Anglers need gillnets?

[Capt. Hook]

Did anyone read Bill Monroe's column in the Oregonian today? Talk about ruining your day,the headline says it all. Now Bill has been known to write some controversial stuff in the past but this is too much. Bill seems to think that if the tangle net fishery is a success the sports will get more fish. Somehow that logic escapes me. Thanks but no thanks Bill, if I have to rely on a tangle net fishery to allow me to go back onto the Columbia I would just as soon see it closed. Why should the sports have to be second? If there are enough fish to sustain an experimental fishery than by cracky there should be enough to let the sports back no questions asked. When has the commercial industry ever supported sportfishing? 145,000 angler days for 22,500 fish? that works out to 6.4 angler days per fish. Let the commercials have those kind of numbers and listen to them howl for extra days. Bill seems to think that without commercial support hatcheries would close. Legislators listen to voters and sportfishermen have a huge number of votes.

[Crab King]

Monroe has always supported the Nets. I remember when the Commercial Fisherman had an organization called "Salmon for All". Monroe supported that too. I don't take the paper he works for so I don't have to read the BS he's trying to shovel now.

[OneLastCast]

Capt.Hook:
I read the article several times and my first reactions were the same as yours. After I started thinking about it, maybe Monroe is telling us that because the commercials are so well organized they are really a help to the fishing (very possible). Granted there are far more sporties but what organization do we have? We don't have our own lobbiest, we take for granted that our representatives will represent us but we don't write letters (with exception of Hustlerjim, Bait of Eggs, Phish on and a few others). We are riding on the coattails and the efforts of the gillnetters. Hoping that if they grant a commercial fishery that the sport fishery will be greater. I almost wrote that this isn't criticism....but it is. I am as guilty as the rest.

Something to ponder.

OneLastCast

[ 04-15-2001: Message edited by: OneLastCast ]

[Jennie@ifish]

It's never to late... start here! (http://www.ifish.net/write.html)
I think that ours is a very diverse and wonderful group of people.
It is evident on this very board.
But the way some people like to fight on fishing bbs makes me believe that this is a root cause for lack of unity, and a reason for not being able to unite into one voice that could make a difference.
Is part of this reason because it is only our hobby?
No one wants to work at their hobby.
But if we don't soon.... we will be looking for another hobby.
Jen

[Pete]

I don't like to slam folks in public, but I can't hold my tongue...

I think we, as fishermen and women, are wrong to think we can't organize ourselves. It's a classic "follow the money" situation. The commercial guys are well organized because they have a financial stake in legislation that effects their industry. Who has the financial stake in the sportfishing industry? Well, I suggest it's the sport fishing equipment industry ... the people that sell us our rods, reels, boats, bait, waders, jackets, lures, hooks, lines, etc... In fact, there is an organization that represents these commercial interests - the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association. Liz Hamilton is head of the organization. For my money, she does a terrible job. If she were an effective voice for the sportfishing industry, if she were an effective lobbyist for the sportfishing industry, if she had a credible voice in the public dialog about fishery allocations she would be rich beyond words and we would have fair fishing allocations.

[HarpMan]

Just wanted to say that I dissagree with you Pete on Liz Hamilton of NSIA. I think she does an outstanding job for what she makes and without her we sportfisherman may not received as much as we have. NSIA also has other lobbiest that communicate with our bunch in Salem and DC as well as Liz herself. The organization is vital to the sportfishing industry but is some what covert to the tackle consumer. Hate to think what seasons we would have with out the NSIA voice on our behalf.

[Pete]

Plunker, I'm glad you dissagree with me.
I would love to learn about NSIA accomplishments. I've been involved with Oregon Trout and the Native Fish Society since each of those organizations were formed. I understand how the legislative process works. I've seen how strong commercial groups are in the resource allocation process. But I'm a bottom line kind of guy. If there are notable accomplishments or significant results, let's hear about them. Sportfishers represent a huge, if disorganized, political force. If sportfishers could get behind someone who speaks clearly and effectively on our behalf the NSIA would clearly benefit.

