Let's do something about gillnetting!

Cutting and pasting I e-mailed all of my legislators in 15 minutes. Technology is a wonderful thing

Sorry to rain on your parade but lobbying the legislature to do away with commercial fishing is a waste of time. Not gonna happen. The commissioners are appointed by the Governor. That would be Governor Grid-Locke. The commission is so corrupt with commercial fishing bias it is a cruel joke. The law we need is one to do away with the commission itself. It was designed to provide for a balanced voice across the spectrum of user groups including sports fishing. We have no sports fishing voice on the WDFW commission. They all hide behind the legislature when confronted about commercial bias. They start public meeting with the stern caveat that they pay no attention to which sector brings in more money to the state. Take a look at the shrimp allocations for a stunning example. A huge percentage of shrimp harvest was given to a miniscule number of commercial shrimpers. The commission went against public opinion and even the WDFW biologists to hand over another natural resource to a handful of people who contribute very very little to the state.

Start by throwing the bums out of the state house. The socialists have run things around here long enough. Vote every chance you get.

Grandpa (Eyore) has pretty much stated the current state of things.

But I like to believe government is in constant flux. I actually heard of a rep in P.A. expounding on the financial benefits to the state from rec vs comm fishing.

I disagree that writing our representitves is a waste of time. I will be forwarding Spawnout's letter.

Slab (Eyore) The state actually made its own study public showing without question that sports fishing brings in way more money that commercial fishing. I think even the tribes use their commercial fishing money for things other than the necessities of life... But the problem is that the commission , aided by the governor, does just the opposite. I am in no way saying not to wrtie letters. I am saying attack where is counts.

Grandpa, notice that the Govs contact info is not on there. I never intended anyone to write to him, he's a lame duck anyway . Write to the folks that want the votes. And I'm also preparing signed letters to fax to all of mine. This is still a democracy, if enough talk they will listen

Grid-Lockes email cannot be added onto an email list. You have to approach it directly and on its own. I was at the meeting in Mount Vernon with Grandpa and qute a few other PSA members on the shrimping issue. The commision is fully corrupt. Before we had our chance to speak on the shrimping issue the commision slammed the door on us and thwarted every thing we had to say before it was said. My foot still hurts where it was in the door. They must have read our emails that time. We did jamb up their phone lines, email boxes and mail boxes. They had top listen. Instead they did all of the talking. Grandpa is right. You have to go over the commissions head. I like the idea of the commission, but it has turned against us. Its like Bill Cosby said about the kids tonsils in the " We're gonna have ice cream" segment, the tonsils have joined the other side. Write those letters and most of all get Locke replaced with someone who cares about our great state.

Grandpa, I agree getting rid of the present commission, or figuring out how to load it with recreation-minded people, is the way to go.

Aside from that, what is a better solution other than the commission? Which state has a good model program?

Perhaps we could point that out to our respective respresentitives so we offer them a solution instead of just complaining about what is.

There's a lot of really smart individuals here when it comes to fisheries. I'll bet collectively this board could come up with more than one workable model that could be presented to the state for consideration.

The commission idea was great upon its inception. It has been the implementation that is so corrupt. When the governor appoints the members it isn't much better than if the governor just ran the whole show. Politics is so deeply seated in the system with all the graft of special interests that it can't be taken seriously. Somehow it should be possible to force the governor to adhere to the spirit of the law creating the commission and get a sports advocate in the mix.

Ok all.... Here is my CIVIL post....... Grandpa2, I believe that the above attitude (which is the norm for most touchy laws nowadays) is flat wrong. Sure, it seems hopeless, but the ONLY reason it is hopeless is that not enough people come together on the issue. Believe me, in politics, votes count, and if enough mad as hell people get together on an issue..... IT WILL CHANGE!!!!!

Not to start another argument here, but even things "set in stone" like treaties or protectionism laws can be changed if enough people holler loud enough to change it. Problem is, politicians want the bickering and discord, because then there is no organization, and without organization things do not get done.....
Hell, if they can modify the constitution of this country a zillion times (which is the premier law of the land), anything can be modified. The difference is how organized the effort to change the law or status-quo is.

Look how just one Dad was able to get the supreme court to rule that the "pledge of allegiance" was unconstitutional. It took organization and a lot of work by lawyers to get it done. May be overturned BECAUSE THEIR WAS SUCH AN OUTCRY FROM THE MASSES!!!! Now, they decided it was unconstitutional... That was their decision.... But they run and hide after 80% of America was outraged and inflamed by that "constitutional" decision... Changing their minds fast.....

