An important message to NSIA Businesses and our Friends in Sport fishing Advocacy from B.G. Eilertson, Dan Grogan and Scott Harden.





SAFE for Salmon Website Launched!



SAFE for Salmon today announced the launch of its website (www.safeforsalmon.com) as an important tool in its ongoing campaign to create better fishing opportunities for all Columbia River users.



SAFE for Salmon, a wide coalition of conservation and sports fishing groups is pushing legislation in Salem that will end the longstanding catch allocation dispute between commercial and sport fishers that has gridlocked Columbia River fisheries management. This will be achieved by prioritizing the mainstream for sport fishing through the relocation of commercial gillnets into SAFE areas. In brief, the bill:

· Moves all non-tribal commercial fishing into well-established (and perhaps some new) selected SAFE zones off the mainstem Columbia River below Bonneville Dam.

· Increases the number of hatchery smolts released in those zones.

· Prioritizes the lower Columbia mainstem for sport fishing.

· Ends wasteful gill-net bycatch of federally protected salmon and small sturgeon.

· Reduces stray hatchery salmon on spawning grounds.

· Increases smolts (especially coho and fall chinook) entering the Pacific Ocean.

BG Eliertson of Joe’s encourages visits to the website. “www.safeforsalmon.com is your one shop stop for making a difference. Visitors can and should donate, volunteer and endorse the campaign right online. People need to see this site and learn more about this effort which is why I am challenging every angler with a website or blog to put a link to www.safeforsalmon.com on their homepage. It truly is a link to the future and a link to success. Let’s put in the effort and get a management framework that works.”

“This is the most important issue in the sports fishing community right now,” said Fishermans Marine and Outdoor President Dan Grogran. “The industry is facing economic disaster because anglers cannot get out on the water. SAFE for Salmon will lead to regular seasons, better fishing and brighter days for our ailing industry. We need the entire community to rally around this effort”

Scott Harden of All Sports agreed, “SAFE for Salmon is a way out of the woods. The status quo is killing us and killing fish. SAFE for Salmon offers a win-win solution that legislators can get behind. Anglers who are tired of early closures and short seasons need to be asking themselves, ‘what can I do to support this campaign’.”

SAFE for Salmon Campaign Director Colin Cochran reiterated the importance of the campaign and hailed the website launch as an important step. “This is a fight we can and must win,” said Cochran. “Our campaign is conducting an intensive lobbying effort that is gaining serious traction in Salem. Legislators are realizing that the price of inaction is irreparable harm to the resource, the commercial and sport fishing industries and the economy as a whole. The timing is right and we will win this campaign if we are able to launch a massive and sustained wave of constituent contact towards Salem. We need every concerned angle and citizen writing, calling, emailing and visiting their legislator on a regular basis and we need them to start now. The website will give supporters tips on the best way to contact their elected representatives, which is why it is such an important tool.”

You know the funny thing Aunty, during any given season on the CR when the nets are in sportanglers just can't say enough good things about having to fish with the nets in the river.
So there seems to be at least a few people who think segregating the commercials off the mainstream is a good idea.
From your comments it appears that we have another issue where you really didn't read what was on the SFS website.
FYI, the name came from the BPA, the one's who actually came up with this idea.

Your angry tone aside...

How can you criticize SAFEforSalmon for moving commercials off the mainstem permanently, when the "solution" you tout, HB2579, gives the commercials a permanent presence on the mainstem, allows gillnets to remain, moves more of the allowable mainstem harvest from sports to commercials, and the bitter allocation battles will continue.

Here is the meat of HB2579 -- {(3) The commission by rule may permit fixed fishing gear or seines for the taking of salmon for commercial purposes from the Columbia River. In adopting any rule the commission shall give due consideration to ensuring that the use of the fishing gear will protect natural runs and the genetic diversity of anadromous fish as specified in ORS 508.718.}

All HB2579 accomplishes is an amplification of mainstem commercial harvest -- at the expense of sportfishing. It potentially brings a whole new category of commercial harvesters onto the mainstem, in direct competition with anglers.

HB2579 takes SAFEforSalmon's concept of prioritizing the mainstem for recreational harvest and turns it on its head, by instead enhanceing commercial fishing on the mainstem.

Additionally, under HB2579 all the above bad stuff happens and the current SAFE areas remain, with both WA and OR moving production to them -- with NOTHING for sports anglers in return.

How about getting the non-treaty commercial fishers out of the lower Columbia altogether?

I'm not understanding why everyone seems to be in such a big hurry to provide them with alternatives to just getting the hell out of there, which is what really needs to happen.

Fish on...

Todd

SAFE doesn't do that, and the current legislation being proposed won't do anything to remove gillnets, either...that's my problem with it.

Like I said before, they can pass a law allowing sporties to use spears in the lower Columbia, but I'll still stick to rods and reels, they actually work.

Fish on...

Todd

I'm willing to bet that you couldn't point out the Safe Areas on a map.
Or how many now exist.

This will get you started with a little history on the SAFE areas.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2008/08/aug0908_14_safe.pdf

Ya see Aunty you don't really know that much about the SAFE areas, check out page 8 of the reader, notice how far from the main channel these areas are.

