am hoping that the campaign will continue with the initiative. My gut instinct is that the new proposal by the gov will disappear, if the initiative wins. The governors plan may be the only media campaign they have to undermine the initiative. Then they will drag that out.

“Instead, Kitzhaber wants gillnet use to transition to off-channel safe areas such as Youngs Bay. These areas are stocked with hatchery salmon, so gill-netters could still haul in a healthy harvest without inadvertently catching wild, endangered fish. “

Since when did that become a true statement?

“Among other steps, the governor wants ODFW to evaluate whether more hatchery fish are needed to supply gill-netters' needs and whether they need more or larger safe areas along the river.”

They aren’t going to be able to catch what is available to them already because of the same ESA listed restraints, so more larger safe areas shouldn’t be part of the equation.

“The governor hasn’t taken a position on whether gillnet opponents should back away from the ballot measure, Brownscombe said. But “if going through the commission now is something that can help avoid an acrimonious and divisive ballot battle, he’s all for that.”

I’d like to see a gill net buy back program introduced.----- all or none. $1,000 a piece.

That is $200,000 more than the fish wheel operator s received in the 1930’s when the gill netter faction decided to get rid of some of their competition.

I've concluded that the ballot initiative and the Gov's proposal are mutually exclusive.

I recognize that if the ballot measure passes, the netters can still use the SAFE areas but they could not use gillnets. They would have to use alternative gear such as trap nets, sienes, or whatever.

But if they switch to more selective gear, why have a SAFE area? Just fish in the mainstem Columbia. After all, neither the ballot measure nor the Gov's proposal kick the netters off the mainstem Columbia River. They just mandate a different type of gear. So if the netters switch to a gear type that is more selective, the SAFE areas become moot. There's no reason for their existence since there will always be more hatchery fish on the mainstem.

But if the ballot measure fails, the big question is whether the Commission will still pursue the Gov's proposal. In my view, that's the question that MUST be asked of the Commission. That is - How will the fate of the ballot measure affect how the Commission addresses this issue? Ideally, they would implement the Gov's proposal without regard to the ballot measure. But the opposite might also be true. That is, if the ballot measure fails, why pursue the Gov's proposal since the people of Oregon will have rejected the idea of eliminating gill nets?

Either way, the Gov's proposal, while well meaning, will likely have a short life span.

Also, the ballot initiative does not re-allocate the fishery. The fish managers (States and Tribes) do that. The Feds (NMFS) set the overall cap on mortality (e.g., 2%) and the fish managers decides who get what.

However, if there is reduced mortality on wild fish because the gillnets are no longer used in the Lower C, it's likely the Tribes will negotiate for some of the "savings" to ensure "catch - balancing". That is, they will seek some foregone opportunity in the Lower Columbia to ensure they get their 50%. Given the difficulites of forecasting the spring Chinook run the past several years, they will probably get it.

Interesting Aunty.

When the state tried to put some of the NI share of Chinook on the grounds instead of in nets (approx 300) the local tribes said no, we'll take them.

If an escapement target is identified, the state and tribes agree that any fish above that would be "wasted" if not caught by some sort of fisherman. The "shares" are harvestable fish. If the state chooses not to harvest those fish (ask a Hoh river steelhead angler) then the tribe does.

Now,if the state felt that the escapement number was too low they could fight fpr a higher number, but that would reduce the "harvestable" and so would probably not have tribal support.

Aunty - We don't disagree that much.

I agree that the State will decide how to use any "savings" that might accrue from the reduced mortality from the gill nets. They could re-allocate it to other users or they could apply it to conservation. But the point remains that niether ballot initiative in Oregon nor the Gov's proposal discuss reallocation; and the State (OR/WA) retains the right to decide. I think we agree on that.

My point in mentioning the Tribes is just to point out that they will likely seek to negotiate some of those savings. If the pre-season forecast was close to perfect, and the Tribes always got their 50% allocation, they would not have a "leg to stand on" in any negotiations. But that's not the case. The past several years, the Tribes got less than the State managed fisheries (commercial/recreational). They got squeezed between the ESA impact limit, a inaccurate pre-season forecast, and a highly (?) efficient recreational/commercial fishery in the Lower C. As such, the Tribes had to cease fishing for springers because if they did, they would exceed the NMFS ESA limits. As such they didn't get their share. In other words, "catch-balancing" didn't work. The Tribes were, and still are, livid. They will not let this happen again.