Again, all it takes is a larger, louder group, and the high $$ groups loose a lot of their appeal.
The one thing you can always count on besides politicians being sleazy, is that they are bought for the highest $$ or the highest vote count. Without the votes, the $$ will not get them into office or keep them there......

Great letter!!!!


MC

I need to clarify what I meant. When I said shutting down commercial fishing ain't gonna happen I did not mean that we should not work to scale it back or even eliminate it. What I meant was that zeroing in on elimination of one harvest method (netting) to benefit another (sports fishing) always comes across as self serving because it is. The net ban initiative that I worked with so many others on was a flop partly because it was self serving...AND because most folks I talked to refused to support it as long as the indians didn't have to abide by it. What's the point they would say. I had to agree.

I am all for engaging the elected officials as I ,myself, have done for years. Just be smart and make your requests doable and reasonable. Hopefully this next time around we will elect a governor who cares about fishing issues.

One idea I like is this: Take pictures every chance you get of abuses concerning our fisheries. Publicize them and send them to your elected officials. Take an elected official out fishing. Voice you opinions in letter form and not email.

Why letters instead of email? Better chance of being read?

Letters always get more attention than emails. One time I thought the governor actually wrote a thoughtful response to one of my letters. As a member of the governors salmon advisory board I was bragging about the response letter to a friend only to find out that he had the exact (word for word) letter in response to a completely different issue. But even the form letter responses are meaningful. Most all of the elected officials I talk to say letters carry much more weight. Especially if you include your name , address and a phone number.

Emails are better than nothing though and much easier to accomplish. Phone calls are real effective too. I spend a fair amount of time on the phone with legislators and find that very interesting.

I didn't realize that.

Letters are a pain in the butt to compose, write, then finally mail compared to email. What would be nice is if there were a selection of form-type letters available online that one could choose from, print, sign, then mail.

Someone that's really good with HTML could design a letter, and in the body there could be drop down menus with selections for location, species, ideas, etc., plus menus for who to address it to. A person could choose a letter, make their selections, print, sign, and mail. With three or four different bodies to choose from, with different options in each one, it wouldn't appear like a simple form letter mass mailing.

If it was made easier for the average sportsperson to get a letter into the mail, we could have a louder voice in the legislature.

Whereas every email, letter, and phone call DO count. the form letters and cut/paste items hold the least accord. Its the same thing as signing the whatever petitions outside k-mart. And they are just as easy to answer with a form letter. But send them any way if that is all the time you have; and attend every meeting you possibly can.

A non-corrupt system would allow ALL voices to be heard at their public meetings. And just as G'pa (I think) stated, the commercial industry has a huge financial backing. If the commercial fishermen were the only ones backing their style of "fishing", the laws would have been changed years ago. However, they are backed by the business world (canneries, distributors, supermarkets, etc.) who already have ties in the political ring and a lot more money than the weekend fisherman.

Until an outdoor loving, ethical, rich fisherman (or woman) can afford to take-on the corrupt political arena, we'll continue to be stuck in this hell hole.

It just hurts the soul to KNOW what our economy could be like if an emphasis was put on the sustainability of the fish. Every port on the coast and straits has the capability of looking like Sekiu does from June til October. But hell, the government doesn't need the money......

I have the perfict places. Take a official to the Hoodsport Hatchery, on a week day, during late November and show them the thousands of Chum carcases floating around dead left by the Indians, please don't make this a Native issue, or show them a "Goast Net" full of dead animals.

I just sent off letters to all of my officials. I urge all of you to do the same. Let's make a difference!

Dose anybody know of a rich or powerful person that would be willing to "sponser" rec. fishermen?

Hi Bob,

You can bet I will be sitting down to write my letters and do my share this weekend.

Hope all is well with you and family.

