will selective com. fishing ruin sportfishing ?

any opinions ??

Now you are trolling. No, thanks.

if you don't have the mental ability to comprehend the question and answer it with a common sense answer i understand

Will commercial selective harvest methods ruin sportfishing?
I really don't think so, commercials are headed for the SAFE Areas, where harvest methods impacts really don't matter very much.

Less hatchery fish in the equation means more mortality will be assessed to each perspective outing. Shorter seasons, less fish.

Really?????? Tell me where those SAFE areas are in Region 6......ie: Willipa Bay and Chehalis River and on the Humptulips side....lot's of sportsmen would like to know!!!!!

Thanks...........

they have looked at the idea, check page 8

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2008/08/aug0908_14_safe.pdf

The only problem with selective harvest is that the Columbia River steelhead and spring chinook will get raped (even more so) before they ever return to their natal areas -- in Idaho. Don't forget that 4 out of 7 spring chinook entering the Columbia are destined for Idaho. Most summer steelhead entering the Columbia are destined for Idaho as well.

I'm against it purely for the reason that Idaho fisherman, who have partly funded the slaughter in the lower Columbia, will continue to get the shaft when it comes to harvest shares. I hate to use wild chinook and steelhead destined for my state as a political tool, but it's the price that has to be paid until harvest is severely limited on the Columbia for summer steelhead and spring chinook.

The best option would be to continue the battle to ban commercial fishing of all types (other than tribal) on the Columbia and other PNW rivers.

Depends on how many C&R fish the Bio's don't see in the nets, might be the reason they want a few more years of testing. NMFS getting all kinds of info out of this.

Really don't matter very much? Where have you been? perhaps you missed the Monthly OSP report regarding the "chronic problem" of gillnetterss leaving the SAFE areas in the dark for the main river, then skewing the numbers to the extent the Bios are shaking their heads over the high numbers of upriver ESA fish showing up in the SAFE catch. SAFE for who? The gillnetters? Certainly not the fish.

We had a Bio at our CCA meeting who openly admitted that boats with observers had 80% more Steelhead in the catch than those boats without observers. Imagine that!

You have often stated that Steelhead have not been commercially fished by the lower river commercials since 1972. Well guess what? They are still caught in nets.

Do any of you naysayers on selective harvest give a $hit about Steelhead? Or juvenile Sturgeon? Fish on! It's all about filling your tag isn't it?

Keep the faith!

We had a Bio at our CCA meeting who openly admitted that boats with observers had 80% more Steelhead in the catch than those boats without observers. Imagine that!


? Your losing me with this statement, since observer data is estrapolated.

"Selective" commercial fishing is not a very good term...all types of commercial fishing, including gillnets, are "selective"...the only difference between the gear types being their relative release mortalities on non-target species.

For some reason many folks have glommed onto the idea that gillnets are "non-selective", and that purse seines are "selective", and that's as far as they're willing to go into the conversation.

"Selective" fishing really means the difference between intending to release or avoid non-target species (selective), or intending to kill whatever enters the net (non-selective), but even that is a bit of a misnomer, as time and place restrictions can be used to "non-selectively" harvest whatever is around, when whatever is around is almost entirely, or entirely fish targeted for harvest.

Some more selective means of harvest will lead to far more encounters with non-target species, so any decrease in relative release mortality for non-target species will be overwhelmed by greatly increased encounters with those fish...e.g., if the relative release mortality is halved by using different gear, but encounters are doubled, then there is no conservation benefit to the non-target critters...the same amount will die.

In fisheries that are constrained by hatchery fish harvest quotas, the more selective the gear, the less wild fish will die. In fisheries that are constrained by ESA impacts, it will make no difference to the wild fish whatsoever, there will be no conservation benefit.

They're all just tools, not answers...use the tools properly in appropriate fisheries, and they'll help...use them in the wrong way or in inappropriate fisheries, and they may hurt the wild fish worse.

It would be refreshing if those who are constantly arguing about this issue would shift their ideological mindsets from "are selective fisheries good or bad?" to "when do selective fisheries make sense, and when do they don't?"...and then advocate accordingly.

So, my answer to the original question...selective commercial fishing will not ruin sportfishing in and of itself, nor will it save fish or sportfishing in and of itself...when it's used properly, it may help both fish and fishing, and when it's used improperly, it may hurt both fish and fishing.

Fish on...

Todd

+10 Todd!

Best response I've seen you post on this topic yet.

So, that said, how do sportfishers go about advocating for a change in policy to shift to hatchery harvest quotas from ESA impact quotas?

Or would it even make a difference?

Seems to me that the use of selective commercial gear in fisheries limited by hatchery harvest quotas would serve to benefit wild fish.

What would be the good or the justification for ever limiting a fishery by ESA impacts as opposed to hatchery harvest quotas knowing that the mortality rates of selective gear are far less than gillnets?

Nice todd.....best I have heard on this yet.

Best response I've seen you post on this topic yet.

So, that said, how do sportfishers go about advocating for a change in policy to shift to hatchery harvest quotas from ESA impact quotas?

[/quote]

It will change when ESA threatened and listed stocks recover and are delisted, thinking otherwise is sheer fantasy.

It will change when ESA threatened and listed stocks recover and are delisted, thinking otherwise is sheer fantasy.
[/quote]

,....and current policy/regulations have helped to recover those listed stocks how?

SW, it's a variation on the exact same thing I say every time the issue comes up with regards to the lower Columbia stuff going on now...it is a very INappropriate place to do it for any reason other than increased commercial harvest...it's the only factor that will benefit from doing it there.

As I said above, many folks have just flat out accepted, with no knowlege of how the fisheries there work, or even what "selective" means, that purse seines will save the Columbia River, and that you're a "gillnet lover" if you try to explain to them even the most rudimentiary factors involved in coming to a useful opinion on it.

Wherever there are ESA fish present, you will need a permit from the Feds to conduct a fishery. The permit is called an Incidental Take Permit, and its only two functions are to determine thru consultation whether or not the proposed fishery will cause the extinction of the ESA fish present, and if not, then to set out the amount of ESA fish that are allowed to be incidentally taken...i.e., killed.

So long as there are ESA fish present, this is how fisheries are conducted...and will continue to be so conducted unless the ESA is repealed (not likely), the states agree amongst themselves to further limit their catch to levels below what the ESA allows (also very unlikely), or the fish are delisted (unlikely to recover, more likely to be delisted in the more common way, by going extinct.)

Fish on...

Todd

The war on the environment is over, suggesting we consider circumventing the ESA just shows what little understanding of how our fisheries are controlled.
The reason why the past recovery efforts on the CR have failed is simple, the federal government will not adhere to their own regulations.

Perhaps that is true Todd. I have just never heard you say that the use of seines would be better for wild fish in fisheries that are constrained by hatchery harvest quotas. Which raised the question in my mind;

Then what good do ESA policies do for wild fish?

If truly selective gear can be used to decrease the mortality rates on wild fish then why would we not limit the fisheries based on hatchery quota? Is it possible that less wild fish would die in the process of reaching the quota using the selctive gear? Or are you saying that more encounters with non-target species using the selective gear will just offset any decreased mortality rate benefits? Do purse seines really capture more fish than a gillnet strung across a river?

Why is it not possible to use some sort of combination of the two policies? Catch your quota and you're done and kill the alotted amount if wild fish and you're done?

[So, my answer to the original question...selective commercial fishing will not ruin sportfishing in and of itself, nor will it save fish or sportfishing in and of itself...when it's used properly, it may help both fish and fishing, and when it's used improperly, it may hurt both fish and fishing.]

"When it's used properly" is a huge statement! I agree with Todd on this one statement. However the commercial industry has alwys been considered by the managers to be a self reporting, transparent fishery that would ALWAYS sell their catch to a licensed buyer therefore their reports are taken at face value. Really?

The sport numbers are extrapolated because of economics. It simply isn't possible to check every fisherman. If you look back at the LE letter that was submitted several years ago and the replies from both agencies it was obvious they are not interested in changing the reporting sytem. It is a joke!

Another assumption being made is that seines will take ALL the fish. Anyone been out on the Columbia recently since the mop up fishery took place? What the hell do you think is going on there? do you think they might get most of the fish? (And kill a few Steelhead in the process)

I agree wholeheartedly with Todd on the selectivity process but to assume the impacts will remain the same and we will just kill them all is a bit of a stretch.

I was at more than a few of the compact hearings and if anyone thinks Idaho is going to sit still while seines kill all the fish they toss in the mix, think again. They have made it pretty clear they are tired of releasing millions and watching us kill em all.

And 50% or the harvestable fish still belong to the tribes last time I checked. I sure wouldn't get my drawers in a wad over seines killing all the fish below Bonneville.

As for the lower tribs? do you really prefer Mop up fisheries with a gill net? Been on the Lewis the last few days?

If truly selective gear can be used to decrease the mortality rates on wild fish then why would we not limit the fisheries based on hatchery quota?

**We have to remember...WDFW and commercial fishing interests are in the business of harvesting fish for the market, not recovering fish. Read every single press release from WDFW regarding what is happening on the LCR right now, they come right out and say that the point is to increase commercial harvest of hatchery fish...period. They're not even pretending otherwise...they don't need to, they somehow have hoodwinked enough sporties into doing it for them.**

Is it possible that less wild fish would die in the process of reaching the quota using the selctive gear?

**If the quota is 2% of the ESA listed fish, then it's 2%, no matter how they die...the quota is set by the amount of ESA fish killed, not by the amount of hatchery fish caught.**

Or are you saying that more encounters with non-target species using the selective gear will just offset any decreased mortality rate benefits?

**Not necessarily, I was just giving an example of how reduced release mortalities may not result in any less dead released fish.**

Do purse seines really capture more fish than a gillnet strung across a river?

**Per set? Maybe, maybe not...probably not...but that's not the relevant question, much less a relevant answer. Over the course of prosecuting the fishery, the entire point is to make the answer to that question an emphatic yes by taking longer to kill your share of the ESA fish and capturing more hatchery fish while doing so.**

Why is it not possible to use some sort of combination of the two policies?

**Sure, but the political and legislative hurdles are almost too large to even contemplate.**

Catch your quota and you're done and kill the alotted amount if wild fish and you're done?

**That certainly wouldn't help wild fish much**

Fish on...

Todd

This topic makes me vomit in my mouth. People keep asking the same questions and not understanding the answers. Then, they suggest something that cannot be physically or legally be done. Then, someone corrects them and the cycle begins again.

The last thread about this EXACT topic has 25,000 views and people still don't get the basics.

And boater, yes, you are trolling which isn't actually helping or educating anyone. Feel free to keep swinging at the hive though.

Just frustrating...

Hey man I'm no bio. I'm not some Keyboard Kommando claiming to be the be-all/end-all when it comes to fisheries management. Just a fisherman asking questions and trying to gain an understanding.

My question was simple. What have the current ESA regs done to enhance recovery?

You answered it.

So if the Feds won't adhere to their own regs what's the point of having them?

Especially if we can focus harvest using selective methods and policies that do less harm to wild fish than the ESA regs do now?

Unfortunately, the ESA does not mandate "recovery"...it mandates "non-extinction", and the space between the two can be at times incredibly massive.

So long as the LCR ESA fish are at least at replacement level, the ESA will not mandate anything beyond that...

Fish on...

Todd

That I understand perfectly.

Although my question wasn't regarding ESA impact quotas. It was in reference to hatchery harvest quotas.

Perhaps I should have framed the question better.

If the fishery is limited based on a hatchery harvest quota would less wild fish die in the process of reaching the quota using selective gear as opposed to gillnets?

My first question you answer perfectly, thank you.

Basically WDFW doesn't give a flyin' fugazee about the sporties and the ESA policies seem to be used as a justification for the use of antiquated commercial fishing methods.

,........................... and there you have it.

i agree and this issue needs to be better understood instead of just jumping on the selective fishing will cure all bandwagon.

I certainly agree with you there.



But it ISN'T based on that!!! They WANT the hatchery fish out so there is no desire by anyone (with power) to stop the harvest simply because a set amount of hatchery fish have been caught.

I believe your reference to "it" is the CR correct? I imagine that all commercial in-river fisheries are not based on an ESA take quota correct? None of my above posts have been about any specific fishery.

My larger point KD is why do we focus our energy on selective vs. non-selective when the ESA policies and regulations (or lack of adherance to) seem to be a major obstacle to recovery?

Many of you seem to think that eliminating the non-treaty commercial fishing industry will solve these problems. As someone already noted above, do you think that treaty tribes are just going to let those fish available for harvest swim upstream? Especially when there is a market for the product? IMO you guys are dreaming.

SW,

The LCR non-treaty gillnetters fish the same area as most of the recreational fleet. So if the commercial fleet fishes more days and harvests more hatchery fish, then on any day that you, Todd, and I fish the LCR, there will be fewer harvestable fish around. It will directly and adversely affect the recreational fleet, but it won't make any difference to the ESA fish, nor to the treaty tribes fishing above Bonneville Dam, unless the commercial selective fishing takes off beyond anyone's wildest expectations.

It would also, as mentioned earlier in the thread, adversely affect fishing in Idaho. The only benefit of the LCR commercial selective fishery is more commercial harvest. Also touted is the beneficial reduction of hatchery fish spawning in the natural environment.

Sg

I understand what you are saying Salmo and I respect your opinion on the matter. The proposed selective commercial gear use in the LCR will not benefit wild fish because, as it stands the ESA policies will still allow them to kill the same amount of wild fish no matter what gear type is used. I am not arguing against that point.

Although as I stated before I am not specifically talking about the LCR situation.

Are there not other fisheries that are regulated by hatchery harvest quotas that could stand to benefit from from non-treaty commercials using selective gear types?

I have no idea what limits the commercial fleet in say,..... the Chehalis. Would this type of gear use stand to benefit that watershed?

Of course there will be a negative impact on keepable hatchery fish for us sportfishers but a positive impact on wild fish. Basically the more effective the netters are at successfully releasing wild fish the more hatchery fish they will be able to kill. Both the commercials and sporties are given a certain % of the mortality rate. DFW and north of falcon or whoever else is involved make a run size estimate than decide what % of the mortality rate each fishing party gets and that determines how many hatchery fish can be kept. For every so many hatchery fish caught they figure a wild will die during the hook,fight and release process. This is what has had me worried about CCA. CCA has pushed for this selective netting stuff but its kind of a catch 22 if you ask me. I am all for wild fish but it sure is nice to have long seasons for springers and summer kings that eat good on the table. I just don't see wild fish numbers on the columbia to rebound to a point where we can kill them anytime soon due to selective netting. With the exception of the fall URB's. Only way this would make me happy would be if the netters mort. rate is dropped considerably. Either way we will be screwed.

I think the answer to that question is evident, but at what cost?

Are you ready to put down your rod for the 10-20yrs it would take to have harvestable stocks of wild fish? I'll readily admit my selfishness and that I am not.

Are we going to undergo a worldwide campaign to keep people from eating fish? Not likely (although I do like the reports I see of land-based salmon farms).

Not a very likely solution.

When this thread started, it was more of the same, regurgitated crap we have been slinging around for months on this topic. As it has progressed, however, I have seen some signs that suggest the two sides may be getting a bit closer to an understanding on the issues at hand, which is encouraging.

My two cents:

- The current test fisheries will benefit wild fish by removing more hatchery fish from the spawning redds.
- In this case, sportfishing will likely suffer.
- The same number of wild salmon (not steelhead) will die in these fisheries as would in a gillnet fishery
- This would seem like a lost battle, but I should think that if these methods prove effective at significantly reducing wild mortality per contact, they will be implemented in other fisheries that are NOT managed to ESA impacts, and in those fisheries, they should prove to be wins for wild fish and sportfishers alike.

In other words, we may need to lose this battle in the short term to win the war in the long term.

Good point, but the commercial industry depends on hatcheries, so I don't think they're going anywhere. Any solution that seeks to eliminate commercial fishing or breach dams is doomed to failure. There's simply too much money behind commercial fishing and dams.

So would I, I've got no problem C&R'ing fish all day. In fact I prefer to do so in most cases, but that's not what I asked.

If there were a moratorium on all fishing to recover wild stocks there would certainly be a restriction on C&R fishing as well since there is a mortality rate associated with hook and line fishing.

25 years of C&R on wild steelhead hasn't recovered diddly squat.

In a mixed stock fishery over hatchery and wild fish, when the wild fish are not listed, and the hatchery fish are divided between user groups, then the more selective all the fisheries can be, the better...in most cases less wild fish will die, and there will be maximization of hatchery fish harvest, which is what they are there for.

This won't always be the case, and the example I've used the most would be the recreational fishery at Sekiu, especially when there are lots of wild fish around.

If you have to release wild coho, but catch and release ten of them to harvest two hatchery coho, you have likely killed more wild coho than you would have if you were just allowed to harvest them directly, since the recreational fleet likely has a 50% mortality rate on bait caught wild coho in the salt.

That's a situation when a selective fishery makes no sense.

In cases like that, you really have to look at the stock compositions that are around...when wild fish greatly outnumber the same species of hatchery fish, you have to math out what will kill the most wild fish...bonking them, or releasing a lot of them in order to bonk your hatchery fish.

Several years ago there were two proposals on the table for Grays Harbor tributary steelhead fisheries...one that allowed sporties to bonk one wild steelhead per day, and one that allowed them to bonk none...I don't recall the numbers they expected to be handled, but the numbers showed that a bonk fishery would result in a shorter season with more wild fish killed, and less hatchery fish harvested, than would the longer season with wild fish release.

In that case, a selective fishery made the most sense...more wild fish spawned, more hatchery fish were harvested, and we got a longer season to do it over...a win for everyone except the trophy hunters.

Fish on...

Todd

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBwKrXh4Z34


This is the guy that pushed CCA's last ballot measure to ban nets on the Columbia. Wonder what "Shootem Dead Fred" thinks about all this. High Sea's Drift Nets wiping out our fish while the CG stands by? This guy is a crackup..

i agree 100 percent.

Let’say for the sake of argument that I agree with the statement above.
After reading what has been written in this thread how can you both still agree that
“the only benefit of LCR commercial selective fishing is more commercial harvest”?

http://www.cbbulletin.com/393123.aspx

“It is estimated that standard mesh gill-nets cause a post release mortality of 30 percent for steelhead and 30 percent for spring chinook salmon. The estimates for smaller mesh tangle nets are 14.7 percent for spring chinook and 18 percent for steelhead. In the fall the estimated steelhead mortality is 66 percent when gill-nets with 8-inch mesh are deployed and 59 percent with 9-inch mesh.”

Apparently you two could care less about steelhead, but for those of us that do care included those that live in Idaho, this is what it would mean.