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/OSCRP/CRM/FS/03/03julysafact.pdf

You lost me at mortality on wild fish, what wild fish? There are no wild fish in the SAFE areas, did you even look at the map?
Can you tell me how many SAFE areas now exist?
You seem to have a definite negative opinion on a subject you know very little about.

I'd be more inclined to consider your opinion more seriously, but you don't seem to have much of a grasp on what the SAFE area is all about. Just so you know it's not a cute catchy title, it's short for Select Area Fishery Evaluation SAFE.
You don't know where many of the areas are, you don't know how many there are, yet your so quick to condemn.
Here's some more information you really need to read.

www.cbfwa.org/FWProgram/ReviewCycle/fy2003lc/projects/199306000n.doc

AuntyM, I can appreciate that line of reasoning. The difference is, the geography of the Columbia, with all its off-channel areas is unique. Otherwise we could not do what' s being proposed. And that is a compromise that is politically feasible.

I don't see allowing gillnets in these off-channel areas as precluding your efforts to ban them from Gray's Harbor. Keep in mind, we've already banned them from other Oregon waters.

I do want to put this issue behind us, and work on even larger issues that impact our Columbia runs. The alternative you're supporting just keeps the fight going on endlessly.

Ya, I know, no one gives a sh!t what I have to say ..…anyway…..best for the Columbia River:
1 . Take out at least the Snake River dams….Not politically feasible at this time.
2. Outright ban gillnets…. Not politically feasible, at least in the near future, might happen eventually with a long drawn out fight. Also the parties interested in this can’t seem to organize a hard on in a whore house. The real fight against this, believe it or not, will come from the large fish company’s that see a grass root organized gillnet ban as the camel sticking it’s nose in the tent of their Alaska fisheries, some of which have serious issues. At least that’s how it was with I696.
3. Replace gillnets with seines or fish wheels or traps at dams….Too socialistic for our capitalist system of rugged individuals who envision themselves catching way more fish than the other guy (and some do) with their gillnet. Fish wheels and traps worked for fish company’s that didn’t have to divide the catch between a number of individuals, namely the gillnetters that the traps/wheels would fish for co- operatively. Not saying something like this is imposable. Chignik seine permit holders agreed to have a few seiners catch the quota and divide the profit between all license holders a few years ago ,but that was a temporary agreement, unlikely to happen with the CR gillnet fishery.
4. SAFE for Salmon…seems like a step in the right direction that could be implemented fairly soon. I see nothing in this that is written in stone that couldn’t be changed at some latter date.
One last point that fits in here somewhere. When hatcheries are overwhelmed with surplus fish, as they sometimes are, there are politicians who question why we are paying to raise these fish if they are not being caught and in river sport fishing is inefficient. (don’t take this as support for commercial fishing, just a fact)
Conclusion….Implement 4 and work toward 1 and 2. Let the tribes handle the commercial side with some form of 3.

SFS bans all mainstem gillnetting, period.
They will be regulated to the net pen fisheries only.

The final wording for the SFS is being drafted, I can assure you that the intent of this bill is to BAN ALL GILLNETTING in the mainstem CR, period.
As the bill moves foreword it will be fine tuned to accomplish just that.

Any proposed bills can and will have amendments added as it makes it's way through the Legislative process before it's finalized into law, the intent of SFS is to remove all gillnetting from the mainstem of the CR.

AuntyM, Yes both our bills are being amended to clarify that gillnetting of all species is prohibited.

They were supposed to say that from the beginning. Unfortunately Legislative Counsel which in Oregon does the actual drafting, made the error, and didn't edit the statute's existing language. It's a common occurrence, and will be corrected.

From the first release of our position papers, banning all mainstem gillnetting and prioritizing the mainstem for sportfishing has been the stated goal.

You don't know how many SAFE areas there are, or where they are located, you also don't seem to know the history of the SAFE areas, and yet you want people to reject the plan?
Face it Aunty you just hate gillnets, so why bother reading about any plans to relocate them to neutralize their negative effects.
SFS is a political solution, it's designed to be acceptable to politicians, so it's a compromise.
I could start attacking your plan, but you don't have one.

SFS is still in play in the Oregon Legislature, no bill ever makes it through the process without amendments.

The real scam here is you trying to convince people that the SFS plan isn't a good one, all the while you yourself don't seem to know anything specific about it.
You don't know the history behind the SAFE areas, or how many there are, you couldn't point them out on a map, and yet you say it's a bad plan.
A plan is better than no plan.

So why do we need to have non tribal gillnetting for salmon on the Columbia??

Just to be clear, many of those groups aren't endorsing the "selective fishing" legislation which would also allow the use of gillnets not just in the SAFE areas, but in the rest of the Lower Columbia River, as well.

The gillnets have to be banned down there, period. They serve no useful purpose except to waste millions of taxpayer dollars and lost sportfishing and tourist revenue for a handful of dollars for a handful of folks engaged in an activity that is an historical anachronism.

Fish on...

Todd