Good work here.

http://www.savefish.com/

Go to the RFA (REcreational Fishing Alliance) website and see the Freedom To Fish Act. Coming to our area very soon

I can't help thinking about one step farther down the road. This is another option/angle to approach within your letters. Somewhere it is written that you cannot spawn fish out of another river system to another. If this were possible and we could start spawning 5 year old fish again in the Puget Sound, could you imagine the positive impacts that would have on the economy? We had Curt Kraemer (WDFW Biologist) come to one of our PSA meetings. He told us that it takes 5 year old fish spawn 5 year old fish(40-50#). These 2-3 year old fish we have now are not going to spawn big kings (5 year olds). The nets they used to use many years ago were 9 1/2" mesh. I bet it is half that size now. Get the nets out and start rebuilding stocks. I am sure there are a few 5 year olds left in every river system somewhere. That would really fire off the economy. I bet you would not see as many full colored BC fishing brochures in our region as there would be no reason to fish elsewhere. Look at what the Columbia River fish have done for the Ocean towns this year. At Neah Bay this year, we had a huge group of people that spent 1-2 weeks out there. I spent $2300 myself with my wife and son, just on the one trip. I spent almost everyweekend after that at Westport. This was a major 5 year old return for the Coastal fish. Think if we could get the nets out and return these huge kings to the Sound. I bet the recreational dollars spent documented last year would be ten times that. We would once again have people from all over the US bringing their sportfishing dollars back into Washington-like it was 30 years ago. Just an other perspective to include. Sportsfishing is a way of life for us and is also valuable to our economy.

If you are serious about attempting to change the status quo in this State it would be well to be clear about your objectives - are you anti commerical fishing or anti gill nets?

I'm not sure that the claim that the WDFW commission is unfairly tilted towards the commerical industry is true. A quick review of the 9 member's thumbnail bios show that 5 listed themselves as being avid fishers. The sport fishing interest appears to be fairly represented (though heavily tilted to the conservation and quality fishing side). The hunting interest appear to be under-represented (only one listed hunting as an interest - bird hunting and dog bredding). I think your really problem may be with WDFW's legislative mandate - that is to maintain a viable commerical industry. If so changing the commission will accomplish nothing. Perhaps the effort to change the mandate should be directed towards the state legislature, and efforts aimed at the commission would be spend on educating that body to your desires and concerns.

Fishinnut -
While is true that our large chinook (5 and 6 year old) are much rarer today than in the past gill nets have had little to do with their downfall. It has been established that retruning adult fish exposed to heavy gill netting the result is that smaller fish end up spawning- the classic example would be Puget Sound coho. However with chinook the problem is not so much that they are smaller at a given size but rather the adult spawning population has become younger. This is primarily the result of fishing on the immature fish on their feeding grounds. In the case of chinook this means that they are harvests as 3, 4, 5, and 6 years old which greatly reduces that chances of a fish living to be 6 years old. Just an example if there were a constant 30% per year fishing rate in these feeding areas 70% of the fish that mature as 3 year olds would be uncaught, 49% that mature as 4 years would be uncaught, 34% of the 5 year olds, and 24% of the 6s. Clearly the old fish pay a heavy price in those fisheries.

If we wish to see more of those older/larger chinook (and I do) we need to change our fishing patterns and I don't mean ban gill nets (lots of other reason to do so but this is one). The catch of those feeding chinook (blackmouth) is mostly hook and line fisheries -sport, charter, and troll. For Washington chinook those feeding fish are caught in SE Alaska, north, west and east of Vancouver Island, Washington Coast, Straits of Juan de Fuca, and Puget Sound.

We are seeing more older fish this year in large part due to the recent reduced fishing rates in those ocean feeding areas (good feeding conditions results in the fish of a given age being larger than normal but not older). If older chinook are desired than we as a group need to lobby for less fishing on immature fish and as individuals decide not to fish those areas.

Those anglers that opt to fish chinook on the West Coast of Vancouver Island, SE Alaska, the Washington Coast etc are very much part of the problem of younger Washington chinook (more so than gill nets). This would doubly be true of those anglers that release smaller chinook (teen agers) in hope of larger fish (30+#). That practice is clearly selecting against having older spawnig and pass on that genetic trait.

Past "ban the nets" efforts have failed in part due to its supports not having done all their home work (generally angler apathy did help either). If you are serious I encourage you to clearly state your goals, what a realistic expectation of what those goals will do for the resource, the various fisheries and economies. One false claim or arguement opens the whole effort to attack.

Just my $.02.

Tight lines
Smalma

Smalma

The commercial fishing bias on the WDFW commission is not a function of the specific make up of the commission but a function of their actions. Time and time again decisions are handed down, like the shrimp allocations this Spring, that stink of bias. The commissioners even ignore their own biologists and also the majority of public opinion. They constantly hide behind the legislative mandate malarchy when their decisions are widely criticized. The commissioners go out of their way to dismiss all the studies done by researchers pointing out the lopsided benfit of sports fishing to the state economy. "It doesn't matter"..is what I remember two of the prominent commissioners saying prior to allowing public comment. Just calling a commissioner a "sport" oriented member because he happens to sport fish is way too simplistic and off the mark. I would say a true sports fishing member would be someone that has long credentials working for sports fishing enhancement and not a fly fisherman or bird watcher. Watch what they do, not what they say.