Non treaty commercials have to release steelhead. In the worst case scenario in the fall that would be for every 1000 steelhead gill netters release as bycatch--- 660 would die and 340 would live.
In the spring with standard gill net gear those numbers would be --700 would live and 300 would die per 1000.

An added benefit fishing selective gear would be if at 1% speculative (since that number hasn’t been established yet) ---10 would die and 990 would live out of 1000 released.

So between 1% & 5% selectively caught = 10 to 50 would die selectively per 1000--- VS--- 300 spring gill netting or 660 fall gill netting per 1000 steelhead released.

That represents a large differential between selective gear and gillnets.

Other bycatch like sturgeon would benefit as live capture and released by selective gear methods also.

We could have used real numbers to figure this out if the gill netters hadn't allegedly cooked the books .

LL, why dont you post a document that says they are not going to use gillnets anymore in the main stem columbia after the selective gear is developed ??

It would shock me if gillnets went anywhere any time soon in the LCR...

Keith

SW,

There might be, but I'm not coming up with much off the top of my head. If there is a case where wild chinook or coho are co-mingled with far more abundant hatchery salmon of those species, then yes. But in the cases that I can think of where that usually occurs, the commercial harvest is by treaty fisheries, which so far seem resistant to selective harvest methods.

As for Gray's Harbor/Chehalis, I don't know what limits the commercial fleet (including treaty), because it doesn't seem to be the availability of surplus production, this year being the slight exception.

Sg

LL,

As a many decades-long steelhead fly fisherman, I do care about steelhead, especially those wild ESA listed ones that are Snake River and Idaho bound. I think one flaw in what I make of your position is that you assume if the commercial fleet fishes selectively, they will no longer gillnet. There is zero evidence of any such plan. Anyway, the selective gear being tested isn't very efficient or selective, except relative to gillnets. This is largely why I think it is beyond time to eliminate the obsolete LCR gillnet fishery and replace it with state-of-the-science traps at Bonneville fish ladders. Such facilities have 98 to 99% survival rate, and would truly be selective. All this make-believe selective fishing research crap on the LCR is like putting a bandaid on an aortic hemorrhage.

Thank you Salmo.

So if I am reading you correctly it would only make sense to have selective harvest in an area that consisted of co-mingled species with an abundance of hatchery fish as compared to wild. I assume the reason for this is what Todd detailed in a previous post about hooking 10 wild fish to bonk your 2 hatchery fish and why we had the ability to harvest wild coho in Grays Harbor this year. That sorts out the sporties but I have a question about the commies.

If the ultimate goal of the wild retention rule in GH is to lessen the impacts on wild fish then what of the impacts of gillnets in the Harbor? Wouldn't the wild vs. hatchery catch rates of the commies lean heavily towards wild and ultimately mitigate any of the potential benefits of the sport policy?

Does anybody out there know what the commercial fleet in GH is limited by?

Doc maybe you could chime in on this one?

Sorry if I am behind the curve here, just trying to come away with a better understanding.

SW,

Yes, it would, but a sizable surplus of wild coho was forecast, so the commercial fleet is reasonably entitled to a share of those (under present policy and law). If it were Puget Sound, when reported catches approached the allocation, no more open fishing periods would be scheduled. In Gray's Harbor, it seems like a fishing schedule is adopted, and then they stay with it regardless of catch. Doc's probably got the records on this, however.

Sg

[/quote]

I believe your reference to "it" is the CR correct? I imagine that all commercial in-river fisheries are not based on an ESA take quota correct? None of my above posts have been about any specific fishery.

My larger point KD is why do we focus our energy on selective vs. non-selective when the ESA policies and regulations (or lack of adherance to) seem to be a major obstacle to recovery?

Many of you seem to think that eliminating the non-treaty commercial fishing industry will solve these problems. As someone already noted above, do you think that treaty tribes are just going to let those fish available for harvest swim upstream? Especially when there is a market for the product? IMO you guys are dreaming. [/quote]

I definitely understand, and share, in the frustration factor.
My take on the situation is that there are too many moving parts, relating to ESA fish, treaty tribes, the states, and all the habitat/dam/carrying capacity issues (and whatever I missed) and we are not going to solve this in the near future.

I think it will take a 50 year effort, at least, to revisit the way we handle distressed fish populations (ESA) , the Boldt decision, the state directed mandates, because right now it is all driven by competing interests with no particular overall strategy. As it stands now, the predictable outcome is more of the same. We may not change these elements in the near future but this patchwork piece is wearing out, it's broken, and we need to start over.

Change the way ESA fish are handled. If using more selective methods allows more harvest, so be it, just allow reccies their share. And let more ESA fish survive to restore the runs.

Change the dams to allow more fish to do their spawny thing.

Put a set back on the rivers and jump over creeks so they do the filtering, shade, and habitat part the way designed.

Change the way treaty rights are fulfilled to be in keeping with current times. We don't live in 1850. Mono nets and casinos are modern items.

Change the management strategy of the states to have healthy water eco systems, not just lots of hatchery fish to catch, but healthy systems.

(FWIW, I don't think hatchery fish are as much a problem as some here think, I think the fish would figure it all out just fine. These river basins have been repopulated a number of times after natural disasters, e.g. Missoula floods, so I think they could figure it out again if we don't kill them all first)

Thanks,

if they were not a problem and reproduced succesfully in the wild do you think we would have any esa listed salmon populations ?

ODFW and the BPA are looking at fish passage issues on several high flood control dams on the Willamette River basin.
These dams block ancient spring chinook spawning redds, fish passage would make these spawning beds available to reintroduced naturally spawning springer stocks.
ODFW has experimented with putting excess hatchery springer over the dams, what happened shocked many who thought that either the fish wouldn't spawn, or the fry would assimilate in the impoundment, and become trout creel.
These fish did indeed spawn on the ancient redds, and smolt outmigrated through the dam turbines, and then returned in numbers no one ever expected.
Getting smolt to bypass the turbines is being addressed in central Oregon at Lake Billy Chinook, where a new fish passage concept is showing sign of success at attracting smolt away from the dams turbines.

http://www.pcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/Fall_2010_newsletter.pdf


Pay attention to page 7..I'm hearing NMFS might be stepping into the mark selective fishing fray with their own set of management numbers..Also a good shot of the GM salmon compared to a natural one of the same age.

Good question. I think that given enough time and development of some selfsustaining run people would just figure "problem solved." I think the state and fed govs don't want to spend any more money on sustaining any more runs than they have to.

Sg's comment about chinook in the Willamette system are interesting. The McKenzie, off the Willamette, has been thought to have the last "Native" run of Chinook in the system, but I have been told the genetics are mixed now and we have some "wild" fish mixed in with the hatchery fish.

It's about the same with most all salmon in the CR basin isn't it?

Keith

A fishing pole makes you a expert fisherman, it doesn't make you a fisheries expert.
To learn about fisheries science you need to read a lot of research, it doesn't have anything to do with how long you have been an angler.
Fish genetics are not like any mammals, when wild and hatchery breed, virtually nothing returns, and if any do return, few if any of their offspring return.
Hatchery genes don't survive in the wild, so it's not a watered down gene pool that's the problem, but all those black holes created in the spawning beds.

what do you think of this project ?

http://www.prlog.org/10411958-local-fish...-northwest.html

I'll take a pass on this. I understand both sides of the discussion but know there are lots of very well read individuals who disagree markedly on this issue.

Some hatchery fish are good at it...some are marginal...some really suck, bad...

The worse thing about the bad ones (Chambers Creek steelhead being the absolute worse) is that they spawn with wild fish and take the wild fish contribution to the next generation out of the system as assuredly as a gillnet or fish bonker.

Others, like winter steelhead broodstock programs, typically take fish out of the system to make a smaller amount of fish than if they just left the wild fish in the river to do their thing...and those fish are harvestable...double whammy.

Fish on...

Todd

Keep telling yourself that, sooner than later you'll believe it....

I took your advice and did some reading, used the Cowlitz river as an example....

Historically, hatchery broodstock have been mostly native Cowlitz fall Chinook. However, four non-native plants of juvenile Chinook occurred between 1951 and 1981, including Toutle, Kalama, Big Creek, and Bonneville stocks. Broodstock is collected from volitional returns to the Cowlitz Salmon Hatchery. This is an integrated harvest program, and some natural-origin fish may be inadvertently collected for broodstock, but the level is unknown since the marking/tagging level of the hatchery release does not allow the identification of natural-origin fish. Incubation and rearing occurs on-station at the Cowlitz Salmon Hatchery.

Inbred? Hmmm, help me understand.... Seeing how it's been of recent years that they're getting around to clipping 100% of hatchery fall king releases, how do you really know?

Stock status was rated Depressed in 2002, because of chronically low escapements. Natural spawning abundance is more a reflection of the size of returns to the Cowlitz Salmon Hatchery and stray rates than of natural production.

No genetic analysis has been done on naturally-spawning Cowlitz fall Chinook. Allozyme analysis of Cowlitz Hatchery fall Chinook sampled in 1981, 1982 and 1988 showed that they were similar to, but distinct from, Kalama hatchery fall Chinook and distinct from all other Washington Chinook examined (WDF and WDW 1993, SaSSi 2002).

How do you really know?

Keith

http://www.columbian.com/news/2010/sep/30/Mitchell-Act-salmon-hatcheries-Columbia-River/


Wouldn't worry, after this turnout NMFS wouldn't dare cut lower river hatchery stocks..

Sorry that I've been behind the curve on this thread. Purposely recused myself from participating due to the typical way this subject goes sideways FAST in a predictably polarizing fashion.

This one has taken a much more cordial turn, moving the merits of selective fishing forward....and so here I am.

The singular constraint on gillnets accessing harvestable wild Chehalis coho in Grays Harbor is wild Chehalis fall chinook impact. Fall chinook were forecast at Tier 1.... total run-size at or below 110% of escapement. In that scenario, the fisheries are to be manged such that no more than 10% of the run is incidentally killed by all parties. The state assumes it has a 50% share in the conservation burden and so it structures its fisheries so as to cap chinook mortalities to no more than 5% of total run-size. Logically one would assume the tribe is responsible for managing the other 5%, but that's another matter altogether.

So in that sense, it is very similar to the situation of LCR spring chinook in capping the fishery based on impact. However, the abundance-based Tier Plan for Grays Harbor preferentially allocates chinook impact to the recreational fishery at the lowest levels of run-size forecast. We have included specific language in the gillnet fishery that states "without reducing the recreational fishery". Basically that means using the available 5% chinook impact on a Tier 1 chinook run-size forecast to fully fund the recreational harvest of a Tier 4 coho run-size forecast. Once that has been satisfied, any remaining available chinook impact could be spent on getting some days for the commercial fleet. In the case of 2010, there were enough expendable chinook to fund two days of NON-treaty gillnetting.... about 56 dead chinook per day is what the model predicts.

At larger chinook run-size forecasts, the gillnets get a progressively bigger share. At the point at which we have roughly 3000 harvestable chinook (surplus to escapement goal) the fish are allocated roughly equally. At run-sizes significantly exceeding that level of surplus, the allocation preference then shifts to the gillnets.... but again with the stipulation that a fully liberalized recreational fishery in NOT reduced.

Thank you for taking the time to reply Doc.

When I have a little more time today I will digest all of that and shoot you some questions.

I believe the key element of the GH Plan is the specific language that states "without reducing the recreational fishery".

The rationale here is that at low adundance, maximum benefit to society is derived by granting a harvest priority to the recreational fishery. The economic engine simply runs a lot harder when fueled by sport-caught fish. Why would policymakers squander the maximum value of an extremely limited resource by harvesting those few fish commercially?

However, at higher levels of abundance, there are simply more fish available than could EVER be possibly harvested in the recreational fishery. Once the maximum economic benefit has been realized from a fully liberalized sportfishery, additional value can be extracted from the resource by harvesting the remaining surplus commercially.

The key will be determining the run-size threshold (basin by basin) where that shift in allocation priority should begin to take place.

Ask yourself this.... would I even care how many the commercials took as long as biologic escapement needs were being met and sufficient fish were present to fuel a robust sport fishery?

I don't think there would much of any resistance if we were talking about commercial harvest at the dam and falls, the controversy is over being low holed by the commercial fleet for the entire season.

the only way IMHO to fuel a robust sport fishery is to fish over a large abundance of fish and that means no commercial fishing until the last possible minute.

Doc,

I respect your knowledge in life/job...

But this post is plain stupid.......

Where you going with this?

That attitude will get sportfishers hosed...

Keith

FREETOOL,

Where'd you go? You gonna help me understand this?

In all do respect, thanks for the compliment of a decent fisherman.... But in reality, you need to dig a little deeper to understand................ Hello????

Keith

We have a state mandate to provide meaningful sport AND commercial fisheries while conserving the resource.

Just exploring new paradigms for BOTH fisheries to co-exist without destroying the resource.

Sport priority at low run-sizes seems to be working fairly well in my neck of the woods.

Chehalis was constrained to a whopping 24 hours of NON-treaty gillnetting this season. Sports got a basinwide opener beginning Sept 16 with a 2 wild coho retention top to bottom in the mainstem Chehalis all the way down to the bay. Lots of happy folks from the feedback I've been getting. If that's getting phucked, then I say bang away!

If you've got better ideas, I'd love to hear 'em.

Keith,

I read the aforementioned post several times and fail to see the stupidity.

I agree with Doc. If you've got better ideas than I'm all ears. Otherwise calling something stupid while failing to quantify just exactly why something is stupid. Is just plain,....... well,....... stupid.

Doc I have more questions about the Tier system and who and how they come up with those numbers. Pre-run forecasts? Will or would there be mid-season adjustments if escapements are not what was expected?

the definiton of meaningful is wide open, look at the screwin we took on willipa, a no commercial fish zone while the commercials were fishing up and down stream of it ??, if this is the definition they can kiss my ass i aint fishin there anymore.

The numbers for each Tier were determined by the GH Salmon Advisory, of which several forum members are active participants.

In-season management is something we have pushed for in the past 6 years.

Unfortunately, the co-manager agreement specifically states "there shall be NO in-season management".... no adjustments mid-run.... with the singular exception of makeup days for the tribe if conditions are deemed unfishable or they get skunked for the day.

Sadly the potential for funding in-season monitoring is not something that's likely to materialize given the pending cuts WDFW is likely to face in the next budget cycle.

Brutal,........and not the answer I was hoping for. Although it was the answer I was expecting.

Thank you for the info Doc and keep up the good work.

I do agree with Doc on many of the "happy fishermen" with this years allotment. The September 16th opening was awesome...jacks and hatchery silvers were around....personnally I would like to see a September 1 opening...believe me...many years the hatchery silvers and jacks are there.

The problem is the low escapement numbers in the Wishkah, Wynoochee, and the Satsop.......we need to deal with this problem!!!!!! Until the numbers in these 3 rivers meet the escapement goals, then it shouldn't be "business as normal".

We'll see what the NOF meetings bring for the 2011 fishery.....just can't believe it'll be a liberal as the 2010 has been.

OK guys...

The river MAY fish for a day or two more before the rules BELOW Fuller change over to NON-retention of wild coho.

Chehalis River (Grays Harbor Co.) from mouth (Hwy. 101 Bridge in Aberdeen) to Fuller Bridge.
Sept. 16-Oct. 31. Min. size 12”. Daily limit 6. Up to 2 adults may be retained. Release CHINOOK and CHUM.
Nov. 1-Jan. 31. Min. size 12”. Daily limit 6. Up to 2 adults may be retained. Release CHINOOK, wild COHO, and CHUM.

The bulk of the hatchery fish (what few of them came back) have already passed thru the mainstem and into the tribs. The already high proportion of wild fish will be further accentuated in the coming month. This is exactly the scenario WDFW predicted will happen. This is prime run-timing for wild Chehalis coho bound for Wynooche and Satsop. Recent rains have likely pushed a good shot of them upriver as well. Definitely a good thing for wild escapement.

If you habitually fish Chehalis below Fuller and encounter a lot of brand new platinum coho with loose scales, please think about relocating if you are seeing a high incidence of high-finners. These are HORRIBLE catch & release fish with a VERY high mortality. You'll be sending a lot of dead fish to the bottom of the river.

Consider fishing Chehalis above Fuller where wild fish will be legal to harvest without impacting Wynoochee or Satsop stocks. Or head far enough up the Satsop where you are far more likely to encounter fish that have already hardened off (scales set and adequately slimed). These wild coho will tolerate and survive their C&R encounter much better than brand new ones. And PLEASE do the system the biggest favor you can as a consumptive user of the resource.... bonk EVERY hatchery fish you encounter!

is this good for sportfishing ??

But for commercial fishermen, it could mean an opportunity to increase their harvests, and additional fishing seasons

http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2010/aug/24/tribal-tests-of-selective-fishing-drift-down-the/

no comment ??

typical 25 dollar response.

No matter how you cut it Aunty... It's not going to be pretty on the CR "IF" this all goes through....

Keith

WDFW officials envision a future in which the rivers commercial fishers could catch considerably more fish than they do now while helping boost wild fish productivity
http://www.ccapnw.org/databaseshowitem.aspx?id=57292

"Reviving imperiled salmon and steelhead stocks while boosting a sagging commercial fishing industry will require compromise and change, Anderson said."

That's what I love to see....

Keith

Reminds me of the beer and pizza diet, easy to sell but not a whole lot of science/math behind it..

No one is claiming we won't get our time on the water... But who really wants to fish behind the purse seine curtains of death?

Keith

sometimes i think you live in another state because your way off base with what you think is going on in fisheries related issues in this state.

more bad news for sportfisherman

http://www.cbbulletin.com/402551.aspx

Wow..........

13 guys fished 30 total days for 21,000 fish handled... The catch included 10,800 chinook, 8,100 coho and 2,100 steelhead.

As expected, the total of 13,100 salmon and steelhead were caught with purse seines and 7,900 with beach seines. The trap nets were generally ineffective with a total of 39 fish captured for the season, including 10 chinook, 26 coho and three steelhead.

That's flat getting the job done, turn the entire fleet over and you could call it a "mop-up" fishery.....

Keith

Oregon's newly elected Governor favors the SAFE For Salmon Plan.

http://ecotrope.opb.org/2010/12/on-the-columbia-purse-seines-to-replace-gillnets/

Great news!

But it should be tempered with this observation from one of the posted comments on that site.

I'd be very surprised if the purse seines don't turn out to have a considerably lower release mortality rate than most other gear types, especially gillnets...but there is absolutely no comparison between a purse seine in the upper watershed in virtually dead water capturing Chinook that have been freshwater hardened for months, and catching/releasing ocean fresh spring Chinook and steelhead in the lower Columbia River, which will likely have a far, far higher capture/release mortality than that cited in the CBB.

