jimmypopmn
12-17-2000, 01:08 AM
In your letters to Senator Smith (and others) that you posted below, you mentioned that the tribal take was proposed at 8.5% as compared to 0.5% for both commercial and sportfishing. While I disagree with this, and say it is unfair to the sport fishermaen (as well as to commercial interests) as an avid steelhead and salmon fisherman, I also have to wonder, on a purely objective note, is this solution the best we can offer?
On a purely environmental basis, what impact will this 8.5% take have on other fisheries??? I know that the Indian tribes primarly use medium-mesh gillnets, one of the most fatal and effective ways to capture large numbers of fish at once. The fish swim in, the lines tangle around their gills, and unable to breathe, the fish slowly asphyxiate. While they may be suited to catching hundreds or thousands of spring chinook, do these nets not also capture the few remaining wild chinook, late-arriving native winter and early-arriving native summer steelhead? In a basin where so many strains are either threatened or endangered, is there no better way to harvest the fish?
We sportfishermen complain about 'only' a 0.5% take of the run, but in a run of over 400,000 fish, the number is actually quite large, especially in comparison to recent years (0 fish). I believe that we should relish the chance we have to fish for these beauties.
However, I wonder what the ultimate cost of this new allowance system will be. A summer steelhead fisherman on the Snake may have one less fish to catch, a few less native chinook may make it to the Deschutes, and the White Salmon may lose a few late winter-runs... while it doesn't seem like much, when you are talking about a take of 30,000+ fish, there are bound to be errors.
At least we sport fishermen can take a look at these mistakes, look at the fin or the mouth and tail or whatnot, and throw 'em back. 95% of the time, the fish will keep swimming on going on their merry way. U
Unfortunately, as I'm sure the natives already know, and we will soon learn, a gillnet can't make this conscious choice.
Comments?
-sk
On a purely environmental basis, what impact will this 8.5% take have on other fisheries??? I know that the Indian tribes primarly use medium-mesh gillnets, one of the most fatal and effective ways to capture large numbers of fish at once. The fish swim in, the lines tangle around their gills, and unable to breathe, the fish slowly asphyxiate. While they may be suited to catching hundreds or thousands of spring chinook, do these nets not also capture the few remaining wild chinook, late-arriving native winter and early-arriving native summer steelhead? In a basin where so many strains are either threatened or endangered, is there no better way to harvest the fish?
We sportfishermen complain about 'only' a 0.5% take of the run, but in a run of over 400,000 fish, the number is actually quite large, especially in comparison to recent years (0 fish). I believe that we should relish the chance we have to fish for these beauties.
However, I wonder what the ultimate cost of this new allowance system will be. A summer steelhead fisherman on the Snake may have one less fish to catch, a few less native chinook may make it to the Deschutes, and the White Salmon may lose a few late winter-runs... while it doesn't seem like much, when you are talking about a take of 30,000+ fish, there are bound to be errors.
At least we sport fishermen can take a look at these mistakes, look at the fin or the mouth and tail or whatnot, and throw 'em back. 95% of the time, the fish will keep swimming on going on their merry way. U
Unfortunately, as I'm sure the natives already know, and we will soon learn, a gillnet can't make this conscious choice.
Comments?
-sk