#995223 - 10/25/18 06:30 PM
Re: SUSEWIND... why so lo-pro?
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7577
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
One of he things we have learned with trout is that if you want to kill very many, they need to be hatchery fish. Going to wild fish management will significantly reduce harvests.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#995300 - 10/26/18 01:25 PM
Re: SUSEWIND... why so lo-pro?
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
Repeat Spawner
Registered: 07/01/04
Posts: 1276
Loc: North Creek
|
...and that's where it comes back to what are the objectives. Self-perpetuating, sustainable runs or lots of fish for everyone to harvest. With our current habitat we don't get both. Designated hatchery streams and wild streams, on the surface, seems like a reasonable compromise to provide harvest while retaining a few museum pieces of wild fish runs. I'm doubtful the ultimate solution is possible of repairing habitat and policies to the point that we have sustainable wild runs providing high sustainable harvest levels.
Of course there's the issues of ocean conditions and feed to grow extra hatchery fish, Intercept of said increased hatchery fish by foreign and national commercial fisheries, and mixed-stock ocean/sound sport fisheries that make even a compromise solution doubtful.
Which leaves us with the status quo: Get mine while the getting is good and race to the bottom ...
_________________________
. . . and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and have dominion over the fish of the sea . . .
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#995312 - 10/26/18 03:03 PM
Re: SUSEWIND... why so lo-pro?
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7577
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
In order to have large populations of anadromous fish we must make significant changes in how the ocean is managed. If you want an upper-level predator you have to provide the food base. I seriously doubt that we, as a society, are willing to throw shellfish, forage fish, salmon, rockfish, tuna, pinnipeds, whales, cormorants, terns, and who knows what else into the pot and make public decisions on each species.
When and if we do that we can then move to the habitat.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#995365 - 10/27/18 08:05 PM
Re: SUSEWIND... why so lo-pro?
[Re: geljockey]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 04/25/00
Posts: 5001
Loc: East of Aberdeen, West of Mont...
|
Good heads up for posting this interview...… my take, some goods ideas BUT I've heard good ideas before.... I'm thinking that increase costs with very little benefit for those paying the bill. 1800 employees ????? seems that number is a increase, always a touchy point when you talk about increase costs but continue to hire when maybe some personnel reduction needs to be "on the table".... I know that there are proposed license fee increases, funny thing....never saw any meeting where the public was involved in these increases....just WDFW personnel.....mmmmmmm
_________________________
"Worse day sport fishing, still better than the best day working"
"I thought growing older, would take longer"
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#995439 - 10/29/18 07:48 AM
Re: SUSEWIND... why so lo-pro?
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 3336
|
Funny thing about natural resource management is that it gets more costly as the resource becomes more scarce, leading to more situations that require more careful (well-staffed) management. In the end, mountains of money will be spent on lip service while we continue to ignore the fact that's always been right in our face: we can't harvest our way to recovery.
I read an article last night that said Pacific Ocean hypoxia events, which occurred rarely in the 20th century, have occurred annually on the West Coast since 2002. That points to an increasingly hostile ocean, and it seems no matter what we do on our end, the ocean has the most to say about how many fish survive to adulthood in a given year. I think we see proof on occasion (in years where the ocean is friendly and the fisheries managers underestimate the runs) that our habitat can still produce a lot of wild salmon under the right conditions, but a hostile ocean can erase even the most successful of spawns. Is there anything we can really do to fix ocean conditions?
Between us killing everything we (think) we can, year after year, increasing pressure to protect other salmon-dependent species, and oceans that are changing in ways detrimental to salmon, the chances that any management tweaks a WDFW Director suggests makes a positive difference seem pretty poor.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#995531 - 10/30/18 11:38 AM
Re: SUSEWIND... why so lo-pro?
[Re: Bay wolf]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 01/17/04
Posts: 3732
Loc: Sheltona Beach
|
There is one thing we can all agree upon, when the system collapses, it will be someone else's fault.... When? Dude, it is happening now. Has been in decline for years.
_________________________
When we are forgotten, we cease to exist . Share your outdoor skills.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#995538 - 10/30/18 12:39 PM
Re: SUSEWIND... why so lo-pro?