That guy sounds pretty smart

Fish on...

Todd

I'm not to excited, of the 17000 caught less than half would have been marketable..50% mark rate..

Mortality %'s will drop which is great!!

Sacraficing hatchery fish from the lower river, well that sucks assuming someday they cut the whole fleet loose!

Keith

What I got from the numbers is the states paid about 5million to go out and catch about 100000 dollars worth of fish, 4 more years of testing to go!

The objectives for the 2010 feasibility study were to:



-- test deployment and operation of three different gear types (Purse Seine, Beach Seine and Trap Net);

-- directly estimate short-term (24-48 hours) species-specific mortality rates resulting from capture for each gear type, and

-- directly estimate and compare species-specific catch per unit effort for each gear type.



Researchers failed to accomplish the short-term mortality assessment goal because of the intervention of otters, sea lions and seals. Some of the captured fish were to be kept in in-stream net pens for 24 to 48 hours to see how they fared after their netting. But the pens were regularly plundered by the predators.



“We really don’t have enough data to make an estimate” of short-term mortality, Kinne said.

Anyone who thinks that going selective with commercial gear is going to do anything bad to sports fishing is a fool. Think of how good fishing will be without the killer gillnets.

saltchucker, I think you're missing a very large part of the conversation by assuming that fishing will be good just by getting rid of gillnets.

Fish on...

Todd

how can this not lead to poorer sport fishing ?, care to explain ??

It's not the mortality rate thats going to be the issue here, the mark rate is going to become front and center. What happens when you have 2 fisherys trying to mark select fish, the report Henry Yuon (sp) gave to PFMC touched on it..

didnt think you could explain that

That's exciting but scary news... SOMEDAY, they'll mark 100% of hatchery fish and count what true native salmon #'s we have at the dam. Sad thing is, it's really not a road we want to go down if we want to keep fishing a bunch...

Keith

Well whats stopping them.. Tribes?

When it comes to the utilities and the tribes, neither want to pay for clipping.

Sorry keith you are out numbered. We are going down that road and we should find out. There are a lot of groups who care a lot about fish and they do not like anglers or commercials. The feds are just asking for a lawsuit.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Keith

That's all fine and dandy.... I may be out numbered, just stating the obvious....

Keith

Why would they spend $$$$$$$$$$ on testing gear to selective fish when they don't have enough $$$$$$$$$$ to clip enough fish to make the program work? The only thing this circus is missing is a fat lady and somebody selling popcorn..

One thing that baffles me is why do we go on with the smoke screen, the smoke screen of percentages of mis-clips or non-clipped hatchery fish that we call "wilds".

It's bullshiat and everyone knows it...

IMHO, it should be unacceptable to release ANY hatchery raised salmonids that aren't fin clipped in some fashion, something that you can visibly I.D. that it's a hatchery fish. It's BS that they CWT tag and don't fin clip the %'s of fish that they do.... For god's sake, they're HATCHERY FISH! Better yet, all the do-gooders assume them for WILD FISH!

Keith

Well then the fish that are not clipped should be defunded. You'll probably get a chance to testify.
And you are wrong. We dont assume they are wild fish. There is no other category.

Yeah, just ask the general public when you're at the boat ramps... Most people don't even have the clue that there are fish that have CWT tags in their heads that aren't clipped in any fashion...

Keith

They dont know and they dont care. You see more fish than they do, so go testify.

Every person that cca signs up, helps pay for the lobbyists and lawyers that go to bat for your sorry ass on a variety of issues in DC. That includes sueing NMFS.

If the governor succeeds in dumping the dept in with Parks and Recreation, which apparently has a 60 million dollar hole, you'll wish we had triple the membership. The commission is on the block too.

??, didnt think you could back up your great theory

Troll

why dont you take a shot at explaining how it will work ?

You'd have better luck teaching a chip how to solve calculus problems.
The only way selective commercial fishing can't negatively effect sport fishing, is to relegate it to the SAFE Areas.
And I would support that action.

Better go get a brain scan Barney, I agreed with you.

You have lost Boater.

It ain't going to move to the SAFE areas, at least not in the near future...which is too bad.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. And when it becomes fully operational, it can do nothing but reduce sportfishing opportunity, at least for whatever species they are targeting at the time.

What would stop it from happening?
From it's conception some 14 years ago, the plan was to move commercials off the mainstem, the schedule for that has long since past.
Oregon just elected a Governor who supports the SAFE Areas as a means to remove the commercials from the main river and invigorate the economy associated with sport angling.

Here is a quote out of a report I have read.

“The Columbia River Select Area Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Project was initiated to provide salmonid fisheries for select or offstream areas of the lower Columbia River for public use with little or no negative biological impact to mainstem Columbia River fish runs.”

One problem they found was a high ratio of by catch per target fish with gill net testing in SAFE areas. Gillnets and by catch don’t mix unlike selective by catch that is set free and alive at a very high percentage rate.

The point of moving the fishing into the SAFE areas is that there are far less wild fish there, reducing the bycatch...if you use purse seines in the SAFE areas then you get double the bang for your buck...far less wild fish encounters, and a higher release mortality...and far less of an impact on sportfishing opportunity.

A win-win-win.

Fish on...

Todd

Another note...

I wish people would stop using the term "selective" as if it's something new, or different...

Virtually every kind of fishing gear is "selective"...dynamite is selective, if you throw back all the dead stuff you don't want...as are gillnets, purse seines, and hook and line angling.

The part that is important is to what degree they are selective...what is the relative release mortality of the gear you are looking at?

Gillnets are selective...but to the tune of killing 30 or 40 percent of the wild fish that are released.

Purse seines are selective...but to a hereforeto unknown release mortality, but most assuredly less than gillnets. They will, however, have an associated release mortality, EVERY type of fishing does...if you handle fish you want to release, some will die...period.

Calling gillnets "non-selective" and purse seines "selective" is not only irrelevant, but it's not true, either.

Fish on...

Todd

OMG,one of the next things you say will probably be that you are starting to wear a burnt orange cap.

The report showed a high ratio of sturgeon to target fish in the SAFE area gill net tests which was done many years ago. So I agree that purse seiners would do a much better job releasing sturgeon as by catch unharmed than gill nets.

I hate what the fishing world is headed to and I hate what CCA has done to get that ball rolling... It truly sucks... Sure there are a few positives with CCA (outside of the CR system) but more than not, a lot of this process has been expediated with them involved... Thanks......

I often wonder if my kids will have the chance to enjoy what I've enjoyed through my younger years...

Keith

Keith, the short answer to that is NO, Unless they fish for perch or crappi. There were lots of fish and few people years past but the overfishing and habitat loss's is catching up with us now. And unless we can get some control of the pinnipeds and us, sturgeon are in real trouble also. It would be nice if we could get rid of some of those man made islands in the lower river also, help with bird predation.

I'll guarantee you "selective" fishing won't turn the wild fish populations around, all you bandwagon CCA folks just don't get it..... It's a [censored] joke...... Considering the status of 80% of the wild fish runs in the CR system, unless EVERYONE backs off of them COMPLETELY, they WILL keep dwindling..... Fact is, we can't have our cake and eat it too!

Ever ask yourself what the [censored] is happening to CANADA's and ALASKA's fish populations? IS CCA going to jump in up there and try to fix that as well? They're 15 or so years behind and starting on the same downward spiral too. We can bandaid this and bandaid that, it's just giving us a few more years before the end all here in the CR system.......

You bet you're ass I'm bummed, bummed seeing all the hatchery plant cuts that are coming. I'm getting the feeling CCA is a bunch of bunny hugging, fern sniffing, phony wild fish making groupies...

Keep it up boys and girls, we'll be off the local rivers soon! Your clown of a leader already has some local rivers so F'd up, it's a joke.

Oh and by the way.... It's CRAPPIE........

Yeah and I approve this message.......!

Keith

So does this mean your not sending $25 to Texas?

"Couldn't win a cake at the PTA"

to bad you do gooder 25 dollar fisheries experts cant put up a logical explanation about how this new commercial method with a lower release mortality rate wont effect sportfishing.

Ahh, [censored] it........ I'm done arguing...

I'm so close to just selling out while I can still get decent money for my gear. Before long you won't get pennies on the dollar for [censored].... Duck hunting, Elk hunting and turkey can keep me busy on my days off.

Keith

Let me see........... [censored] NO!

I'd send them $1000 if they'd get their nose out of the CR system. Go fix the Puget Sound..

Keith

With all of the years all of you boat ramp experts have had to correct the problems on the CR I am amazed that there are any problems there at all! What with crying here and at the boat ramp about this, that and the other there should have never been a reason for CCA, PSA, Fish NW or any of the other organizations trying to stop the hemorrhage of our public resource.

God help the Elk,ducks and turkeys if you take your brand of help to those resources!

Fishy

Precisely what I was thinking...

Keith

Not exactly my point, but keep throwing tantrums at the boat launch and on the net cause it has helped the resource sooo much in the past!

Fishy

Tantrums at the ramps? Interesting.... Not too sure where you are headed there.

Keith

My point being that no organization is going to make everyone happy, but collectively working toward the recovery of the resource is better than standing alone and flailing your arms while trying to get some recognition from anyone!
The way you genius's talk we would not have a problem if we had followed your dictum, yet that is precisely why we are where we are.

Fishy

Somethingsmellsf, i agree with trey 100 percent, what is you opinion, does it matter to you since you clearly dont sportfish.

“The difficulty we have with that is that if the commercials are allowed to fish the main river with selective (gear) that means they will be (allowed) to extract more hatchery fish and because of catch balancing mandates the possibility exists that they will be taking even more hatchery fish and that will have (negative) impacts on sport fishing

http://tnscommunications.net/OregonGillNetBanUpdates.aspx

It's simple. We can't have wild fish #'s that meet escapement through out the CR system and have sizeable hatchery plants too. So what's it going to be? What road are we headed down?

Is CCA going to be a bunny hugger, fern sniffing group or are they going to support some hatchery plants so they can compensate for this "selective" fishing idea which is going to shortfund the sporties from hatchery fish?

What's it going to be? You can't survive on both sides of the table... It don't work......

Keith

I believe CCA has been very clear on this and that hatchery plants are vital to all resource users and need to continue to be planted. That being said the proposals on the table will affect fisheries as they now stand. Everyone of us can surmise how and what the the outcome will be, but nobody can say for certain exactly what will happen or how.

If and I say "IF" the sports fishers are adversely effected, I will be very vocal on getting behind more hatchery plants and equability in accessing our marine resource. What I will not go along with is "business as usual and expecting a different result."

Boater: I clearly am out of the house more than you as you spend every waking minute online blathering and whining about the sky falling. If you do own a rod, you should take that yellow rod out once in awhile and perhaps you wouldn't be such a TOOL!


Fishy

Fishy

Good luck CCA, my gut feeling is you won't change [censored] on the LCR. The bible is already written....

Keith

Like I said I will not get behind business as usual and expect a different result. I have no idea about your gut but doing nothing sure has not worked well for any of us, except the commercials!

Fishy

Especially with your input!


Fishy

if ??, you have got to be kidding ?, how many news releases do you want me to post saying that the reason they are wanting the commercials to go to a more selective method so they can catch more hatchery fish do you want me to post ????

Let me summarize something for you.... The commercials in the LCR aren't the reason our wild fish aren't coming back... At one point in time long ago, they did assist in decimating the runs. But they don't fish year around now... The picture is just too big to understand. Sooner than later you'll realize even IF the commercials were ELIMINATED the wild fish runs WON'T bounce back. The commercials are such a small problem in the big picture.... Tell your CCA cronies to get after the bigger problems... But then again, that's not possible and just too much!

Here's your thought process... "Oh, let's do the little things that make a difference with CCA".... Got a new's flash for ya, it's not doing a thing except giving the commercials more hatchery fish, fish we'd have a chance to catch.... All to save a wild fish??? Well another new's flash, our wild fish aren't going to recover with switching the commercials up to "selective fishing"...

Show me documentation that proves me wrong.... Can ya? Anyone? Show me how that's going to rebuild our wild runs..................

In honesty, the lack of our wild fish isn't a laughing matter.... But CCA, you're doing quite the job getting us closer to doom's day fishing the LCR.....

I'm beyond sick of this [censored]... Frustrated as hell with the keyboard fisherman and those that have evolved over the last handful of years that look at the big picture and say "Hey, got $25, join CCA, get everyone on the same page so we can eliminate the gillnets in the LCR (MR. LOOMIS'S way to get people to sign up) no other group has fixed it so let's try this one". Pull your heads out of your asses and realize you're [censored] us guys that enjoy time on the LCR in the near future...

Keith

Keith,

Part of the problem with your rants is that you have misinterpreted the position and the goal of selective harvest gear. You and others have overstated the benefits of selective harvest gear that allows live capture and release of non targeted fish. Further, Selective harvest is one of many tools and reforms needed to increase populations of wild fish. It is one of eight positions and in no way do eight position represent all the issues facing wild fish or limit an organization from supporting the resource, sportfishing actiivities and businesses.

The positions of Oregon and Washington were developed with the help of biologists and former fisheries managers and adopted by the State Boards. At one time, you had the opportunity to get in at the ground level and share your vast expertise on fisheries and history. Now that time has passed, you and others put more emphasis on various articles and policy statements. Opinions of the media, other organization representatives and govt employees are nothing more than a starting point in the debate over the issues. Further, an organization representing anglers is not obligated to agree or support the positions of the govt or other organizaions. Lets not forget, who in the past have shown by their own actions and policies to have screwed up the resource in this state, in more ways than I thought possible. Political objectives rarely follow science to a T. The feds wont even follow their own written policies. It will take outside influence to make some of them a reality.

Many people in leadership have full time businesses in the industry and I have yet to meet one who wants to destroy his own livelihood. Depending on your sponsors, you may find they do not share your positions.

I expect that you will continue to insult the members and misrepresent the motives of the membership. I expect that you won't change your method of asking questions about subjects or locations, that have nothing to do with the positions of the organization. You will continue to stir the pot, expecting to change the outcome and the only thing you do, is give more people the opportunity to investigate for themselves, the organization that you demonize. I am only too happy to provide information about the organization. You have zero influence on the process or the policy and you probably alienate more people who were potential clients, than you have educated. If thats what you call education.

Merry Christmas Keith.

Washington Position Statements
Washington Position Statements As approved by the Board on July 11th, 2009

Selective Fishing
Scientific review of salmon hatchery and recovery efforts in the Pacific Northwest points to selective fishing as a key reform needed to restore depleted wild salmon and steelhead populations and to fully realize our significant investments in hatcheries, habitat restoration, and hydropower operations. To restore and rebuild depleted and ESA listed stocks, both commercial and recreational fishers must become more selective in targeting abundant stocks for harvest while minimizing impacts to less viable stocks. Such targeting requires the widespread use of harvest gear and practices capable of live capture, sorting and unharmed release of fish. Selective fishing methods will minimize mortality rates and bycatch of non-targeted stocks and facilitate efficient harvest of targeted hatchery stocks to prevent their interference with wild salmon recovery. CCA Washington supports the implementation of selective fishing and other science-based harvest reforms as a critical component of salmon and steelhead recovery efforts.

Harvest Management
Harvests of Pacific Northwest fish stocks often occur at the expense of the recovery of depleted stocks and to the detriment of non-targeted species. Managers tend to plan harvests based on optimistic estimates of abundance that often do not materialize. CCA Washington believes that harvest management decisions should err in favor of conservation and recovery, and impacts to nontargeted species should be minimized with appropriate buffers. Furthermore, since the fisheries resources of Washington are the property of present and future generations, harvestable surpluses should be utilized in a manner that optimizes their benefits to all of our citizens.

Catch Monitoring and Evaluation
The history of large-scale commercial fishing reveals a clear pattern of negative impacts to important non-targeted stocks (bycatch). Commercial fisheries extracting massive numbers of forage fish directly impact the health of depleted and ESA-listed stocks dependent on such forage fish. The availability of forage fish to provide a source of food for salmon, other fish, marine birds and marine mammals should take precedence over harvest. CCA Washington supports systematic and vigilant programs of professional catch monitoring and evaluation to identify and correct problems related to bycatch and overharvest of forage fisheries at an early stage.

Unrecorded Fishery Impacts
Rational fisheries management requires accurate assessment of mortality to nontarget stocks and species caused by or related to the fishery. Currently, managers rely too heavily on catch reports by those directly engaged in fisheries to regulate harvest. This practice invites bias, and may also result in systematic underestimates of mortality from such sources as pinnipeds taking fish from nets or lines, net drop-out, unrecorded sales, and derelict gear. In some cases, these factors are ignored completely. CCA Washington supports efforts to improve the accuracy of reporting and mortality assessments, to examine all likely causes of mortality related to a fishery, and to ensure accurate data is collected from disinterested or independently monitored sources.

Hatchery Funding and Reform
Hundreds of hatcheries throughout Washington play a vital role in salmon and steelhead conservation and recovery while also creating sustainable fishing opportunities. Hatchery review efforts illustrate the need for better management of state, federal and tribal hatchery and harvest programs to fulfill these important roles. Unfortunately, many hatcheries lack the funding needed to upgrade these facilities and agencies have not implemented key broodstock management reforms. CCA Washington supports science-based efforts to reform hatchery operations and urges the federal and state agencies to provide the funding and leadership needed to promptly implement these reforms.

Nutrient Enhancement of Freshwater Ecosystems
After spawning, adult salmon die and their remains transfer essential marine nutrients and energy-rich carbon to freshwater ecosystems. In the absence of abundant wild spawning fish, distribution of hatchery salmon carcasses or analogs serves to replace missing nutrients and thereby increases juvenile salmon growth rates and abundance. Wild salmon adult returns have decreased significantly in many freshwater systems raising the need to reverse this nutrient loss and increase distribution of hatchery salmon carcasses or analogs to such habitat. Independent scientific reviews confirm the positive ecological benefits of distributing salmon carcasses or analogs in natural spawning areas and recommend steps to minimize possible negative impacts to salmon stocks. CCA Washington supports these findings and recommendations.