[Capt. Hook]

The article just struck me the wrong way. I'm willing to get involved. Prior to moving to Alaska 6 years ago my employment would not allow involvment in political issues. While in Alaska I did get involved and saw how a few guides, lodge owners and lots of sportsmen came together and went organized enmasse to a Fisheries Hearing. They picked their spokespersons, armed them with facts and figures and backed these people up with sheer numbers. It was not easy because of the organization of the commercials. People had threats of violence thrown at them, but stood together and got some real meaningful rules passed to favor the sport fishery. The commercial lobby was a lot stronger there than it is here and still the sports got their point across. I'm not saying we can't work with the commercials but I'm tired of hearing how we should ride their coattails. If the fish are there to harvest, why not an "experimental no bait" sport fishery. Single barbless hook, lure only. I just throw that out as an example. If indeed the fishery was as good as ODFW said it was and the idea was to provide angling opportunity why didn't they cut the bag limit to one fish per day? I don't claim to know the answers to all the questions but I intend to find out. Stay tuned.

[HarpMan]

Pete I'm with ya on the last sentence all the way. Liz is by know means the mesia nor does she want to be. You have me on the accomplishments of NSIA as their credits are not etched in salmon/steelhead history, but I'm not sure how one measures the success of a lobbiest or lobbying organization? They do know how much sport caught fish bring in dollar wise to our local economy as compared to commercial net fish... and they are on our side, but may not put their foot down as much as we would like vs commercial nets, indian nets, dams, irrigation, logging etc..but they do communicate with decision makers and have a positive influence for our fish.

Lets find the Moses for our fish so we can all get behind him or her and win the battle!

[orsturgeon]

Let me say first that I am a sport fisherman. I do think that there is room for everyone, however you fish. Whether it is for fun, a job, or your way of life, (read native Americans).

I do not know much about her but I have seen Liz in action at ODFW commission meetings. She works hard for what little support sportpeople give her - as in support by letter writing, testimony, etc......

She is the one with help from Fishermans Marine Supply and others who got us the first ever selective chinook fishery on the Willamette last year. It worked so well we have it on the Willamette and Columbia this year.

I have heard a lot of whining about gillnets and Native Americans on this board and now this tangle-net fishery. Gee who do you think benefits if it works??? US!!! More live fish = more fish to fish for. Also just have to say this... Why is everyone so upset about the lower river netters catching 6000 fish - that is less than one percent of the run.

Don't hit me too hard
images/icons/cool.gif

[POS Clerk]

Orsturgeon…

I believe you are incorrect as to your as to your assessment as to who will benefit from the new types of commercial nets. Current quotas on the Columbia are not decided by the number of hatchery fish that are caught, but by the impact each commercial fishery has on the wild runs. The current limit is I believe set at an incidental take rate of 15% overall. If one out of ten Fish currently harvested is a wild fish and the run of wild fish is say 10,000 fish the overall impact from fishing both commercial and sport allowed is 1,500 wild fish. That would mean that the most Hatchery fish the commercials can currently harvest is 15,000 fish. No matter what the size of the hatchery run the most that can be harvested is a total of 15,000 fish at a 1 in 10 ratio of wild to hatchery. Lets say the new nets allow the commercial guys to release two out of three of the wild fish alive that they now can not. That will not mean the sport guys will get to fish for the other two fish, it means that the quota for the commercial fishermen will get raised from 15,000 to 45,000.

The absolute best thing that could be done to protect wild fish and boost local economies would be for NMFS to eliminate all commercial harvest on the Columbia and allow sports fishing only. At the current 15% incidental take rate sports fishing could harvest much more and protect the genetic makeup of the wild runs. If the current ratio of wild to hatchery is 1 to 10 that would mean that one out of ten fish landed by sports fishermen would be wild, but with a selective harvest fishery they should all be released (should). ODFW currently believes that one out of ten caught and released wild salmon will die. At that rate sportsmen could harvest 150,000 hatchery fish.

The mathematical dumb part is that at the current ratio of wild to hatchery salmon if it was 100% sport fishing only the incidental take would more than likely never surpass 10%.