My guess (and that's all it is) is that they will try to negotiate some of the savings to ensure they get their 50%. I'm not saying they would try to re-allocate the fishery in their favor; but rather, they would seek to guarantee what they're supposed to get (50%). And given the difficulties of getting an accurate pre-season forecast, they have a good point.....

If and when the tribes are truly squeezed from their share, the managemnt agreement already have remedies in place.

Not so.... Gov's plan explicitly takes non-treaty commercials off the mainstem, but still allows gillnets.

Initiative eliminates the gillnet option from commercial fishing altogether.

Todd,

Your math assumes that there is no limit on harvest of the target species. I don't know much about this fishery, but is that true?

In other words, is it guaranteed that, even using seine nets, they will hit the limit on ESA listed fish before they exhaust whatever limit there may be on their target fish?

No, unfortunately tons of the hatchery fish miss all the fisheries altogether and end up at hatcheries, or worse, spawning.

That was supposed to be one of the benefits of making sure the commercial guys got more fish with the seines than they get with the gillnets, to keep fish off the spawning grounds...right, Francis?

(I figure he'll have to answer that question one of these times I ask )

The point of that was to make sure they don't cut hatchery production.

If, however, they let too many hatchery fish past the fisheries by moving the commercial guys out of the mainstem, or limiting their catch, then that whole conservation point is moot, and the actual reason steps back to the forefront again...just more fish for us, with no actual conservation benefit.

Again, I have no problem with that...it would just be more honest to come out and say it and do it than to have all these pretend reasons to do it when that is both the final goal and the final result.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd's point, shared by others, is that the total harvest is limited by the take of ESA fish. If 10 ESA fish is the limit, then when they die the fishery is done. It doesn't matter where or how they die. It doesn't matter who kills them; 10 will die.

The harvest of hatchery fish is limited now by number of listed fish. So, one can reduce the number of hatchery fish so that a non-selective fishery can proceed. Or, one can fish selectively, kill the listed fish at a slower rate, and take more hatchery fish. That is my understanding of the goal of making the gillnetters go selective; access to more hatchery fish at the same cost in listeds.

I understand that, once you hit your ESA listed fish limit, you have to stop fishing for the non-listed target fish.

My question is whether the target fish population is practically unlimited.

If it's not, then there is a chance that a method that greatly reduces the rate of non-target fish take would result in exhaustion of the target fish resource *before* you hit the ESA-listed fish limit.

I'm ignorant regarding the actual numbers involved. But, for a probably-not-realistic hypothetical example, if seine netting reduced the rate of bycatch to one ESA-listed fish for every 20,000 target fish taken, and the ESA-listed bycatch limit is 20,000 fish, then you would exhaust the target fish limit before exhausting the bycatch limit, unless there are actually 400,000,000 target fish available for harvest.

So, my point is, you can't just assume that the ESA bycatch will be the limiting factor as a theoretical matter. Maybe the actual numbers work out so that it will be the limiting factor in most cases, but that's not obvious without more analysis of the numbers.

Yes, it is, in relation to the number of ESA fish swimming around. The vast majority are not harvested.

Without a greatly curtailed hatchery production model we will never hit a limit on how many hatchery fish can be harvested before hitting the ESA impacts. That's the whole point of this conversation, and it's not an assumption, it's how it is.

Fish on...

Todd

Well, your conclusion certainly rests on assumptions regarding the bycatch rate of non-gill nets and, as you mentioned, levels of hatchery fish abundance.

You saying that's "the way it is" may be absolutely right, but it's also absolutely unconvincing without an explanation of *why* that's the way it is.

I'm not sure if convincing anyone of anything is your goal or not.

My goal is more to let people know that things are often far, far more complex than "gillnets kill all the fish and birds and mammals and we'll be better off without them"...the kneejerk reaction is to say "of course"...but it's just not correct in this case.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. In the entire run up to this initiative, all the misinformation on both sides of the debate (pro-initiative and the gillnetters), and all the "it'll do this!" and "it'll do that!", the most useful part so far is Kitzhaber saying that the economic benefits of sportfishing should be a, if not "the", driving factor in LCR management.

Well, that's fair enough.

At any rate, even if the only result (of either the gov's proposal or the ballot issue) is to shift more fish to the sport fishery, that's probably a good thing for both sportfishing and the economy at large.

Not really that hard to remove more CR hatchery stocks, increase sport opportunities, raise the daily limit, allow two rod permits and install excluders at the dam and remove as many hatchery fish as required.
Below the dam weirs could be installed to remove hatchery wild interaction.