Derelict Fishing Gear
Nearly 4,000 derelict fishing nets and 14,000 derelict recreational and commercial crab pots litter the floor of Puget Sound. Over their extended lives, these rot-resistant nets and pots ensnare untold thousands of fish, seabirds, marine mammals and as many as half a million crabs per year. More gear is lost and abandoned every year, adding to the accumulation. This build up of derelict fishing gear is not limited to Puget Sound but extends to the Columbia River and other river basins throughout Washington. No one agency is responsible for derelict gear removal, and accountability for lost gear is hampered by lack of any identification or reporting requirements. The Northwest Straits Commission (NWSC) has led the way to removing these silent killers and restoring the ecology of Puget Sound. CCA Washington supports efforts to remove this offending gear, to limit ongoing gear losses, to assign a single agency to oversee enforcement and resolutions, and to create and sustain adequate funding sources to complete the removal efforts.

Marine Fish Enhancement
Wasteful fisheries and deteriorating habitat have severely impacted many populations of near shore marine fishes. This is particularly evident in Puget Sound and the Georgia basin where these factors have combined to drastically reduce or eliminate entire families of formerly abundant ground fish, including rockfishes, codfishes, and greenlings. CCA Washington supports efforts to foster recovery and restoration of these stocks using the best available science in harvest management, hatchery supplementation and habitat improvement.



©2010 Coastal Conservation Association Pacific Northwest, All rights reserved. | Trouble Viewing? | Solar CMS by www.centralpointsystems.com

I sure as hell hope people investigate the direction the LCR is headed.... IMHO the CCA is a terrible thing for the LCR but could assist in other regions of the NW... But face the facts, you're another group of Wild fish savers. By all means that's a good thing but it's not going to happen in the LCR with barbless hooks and "selective" fishing. It's a [censored] joke, really.....

I can guarantee you I alientate people from the organization, the group is despised by more than you think. Matter of fact hundreds have given up or not joined realizing the direction the LCR is headed...

I could give a flying [censored] if I run another guide trip in my life. It's a hobby/job and more or less a treat to those that want to catch fish. Others can have that business.

Keep it up, we'll be off the LCR in less than 6-7 years and many tribs are going to suck ass for fishing... Thanks!

Keith

Sure don't see a whole lot of work done here....... What's the good word? What's the next step you're going to claim for an accomplishment?

Keith

CCA is NOT anti-hatchery.

Just the opposite....

Hatchery Funding and Reform
Hundreds of hatcheries throughout Washington play a vital role in salmon and steelhead conservation and recovery while also creating sustainable fishing opportunities. Hatchery review efforts illustrate the need for better management of state, federal and tribal hatchery and harvest programs to fulfill these important roles. Unfortunately, many hatcheries lack the funding needed to upgrade these facilities and agencies have not implemented key broodstock management reforms. CCA Washington supports science-based efforts to reform hatchery operations and urges the federal and state agencies to provide the funding and leadership needed to promptly implement these reforms.

This really is a dead end road, you are going down.

I am beginning to wonder if something is going on in your life. Your misery index has gone way up during the holiday season.

Nothing going on at all, looking forward to the 25th for the celebration...

Face it, you're group doesn't support Hatchery Reform and if they did, they don't have say for [censored] that happens with hatcheries. Nice call... It's a [censored] cover up.........

Admit it LB, you're a fern sniffer..... CCA gonna support the spotted owl next?

Keith

Doc,

Don't preach that... Show me something where CCA has done something with Hatcheries in the CR.... Something that shows assistance in increasing their plants. CCA is a bunch of sportsman right, don't we want more hatchery fish, more opportunity?

But then again... ALL HATCHERY FISH MUST DIE!! You ever hear that one?

Keith

WOW! Thanks for telling me what my thought processes are and here I thought that my cognitive reasoning skills are a product of my past schooling and familial environment.

Three of us have shown you what CCA's position is and you still rail as if you alone hold the Holy Grail, you do not.
You and boater make quite a tag team and I can see that you are so blinded by your own rage and delusions that no amount of reasonable debate will ever seem to matter to you.

No amount of your railing and screaming will ever make me believe that people like LB, Doc or myself are trying to sell ourselves down the river.

Fishy

thats because common sense is something that you guys cant comprehend.

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Harvest-Hatcheries/Hatcheries/MA-EIS.cfm

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Harvest-Hatcheries/Hatcheries/upload/MA-DEIS-FS.pdf



Might be a rumor but I heard CCA was the only major user group that didn't file a comment by the Dec 3rd deadline..

Typo fixed.

He would if he could get the old woman across the street to sign off on the title.

sold it a few months ago, whats that got to do with this ?, just admit that you cant answer a common sense question

Congrats Boater! I heard they looked for a long time to find the right boat for the Gilligans Island remake.

No, fact is my [censored] meter is pegged...

Show me something that states CCA has done something with the hatcheries in the CR, supporting more hatchery fish for us all to catch! I can't find anything!

Hello... Anyone?

Keith

Keith It looks like your concerns to this point are:
1)ESA wild fish listed
2) Is it worth rebuilding wild stocks
3) hatchery plant cuts or increases
4)commercials could catch more hatchery fish with selective gear after tests

The feds hold the cards. 13 ESA wild stocks have been listed over the years , and evaluated individually for a plan of recovery so rebuilding wild stocks is a priority and out of your hands and in the feds.

The recent Columbia Basin Hatchery DEIS could have plant cuts if status quo isn’t selected which would again be controlled by the Feds.

The selective gear tested is being funded by the feds and the idea and process began in 2001 by the feds.

So let’s point you in the right direction to NMFS, NOAA and the U.S. Dept. of Commerce so you can start to direct your displaced anger to the right places. You could also attempt to be on a CR advisory board or join an organization that is involved in the process currently but that probably won’t happen because;
Displaced anger: This kind of anger is partially defensive. Displaced anger will not heal. It's expression may give temporary relief, but will be repeated over and over without healing---hence this same old fluff from you over and over again on this and other past threads.

It's not displaced anger, it's perfectly placed anger...directed at an idea that will certainly decrease sportfishing opportunity, and somehow those promoting either accept that (along with the fish benefits), which is fine...or do what others do, which is fail to do even the simplest math...

The pie stays the same, the commercials catch more...we catch less.

This is not rocket science, but the math that some use to somehow end up at the conclusion that the commercials catch more and so do we are either incredibly ignorant about how LCR seasons work, or are willfully sticking their head in the sand just waiting for another "victory" to put on the list, no matter how un-victorious it turns out to be.

Fish on...

Todd

You stated the obvious with 1-4, except I fixed #4 for you...

You can call it anger, but I'd prefer to call it as it is. I'm frustrated as all get out that an organization would support giving the commercials more hatchery fish...

But what's the point of the CCA in the LCR if you're telling me the feds control all of it?

What groups supported the recent Columbia Basin Hatchery DEIS?

Keith

And WSU

you 25 dollar experts going to answer ?

incredibly ignorant is the only thing it could be.

Occasionally you make a telling statement, contrary to previous posts. We have just made a big step in the debate. Todd has amended his position, so that when extra fish are added to the overall return and sportsmen do not catch less fish, he can say "I told you so" . There are plenty of factors that could require adjustments including Political positions and advocacy of sportfishing groups. The primary objective of this policy is to save (not kill) as many wild fish as possible and still allow a sportfishery and the entrenched commercial fishery. If it was not the true objective, the plea from the director to use single barbless hooks would have no value.

The reduction of wild fish mortality is small in comparison, to the tribal impacts. Its easy to overlook what it means for a single tribe, who currently practice non targeted fish release in a successful manner and how it will be promoted to the other tribes. The really simple math would indicate that the 13% is the real objective and the rest of it is just building the trail to get there. Granted its expensive, unpredictable and has no guarantees, but to date NO ONE else has made a dent in the process. We collectively debated selective gear vs safe areas for more than a year and the answer may in fact be a combination of both. If it gets the cowboys out of the main stem and it provides a path for tribal selective harvest, then its a win for the fish, however small in the overall issue of recovery. If it reduces bycatch and allows for throwback after the implied or stated quota is reached, then its another benefit. Anglers should not just roll over and let the written word of the department be the final word. Sportsmen were actually not rewarded for being more selective. Being more selective kept the season open longer, because the impacts of the gillnet harvest could be reached very quickly, thus leaving too many hatchery fish in the river. The coincides with the position of NMFS who told several of the gillnetters they will either fish with selective gear or the plants will be cut back, which is the alternative method to reduce hatchery fish on the beds. At the very least, the fish that make it past the nets and sport fleet, shall allow another shot in the tributaries. Angler success will help protect the fish plants and the wild fish.

After reading your statements about gillnets and tanglenets which you hate just as much and how gillnets Kill most everything they catch? I find it interesting that you bothered to now redefine the word selective harvest for all of us. We get that you dont like the idea and we get that you dont think it will work as well as promoted. In fact, whatever you think about it does not matter because the language has been in the public domain for probably a decade. Feel free to waste your time with redefining something written into policy.

I didn't "re-define" selective...I told you what it means...which is really not much. Selective in this context means you keep the hatchery fish, release the wild fish and non-target species.

You can do that with anything, not just a purse seine...just so happens that purse seines are better at it. Calling a gillnet or a tangle net "non-selective" is flat out incorrect...the tool is not selective or non-selective, the policy of a particular fishery is.

If there's a wide open fishery where everything in the net is to be retained, guess what kind of fishery it is, even if you use a purse seine? It's a non-selective fishery...with a purse seine.

Fish on...

Todd

LB,

You going to address this question?

Keith

Keith,

I am not on the GRC, so I do not know the detailed discussions that might have occured about any or all hatcheries. In terms of the CR, you are expecting cca to do something in particular and I have to wonder if you are putting out the same question to all the other clubs and entities that rely on or are responsible for funding the federal hatchery program. Im betting your profiling is more related to me getting under your skin about something else.

While I have the occasional conversation or GRC report in a chapter about a particular hatchery it usually does not affect your primary interest in the sW. We are not in the habit of claiming that we saved a particular hatchery, (I havent seen anything in print on that.) since when it comes to budgets that we dont have control over, if we get private or public input its probably focused on priorities over one hatchery or another. Such priorities might include the HSRG status of the hatchery. We have a guy on the CRAG and even though a non member by the name of Bob Reid is on that,I have not heard much about it from friends. The hatchery hit list seems to go on every year, somewhere. The Nooksack might lose out this year and something else might be saved in lieu of it. Its not really the same as saving the commission, which is nothing more than a report card to members so they dont forget. Of course accomplishment are used in recruiting just like successful fishing photos are used to recruit more clients on a trip and successful letters and awards, advertising etc that are used to generate leads and referrals. We do it on the cheap. The only reason that cca ended up on the regulations book in 2009 was that GI Joe went out of business and I think we caught a break. Those who want to mock our methods should live their convictions and stop using the internet feedback, free product and advertising for recruiting and selling more merchandise. None of you are above it, if you want to survive. I dare any NPO to go thru a yearly meeting and no put your accomplishments for the year on the agenda. Your money will dry up in a heartbeat. Try and get a politician to go thu a press conference without bragging about him and his party.

like or not thats all Ive got. and I dont owe you that.

While interesting, that's pretty much irrelevant.

This topic doesn't have anything to do with a long list of accomplishments that may or may not actually be accomplishments, or may or may not actually have anything to do with the CCA's efforts...it has to do with the inability of many in the CCA to do the simple math, and somehow conclude that when the commercial guys catch many more hatchery fish, downstream and in front of sportfishermen, sportfishing will not only not be hurt, but will in fact improve.

Fish on...

Todd

Did I forget to address keith in my post. So sorry lord. I am unworthy.

prick.

I promise you that being called a prick by a dipshit like you results only in large amounts of chuckling at this end...have a great night!

Fish on...

Todd

Toddster, I have to disagree with you on this one. Gill nets kill whatever they snag. The tool is non selective. Gill nets are non selective. It's kinda almost part of the definition of gillnets. They snag the gills of whatever swims into them and then they drown and die. Then we eat them.
This is my perspective as a former gill netter.
Tangle nets may be better if carefully attended, but fish drown if the nets are not tended very carefully. Just a different size mesh on the nets.

Rick, they do not. Gillnets have an associated release mortality that is high, probably in the neighborhood of 40%, at least...but that doesn't make them "non-selective"...it makes them selective with a 40% release mortality.

"Selective" is a term of art, and co-opting it to mean "purse seines are and gillnets aren't" doesn't chage that.

Fish on...

Todd

OK, I get what you are saying. But if they are not tended very closely they kill everything 100%. Let a net soak for 4 hours while to go to another set and everything is dead when you come back.
I think purse seines let fishies swim around and not drown if not as closely tended but I have never purse seined so cannot speak from experience.
All in all, I think this reasonable person thinks seines are way more selective than gill nets. YMMV.

PS This post does not speak to ESA mortality in figuring catch limits and I fully agree with you on that , "just the law, mam."

A "reasonable person" might think that, but part of the reason they would is that people keep saying it...repeatedly...and then argue when it's suggested that they use the word properly.

The fact that there is a large contingent of advocates out there who don't know what "selective fishing" means, but keep saying it, ad nauseum, does not somehow convert the word into what they want it to mean!

Fish on...

Todd

...and even if a fishing technique had a 99% release mortality...it's still selective if you take the wild ones out and throw them back in the river...

Being "selective" and "relative release mortality" are related, but not interchangeable terms.

Fishing with barbed treble hooks has a higher release mortality than does fishing with barbless single hooks, but fishing with either of them is "selective" if you release the wild ones, or non-target species...

Fish on...

Todd

Well put.

My take: "Selective fishing" does not fix everything, or even most things, or anything. There are still ESA limits that are independent of how the ESA catch is caught. If they are caught selectively or not, it does not change the ESA limits.

Methinks the problem is with the ESA process.

Rolling off topic a bit, how does it work that we let the state manage it until it becomes endangered then NOAA takes over? The state of WA has never managed any endangered species back into health. What is the financial motivation for failure in that?

The State usually "manages" for maximum harvest opportunity, or, worse, doesn't manage at all, just keeps setting the same season and doesn't monitor what's happening.

Someone starts a petition with NOAA stating that the particular species they're concerned about is going in the $hitter, and they'd like to see the Feds step in with the ESA and save them.

The State does a big study on the critter, and comes up with a great management plan to save them, one that they present to the Feds and say "see, you don't have to impose the ESA, we got it covered!"...and sometimes this study is the first time that the State has actually even looked at the critter's life history, or population status, or relative abundance.

Fish on...

Todd

I think you have to look a little farther than the "States" management. The "State" meaning the WDFW s ability to manage stops at the point the managing starts to step on the toes of big money interests.

i realy dont see how sportfishing can improve with the commercials taking more hatchery fish, maybe a 25 dollar expert could explain ??

You guys should get off this roundabout before you run out of gas. This is the essentially the same thread over and over and over. Eventually, it will get locked or peter out and then someone will start another one that is exactly the same.

The roundabout thread; good name for it!

typical response from a cca member

Im signing you up Captain Roundabout.

slow at the boat ramps ??

The CCA is supposedly a sportsmans group. My understanding in the very beginning when I first heard about it was it was going to be a group that was going head on with the gillnetters. They were going to get more hatchery fish for the sportsman. They were going to stop the gillnetters from "mopping up" runs of fish...

Quite the contrary really. Seems as if CCA is headed down a path to give the commercials more hatchery fish resulting in less for the sportsman in the CR... Don't you realize that people will walk away from the group when they realize they're being screwed?

I questioned what CCA was doing with the hatcheries seeing how your group supposedly supports them...

You stated CCA supported the following, Seen here:
Hatchery Funding and Reform
Hundreds of hatcheries throughout Washington play a vital role in salmon and steelhead conservation and recovery while also creating sustainable fishing opportunities. Hatchery review efforts illustrate the need for better management of state, federal and tribal hatchery and harvest programs to fulfill these important roles. Unfortunately, many hatcheries lack the funding needed to upgrade these facilities and agencies have not implemented key broodstock management reforms. CCA Washington supports science-based efforts to reform hatchery operations and urges the federal and state agencies to provide the funding and leadership needed to promptly implement these reforms.

Although with your answer I didn't see much merit or what CCA really stands for with hatchery funding and reform...

Hmmm...

Keith

Allow this red-necked Ornamental $25 expert to give it a whirl.

Surplus hatchery spring chinook beyond brood needs can be placed in to 4 piles.

1) Currently the smallest pile is the white gillnet pile. Why? Because ESA caps their wild impact at 1% and their crappy method of "selective" fishing burns those impacts faster than the rec fleet.

2) The next biggest pile of fish is the sport pile. It's 3-4 times bigger than the white gillnetter's pile because our version of "selective" fishing burns thru our 1% impact 3-4 times slower than the other crappy version of "selective" fishing.

3) The next biggest pile is the tribal pile. It's certainly bigger than either of the other two piles, but not quite as big as the other two piles combined. Why? Because even though their crappy version of fishing is totally NON-selective and they burn thru impact as fast as they can catch a wild springer, they are allocated so much more impact that this pile is pretty dam big.

4) But DWARFING all three of those piles is this mountain of hatchery springers that go unharvested. Why? Because the cap on ESA impact does not give any of the three user groups exploiting spring chinook adequate access to those unharvested fish. Collectively, their chosen methods simply burn thru the aggregate allowable impact before they can catch all of those surplus springers that end up in the unharvested pile.

And there's one more kink that needs to be considered. There's a silly little rule that says that the aggregate of Pile 1 and Pile 2 in total CANNOT exceed roughly 1.2 times the size of Pile 3 (assuming a mark rate of 5:1).

Bottom line, these constraints of ESA impact and tribal catch-sharing work in concert to prevent the harvest of spring chinook from being a zero-sum game. Until our native brothers adopt selective methods, Pile 4 will ALWAYS be the biggest pile. And as long as that is the case, the opportunity to maximize the size of Pile 2 to its full potential is ensured..... no if's and's or but's.

So while better and more selective commercial methods will help to increase the size of Pile 1, it does NOTHING to directly affect the size of Pile 2. Those fish (the extra ones transferred to Pile 1) would simply be re-allocated from that ginormous reserve in Pile 4.

But let's not forget a very important caveat in re-distributing these piles. The increment by which Pile 1 would be allowed to increase is SEVERELY limited by that silly little rule I mentioned above. And I do mean SEVERELY.

And it shall remain that way until the tribes find a way to burn their impacts a little slower in order to increase the size of Pile 3. I guess that's a remote possibility right now, but I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting. Besides I'll be too busy harvesting my fair share of Pile 2.

So despite all the guys threatened by the spectre of the boogieman, the sport impact allocation and the access it provides to harvesting recreationally-caught springers is more than safe for the forseeable future.

Trust me.... I'm a $25 expert.

What you mean to say is that the opportunity to harvest that Pile #2 doesn't change...what will change, however, is the amount of fish we get to fish over while exercising that opportunity...and it might change considerably, and not for the betterment of sportfishing.