Also the Chinook that feed and grow in SE Alaska are not just predated by sports fishing. There is a huge troll fishery up there that catches a substantial number of "our fish"....those returning to our state. Much of the hook and line fishing for blackmouth in Puget Sound is targetting fish raised specifically for local harvest and does not consist of future 5 or 6 year old Chinook for the most part.

Beware of simplifying this issue too much.

Grandpa2 -
My main point is exactly as you point out: "Beware of simplifying this issue too much."

The commission does not have the authority to change the mandate to maintain a viable commerical fishing industry. Instead of beating them over the head with economic studies why not beat those the have the responsbility to change that mandate- our state legislators. While we all may wish that the WDFW commission was more agressive in supply a leadership role in issues such of this presenting then with additional studies really doesn't mean a thing, they aren't the decision makers in this case.

I'm aware that trollers play a large role in the fishing on feeding chinook. Believe that I listed them along with the sport and charter fleet.

While much of the Puget Sound blackmouth fishery is on hatchery fish there is a wild part of the catch. Many of those wild chinook that are caught in that fishery are those that are in the most trouble in Puget Sound - spring and summer chinook. Even the fishing on immature hatchery chinook results in a younger population. It was not always the case that a large hatchery chinook was 20#. That may or may not be important to an individual angler.

In topic such as these there are many complicate aspects to the discussion and i'm more than willing to discuss them in detail if that is your interest.

Tight lines
Smalma

For those with enough time to look up the RCW (thank you) maybe you can look into who sponsored the legislation. I think you will find commercial fishing lobbying all over it. Certainly wasn't re-written to take into account the upswing in sport dollars to the economy. The RFA seems like our best shot in the near term to get some legislation pushed through that will help sports fishing.

The legislators are all part of a rat pack in Olympia that includes the governor. They all share the same chunk of cheese and scratch each others backs. The commissioners are appointed by the governor so he can repay favors to the commercial fishing lobby that helped keep him in office. We need a great big rat trap to set right outside the capital. Start getting rid of the corrupt rats and elect some people who aren't in the pocket of special commercial fishing interests.

Maybe we should form an alliance with the tribes and get tribal members elected in Olympia in exchange for abolishing gill netting and purse seining. The tribes will have a monopoly and we get more sports fishing.

Grandpa

It looks like I am not the "only guy" with a big banana in his pocket!

If you think that one was bad, what special interest or lobby would you supposed pushed this one into law?

RCW 77.50.040
Commercial net fishing for salmon in tributaries of Columbia river -- Boundaries defined.
(1) The commission shall adopt rules defining geographical boundaries of the following Columbia river tributaries and sloughs:
(a) Washougal river;
(b) Camas slough;
(c) Lewis river;
(d) Kalama river;
(e) Cowlitz river;
(f) Elokomin river;
(g) Elokomin sloughs;
(h) Skamokawa sloughs;
(i) Grays river;
(j) Deep river;
(k) Grays bay.

(2) The commission may authorize commercial net fishing for salmon in the tributaries and sloughs from September 1st to November 30th only, if the time, areas, and level of effort are regulated in order to maximize the recreational fishing opportunity while minimizing excess returns of fish to hatcheries. The commission shall not authorize commercial net fishing if a significant catch of steelhead would occur.

When will sport fishermen ever learn????????

The best way to get rid of commercial fishing is for sport anglers to target a fishery and set up a group to buy commercial fishing licenses as they become available then hold thoes licenses indefinetly...
we can scream and yell all we want but as long as we make a surplus of salmon in our hatcheries they will continue to have seasons to fish for them..

