Columbia River fisheries makeover, Round 2

At the start of the meeting, sportsmen and gillnetters jammed into the ballroom of the Portland airport hotel, there to watch the revamping of fishing on the lower Columbia River. Hotel staff scrambled to find additional chairs.

And eight hours later, well, perhaps two dozen spectators remained.

Nobody said last week’s meeting of the Columbia River Fisheries Management Reform Workgroup would be thrilling to watch. The next session, on Nov. 15 in Astoria, likely will be equally dry.

But, incrementally, Washington and Oregon are overhauling the structure of commercial ....
http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/oct/24/columbia-river-fisheries-makeover-round-2/

Does anyone know whether the suggested commercial/recreational division of the harvest pie is just for the main stem Columbia? The main stem Columbia plus the "SAFE areas"? or all fisheries?

I can see where all three would be very different.

Curt

I believe its just mainstem and the tribes are making some moves on their own so it's as the (World Turns Round 2)

Yes. It is for the Mainstem.

Thus, Oregon moved smolts from the Willamette down to the select areas to provide more gillnet spring chinook.
Oregon basicly owns the lower river. Those fish are not counted because they are of lower river origin.

I'm having a hard time seeing a sport fishing benefit by increasing the sport allocation from 60% to 70% if OR is moving hatchery spring chinook from the Willamette to Young's Bay.

Also, the Kitzhaber plan does not totally remove gillnets from the mainstem Columbia, except during the spring. Whenever salmon are more abundant than the sport fishery can fully harvest, (summer chinook, fall chinook, and coho) the gillnetters are allowed in the mainstem.

Groups have been duped into dropping their support Measure 81.

http://www.registerguard.com/web/news/ci...asures.html.csp



Kitzhaber just derailed another ballot measure the Tribes didn't like and threatened to sue the State of Oregon over.

The developers faced growing resistance in recent weeks as Gov. John Kitzhaber and former governors Ted Kulongoski, Barbara Roberts and Vic Atiyeh all came out against their plans.



Didnt see where Kitzhaber threatened to sue anywhere in that article SBD.

To trust kitzhaber at all would be foolish. A lot like trusting you.

Thanks to you and the rest of the gillnetters, I have decided to vote yes on 81 regardless of the CCA and the NW steelheaders.

Didn't say Kitz threatened to sue I would say he's trying to keep the State of Oregon from getting sued. I assume you have seen the commercials?

Kudos to the good people of Oregon for realizing that taxes on gambling is NOT the right way to fund public interests. Preying on the weakest citizens is not a socially responsible means of generating tax revenues. I sincerely hope a similar level of sanity continues to prevail in Washington. Even if Kitzhaber's only motivation for opposing the casino was to avoid a tribal lawsuit, he's doing the right thing for his constituents. Can't say the same for the slimy way he undermined the gillnet ban, but oh, well.

http://wallowa.com/opinion/regional_opin...19bb2963f4.html



Does this help? and I know CCA 's brain dead management isn't a great source of information.

I'm guessing NSIA and NW Steelheaders thought that pissing off the best ally they have in the CR wasn't in their best interest.

There will be more upriver fish with the Chief Joseph Hatchery due to come online soon.
While the groups have dropped support of 81, the people still have have free will to vote in favor of the measure.