An allocation is one thing...being good enough to catch it is quite another, and we suck at it...and reducing the numbers of fish that we get to fish over will only make us suck at it worse...perhaps far worse.

Fish on...

Todd

Yep.... we suck at it so bad that we routinely get shut down just as meat of the run shows up.

Nice try.

Well, Boater and Keith for sure!

Of course if groups get better at extracting the resourse in the mainstem then it takes away fish in tribs..

wrong

I'm waiting for the 100,000+ a year experts from NMFS to weigh in on the matter in the spring, that should be a 25 page thread.

what todd is saying is a very basic thing that most every sportsman does when they plan there fishing vacation and that is to plan it durring times that they feel the destination they are going to has the biggest abundance of fish and with this new way commercial fishing starring us in the face thats goal is to extract more hatchery fish that in most cases are the same fish we fish for we will lose that, the very concept of what is happening could be explained to a room of 3rd graders by a few of us and they would understand it but you 25 dollar experts dont appear to have a diploma from the 3rd grade.

plus this goes way beyond spring chinook, it will effect fall fish also

Sounds like they should just allow the fish to pass the LCR then Purse Seine the resevoirs above the Bonneville pool.. But to seine fish below Bonneville is obsurd... Sort them when they get close to their home rivers/destinations..

Keith

Back to the bogey man theories

Nobody nows how the allocation or the seasons will play out -- let alone if selective live capture will ever come to be until testing is done.

No just same old same old, let the tribes do all the heavy lifting. Then sit back and bitch about the way they fish and scheme about ways to catch more of the fish they put into the river. Wanna know what the Columbia would look like without them? Just look at the Sacramento, thats the whitemans river.

Did I just hear "Terminal Fisheries?"

Interesting comment that is more true than not. My non expert $25 expert observation is that some tribes (Yakama Nation for example) seem to do a much better job than others, and the tribal management is all over the board given the diverse systems (sound versus CR) and the general lack of agreement among the tribes and the lack of ethical consistency.

Not anyworse than the white guys..

Thats just flat paranoid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZyVZFJGX5g

Hey don't get Boater started on the Heavy Metal stuff!

Ever heard the slogan "Eat all you want, we'll make more." A worthwhile goal, but you guys would still bitch about paying more for a license. Prove we can catch more fish, before the gov't tries to take away more of the surplus. Its already been reported by one member of the CRAG the cowlitz has been dumping a lot more attraction water into the river than necessary. Slow down the fish and more will be caught.

Its hard to find a post of yours that looks for a way to make something work. Usually, its focus is why the idea won't work.

Actually since the beginings of my posts I suggested they follow Jeff Koenings lead and just use the money to buy up commercial and charter licenses and keep bringing the fish home. For as much crap as he took when he was Director he did a hell of alot more for PNW salmon than anybody else. Wanna know how to cut your impact to zero..............Don't handle anything!

You're going to wash Koening's balls now?

The line to wash Gary's is five blocks long.

I remember the article that reported that Jeff turned down the 435K for selective gear testing after he talked to the cowboys. It does not appear they wanted it for a buyout. I cant imagine the gillnetter selling off their CR permits for less than five years of revenue gross revenue. They still have to pay for the cost of the boat and all other fixed costs. Eliminate the revenue stream and they dont break even. I doubt they would make it up in AK. A while back, he testified that fixing culverts in certain areas? of washington would not help.

I dont have a bone to pick with the charter boats.

http://www.calsport.org/9-17-08a.htm


Lower river Sturgeon Meeting I attended it was the Guides wondering if there was disaster money availible..

So the net savings (excuse the pun) to ESA wild salmon will increase from where it is today with a $25.00 exclamation point!

They could quadruple the amount of fish sporties are allowed to catch...but if there are only 1/4 the fish swimming by, we'd never even be able to catch as many as we do now, much less more than that...and it wouldn't be because the season is too short, or that we bump into our ESA impact level...it would be because fishing would suck, and bad.

Fish on...

Todd

REPOST:

And there's one more kink that needs to be considered. There's a silly little rule that says that the aggregate of Pile 1 and Pile 2 in total CANNOT exceed roughly 1.2 times the size of Pile 3 (assuming a mark rate of 5:1).

Bottom line, these constraints of ESA impact and tribal catch-sharing work in concert to prevent the harvest of spring chinook from being a zero-sum game. Until our native brothers adopt selective methods, Pile 4 will ALWAYS be the biggest pile. And as long as that is the case, the opportunity to maximize the size of Pile 2 to its full potential is ensured..... no if's and's or but's.

So while better and more selective commercial methods will help to increase the size of Pile 1, it does NOTHING to directly affect the size of Pile 2. Those fish (the extra ones transferred to Pile 1) would simply be re-allocated from that ginormous reserve in Pile 4.

But let's not forget a very important caveat in re-distributing these piles. The increment by which Pile 1 would be allowed to increase is SEVERELY limited by that silly little rule I mentioned above. And I do mean SEVERELY.

(Clarification in yellow type)

Again, though...even if you accept your premise, you are talking about opportunity, not fish...full blown seasons with liberal limits don't do jackshit if there aren't hardly any fish to fish over...sportfishing success in the Columbia depends enormously upon high abundance...you might even say it's the most important factor in sportfishing success.

Fish on...

Todd

Plus we have the group that gets half going last, which makes a very complicated mess when it's based on projections..

The idea seems to be that between the Cowboys and the Indians there is this wide expanse of water, and tha the Cowboys will have to let a ton of fish go thru it to get to the Indians...and that we sporties will be in between the two getting to fish over the zillions of fish that are being intentionally let by for the benefit of the Indians.

Problem with that is that they are not being let by for our benefit...they will not be "our" fish..."our" fish will, to a large extent, already be in plastic totes.

Fish on...

Todd

No... You heard a theory of something that would allow the Cowlitz, Lewis, Kalama hatchery fish to get back to their home rivers. It's nice having hatchery fish to fish for you know. I mean with the forecast for 2011 how do you suppose fishing would be in these 3 tribs if we had a "selective" commercial fleet in the LCR? That's not even speaking of what they'd take from the Oregon side...

Keith

Dont forget IDAHO.
Since when did we lose our share? We end up waiting for the fish like that now.
If they are limited to the safe areas, and their pen raised fish populations increase, the effect is a net increase for sports. Safe areas are not part of the tribal split, unless that changed in the last year or two.
Seems like most of your position hangs on the 2%impacts. Doesn't it make sense that 13% up stream is the real goal?

What surprises me most, is with all the proactive work you have done, you show no interest in making this work. Is WSC run like that?

I have interest in making good ideas work, and I have interest in sending bad ideas to an early grave before they catch hold...

Fish on...

Todd

A friend who retired from the agency once tried to get his arms around the abundance = success thing and just could not as to many variables. Weather, seasons, effort just could not be complied.

What he did get a real feel for was this. With salmon there is a direct correlation between the numbers taken by sports and abundance well past just numbers. He put it this way LOTS of fish more the average guy / weekender will have great success. Abundance reduced the top fisherman still get their fish but effort drops off as the average guy & weekender success drops dramatically.

This is the rub on the selective fishery. If commercial impacts are reduced on incidental ( or protected species ) they will simply continue to they hit their impact limit. Removing more fish from the pool will reduce the sports angler success ratio. If the goal is to reduce impacts on other stocks other than the targeted one, it will do that to.

For years the commercials called returning hatchery fish surplus, then the wild / hatchery thing magnified it again. Simple fact that no fish returning to a hatchery is surplus or wasted. IT IS THE SPORTS FISHERS OPORTUNITY. The fish not caught are part of the numbers in the pool that make or break the sports season. H once told me that when sports started harping about " surplus " hatchery fish they screwed themselves to death.

Still going on to as you notice the commercials get their fish to harvest for $ and REMOVAL, but the value of the sports effort is not given high priority as they can not remove as many. Track threads here & down South and watch. How you phrase a position is critical. As sportsman often are fishers & conservationist it creates a verbiage issue. Now commercials are very clear they want to catch every fish they can. In short will a successful selective fishery negatively effect sports fishers ............. yes, yes , yes! Will it help non targeted and protected species ............... yes, yes, yes! It is the price sports will pay for disunity and LACK of greed. Stinks but it will happen.

Did I just hear "Terminal Fisheries?" [/quote]

No... You heard a theory of something that would allow the Cowlitz, Lewis, Kalama hatchery fish to get back to their home rivers. It's nice having hatchery fish to fish for you know. I mean with the forecast for 2011 how do you suppose fishing would be in these 3 tribs if we had a "selective" commercial fleet in the LCR? That's not even speaking of what they'd take from the Oregon side...

Keith [/quote]

Are you assuming the tribes will be allowed to catch more beyond their tribal split if they change gear?

That's NOT an assumption.... it's a GUARANTEE!

What's so hard to understand about this folks?

The tribes are allocated a 13% impact on ESA-listed springers.

They decide how they will burn it.... exactly the same way we get to decide how to burn the white impact of 2%. For the moment we choose to burn about 1% of our 2% with gillnets. The rest is burned with hook/line.

If and when the tribes decide to go selective, there will be a major transfer of fish from Pile 4 to Pile 3.

Then (and only then) can there be any meaningful transfer of fish from Pile 4 to Pile 1.

Until the tribe goes selective, the number of fish transferred to Pile 1 will be VERY VERY small.

The opportunity loss for those engaged in amassing Pile 2 is inconsequential.

[/quote] No... You heard a theory of something that would allow the Cowlitz, Lewis, Kalama hatchery fish to get back to their home rivers. It's nice having hatchery fish to fish for you know. I mean with the forecast for 2011 how do you suppose fishing would be in these 3 tribs if we had a "selective" commercial fleet in the LCR? That's not even speaking of what they'd take from the Oregon side...

Keith [/quote]

Are you assuming the tribes will be allowed to catch more beyond their tribal split if they change gear? [/quote]

If they can be mandated to use "selective gear" throughout all tribal harvest, Eastern gorge and Idaho's sporties are gonna really love it...

Keith

How long will your good idea take?

Ok Francis I am running with you but let us try this. BOTH tribal and non treaty harvest go selective and achieve a mortality on release ( on paper now ) of say a tenth of a percent. ( fish wheels could do that you know ) Assuming as always the division of impacts stays as it is at present and each user group is capped by its impact %. ( the silly little rule thing kicks in I assume ) I don't see the sports gaining any % of the ESA impact thing so are you saying this would have zero impact on the sports fishery? I can see commercial and tribal catches going off the charts and sports drop as the pool of fish is drastically reduced.

The farther up stream the greater the harvest would reduce the pool of fish. Not arguing your math just the history of probable outcomes with such things.

For the record I never said sports would ever get more. We only get more if our impact allocation goes up. I wouldn't count on us getting much more than the 1% we already have. Just ain't in the cards.

Dave, I fully acknowledge that the potential for this to become a zero-sum game exists. That WILL happen when the tribe goes selective with a gear type with very low mortality.

At that point, the ginormous mountain of fish in Pile 4 becomes very accessible, much to the detriment of the recreational camp.

Not much danger of that for the time being.

If it should come to pass, our only hope at that point is to have first water.

LB [/quote]

Are you assuming the tribes will be allowed to catch more beyond their tribal split if they change gear? [/quote]

If they can be mandated to use "selective gear" throughout all tribal harvest, Eastern gorge and Idaho's sporties are gonna really love it...

Keith [/quote]

First of all, my question was in regards to keiths claim that tribes would take more harvest, dipping in to the sport share. I dont agree. They can do that now by violating the rules. You have more control with live capture gear because you wont inadvertantly overharvest. Excess fish get thrown back. Prolonging the season does not equate to take from one side and give it to the other.

Im not buying that allocation result. Ive never heard anything about idaho having to observe Boldt. Commercial fishing is not legal in Idaho. Based on the status quo, the wild fish will eventually be exterminated. What happens then? What is the limiting factor to allocation? It certainly wont be 13% of the wild fish impacts. They will revert to HALF the estimated return minus the hatchery escapement. By using live capture selective gear, the wild fish impacts will be reduced to nearly zero and they will focus on the HALF of the available fish for harvest.

You are grasping at straws.

The only ones who can't lower their release mortality rate is us...so we're the only ones who won't get more than we do now, based on our allowable ESA take.

We'll be fishing behind at least one of those fisheries with the low release mortality, the Cowboys. Without changing their allowable ESA impacts one whit, they will remove many, many more hatchery fish from the available pool...before we get to fish for them, both in time and in space.

It doesn't matter one bit to us what the tribes do...their 13% impact comes after our fishery...unless you are an Idaho or E.Wa fisher, in which case not only will you get screwed by the Cowboys taking so many more fish in the LCR, you'll get quadruply screwed by the tribes taking many, many more before they get to you.

The only way that we get more is if everyone says "Hey, commercial guys...you've done so well to lower your mortality rate that we've decided to give some of your allowable impacts to the sporties. Yeah, we know, you've invested in this gear, bigger crews, and all, and yeah, even though we've been telling you all along you'll get more hatchery fish for doing so, I think we can all agree that it would be better if we just gave some of your impacts to the sporties. I'm sure we can count on your support in this!"...

...and then Bigfoot and Santa will stomp out of the meeting, because even they can't believe this.

The most likely scenario is that the 60/40 or 55/45 non-tribal impact split doesn't change at all, the Cowboys catch ten times as many fish as they do now (downstream and before us), we have $hitty fishing, the tribes mop up the rest and use up their impact rate, the same amount of wild fish die, and the Idaho and E.Wa. guys have to drive to Portland to have crappy springer fishing, because they'll get absolutely none on their home waters.

Yippee...sounds like a great idea to me.

Think those hatchery escapement numbers look like garbage on the Kalama and Lewis now? Just wait until another large chunk of those already small hatchery runs are in plastic totes before they even get to their home rivers...double yippee, now the tributary fishing will suck even more, too.

After all the years of having to fight tooth and nail for everything we get on the Columbia, it amazes me to see that sportfishermen actually think that we won't do jackshit to reduce our own mortalities, won't even agree to use barbless hooks, and that the group who does the most to reduce theirs will end up giving theirs to us because....well, because we want them.

For real? Really? I mean, I know it's the Christmas season and all, but I don't think the State or the Cowboys are in that giving of a mood...especially when every single press release on the subject says flat out that they are doing this specifically to give the Cowboys access to more hatchery fish.

It's dreaming...and the problem with it is that it was proposed and supported by some sporties who clearly have no idea how it works on the LCR, and now that it's shown to be a total loser, they would rather cling to their clearly wrong ideology than just say "whoops, perhaps we should figure out what the hell we're doing before we go ahead and just make it worse".

What ever happened to "First, do no harm"..?

Fish on...

Todd

excellent post.

The police should be along any minute to put up the crime tape.

The only thing you left out was the dissolution of a 900 million dollar industry.

You didnt even answer the question. "How long will your good idea take"

NOT gonna happen.....

NOT until the tribal fishery goes selective.

Repeat after me...

Equitable catch-sharing.

NON-treaty users will NOT be allowed to harvest more springers than our native brothers.

Not to start a brawl but to understand the mitigation fish. How was the number arrived at? One lump sum on the Columbia or added to dam by dam? Same with the tribs? The Cowlitz as and example. The mitigation is for the loss of natural production I assume but to where? The Cowlitz or harvest as it applies to the Columbia as a big picture thing.

This is something I don't grasp as if you have XXX mitigation on the Cowlitz for the loss of production then one would assume the fish should make it into the river at the minimum of what is required for natural run production. To put it another way spawner escapement.

Now what on earth am I missing? Is there something that would allow all available harvest take place before the fish make the stream they are mitigation for?

Rivrguy,

Last I heard, the cowlitz changed the escapement policy to a flat amount of production. TP apparently didnt like being on the hook for overharvest in fisheries they do not control, including bycatch. Some of the surplus fish are part of the net pens production for the safe area. TP does not pay for that.

I suspect that SG would have the most information on the CR dams and how that was mitigated.

That is what I find such a puzzle. Flat or flexible number most Mit's are smolt releases to be sure but no requirement or burden on the agency to insure harvest does not remove the fish for that stream?
Something is missing.

Equitable catch sharing. There, that wasn't that hare.

Now, "no more maximum sustainable yield."

Thats just classic department style. I sort of doubt the fisheries dept supported the construction of dams, anywhere. They were given assurances most likely and whatever congress put into law. Generations down the road, if you arent advocating for it, its going to disappear. I have seen in a short time, we can make a difference, because we have. The clock is running and frankly, its opposing NPO agendas that create problems. Some of them are funded by the govt for their own projects and of course their management salaries. Some of the them begin to look like defacto departments of WDFW. Yet WE dont have anything to say about the priority or the agendas of the group that are given the grant money, the state does not have. Several are resource oriented and really dont care if anyone gets to fish. One of them was far more concerned about the seals than the rockfish and other prey. Anglers were the problem.

Several folks have told me the state doesnt even run the fisheries anymore due to federal oversight.

The fact is no scientific modeling exists that shows that any of this harvest reform will actually create more ESA listed fish.
And this only proves that it's nothing more than playing with your food.
Unless you are working to increase the overall population of the imperiled species, then your wasting your time and money.
That's how the federal government has managed the CR's 13 endangered and ESA listed species, and their success rate shows it.
Of the 5 original CR ESA listed stocks, none has recovered, two have declined, in spite of spending $12 billion in the name of recovery.

not true, when the non-tribal commercials reduce there release mortality rate they will get more fish and those fish will come from sports and the catch sharing with the tribes will remain the same

All based on a generic press release with no details. But it fits your agenda, Troll.

Yes / No As Francis pointed out the impact % will probably stay the same. So no to coming from the sports share. That the increased numbers harvested will come from the pool of fish available to harvest and will impact the success rate of the average fisher, yes as sport fishing success is determined by the abundance in the pool. The commercial harvest could reduce it but the " silly little rule " thing is interesting.

I can not see major impact unless the tribal fisheries go selective. Now not being a ass I would have thought that when the push for selective fisheries started that folks would have recognized that fact. That the primary beneficiary would be the remnant stocks of natural spawners is obvious. That the sport fishery would take a hit was also obvious. Is not that the purpose of the selective fishery bit, to save the ESA listed stocks and maintain harvest.

Well, the tribes should switch over tomorrow. That would be the biggest FU to the state in history. And what politician in Washington Oregon and in DC will have time to answer a half million phone calls and letters. Tell me what law or policy will not be changed in the face of that. Cant wait till all the residents in the Northwest find out, they have been paying an extra 20-30% for their power bill, so the tribes and the cowboys can catch the sport portion of the fish. Never mind Boldt. The type of net, to recover ESA listed fish will render Boldt obsolete. 12,000 jobs and the revenue from 900 million dollars in business activities and a complete collapse of Fishing licenses in two states is our destiny.

leadbouncer, why do they want to develop more selective fishing methods for the commercials so they can have increased access to hatchery fish ?, where are these fish going to come from ?