There are a lot of good ideas on this board. I agree with most but disagree wwith the gillnetting not being one of the major benefactors. Yes, all take a toll on our bigger Puget Sound Kings-Which is primarily what I am talking about. BC has supposedly cut out most of their commercial non tribal-fishing, but not so from what I have been told by some of the tackle manufacturers in BC. Last year when I flew to Hakai Pass. I counted 21 nets strung across Johnstone Straight (East side of Vancouver Island). These were all in an area of about five miles long. This doesn't include what I couldn't see out the other side of the plane. These very well could have been first nations nets. I don't know. They were all strategically placed going straight out from the main land corners and begining of islands. You cannot tell me this doesn't make a big difference on a fish run. I am sure there are jsut as many on the outside of Vancouver Island. One main factor that might help is the fish running timing being off so that they miss it, but not that likely. When the ground stocks of Yelloweye at Neah Bay are listed fish now. How come they are still out there in these areas of this netting? The big mother ship and smaller ones are out there targeting sable cod in the same areas. These are a bottom fish too. I saw and have pictures somewhere where they dumped all of the smaller ones. We drove through them. The ones that weren't dead were belly up gasping and dieing. This is not good.

Rob Allen, That is a good idea. Do you have any idea how to fund it? This would be a massive amount of money.

Hey Folks, I got an e-mail back from Representitive Brian Hatfield, who, after a sentence or two of impolite personal attacks (he actually knows who I am - imagine that ), stated "I could care less about your views on sport vs. commercial fishing... " Well, I guess we know where he is at. He represents all the folks that live in the Willapa Bay watershed and down at Buoy 10. He apparently thinks it's just fine to give the fish away to the commercials at a nickle a pound and at the expense of the rest of us. I think whoever runs against him deserves our support, don't you :p

Someone with time on their hands could probably find where Brian's campaign contributions come from. If he is from Willapa area he is supporting his constituants in the commercial business.

It would be nice if one of the represetatives around Puget Sound would speak up so that us voters their area actually could have a stake in the matter vote based on an informed oppinion.

Well, here's one that spoke up in an e-mail just sent to me. Good to know that we have at least one friend on the hill. Let's get out the vote for Ike

"I agree with your entire position on salmon. I have tried three times in 3
years to pass legislation that would achieve a more balanced approach. I
could never get the legislation out of committee and I was told such
legislation would not pass in the Senate. I wanted to start with the Hood
Canal as a demonstration and go from there. I am always looking for an
opening or change of circumstances to get legislation passed and will
continue to do so. I thank you very much for sharing your opinion with me.
Sincerely,
Representative Bill "Ike" Eickmeyer
35th Legislative District"

Spawnout the legislation Eickmeyer wanted to pass would have shut down Hood Canal to ALL fishing except for guess what? You got it...commercial purse seining of chum salmon! His legislation was loaded with made up info....claiming it would restore such fishes as Black cod....take a look at the historical records and one would have to ask the question what Black cod?

I will support any sensible effort to eliminate commercial netting. BTW are you all aware that the WDFW commission is supporting the commercial gillnetters getting 2/3 of the nontribal springer allocation on the Columbia next year?

I must apologize for coming to this thread only recently. I very much agree that we need to control gill nets, but kept away from the thread due to burnout from working so hard on the last initiative where the commercials killed us. Anyway. Does anyone have names and contact info for all the commissioners? It seems to me that even though many are in the pocket of the commercials they might hear our message if we say it loud enough and long enough.

surecatch...here I go agreeing with you again. The commission is pretty protective of its bias towards commercial fishing. Showing up at a commission meeting is the best medicine. Take notes, tape record what they say, take pictures...publicize their comments about how the economics of sports fishing have no bearing on their decisions because the legislature mandates a "viable" commercial fishery. Kind of like propping up a viable buffalo hunting operation. They get pissed when alot of sport fishers show up at meetings but they can't do a damn thing about it. You have a right to speak at the meetings but they will try to stifle you. Perserverance is what we need. Stay in their faces in great numbers and then work on your legislators. Changing the laws is next.

surecatch...here I go agreeing with you again. The commission is pretty protective of its bias towards commercial fishing. Showing up at a commission meeting is the best medicine. Take notes, tape record what they say, take pictures...publicize their comments about how the economics of sports fishing have no bearing on their decisions because the legislature mandates a "viable" commercial fishery. Kind of like propping up a viable buffalo hunting operation. They get pissed when alot of sport fishers show up at meetings but they can't do a damn thing about it. You have a right to speak at the meetings but they will try to stifle you. Perserverance is what we need. Stay in their faces in great numbers and then work on your legislators. Changing the laws is next.

The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource. In a manner consistent with this goal, the department shall seek to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state. The department shall promote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve recreational and commercial fishing in this state.


Now what is the definition of the "fishing industry"? Certainly the commission defines it as the "commercial fishing industry".