[Re: slabhunter]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 03/03/09
Posts: 4489
Loc: Somewhere on the planet,I hope
|
Freefall is a better description of the current situation.
_________________________
Dazed and confused.............the fog is closing in
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#995559 - 10/30/18 05:06 PM
Re: SUSEWIND... why so lo-pro?
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7577
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
Freefall is not the problem. When they finally hit bottom, now that will hurt.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#996730 - 11/13/18 07:23 PM
Re: SUSEWIND... why so lo-pro?
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
Ornamental Rice Bowl
Registered: 11/24/03
Posts: 12615
|
Packed house in Monte to meet Susewind tonight! Agenda a bit haphazard, but a few getting their beefs off their chest.
_________________________
"Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." (Zane Grey) "If you don't kill them, they will spawn." (Carcassman) The Keen Eye MDLong Live the Kings!
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#996752 - 11/14/18 07:38 AM
Re: SUSEWIND... why so lo-pro?
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
Returning Adult
Registered: 03/06/14
Posts: 275
Loc: Tumwater
|
I couldn't make the meeting. What were the major issues brought up?
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#996755 - 11/14/18 08:08 AM
Re: SUSEWIND... why so lo-pro?
[Re: Tug 3]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3031
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
|
I couldn't make the meeting. What were the major issues brought up? And the Director's responses? In short, did he provide specific commitments to remedy any of the myriad of Region 6 issues?
_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!
It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#996757 - 11/14/18 09:02 AM
Re: SUSEWIND... why so lo-pro?
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 04/25/00
Posts: 5001
Loc: East of Aberdeen, West of Mont...
|
What I remember, being brought up:
Wolf, seal/sea lions, Satsop reds, cougar, Willapa problems, sturgeon, budget, Wynoochee Mitigation, gill net tribe/NT figures not posted regular, ocean bottom fish, Eel grass in Willapa, accountability to public, Hood Canal problems, Chinook salmon raised to feed Orca......I'm sure there were more but ????????
Not sure new director will be as aggressive in the leadership role to get done what needs to be done...….Time tells !!!!!!
Edited by DrifterWA (11/14/18 09:07 AM)
_________________________
"Worse day sport fishing, still better than the best day working"
"I thought growing older, would take longer"
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#996764 - 11/14/18 10:23 AM
Re: SUSEWIND... why so lo-pro?
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 3031
Loc: University Place and Whidbey I...
|
Deja vous all over again? Seems I recall former Directer Unsworth conducting a similar series of public meetings.
_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!
It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#998344 - 12/07/18 05:04 PM
Re: SUSEWIND... why so lo-pro?
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 3336
|
Bad news from the public meetings with Susewind...
From CCA:
WDFW Director Kelly Susewind was asked about efforts to remove non-selective gillnets from our rivers during a “digital open house” event on November 28. The question and his disappointing response can be viewed HERE. In his response, Director Susewind repeated industry claims that gillnets are selective by “time, area and place” and suggested that gillnets can be an effective tool for harvesting excess returning hatchery fish. These arguments simply don’t stand up to scrutiny in mixed-stock fisheries where you have ESA-listed, wild, and hatchery fish intermingled, which is currently the norm for most Washington salmon fisheries. Claims that gillnets are selective also fly in the face of the consequences of decades of non-selective overharvest: extinctions, ESA listings, and depressed salmon runs – even in areas with suitable habitat. The gillnet question came up during a 1 ˝-hour digital open house that covered a range of topics dealing with key issues facing the agency. WDFW has also hosted a series of local open house meetings as part of its effort to build support for a $60 million budget increase though higher license fees and additional state general funds. WDFW is also requesting that the Legislature reauthorize the $8.50 Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead endorsement, which is annually purchased by over 200,000 recreational anglers who fish the Columbia River basin. It expires next year. Director Susewind conceded that he had more to learn about the issue. You can email him directly at Kelly.Susewind@dfw.wa.gov if you would like to share your views and first-hand experiences with gillnets. Please keep your email constructive and courteous.
