Non-tribal gillnet ban in the columbia

Does anyone know what this means? Does it mean the non-tribal quota gets transferred to the river, tribes or sportfisherman?

Under the treaties, the shares are Indian/non-Indian. Following the court decisions any fish not taken by the NI gill netters would go to other NI groups. Maybe recs, maybe troll, maybe ocean, maybe river. Won't go to escapement because the catch is "harvestable".

That said, WDFW and ODFW can, in cooperation with the co-managers, decide otherwise.

CM, although you have the general scheme of things, you are wrong in this case given the language of the bill.

The Washington Senate bill SB 5297 that bans gill nets in the mainstem contains this language:

(ii) The department shall reserve fishery impacts previously
utilized in Washington waters of the lower mainstem of the Columbia
river nontribal salmon gill net fisheries for conservation through
increased wild salmonid escapement or mark selective fisheries
capable of harvesting surplus hatchery-reared salmon where needed to
meet federal genetic protection requirements for wild salmon
populations in a manner consistent with state-tribal fishery
management agreements.

The bill is being promoted as a conservation measure. If the fish that would have been caught in the gill net fishery is simply transferred to the sport fishery then the sales pitch is a fraud. This wording says formerly gill net fish would either go to escapement or be used in mark selective fishery. Since the NI gill net fishery is now primarily in the early fall in Zone 4,5 for a dozen or so days, the uncaught fish (targeting URBs) would not transfer to the sport fishery. There is also a tangle net fishery later in the fall in Zone 1-3 targeting marked coho. Apparently, this bill does not affect the tangle net gear fishery.

That part would put wild fish on the grounds unless they are somehow classified as foregone opportunity and taken by the Tribes. Unfortunately, regardless of what the Leg does one still has the Tribes.

If this bill doesn’t add to fish on the gravel I’m all against it. I don’t care if it adds a hundred sportfishing days or native netting days.

Take note that the bill emphasizes mark-selective fisheries that increase harvest of surplus hatchery fish to meet Federal genetic protection requirements for wild salmon. I'm not sure what that means from a practical fish management perspective. It's not hard to distinguish marked from unmarked salmon, but it's alot harder to determine whether that marked salmon is destined for a hatchery that will have a surplus, and whether that surplus (if it actually exists) will adversely effect the genetics of wild salmon stocks.

I would also note that the State of Washington (thru their F/W Commission) is still strongly supporting 'pound nets' (experimental operations) in the Lower Columbia. There are sticking points but they are pushing ahead regardless. One of the biggest sticking points is that the commercial folks have no interest in operating a pound net. But....... if gills nets are eliminated, they might switch to pound nets since that might be the only viable option. That might be a consideration in this legislation.

At least the set-up by the PP favorite WFC has worked really well. Released fish actually showed up on the grounds, which is a lot more results than WDFW gets on their studies.

All hatcheries should be required by law to clip all hatchery fish

Even if you could get such a bill passed there are still problems. Many fish are stocked as fry and ould be difficult to impossible to mark. Amongst the salmon, Pink, Chum, and Sockeye would lead that crew. I have seen sockeye fry ad-clipped but it was time and labor intensive. Many trout are, or were, stocked as fry and would be difficult to mark.

Seems way to complicated. These bills always have flaws. Why would you want to clip Pinks, Chum, or Sockeye? Trout planted in lakes? Those are fish I could care less to harvest, and I bet I'm in the majority. Only harvest them when numbers allow. Otherwise C&R only. Manditory clip all hatchery Coho, Chinook and Steelhead. Those are the most targeted and where the demand is. How will the tribes be forced to mark the fish they plant? They resist now, and consider a fish is a fish, wild or hatchery.

What he said. No one really cares about pinks, chum and sockeye, all of them eat about the same and aren't what recreational fishers are targeting.

Well, I must be "no one" as I find pinks and chum more fun to catch than Chinook and coho. One of the big reasons is I walk and wade as boats make me seasick. Further, based on the small sample of Kenai sockeye I's rather eat (and catch) them.

I would agree than pink and chum tend to be lower on (at least) the fresh fish eating scale.

But, also, as my interest in salmon includes their place in the ecosystem I find that pinks, chums, and sockeye provide the foundation for productive ecosystems. Without lots of them you don'[t have lots of steelhead and coho and probably Chinook, especially Srpingers.

Please address the reasons for such an omnibus requirement. And the practicality to include a cost/benefit relationship by species produced in hatcheries.

In short, I don't have a clue as to why you made that recommendation.

There are some F&W agencies that stock albino rainbow. One of the reasons is to show the disbelieving angling public that they actually stock fish where they say they do. Same with external marking.

Hearing was today. Go Van de Wege!

So be honest... who among you was among the 1385 PRO?

Aye!

Aye!

Aye!

Aye! Arrrrgh!

AYE!

Sounds like the Seafair Pirates landing at the Alki Beaches ?