(b) Continue to provide opportunities and resources to further develop selective commercial fishing techniques with a goal of reducing mortality of listed fish and increasing access to hatchery fish.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/policies/c3617_attch1.pdf

Continue moving away from allocation-based fishery management to objective-based fishery management. This shift allows solutions that may improve both fisheries, rather than improving one fishery at the expense of another. This approach will require both sides to concede some ground on their stated positions in order to gain actual improvements in their fisheries. It will also require investment of additional resources in commercial fishery infrastructure and several years’ patience to implement changes.

Why someone would possibly think that equitable catch sharing between the tribal fisheries and the non-tribal fisheries would result in more fish for sporties is beyond me...how could you possibly come to this conclusion?

Equitable between the tribal and non-tribal? Maybe...but even if so, you're going to see those fish in Cowboy totes, not sportie fish boxes...after all, they're the ones who are investing the money and time to reduce their mortality rate, not us..."us" who actually fight and argue to keep ours as high as it is...

Fish on...

Todd

Actually this is how the WDFW long term plan reads.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/policies/c3617_attch1.pdf

Long Term:

(d) Continue moving away from allocation-based fishery management to objective-based fishery management. This shift allows solutions that may improve both fisheries, rather than improving one fishery at the expense of another. This approach will require both sides to concede some ground on their stated positions in order to gain actual improvements in their fisheries. It will also require investment of additional resources in commercial fishery infrastructure and several years’ patience to implement changes.

So the correct answer to this threads title is selective fishing won’t ruin sport fishing when the long term goal is to improve both groups harvest respectively. Considering how the longer term mortality study does. The closer to the recent commercial selective live release mortality that was 1/10th of 1% the more fish shared by commercials and sport in the LCR when the study is done. It could be great fishing in the CR in a few short years.

Great concept the Washington Commission has Louie, problem is theres not a heck of alot of math behind it, just handle and rehandle. Good Luck selling this to NMFS.

in the catch sharing fishery with the tribes for spring chinook how can you improve the harvest of both sport and non-tribal commercials without going over the catch sharing numbers with the tribes ?

This seems a lot more complex than it is...here's the very simple outline:

1. The pie is not getting bigger.

2. People who fish before and in front of us will be eating more of the pie.

Questions?

Fish on...

Todd

If you fish the Rivers or the Tribs your pie might get alot larger after PFMC/NMFS recalculate the H/R impacts of the Ocean Fisherys using the report Henry Yuon presented to PFMC. That will happen in March before the seasons are set according to a very reliable source/manager that looked sick even talking about it.

do you think sportfishing would improve in willipa bay and grays harbor if the wdfw let purse seine boats start fishing those area`s in early august for hatchery salmon ?

In Willapa? No...it will get a lot worse. Grays Harbor? Depends, I guess.

Fish on...

Todd

SBD...I know the salty dogs love their fisheries...but I think if we took a good look at the release mortalties involved in ocean fishing, especially shaker blackmouth and coho, we'd start looking a lot like those commercial fisheries that kill four fish for every one they actually toss in the hold...

Fish on...

Todd

I think Jane has a slightly different plan for everyone S/C that likes to catch fish than the one they would prefer. Much less to catch in much smaller area's is what I see coming down the pipe.

T in GH if you did August you would land right on top of the Summer Chinook. If you want to get a feel for what the real mortality for Chinook is in transition water is, ask Francis.

Seining is a tricky thing ( I did a lot of it years ago ) and mortality rates are dependant on location. In transition water you might as well gill net them as most will not survive to spawn. If you beach seine it is doable but it takes a lot of time and a proper location. If you rush it and bunch the herd the pressure in the net will literally squeeze them to death or run them out of DO. Never seen a commercial spend and extra half hour on a set to insure no mortality. That is not how they make money.

Rivrguy,

Good stuff! What were the issues you encountered in seining? It seems like seines would be easier to manage wild vs hatch.

Gill nets are easy to understand since the desired effect is to snag whatever comes in to drown or get snagged and whacked.
Tangle nets are another issue but I am not convinced of their superiority, at all. Too labor intensive with no up side to the fisher, gotta pull the net to untangle something while missing a catchable fish? Why miss a fish to save one? I would not do that and doubt most commercial fishers would either. I am years out of the game and would like to hear a commercial's perspective if I am wrong, right or elsewhere.

I hope everyone had a most enjoyable Christmas.
So where was I? Oh yah.

b. Long Term:

i. in general.

(d) Continue moving away from allocation-based fishery management to objective-based fishery management. This shift allows solutions that may improve both fisheries, rather than improving one fishery at the expense of another. This approach will require both sides to concede some ground on their stated positions in order to gain actual improvements in their fisheries. It will also require investment of additional resources in commercial fishery infrastructure and several years’ patience to implement changes.

We have seen additional resources going into commercial selective live capture tests since this was written a couple of years ago, This says that the long term goal is to shift allocation to objective fishery management and by doing so that may improve both commercial and sport fisheries. Preliminary results coming in this last year indicate that the improvement to both commercials and sport fisheries should be upgraded from may improve to will improve considering the possibility of upwards to 12X +/-more fish to catch. It also states that compromise will need to be part of the equation for improvement of both parties. Good time to work out other pertinent details like who fishes when ,where, location, and basic dates.

Todd used 10X earlier in this thread to illustrate a point so let’s use that.
Using the 2% incidental impact, Selective live capture would be able to harvest 10X more salmon than Gill nets killing the same ESA listed( of course the pending mortality rate from future tests will determine exactly if it will be 10X +or-)

The tribes are going to want their 50% because in 1974 Judge George Boldt decided in United States v. Washington (384 F. Supp. 312) that Belloni's "fair and equitable share" was, in fact, 50 percent of all the harvestable fish destined for the tribes' traditional fishing places. The following year, Judge Belloni applied the 50/50 standard to U.S. v. Oregon and the Columbia River.

The folks on here that don’t believe that this won’t be under the jurisdiction of US v Oregon management agreement meaning that the tribes and Idaho aren’t part of the process are dreamin.
For giggles and grins let’s say this is a hearing and here is your chance to present why the tribe should not be entitled to their share. Here is your chance to present an iron clad case connecting the dots between all your pertinent information for a slam dunk case. I’m not sure if anybody has wrestled 50% away from the tribes recently but Good luck trying.

Should when you lose--- that would be a win for the ESA wild listed because now that represents 50% that would normally have died in the gill nets will now live and continue their journey up river while 5X more fish are available to be shared by sport and commercial harvest in the LCR. Keith that should make you feel about 2 ½ X less frustrated. Ten year avg. sports have access to 18,488 harvestable salmon X2 ½ =46,220 for sports a considerable amount more fish to catch considering the future success of commercial selective live capture. We also have to consider that some years the maximum fish available to harvest wasn’t achieved due to fishery closures because of high incidental impact being hit to early.

Why anybody would want gill nets over selective live capture gear just doesn’t understand the benefits.

In addition to these benefits above thousand upon thousand of steelhead saved by not throwing them away dead in the up to 66% mortality rate of gill nets and save countless sturgeon from bycatch mortality also.

DR Well we used tangle nets broodstocking with success as long as we were out of transition water ( the fish slimed up ) In transition the fish were OK BUT then as the days went on the rubs ( even hand prints from holding ) fungus up and the head area really was a mess. Second when lifting the net if you don't take up the slack and get under the fish you are squeezing the hell out of the fish when you bring it in the boat. Tangle netting in bays or transition water is not all that much better than gill nets.

Beach seining the first issue is location as you have to have gravel bottom. Mud just turns into a soupy mess that the fish run out of DO. If you do mud, yeah they may swim away but they don't recover to spawn.

Then you have loading and by that I mean how many fish are in the net. When you make your sweep you then bring the forward tail in and as the U shrinks the fish become bunched into the bow of the net. The faster you bring in the greater the massing in the bow and the damage to the fish. You need at least 3 ft of water at the bow and you simply sort by had throwing over the net the non target fish. As the load decreases you continue bringing the net in so as to be able to get your hands on the fish. If you dip net then your now adding stress plus hand sort, at greatly increased rate. If your in mud then kiss your ass good bye. In addition if your location lacks reasonable flow ( current ) then time is everything as the mass packed in the bow will run out of DO.

Purse seining? All the above apply minus the mud, just differently. Simply put it matters not if it is seined, hook & line, or whatever if you get Chinook or Coho in the transition between salt and fresh the mortality is huge. Whatever happens it seems you wind their clocks down and they may survive then but most don't survive to spawn. Now we did no in depth studies but captured brood and held them in 100% ideal circumstances and could not get past the mortality. Agency staff working with us did everything they could ( with more experience & skills ) and could not over come this either. Move upstream and the fish slimed up and we went to beach seines and snagging ( much different than your mental image at this minute as it was very specialized with location, tackle, transport ) and dropped down to around a 4% mortality.

Now the agency staff ( if any are still around ) were well aware of all this and this is why I find this selective thing so unreal. If you want to selective harvest their is only one way to do without losses. Fish wheels! They can be designed to sort and return to the stream rather effectively. All this net stuff is about trying to maintain the tradition harvest methodology of the INDIVIDUAL. Better they formed co ops, used restoration money for low interest loans to get a start up, and got it down to ZERO impacts on non targeted species.

Wish that they could have had some preliminary results on the longer term mortality studies.

I know that these purse seines have been modified. The handling of the fish sounds different than on this link.
I do understand the concept of the longer the nets are not fishing because of empting the nets of fish = less money.

Maybe an observer needed on these boats in the LCR. More expense for observer in addition to already larger crew.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir8QiLqPhjY

"Maybe an observer needed on these boats in the LCR. More expense for observer in addition to already larger crew"



I think you CCA guys need to have the punch analyzed after your next meeting.

Don't get your panties all tied in a knot.

If there is a concern then it should be at least be involved in the process.

Nothing to do with CCA.

LL their are two types of moralities. One at the time of intercept and handling. Second is if they go on to spawn successfully. We found that captured brood if held for a time and then released failed to spawn naturally. A study I read some time back in Alaska ( or some place ) had really high mortality in the bay but as the intercept locations progressed up stream it dropped way down. Until at the hatchery you could seine them up, sort & toss, with almost no mortality. There seems to be a link of some sort ( I am not a Bio ) between when & where the stress occurs as the fish goes from salt to fresh and the changes in the creature with the length of time until spawning after handling. Pretty much a hard link to.

This is why many of us who live in GH have issues with sport C&R in the bay with Chinook the most vulnerable. It is a math thing with harvest always and it matters little as to who or what places the stress on the creature and if the access to harvest is viable. Conservation or harvest, how / where, always a gut check.

Here is a study done at the UW on stress factor of fish caught in gill nets affecting

reproduction.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01673.x/full

Thanks Rivrguy. Good explanation.

i dont recall anyone saying that the tribes would not get there share, plus your focusing to much of spring chinook as there are other runs of salmon in that river that this new commercial method will effect.

Let's not forget in the 2010 30 day samplings the "selective" testing handled roughly 16,000 Fall salmon... That's a lot of salmon for the little effort put in.....

Keith

You keep making the same statement and never make the point. Obviously, you expect them to continue fishing after 30 days. Yet now, both the tribes and cowboys fishing schedules are predetermined and published. They fish up to their estimated impacts (implied quota) and they are done. Its already been established the allocation methods will change in the long run. Its already been established by the Feds if the cowboys do not change to more selective gear the smolt production will be cut. Its already been established that commercial sport allocations will be equal. The commercials will catch their fish in the shortest time period possible and thats better for everyone. If you want the cowboys to fish last, then get off your ass and write a letter. In regards to fishing a few days in between sports, I would be in complete agreement, it sucks for a day or two after the commercials get out of the water. If however, they are limited to the safe areas, then the fish will determine their schedule and it will not conflict with yours. The eastern washington sports and the idaho sports must also be protected on the allocation. They will be because sports will advocate for that protection. Your lack of faith in the advocacy process is your problem, not the organization that you demonize. Most of the sport groups are working towards the same goal and results. They are working to make that happen no matter how long and how loud you complain. Cant wait for you to take credit for putting your boot up our ass and making it happen.

No, if you read what I wrote I'd think you would understand.

Let me help you, there was a small # of test fisherman used to handle the 16,000 fish... "If" and when they unleash the fleet their plan is to "take" more hatchery fish from the pie. You say the allocations between the cowboys and sporties will be equal and that's an assumption at best.. I'm not seeing it, they will take more hatchery fish and large #'s of those will come from the Lower LCR tribs.

Keith

You're off your rocker... I have no problems with CCA and some of their agendas. Some do make sense outside of the CR basin. I didn't agree with supporting the CR summer king non-ad clip closure until 100% of the hatchery fish are clipped, especially when they consider the wild run healthy... I don't support a barbless hook mandate as there's no evidence they have a lower mortality rate.

It's almost like the group is grasping for ideas or successes to stake claim to, IMHO....

Keith

It's almost like some special interests who is primarily responsible for killing 80% of the CR salmon and steelhead population, started a sportfishing group that's really just a smoke screen to divert attention away from what really needs fixing.

What LB fails to realize is that this conversation has nothing to do with the advocacy process...a process, by the way, that many of us have participated in for many years before people around here ever heard of the CCA, or the CCA ever heard of salmon...it has entirely 100% to do with what they are advocating, which is a POS proposal that won't help fish or fishing...

Fish on...

Todd

put in.................................. from the great communicator.


If you had read what eyefish and louie had posted you would have seen it. The TEST was to prove the fishery and the equipment could be successfull. Testing may not be finished and may or may not be successful, and we deal with the results in order to protect the wild fish and the sportfishing community. You have no idea how many of the fleet will be fishing. There are many more in the fleet right now who do not fish, because they would split up the impacts between themselves, just like the tribes do and the sports do. Those who do not fish now, may not be interested in switching gear and may not be eligible for a buyout or renewing their permits. There is no reward for changing gear, there is only punishment if they do not. You dont know how big the pie will be nor where the pie will be cut up. Part of the fish already come from the tribs and we have ways to protect those tributary fish, by adding surplus production to the safe areas and offset that with reductions from fish in the tribuataries. You have it easy. The only area in the state not affected by tribal harvest is SW Washington tribs. I guess maybe you dont care if the tribes fish with gillnets, but most of us dont like it much. We are unlikely to force a change on the tribes that the non tribal fishery is not required to make. Tribes have far more allowable impacts. Hardly in line or spirit with the Boldt decision. What ever amount of wild fish are spawning, a direct mortality of 15% on each return is much too high under the circumstances. It must be reduced.

There are 550 permits, 150 of them fish right now... I've looked into the cost of a permit, if a guy could get his hands on one... I think they'll bring a pretty penny if and when all of this goes through...

Keith

Says you....

That says a lot about your level of understanding about cca in the first place. They knew about our issues for a long time. Its not their agenda we have adopted. The agenda is a local decision, the model used to achieve success is where cca national is important. Further, Ive read thru some other policies and actions that share many similarities. Oddly enough, its one of the many organizations that you have belonged to. Maybe you could explain why one of your organizations was succcessful in eliminating sport kill of wild steelhead and advocated (that word again) for a Feb 15 hatchery season on Puget Sound and yet have done nothing about the tribal gillnets that kill so many. How does a February 15 cut off benefit fish or fishing? You belong to TU and RFA and I cant remember either one of them supporting sports in the gillnet debate. In fact, TU was on the fense about 5127 although from the video, it sure looked like he favored getting rid of the commission. I also noticed you are not on the WSC board anymore.

http://wildsteelheadcoalition.org/mission.htm

http://wildsteelheadcoalition.org/bod-2.html

I agree, it's confusing the heck out of me....

Part of me is starting to think CCA is a wild fish activist group that could give a crap what happens with fishing as long as the wild fish supposedly have a chance...

Keith

Keith, there isn't one bit of scientific evidence that shows this harvest reform idea will save any ESA listed species.
There isn't even any scientific modeling to show this idea has any recovery merits what so ever, it's simply a faith oriented concept that sounds good to a lot of people, fisheries scientists however are not one them.

I'm with ya...

Sad but true...

Keith

Whether they use allocation impacts or not, there are only so many fish the commercials can catch. They do not take priority over sport harvest. They have to split the harvest between themselves just like the tribes do. If they do not renew the permit every year, its automatically retired. If the gear is swtiched to different gear, chances are not all of them will participate.

That law hasn't been written yet.. If they switch to "selective" nets, there will be some new rules to deals with.. Call it a hunch, but they WANT THE HATCHERY FISH OUT OF THE RIVER and the SPORTSMAN can't do it....

Can you WRAP YOUR MIND AROUND THAT?

Keith

You only have it half right. We are advocates for wild fish, but unlike Native fish society and a few others, we are not trying to cut hatchery funding or plants or close the seasons early. A lot of me already knows, you wont give an inch for wild fish. Its only a problem for you when they have to bury two or three years of summer run production at the cowlitz due to diseases. Just think when all the wild fish are gone, we can all rely on the great Chambers Creek winter fish, that havent had a shot of wild DNA in a very long time.

Others here can verify the south Sound and Hood Canal policy is not dedicated to wild fish recovery for several species. They will rely on hatcheries. The McKernan hatchery which raises chum was going to be closed. Both the tribes and Seiners group are now footing the bill to keep the hatchery open. Thats how bad things can get. Pay up or dont fish.

"It's almost like some special interests who is primarily responsible for killing 80% of the CR salmon and steelhead population, started a sportfishing group that's really just a smoke screen to divert attention away from what really needs fixing. "



Bingo...!!!

We have current laws. I hope your are not suggesting that more commercials going to the columbia would entitle all of them to more fish. When the impacts are reached they are done. Add more nets to the river and the impacts will be reached very shortly. I know its convenient to overlook the support that the commission has given the anglers and its important to remember, they set the policy for the allocation pecentages, which the directors negotiates with Oregon.

To refresh your memory this is a copy of the legislation that cca submitted in 2009 and was not acted on. In 2010, it was scheduled for hearings but did not make it out of committee. It was the same year the house committee took testimony on a commercial fishers competing bill and that was not voted on. We would be no closer to the GEAR being used than we are now, but the legislation would have been updated and strengthen support for sport fishing in this state and it was the CCA that brought forth this bill. New sections are new language, Amendments are underlined and repealed language has a line in it. Its 8 pages long. Most of the changes are on pages 1 2 3 4 and 8

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2266.pdf

keith, i dont think he realizes that the reason this new commercial gear is being tested is to get more hatchery fish out of the system.