I also encourage you to contact the Director. I suppose it's good to be constructive, but at this point, I don't see any reason to be courteous.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#998357 - 12/07/18 09:20 PM
Re: SUSEWIND... why so lo-pro?
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7577
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
Gillnets are very selective, much more so than hook and line. But, their selectivity is by size. Each mesh size selects for a certain size. An example of where it worked well was when Skagit coho needed protection during a chum fishery. Chum mesh (around 6") was mandated and few coho were caught. Then. steelhead seasons started and mesh sizes were dropped. Lots of coho showed up in the catch. The larger mesh protected the coho.
Even though they are size selective they are not hatchery/wild selective.
Further, the selectivity of gill nets has been shown to change size of the spawning population. In BC, the sockeye fishery removed the smaller chum which resulted in an increase in chum spawner size.
There is a time and place for gill nets but they are being overused.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#998362 - 12/08/18 04:05 AM
Re: SUSEWIND... why so lo-pro?
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 3336
|
Size selectivity is the one (almost) legitimate argument. Trouble with that one is that non-target species (piscatorial and otherwise) of similar girth get just as stuck as salmon... Then the wild fish factor.... Besides that, my observation has been that as the fish get smaller, so goes the mesh size.
I am less upset about tribal gillnetting (the terminal tributary variety) these days, because at least they select for target stocks (of course, those also kill too many wild fish).
Had gillnet fisheries been managed better over the past several decades, they would still be sustainable today, in my opinion. We've been taking too much, too non-selectively, for too long, and at this point, there's probably not a net fishery left that doesn't kill endangered fish or endangered something else.
It's time for commercial fisheries to evolve, before there's nothing left to catch. If our habitat's as screwed as we're told it is, we at least need to stop wasting potential spawners... don't we?
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#998367 - 12/08/18 08:07 AM
Re: SUSEWIND... why so lo-pro?
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 7577
Loc: Olema,California,Planet Earth
|
The true non-selective, age destroying, size destroying fisheries have historically been the marine mixed stock hook and line. Commercial troll and rec.
Fisheries have to evolve, not just the commercial fisheries because dead fish don't spawn and it really doesn't matter how they die. That wild black mouth that is released and dies is just as much a non-spawner as the adult wild fish that is "incidentally" killed in a gill net in its home stream.
Traps, fish wheels, dipnets, and reef nets that are actively tended are probably best for selectivity. In order to save and restore our fish there does need to be a complete reboot of the manner in which they are harvested. All sectors need to be involved. I doubt it will happen because of the amount of money already invested.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#998371 - 12/08/18 09:41 AM
Re: SUSEWIND... why so lo-pro?
[Re: eyeFISH]
|
River Nutrients
Registered: 10/28/09
Posts: 3336
|
Yeah. I think you have it right.
The first time I saw the announcement I posted, I didn't read past "Susewind, gillnets, and selective" before reacting in the typical, angry way I do anytime I read accounts of our fisheries managers justifying fisheries that do too much collateral damage... No matter what the fishery. Having read through the whole thing, I see the irony of saltwater sport anglers condemning other groups/methods as non-selective. As long as we want to fish saltwater, we ought not make such outrageous claims.
Ultimately, I think all the salmon fishing, sport or commercial, should be in terminal areas. Also, considering some of the ridiculous things we can do with technology and innovation, I just don't buy that we can't find a more sustainable way to farm fish for markets. Everybody's going to have to make some sacrifices if we're to be able to fish for salmon long-term. My position is that the increasing number of places freshwater anglers can no longer fish due to relentless, perennial overfishing in the salt and estuaries has been a painful sacrifice, and mayne it's time for some other stakeholders to share some pain.
You said something about the money invested. To that, I can only say YES. A lot of money is being spent on the privilege to harvest the last salmon, and the ones with the least money are absorbing the full burden of conservation. The real hell of it is that none of these river closures help; the damage has been done before the fish get there, as evidenced by decreasing escapement goals.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
3 registered (28 Gage, Krijack, 1 invisible),
579
Guests and
3
Spiders online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
11498 Members
16 Forums
63822 Topics
646113 Posts
Max Online: 3937 @ 07/19/24 03:28 AM
|
|
|