From the following check out Kitzhaber's letter -

http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/director/ltr_levy_elicker_from_governor_080912.pdf

Curt

Nice.

We (either as individuals or maybe CCA or someone) should send a copy to the campaigns of Jay Inslee and Rob McKenna and see if either of them are willing to take a similar anti-gillnet, pro-selective-fishery stance.

Ok, I just sent inquiries to the Inslee and McKenna campaigns. I'll let everyone know if I get a response.

"Interesting" is a huge understatement.

This is the beginning of the most significant change in Columbia River salmon managment we've seen.

Next Tuesdays 2pm ODFW commission hearing will be worth listening to.

Looks great at the get-go, but once the initial euphoria fades, there's an awful lot of attention given to increased commercial opportunity. Lots of potential for devils in the details. Keep those eyes and ears open. Cautious optimism seems like the order of the day.

We're having WDFW Commissioner Larry Carpenter on tomorrow morning to discuss the WDFW implications of Governor Kitzhaber's letter.

In fact, WDFW Director Phil Anderson has already penned a response!

I agree it should be approached with cautious optimism but when I read Kitzhaber's letter, I didn't get the sense that there was going to be a great influx of commercial opportunity. On the contrary, quoting his 5th point.....

""The commission should shift mainstem fishery harvest impacts available under this proposed approach to recreational fisheries in order to provide more fishing opportunity & economic benefit."

Of course, I'll believe it when I see it.

The proposal isn't a cure-all by a long shot but it's a helluva lot better than the status-quo. Really going to be interesting how this pans out.

I also read TJN's link to Phil Anderson's reply. Frankly, it sounded like a less-than-rosey endorsement IMO. He's probably already getting a headache contemplating Puget Sound, Willapa, Grays Harbor and the Columbia non-tribal gillnet free.

A major politician suggesting that recreational fisheries be given priority over commerical fishing because of the economic impacts such activities generate could potentially have far reaching impacts - the rest pales in comparison.

Tight lines
Curt

Sounds damn good.....but we'll see what shakes out. I'll admit, though, that simple verbalization of a sport fishery priority gets my attention.

Its the safe for salmon plan. If it was so fkn great, they could have done it four years ago. More safe areas? Like what, Willipa Bay? Not too mention this takes all the pressure off the tribes to use seines. All of it can be unwound over a period of years, since it wont be law.

I'm definitely excited to see sport fishing and economic benefit showing up in the same sentence from the pen of a governor. I've long thought the overall economic benefit of sport fishing vs. commercial fishing should be our strongest argument in favor of increasing sport opportunity, so reading that was music to my eyes. I sincerely hope my hesitation is unfounded, but I think if everyone reads that letter again, they might see some of the statements preventing me from getting too excited about this just yet.

Remember that the author is, first and foremost, a politician, campaigning for re-election with every written or spoken word. He didn't get where he is by telling the majority of the voting population things they didn't want to hear. Most voters stop listening and start running for the polling booths as soon as they hear something they like. It's the words spoken beyond that point that all too often leave the voters wondering where they went wrong in the aftermath.

I should add that a reason to be more optimistic in this case is that this governor, based on his title, appears to be a doctor (not a lawyer), which should mean he's less adept at being ambiguous in what he says than most politicians....

Be moderately excited and extremely watchful is my mantra in times of political upheaval.

Leading from behind, is not a good quality.

LB -
I too am not much of a fan of "safe areas" - just another way of shifting more of the harvestable fish to the commerical side of the ledger./

That is way I thought that assigning a high priroity to the potential increased economic value generated by the recreational fish could be significant. Imagine the increase in economic value (not to mention the quality fishing that would follow) if the Willapa netting returned to the mid September Chinook opening and area 2T was open for significant periods during the rest of the fall.

Not only would the Commerical fleet conitnue to catch fish (though they would generate less value/fish) with the return of a quality small boat marine Chinook fish for a month (early/mid August through mid-September) and increased coho opportunity for the hook and line crowd the total economic value the fish returning from the extensive hatchery programs would increase over current levels.

All it takes is simple shift from a paradigm that emphasis the maximum numbers of dead fish (and full commerical fish boxes) to one where the emphasis is managing the various fisheries to yield the best economic return.

TJ -
Have to wonder what Commissioner Carpenter thinks about such a paradigm shift in the yardstick used to determine resource allocations? Of course such decision at likely well down the road.

Tight lines
Curt

The way I read it is that the gillnets would be phased out of the mainstem and moved to the off channel areas which were also called SAFE areas. The problem with gillnets use in the SAFE areas are that ESA listed also swim through those areas and was reported to the commission by WDFW staff that an unusual amount of ESA listed were caught AND KILLED several years back.
Also, when gill net test fisheries were being done in the 1990’s there was up to 11 not targeted fish being caught per targeted fish.

THERE IS NO PLACE IN THE COLUMBIA RIVER WHERE GILL NETS SHOULD BE ACCEPTIABLE INCLUDING:

MAINSTEM OR OFF CHANNEL----- PERIOD.

It may take a while to sink in, but yesterday will be written in Col. R. and NW history as the day the gill nets died. This letter was the culmination of many hundreds of hours of hard work by some very dedicated volunteers, and the result of many thousands of dollars of dues and banquet purchases.

One of the guys from Oregon apparently has the numbers on the safe area production pens. In summary, it costs almost as much as the fishery is worth, it may lose money.

You might want to ask that guy why ODFW fin clips all the salmon out of Youngs Bay if it's just a commercial fisherie only.

Agree.

The old adage of "lead or get out of the way" certainly comes to mind. As others have pointed out this is a politician who has had years in office to effect a change and has accomplished nothing on this issue. Most recently he failed to take the opportunity to support one of the three legislative approaches which all ultimately failed in the Oregon legislature under pressure from the commercial fishing industry.

Now that CCA has an initiative approved to go before the voters with strong citizen support Kitzhaber has decided to weigh in with his recommendation which gives lip service to the issue but certainly is not a strong endorsement of the initiative.

In fact, it might seem to a skeptic to be an attempt to undermine the initiative effort by floating an already discarded alternative.

Being from Washington we are all too familiar with political skulduggery impacting management of our fisheries.........

I never said it was commercial only ya dirtbag. It doesnt pencil out and neither does Willipa Bay. Its time to raise your fees.

AuntyM/LarryB -
I understand and even share your skepticism after all Ktizhaber is a politician! What made the letter "interesting" is that these issues are starting to make the main stream of the politician's rheotic and by default the public.

Curt