I agree, and a lot of folks have a hard time internalizing it...which is odd, because every single press release comes right out and says it...the whole point is to give the commercial fleet "access to more hatchery fish"...with the occasional passing reference to some possible and vague benefits to wild fish.

The commercials know why they're doing it...the States know why they're doing it...the Feds know why they're doing it...most sportsmen know why they're doing it...there's only one group of folks out there that is in some odd state of denial that doesn't allow them to actually evaluate their position, just entrench behind it deeper.

Fish on...

Todd

I've been talking about the possibility of 12X more hatchery fish being caught months ago. Am I undershooting the estimate?

CCA helped remove two dams in Maine and built hatcheries for Redfish in other states.

http://www.joincca.org/Accomplishments.html
Secured 2.5 million from Bath Iron Works to remove Edwards Dam on Kennebec River, Maine 1997
Successfully raised $450,000 in cash and in-kind donations to purchase and remove the Smelt Hill Dam (Maine 2001).
Led successful national effort to keep open-loop LNG terminals out of Gulf of Mexico (National 2006).
Instrumental in support of an Executive Order signed by the President ensuring federal agencies will manage recreational angling as a sustainable activity in all federal waters, including marine protected areas (CCA National 2008).


John Wilson Hatchery Texas 1981
SeaCenter Texas Hatchery Texas 1996
Worked through state legislature and private foundations to continue critical funding for Florida’s state saltwater hatchery, resulting in the 1,000,000th redfish fingerling released in Florida waters (Florida 2001).
Instrumental in the effort to secure tideland funds for speckled trout hatchery (Mississippi 2004).
Helped establish the first-ever hatchery for southern flounder (North Carolina 2005).
Funded $700,000 for construction of a state-of-the-art marine larviculture research lab (Texas 2007).


How about you?

Todd,
Before that we were saying that more hatchery fish would be caught and that would be shared between the commercials and sports. You disagreed then and as far as I'm concern you are still wrong today as you were a year ago.

Todd,

Still waiting to hear your new plan for gillnets in the CR, including tribal nets.

Not interested in what you WONT DO. We already know that.

Bet you could trace alot of these projects right back to the oil and gas/power industry, remember they have impacts on fish too, it's not just fishing. NMFS has to calculate all take, wether it be logging, sealions, dam's or an offshore drilling rig it all has to be included, what we get to fish on is just the tail end of what's left.

what plan do you have in the works that will get non-tribal gillnets off of the columbia ??

todd is correct

If your aren't the same person then both of you are wrong.

d) Continue moving away from allocation-based fishery management to objective-based fishery management. This shift allows solutions that may improve both fisheries, rather than improving one fishery at the expense of another. This approach will require both sides to concede some ground on their stated positions in order to gain actual improvements in their fisheries. It will also require investment of additional resources in commercial fishery infrastructure and several years’ patience to implement changes.

I can read just fine...that's just not how it's going to work out.

LB, my plan is the same one that it's always been...get the non-tribal commercial fishing industry completely and utterly out of the Columbia River...for once and for all.

Fish on...

Todd

your wrong

we should set up a meeting over this issue, after 40 plus years of salmon fishing a few of you are the first to tell me that if the commercials get more fish it will make sportfishing better, and to top it off, you are serious

Interesting that you use and believe in press releases and articles but not the Columbia River Sport and Commercial Spring Chinook Fisheries:
Objectives and Strategies for Near- and Long-Term Management

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/policies/c3617_attch1.pdf

Excellent.
That would save a few wild fish in the lower river tribs.
I can't find the press release, so how will we get that done?

Advocacy?

Yes...but not advocating for something that will further entrench the commercial fishery.

Fish on...

Todd

I wish you would pay attention I posted this earlier today.
More than 28,000 more fish projected per year to catch over the 10 year average when Selective live capture begins.
Page 14 of this thread if you want to read the whole thing.

Ten year avg. sports have access to 18,488 harvestable salmon X2 ½ =46,220 for sports a considerable amount more fish to catch considering the future success of commercial selective live capture. We also have to consider that some years the maximum fish available to harvest wasn’t achieved due to fishery closures because of high incidental impact being hit to early.

Actually if you read Oregon Attorney Generals interpretation of CCA's ballot measure this was exactly the intent, problem is they did such a good job of bullshiting everyone including WDFW's Miranda now their stuck with a mess they don't even have an answer for. Little Boys shouldn't play with fire you know..

Twins

your basing that on the assumption that all the up river tribes will go to a new fishing method like the colvilles, that aint going to happen.

thanks, todd actually knows what he`s talking about, unlike you clowns

Wrong try again Bozo

(In your not so humble opinion) First of all, the initiative had to be changed due to an unfavorable interpretation. The timing will be much closer to the results of the testing. I realize that since Miranda has been quoted in an article last year, the commercial interests, like yourself do not support her or the Washington Commission and did their best to eliminate it in 2009 by turning the hunting groups against it in the eyes of the legislature.

Nothing has changed. We still have the same old mess.

Maybe you think the Colville wont raise hell about their hatchery fish...

Should be getting the press release in your tribal newsletter pretty soon.

"We also have to consider that some years the maximum fish available to harvest wasn’t achieved due to fishery closures because of high incidental impact being hit to early."


Last few years catchsharing is what shut down the fishery, we also have the problem of over predicting runs which causes the fisherman to excede the allowable impacts..It is a mess that's for sure.

That really would be debatable.

Lead ...CCA couldn't answer the same question when it was asked by the tribes, still can't answer it when it's being asked by the sports industry. Don't think they have an answer because it was never designed to be a workable plan, just a line of BS to get the voter's to eliminate the non tribal commercial fishery..Damn those guys at Oregon Attorneys Generals Office.... Right!

You have that on tape of course?

You are such a nut cracker....

I love wild fish, the real one's you know.... Not those with CWT's in their head or those misclips. You're group assisted in getting the non-ad clip Summer King fishery closed on the LCR when the clip rate was barely over 70%... That means theres a decent # of those non-clipped kings I worked so hard to catch (which were actually truly hatchery fish) I had to release... What's the point in fishing again? If I wanted to CnR fish all the time, I'd head to a all wild river without hatchery plants... To top it off, the summer king wild run is estimated healthy... Why can't I keep those again?

I'm still thinking you're a wild fish advocacy group....

Keith

No but there are some transcripts of a meeting I attended where a certain Houston based LNG group presented a plan to mitigate impacts by using selective fishing idea's being presented by another Houston based so called conservation group...

So you're ok with making allegations, but not worried about the proof. No moral problem with demonizing a non profit, involved in conservation.


Moving on....




Where can I get the transcripts?

http://tdn.com/news/local/article_8875ad54-5899-11df-a1a8-001cc4c002e0.html

Interesting that you don't have any harsh words for the mayor Diane Pohl. But Texas is fair game, even though the investment income could have come from any state. Its actually common for energy related companies to file Corporation papers in Texas. Northern Star Mining in Quebec is also filing for bankruptcy. Whether one is a partner of the other is anyones guess. If you look at Connecticut, its full of insurance companies.

On Wednesday, Clatskanie Mayor Diane Pohl called NorthernStar's collapse "a shame" and "a huge loss."
The terminal, she said, would have brought family wage jobs to the area, and some of the workers, no doubt, would have lived in Clatskanie, pumping dollars into the little town's economy.
"Hysteria and a lot of misinformation went around, and Bradwood hung around as long as they could," Pohl said. "It reflects on Oregon and the brutality of getting industry sited in this state. It's very difficult. It takes years, not months."


http://orsierraclub.wordpress.com/2010/0...eclare-victory/

Using SBD logic, if Salmon for all did not file a lawsuit to stop the LNG plant, then perhaps they also supported it. Seems to be the thought process.

Here's the transcript of the last 2 pages of this thread so far...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

DR .................... .............

He has a point. Some people just want to lash out at the closest target. A feeling of weakness against larger and more isolated targets like the dept.


Then again, a lot of people like a certain stock and the financial show always puts on the short sellers, telling you its going to go down and why. Thomas Edison fried an Elephant on AC current to scare people from the idea of AC current and favor DC current. Nikoli Tesla took a lot of heat for his position. Yet DC current was expensive and impractical. Edison had a financial interest in DC current. Tough to prove who has a financial interest in keeping the status quo, or those who want to protect others who do.

Ten years ago, dam operators, aluminum producers and irragators were all saying it's not the dams, it's harvest.
Sound familiar?

Let me hit at this one more time....

Wild Winter Steelhead are one of the few fish that get's my blood flowing. I love the chance at that 30 pounder..

But, fact is I don't beleive the gillnets are the demise of our wild winter steelhead. By all means they are a small fraction of the factor but by putting "selective" nets in the LCR I don't see it changing our wild fish #'s that we get by more than 10%. The real problem is being exposed right under our nose, the evidence is just too deep. It's so evident when you look at the few strong runs of wild fish steelhead/salmon, there sure isn't much if any hatchery fish mingling in those systems...

Take the North Fork of the Lewis for example, it has a strong run of LRB's (true wild fall kings). This river hasn't had any hatchery supplementation in 25 or more years, sure it has a handful of Tule strays but that's it.

Take the EF of the Lewis. In my younger years you'd catch 1 or 2 wild summer runs in a season right along the side of the 60-100 hatchery fish you'd catch... Now that they've slowly cut the hatchery plants over the years from 100,000+ to 15,000 smolt in 2009, we catch good #'s of wild summer steelhead there now.

Take the Kalama river, it has almost always met escapement for wild winter steelhead. With a falls that sorts hatchery fish out of the system and let's the wild fish go by to the upper river to spawn.

Take the Grays River, it has almost always met escapement for wild winter steelhead.. It has a hatchery on the West Fork which is a side creek that draws a large # of the hatchery fish from the Grays River....

Take the Wind River which hasn't planted hatchery fish since 2001 (?), it has taken away hatchery plants and now sees great wild #'s which it never used to have when I was younger...

The writing is on the wall. The evidence is being discussed by the higher powers but it's just hard to believe until you really put the pieces of the puzzle together...

Keith

yes, you keep repeating it in the hope of drawing all of our time and resources into that black hole. I say tear all the dams down and a lot of members would agree. We just are not ready to live in the dark. When you get the approval for the nuke plants, let me know. We have a coal fired electrical plant in Centrailia and Ive talked to one of their people. They are constantly being attacked. You really think Judge Redden could not have concluded this case years earlier? How come you arent all over his ass?

They spend around a billion per year on habitat (rumor?) and yet the escape numbers have not been raised. Solving harvest issues is one method of backing that group into a corner. BTW commercial harvest threats are never dead. When the fish come back, so do they.

Maybe you should read the Fish Commissioners reports from 1890 again.

Keith,

Are you out of the closet as a wild fish fanatic.

You dont have tribal harvest on steelhead on most of those rivers. Dont tell me its not harvest. I m not letting the dams off the hook either.


We have a little river up here in king county called the green. Historically, there were no pinks in that river. They found a few and years went by and the numbers went up and up. Last year, they estimated the river count at more than 5 million fish.

There is a dam up high, but a watershed behind it. The last mile of water is blocked due to 911. Until 2009, I dont think a pink season was available. Our NoF rep had to come up gear that would be approved by the state and the tribes so that we didnt snag all the kings. They came up with a 1/2 inch gap on a barbless hook. Limit was around six. All wild.

Im told there will be some commercial harvest next year.

I was there when they said it over and over again in their testimony that supported the four lower Snake River dams.
It was wrong then and it's still wrong now, one only needs to look at the results of curtailed harvest of wild steelhead over the last 25 years, harvest reform my a$$.

Who is THEY?

I dont know enough about wild steelhead populations in either state. I do know we have in river steelhead harvest (except SW Wa.) and apparently, Oregon does not.
It still looks like you want to give someone in harvest a pass. At every level of the population there is a point of overharvest. When the runs suck like they do in washington, we cannot afford tribal harvest. I cant speak for Oregon.

Laugh all you want...

We don't have tribal harvest on the rivers I speak of for steelhead or salmon. We don't have any harvest except the incidental kill with the nets and as I stated earlier, that's not much.

The Lewis River Bright's (Fall fish) have withstood extreme harvest through the 90's and early 2000's. They missed escapement for one year and it has been shut down since. Escapement is set at 6600 fish, this years return was predicted at 12,000. 2009's run was predicted at roughly 10,000 and the run came in right about that... Plenty of room for harvest, but groups stand in the way of letting us at those fish.

Again, plenty of harvest on these fish and I mean plenty over the years. We've more than took our share as well as the netters in the LCR. But the run is still healthy. Again, no HATCHERY fish in that system... Interesting isn't it?

Keith

I'm not sure you know much about fishing in general let alone what rivers get what for returns... Might help if you get out a bit before you start running your mouth.

Keith

Its sound like you dont want hatchery fish. Selective harvest is only going enable hatchery production. Therefore you dont want selective harvest. That could fit the agenda of a few other people.

Am I close or should I hit the river and try again?

No, what I'm saying is it doesn't matter what your group (CCA) does in the LCR. Even if "selective" harvest was implemented it won't do [censored] except take hatchery fish from the sportsman for the time being. Sooner than later you'll realize that hatchery fish are the problem and they will slowly be taken away. Sucks but true... So let us harvest on the wild populations that can sustain it... CR SUMMER KINGS, LEWIS RIVER BRIGHTS.... Ironically you're group has supported stopping this...

You ever actually meet Gary Loomis? He's a much different guy now than he was in his younger years... He's all about protecting the wild fish and those fall kings are his pet fish...

Keith

Freespool,

They still are saying that it's harvest. So yes, it sounds familiar. And this thread is familiar in its inanity.

Sg

SG the thread was interesting until the girls got into a cat fight!

has anyone listened to item 3 ?

http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2010/12/audio_dec0410.html

Keith were the dorsal fin's about a 1/2" tall? The reason I'm asking is I caught a couple of summer runs back in Sept. that were Idaho bound that have the nick name "stubbies". The Indians don't clip their Adipose fin's. Sucked releasing those brutes.

Just curious.

Mf

I was actually speaking of the summer kings, but have seen a lot of that with the summer steelhead. Those dorsals get the hatchery rash when they're smolt...

Keith

I don't fish summer kings, and I just was curious if the sk's "hatchery rash" is similar to the summer steelhead. Wondered if the sk's & ss are from the same tribe, by chance.

Thanks

Mf

Definition of INANITY. 1: the quality or state of being inane: as a: lack of substance : emptiness b: vapid, pointless, or fatuous character : shallowness

Sg:

Way to go......had to use my resourses to look up another word.....Thanks....

Kinda wish we could start 2011.....with this "thead being shut down".

so you dont think this issue should be a concern to sportfisherman ??

Boater,

I doubt it. The issue should be of concern to most. However these threads always go sideways with posts that are sarcastic to idiotic, like yours, posts in response to posts 6 or 12 posts earlier without referencing them, posts that just lob fuel on a fire with no constructive or informative intent whatever, like many of yours. You seem to think it's an important subject, and you contribute unproductive posts endlessly, so I have to conclude you're really only here for the perverse entertainment with no intent toward constructive discussion. I guess another possibility is that you're the idiot that some posters call you.

Sg

What ya think???????
















Have a good New Year............

a typical response from a non-thinking cca member

Most folks on here would agree that the tribes are entitled and will receive 50% of the Selective live capture additional harvest windfall that gill nets can’t catch due to the 2% incidental impact cap and the high mortality of gill nets.
When the allocation balance of commercial and sport takes place the tribes will receive their 50% according to US VS Oregon management plan and that will leave a savings of around ½ of the ESA listed normally killed in gill nets to continue their swim upriver when selective live capture gear is implemented.
Todd has said it can’t happen in a layered generalization oratorical way without any substantial facts other than it just can’t happen. Well I think you are just as WRONG today as you have been for over the past year.

You and your followers have continuously bashed people and organizations over this subject for over a year due to the inability to do the homework letting ignorance fuel the continuous prejudices about the new kid on the block.

I suggest that the highly contested---” gill net VS selective live capture gear equals no ESA listed saving” is incorrect and that 50 % ESA listed can be saved by using the new selective capture gear.

Myth busted.

L Louie,

Just because you suggest something, and include your reasoning, doesn't equal myth busting. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The legal standard for persuasion in arguments or debate of this sort is clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. And it's generally missing from 99% of the posts in these on-going threads.

Sg

And a typical unconstructive and useless post by Boater. Hell, I'm even on your side in this, you idiot!

Sg

one of the guiding principals for the wdfw is the new Hatchery and Fishery Reform policy http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/policies/c3619.html, one of the guiding principals in that is the 21st Century Salmon and Steelhead Initiative http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00036/draft_framework_20090131.pdf, now, for some unknown reason your thinking that gillnets are going away and we are going to a total new commercial harvest method and i`d have to ask "where did you wish you heard that" ?, i`d suggest that you ask who ever it was that told you that why the 21st century initiative calls for having a net drop out study done by the year 2040 is there that much drop out in purse seines or beach seines ?, plus, do you realy think the non-tribal commercials are going to give up harvesting upriver brights ??, i dont.

plus, if you take the time and listen to this http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2010/12/audio_dec0410.html and listen to what the commercial fisherman is saying about when they would want to fish i`d have to say that it would devastate the sport fishery and also notice that nobody ask`s what effect this will have on sportfishing, if we had someone on the commission that understood sportfishing that question would have been asked but it wasnt and we are going to get screwed.

Salmo, can you provide any scientific evidence that shows that switching to a selective harvest method on the CR will result in ESA listed species recovery?
I'm not calling you out, just trying to find any science that says this plan is in fact a recovery effort.
All the information provided thus far seems to indicate that this plan is more faith based, rather than based in science.

Freespool,

Please, I've answered that question for you previously. Why the repetition? The answer is no because it won't and there isn't any. Further, selective harvest isn't about ESA recovery; it's about harvesting more hatchery salmon with the same ESA take. You want ESA recovery via harvest reform? Use the selective harvest model I've discussed here before.

Sg

This is more like it Boater.

I have read both over the past year and they both make reference to conservation of wild fish.

So far I’ve shown that some conservation of some of the wild fish can be achieved with the implementation of selective live capture gear while catching much more hachery fish as intended. That is and was the point. People have been incarcerated with less evidence than I’ve shown in this thread.

Here is the whole document for people to see instead of the snippet you want to show.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00036/wdfw00036.pdf

I thought you said that you weren’t Todd. I want to hear from the top clown not the circus grunt about the unfounded accusations over the last year.

So it's a non scientific faith based plan, with a zero ESA recovery potential?
What's your prediction on how this plan, if implemented, will effect sport anglers success rate?

I’ve heard that coupled with all the other tapes if not at the meetings myself so I can get a feeling of the whole picture. I’m impressed and commend the commission with the questions that they are asking. If reports are submitted with out by catch data by fish managers the commission will ask for it and expect it to be part of the report next time so they can make an informed decision.

On this tape you presented here-- the commission asked if exclusive selective fishing could work and the gill netter reluctantly testified yes.
Also another testified that he wasn’t used to putting the fish back unharmed instead bring the gill nets in as fast as he can while slamming the fish into the boat.

That got a good laugh from the by catch conscience commissioners.

the goal of this whole new commercial fishing method is to catch more harvestable fish before they reach the allowable esa take amount, the net gain to listed fish is zero, why is that so hard to understand ?

What you still don't understand is that the same ESA listed will be cut in half as previously stated through out this thread if selective live capture catch gear is implemented.That is one of the benefits that comes along with much more hatchery fish caught.

Another highly contested issue this year was that commercials were going to get all of the extra fish and not have to split it with sports.

Columbia River Sport and Commercial Spring Chinook Fisheries:
Objectives and Strategies for Near- and Long-Term Management

http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/policies/c3617_attch1.pdf

d) Continue moving away from allocation-based fishery management to objective-based fishery management. This shift allows solutions that may improve both fisheries, rather than improving one fishery at the expense of another. This approach will require both sides to concede some ground on their stated positions in order to gain actual improvements in their fisheries. It will also require investment of additional resources in commercial fishery infrastructure and several years’ patience to implement changes.

I would consider that another

MYTH BUSTED

Consider it busted all you want...the real myth is how a sportfisherman could actually think that this will happen, in spite of all evidence and fairly simple math to the contrary...

You've been fed a line of bull$hit from a pseudo-conservation organization, and you are eating with two spoons at once.

Fish on...

Todd

can you provide a link to a document that shows the allowable esa take amount will be cut in half after they start using a new method with a lower release mortality rate ?

A pseudo-conservation organization that employs lobbyists who have close ties to dam operators, aluminum producers and grain shippers.

Selective live capture testing is being conducted now and in the future. All I have to do is show probable cause the future will provide the rest. Or you could win this discussion with a slam dunk theory of your own so far you only have provided your Bogeyman theories .

http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2010/12/audio_dec0410.html



Thanks Boater that was good, it pretty much sums up all the problems and the mortality rate isn't one of them.

You never have anything to say about the CR. OK you did one time and you put your foot into your mouth.

You and Todd always talk in generalizations with no facts which the mountainous pile continues to grow.

Looks like it is a good time to take the grand kids to play in the snow this is getting boring.

maybe you can explain your theory to me, how is it that we will have better sportfishing and catch more fish after they implement new commercial gear that will allow the commercials to take more fish than they do now ?

this is a true story, i fish the duwamish alot in the fall for silvers before the nets go in and catch alot of fish and after the nets go in i quit fishing it, i drove down there the day after the nets went in and a sports fisherman was pulling his boat in and said he couldnt understand it, he said yesterday before the nets went in he caught his limit and today he didnt get a bite, was that you ?

This is not a hard concept...focus.

The commerical guys fish first, and in front of us, and using "live capture methods", harvest far more hatchery fish. Read every single non-CCA press release about it, they mention it every single time.

Fish are reserved for the tribal fishers, as always. No less than now.

We fish in between them, over less fish...yet for some reason there are some who equate that with "better sportfishing"...KK's analogy was apt, it's like having a bow season following a fully automatic machine gun season in the same game unit, and expecting better archery hunting.

Live capture methods will be a boon to non-target species like steelhead and sturgeon, and those who fish for steelhead in the tribs or for sturgeon will be happy with the result...I, for one, am one of those who will benefit from more steelhead being in the tribs.

However, for those who fish for springers in the LCR, or in E.Wa, or God forbid, Idaho...those guys are screwed, and big time. Same with those who fish for springers in the LCR tribs, the Lewis, Kalama, and Willamette...bend over.

Wait until they implement it for coho and fall Chinook, too...we'll go to fully marked selective fishing on those runs, and then, once again, we'll fish behind the user group that has the ability to harvest far, far more of them than we will.

As I've said many times before, "selective fishing" (as this pilot program is incorrectly called) is a tool, not a panacea...in appropriate circumstances, it is appropriate, and can account for longer seasons, more wild fish, and better fishing. When it is used in inappropriate circumstances, it may cause damage to fishing opportunity, and may not provide any benefits whatsoever to wild fish.

In the LCR, this is what will happen.

The good thing about these discussions, at least, is that no one will be able to come back after the commercials load their totes, we go out and have horrible springer fishing, and then say "Wow, didn't see that one coming!"...you have been forewarned, repeatedly.

Fish on...

Todd

LuckyLouie - Nobody who understands the Columbia River fisheries ever said the "commercials would get 100% of any additional mainstem harvest". (I can understand the confusion though, because some on here continually, and wrongly, claimed that was the position of us who are opposed to further entrenching the commercials on the CR).

The push to "outcome based" management, is pushed by ODFW to avoid the "allocation question", and thus all the outcry from sportfisher who have jammed the Olympia and Salem hearings these past eight years.

The "outcome-based strategy" disipates the allocation issue, and allows the agencies to boldly proclaim they're giving sportsfishers a "60 day season". Unfortunately, the springer fishing in February sucks, but hey, it's 30 days of opportunity.

Sadly, with outcome-based strategy, the joke (or the myth) is on us.

And that, in part, is why we fought for a 70/30 impact split -- because that produces the "outcome" anglers deserve and want -- a below-Bonneville Columbia River springer season that would dependably continue through most of April.

But beginning in 2010, with the unhappy Tribal co-managers on the warpath, Catch-Balancing became the 'hard cap' on limiting below Bonneville harvest of upriver bound springers.

When you add "selective commercial methods" without at the same time capping the commercial harvest rate, where this potentially leads to, is the commercials achieving harvest parity on the below-Bonneville mainstem. Something they've long asked for on springers. And successfully got on Summer Chinook

Not ALL the fish, but a larger share of the available harvest. That's what the commercials are lobbying for, and it will be a huge win for them and loss for anglers when and if it happens with springers.

Wishful thinking is subordinate to the simple math governing this three way division of hatchery fish.

Freespool,

It's scientific in that there are data on mortality rates by fishing method. There is ESA recovery potential if managers chose to use the reduced mortality for recovery. However, no mention has been made about allocating the mortality savings to recovery. Every agency statement issued has mentioned increased harvest of hatchery fish.

Angler CPUE will decrease due to reduced average salmon abundance in the pool. By how much, I don't know, and it's variable.

Sg

If the removal of hatchery fish from the gene pool is the desired result, why wouldn't the use of excluder's at the dam and Willamette Falls work even better?
LCR tribs could adapt a more liberal sport bag limit, traps and weirs could remove even more hatchery fish.
This would achieve a lower level of hatchery wild interaction, and it wouldn't screw the LCR sport fishing fleet out of existence..

That would make sense if they knew they were actually passing true wild fish to co-mingle in the gene pool. How are they going to identify the true wild fish again?

Just the clipped one right?

Keith

Freespool,

Of course traps and state of the art fish sorting facilities at Bonneville and Willamette would work better. Facilities already exist at Cowlitz and will soon on the NF Lewis. Kalama Falls could be retrofitted. This would be consistent with ESA recovery, highest and best use conservation in the LCR, and responsible and intelligent fisheries management.

Keith's concern about unmarked hatchery fish is very small potatoes in the big pool of more serious fish conservation issues.

Sg

Thanks Salmo, and I agree totally.
And Keith has been shown the data on CR mark rates, he just doesn't believe it.

Looking back over this large thread the most glaring thing that sticks out is the unknown due to the fact of the tests being done and not knowing what to expect after that. The unknown seems to always conjure up the worst case scenario whether the world is flat and when you get to the end you will fall off to the CR with the use of selective live capture gear after testing will ruin sport fishing.
The CR long term strategic plan says that compromise will play a role for improved fisheries for both parties the sport and commercial and looking at the math there is no reason to believe that wouldn’t be the case.

Another interesting thought in this thread was taking the commercials off the main stem and putting into safe areas. When gill nets were tested in these areas there was a high ratio of sturgeon to target fish. The use of selective live capture to be used to catch hatchery salmon and release the sturgeon unharmed could be a possibility..

It should be interesting to see what the test result will bring this year.

WDFW, ODFW, and NOAA-F have had "long term strategic goals" talking about the recovery of all the ESA listed fish in the States, too, and how we won't need hatcheries any more once there are millions of wild fish returning again, and everyone will be happy...until then, short term economic benefits, political expediency, and outright denial of the facts of life will continue to rule the day...

Fish on...

Todd

what math are you looking at ?, and if you read "onthecolumbia`s" post on the last page i totally agree with him, common sense should tell you that if you look into the spring chinook fishery and check the numbers of hatchery spring chinook caught in it that the compromise would be coming from one place and that's the sports.

I can't believe my own eyes and have avoided commenting on this thread for some time.........finally someone making sense, Salmo G and amazingly Freespool...........Back your commercial trucks up to the sorting area's at Bonniville and the like and load up..........price of admission of course..........put up your nets

"Putting up their nets" is the ONLY solution that will provide better sportfishing AND more wild fish on the spawning grounds...employing the commercial industry to "help" is like employing Wile E. Coyote to feed your chickens.

Fish on...

Todd

What prevents the tribes from fishing the LCR.

Nothing is stopping them, however their present fishing methods wouldn't work on the LCR, where larger boats are needed to safely fish a much larger body of water.
FYI the Tribes have erected platforms at Willamette Falls and dip netted spring chinook, and they annually harvest Lamprey ells at the falls.

Lead Bouncer,

While tribal fishermen may fish the LCR, as far as I know, no treaty tribe has adjudicated (meaning approved by a federal court) fishing rights in the LCR as "usual and accustomed fishing area." That would prevent them from fishing in the LCR unless WDFW, ODFW, USFWS, and NMFS gives at least a tacit approval, as in failure to object implies consent.

Sg

you mean after the non-tribal commercials are banned from the lcr mainstem ?

Thanks SG


If the fish were removed at the bonneville ladder by the lower river commercials and no wild fish impacts resulted, what would the allocation be based on?

LB,

Allocation would be based on the forecasted return to coterminous US waters, same as they are now I presume.

Fish traps at Bonneville would not completely solve problems. Some number of hatchery fish need to be made available to the treaty fishery, and others need to go to non-treaty recreational in the mid-C, Snake, and terminal areas, and differing percentages of hatchery fish need to return as brood to their respective hatcheries of origin. I expect that even with the best of calculations and allocations some excess hatchery fish would still end up on natural spawning beds. However, the amount of control would be much greater than under current conditions. Near perfect would be having the treaty fish also harvested from traps at Bonneville and McNary.

That could work so well that ESA fish might even have a chance at recovery with the dams remaining in place.

Sg

If no wild fish die in a bonneville trap, who gets all the fish?

I would say that that would be a small formality on the part of the Tribes, to say they never fished below where Bonneville Dam now stands would be absurd.
Salmo, the Tribes have been dip netting and hook and line fishing just below the dam for a number of years now, which makes it clear that they can in fact fish the LCR is they so choose.

I can support this.

Did you really just say that?

Fish on...

Todd

Too easy.....

If no wild fish die, how are the allocations set.

LB,

Some wild fish will die, but not enough to be limiting. In the absence of significant ESA mortality, the usual legal guidance will set allocations, presumably along the lines of 50:50. Non-treaty allocation between sport and commercial would most likely be set according to respective political influence.

Freespool,

It isn't about what is or isn't absurd. Some people think that treaty fishing rights in the 20th and 21st centuries is absurd. It's about what's adjudicated unless the tribes assert otherwise, and the states do not object. If OR and WA are not objecting to treaty fishing downstream of Bonneville, it's probably because they have concluded that the tribes would prevail in adjudication. But it hasn't happened yet.

Todd,

Although improbable on the Columbia, it's technically possible.

Sg

The problem with "responsible fisheries management" is that it's almost always technically possible...it's just so rarely ever done.

Fish on...

Todd

I think its interesting how ONE solution requires one type of allocation method, but another solution is allowed to revert to a different set of rules.

Safe area gillnets
Selective live capture LCR
Selective live capture in Safe areas
No LCR commercial harvest
Bonneville fish ladder

I also find it interesting that with all the increases in Safe area net pen production and a future Colville hatchery, none of those extra fish is going to make a difference in the allocation of "the usual legal guidance" or "respective political influence".

that would make the most economic sense, we could have full spring chinook, summer chinook and fall chinook and coho seasons and make the LCR a sport fishing destination in washington and use the new commercial methods for mop up fisherys for fish that are not needed for a full sport season, they would fish after the sport season.

"and use the new commercial methods for mop up fisherys for fish that are not needed for a full sport season, they would fish after the sport season."


Good Luck with this, the test fisherman said they would need to fish on the front and peak of the runs to make it work. It's in the archives now, if the state wants to go ahead they have been informed what it will take to make it work.

LB,

Glad to see you find it interesting. Maybe soon you will begin to understand how it actually works and what's happening.

Sg

SG Im not dismissing your projection that allocations guidelines would change under specific circumstances. In fact, your projection only validates what I have said on many occasions. I listed the alternatives, to point out that the allocation model is not set in stone. Thanks for helping me make that point.

Establish sustainable harvest policies so they do not continue to undermine other improvements such as habitat hydro and predation. Predators and commercial harvest have one thing in common. No upper limit.

Its certainly not worth the time and money to go thru all the testing, just to save 1% of the impacts. If the Feds had no objective to get the tribes on board, they would not have gone around Koenings and set up the testing with the Colvilles. Its not just about the columbia either. The process is no different than establishing a state law that get adopted by other states and even other countries. Gillnets are getting banned in other countries. Ive never heard of a river in Alaska being netted like the rivers in Washington. If the Squaxin tribe can net in a bay on net pen fish, than so can other tribes and the cowboys. Plenty of changes are possible that would increase the pie, or save money producing the same amount of smolts.

The debate here is driven by the personal agenda. Instead of looking forward to putting more wild fish on the beds, resolving the harvest issues on the Columbia and on other waters, so that other issues like dams, hatcheries, habitat, and predators will get more focus, the focus on harvest reform is being moved around like a shell game.
The opponents attack the position, the people and the outcome. They want to change your goal to their goal. No excuse is too small. When one fails they bring up another. Dividing anglers on the issues is the first priority.

The only workable plan I've heard yet came from Bruce Jim a Tribal leader on one of the compact calls, he said selective fishing wasn't the way to go. He said if were getting to many hatchery fish on the remaining 10% of the spawning habitat then we need to open up more grounds, and it wouldn't take much even getting 5 or maybe 10% of it back would almost double what we have now.

Cheap talk for a group that took a bribe from the Feds to drop their federal lawsuit against the dams. 900,000,000 dollars.

Did he promise in writing to put a cap on their harvest?

Another example of limiting what they are willing to do to solve the problem.

Put harvest last, so hopefully we wont have to change. Like Salmon are the only fish being overharvested.

Still waiting for the workable plan from other groups?




" Cheap talk for a group that took a bribe from the Feds to drop their federal lawsuit against the dams. 900,000,000 dollars."


and ask yourself why would the feds offer money if the dam's aren't a problem?

Jeebuz, LB...I read stuff that you write, like the last two posts, and I seriously start to wonder if you have suffered a massive head injury.

Fish on...

Todd

They DEFINITELY ARE A BIG PROBLEM. BPA knows they are a problem, hense they spend billions of dollars on mitigation. They are NOT the only problem. You know they take decades to get approval and funding to tear down dams. Maybe you should go beat up on the guys who want to ship all kinds of farm products and coal through the river. The are just as much the enemy of fish as the dams are.

Lot's of projects that could be done in the estuary that wouldn't involve putting anyone out of work, just need $$$$$$ and a very large barbaque grill since some cows might be homeless.

A worthy objective. Spend 90% of your time on that issue and you have a much better chance of success.

ya i know but it sure does sound good

will selective com. fishing ruin sportfishing ?

yes it will.

you saying no clearly states that you dont know whats going on and or you plain dont care about sportfishing.

Care to go into detail and describe that further?

Keith

what i find amazing is that if i walked into a room full of sportfisherman and said i dont want to give the commercials any more fish i would get booed out of the place

Nice troll boater.

No, you'd be walking into a room of people that never graduated their math classes...

Example: 80,000 hatchery springers available minus selective harvest take of 30,000 = that's still enough for us sportsman to fish over... For me, that math don't work...

Keith

You'd probably get the same response by suggesting that all commercial harvest be restricted to the SAFE Areas, allowing only sport fishing in the LCR mainstem.
As hard as you might try, you just can't fix stupid.

more like a room full of moron`s, if people think fishing sucks now after the gillnets have been in how do they expect it to be any better after this new method takes more fish ?, and they are going to start testing these methods again in the 1st part of august

how bout this for a news release,

the purse seiners caught 40k hatchery coho this week at the mouth of the columbia, it`s time to get down there, the sport fishing should be red hot

Just in case someone can do math...........

Thirteen fishers – six using beach seine nets, five fishing purse seines and two employing trap nets – caught a total of 21,000 salmon and steelhead this late summer and fall in the lower Columbia River.

The catch included 10,800 chinook, 8,100 coho and 2,100 steelhead. Both purse and beach seines proved to be effective capture methods, with purse seines being the most effective of the two gear types, according to an agency “green sheet” describing the project. Agency officials previewed the 2010 data Friday for the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission.

Do the math folks... Assemble the entire fleet with the new method and we will be in a world of hurts...

Keith

Figure a 50% mark rate and then try multipling it out times 6-8 to figure handle in a working fishery, then add in sport handle, sealion predation and I'll bet NMFS their asses off. Not to mention the treaty rights which the Washington Commission somehow seems to have forgot all about.

the tribes realy dont care how many fish we catch out of the lower river hatcherys.

how bout this, the gillnetters took 5000 coho at the mouth of the columbia and fishing slowed way down, i cant wait till the purse seines take 25,000 coho, sport fishing will be red hot

I see you resurrected this from the depths after Parker closed your other biatch session down. This one won't last long either!

In before the LOCK!

Fishy

i`m going to be polite and as long as you $25.00 lemmings are polite it shouldn't get locked.

Correct.

My BS meter is pegging pretty high at the moment.

Penny is about to put some people on "timeout" if they don't play nice.

I have children who like to test me too. They also lose.

Behave children. Else, you can grovel with Bob as to why he should un-ban the mis-behaving children tonight.......