The best thing we sports fishermen could do is push NMFS to only allow methods of harvest that do not allow incidental take of wild salmon over 2% (that’s twice the rate of sport harvest).

The other thing we could do is declare all non-pen raised salmon a “sport fish”

POS Clerk

[Deleted User]

*******ATTENTION ALL IFISHERS*******
You have an organization that does fight for the sport anglers. They are active in wild fish habitat, public awareness to the plight of the fish runs,bank access,wild broodstock programs,helping school age children become aware of the salmon and trout fisheries. These things and alot more. They have lobbyists in Salem too! So now you are wondering who I'm talking about? THE ASSOCIATION of NORTHWEST STEELHEADERS
For only $25 a year you CAN make a difference! The Steelheaders have fought for the last 30+ years for your rights and to improve our cold water fisheries! They were one of the sponsor in 1974 who helped make steelhead a game fish in Oregon. They've help improve bank access,help repair and build better boat ramps and handicap access. So what's stopping you?Join up!
http://www.picturetrail.com/misc/imageManip.fcgi?imgid=1886508

[ 04-16-2001: Message edited by: bigstew ]

[SteelieSteve]

I also read Monroes article and found no connection between letting the commercials have more fish in the test netting and how it would bring us more fishing. I still say Ban all netting! From my limited knowledge of netting I do know that the way it is done fish die in the nets. Does it matter if they died in a gillnet or hooked in by the teeth and drown. You can't make me beleive that every Salmon that gets caught in the net is quickly checked and released. I solidly beleive there should be NO commercial salmon seasons on the Oregon rivers, tribal or otherwise. My .02 for what it's worth. images/icons/blush.gif

[boater]

BPA SPENDS $360.000 ON EXPERIMENTAL TANGLE NETS AS OUR POWER RATES CONTINUE TO CLIMB, how would that look on the front page of the PI, the public is so unimformed as to what goes on it is ridiculas, everyone knows the sportsman dumps more money into the economy than non-treaty netters do, i dont understand why all the sportsfisherman, motel operators, bait shops, tackle manufature`s, boat builders and small store owners dont take action and get these un-needed nets removed, the indians will continue to get there 50 percent and there will be fish on the market, if this happened there would be more fishing for us and these companys would greatly benifit from it dont you think. these non-treaty salmon netters net salmon in washington for somthing to do and get a few extra bucks, they cant possibly make a living off of it, i realy think that showing a loss to uncle sam at tax time for the boats and boat owners every year is a major issue as to why they fought so hard against I-696, why else would they spend millions to fight it, it`s sorta like the senator that spends 100 million to get into an office that pays 50 thousand.

[Capt. Hook]

You guys are impressive, if all these figures are correct and I have no reason to believe they aren't. There is a heck of a collection of knowledge right here. Just for the sake of this discussion let me throw one more bone in the soup. How did we ever get to the point where a select group of individuals have the exclusive right to harvest a public resource, paying nothing for it except for a paltry few cents poundage fee and then have the right to sell those rights to someone else? Those fish belong to the PUBLIC!!!! I don't care anymore that their grandfathers did it and their fathers did it. Those days are gone with the buffalo herds. I just wanted to get that one last point across. Join the Steelheaders! Whatever it takes. Kawabunga!

[rob allen]

was my post deleted ? or did it not get entered?

anyway my point was if the tooth tangle fishery is developed as a replacement fishery for gilnetters i am all for it because it limits the impact on wild fish.
If it's developed to be an additional fishery i'd dislike it. If it is going to be an additional fishery it needs to take place at the same time the gillnet fishery takes place. Having commercial and sport fishers in the same water at the same time would only lead to confrontations.

Fish are more important than fisheries

[Hoosier Daddy]

POS beat me to it. By reducing mortality on non-target fish from netting, the available quotas for other users goes up. If their mortality goes down 5%, that 5% is now available to other harvesters (minus differences in gear mortality -- which considering the difference between nets and hook and line could equate to a much higher percent than 5%). Although we don't have to like netters, we do need to realize that reducing their mortality is a good thing. Reducing it to zero might be even better, but that's another story....

[Hoosier Daddy]

I'm pretty sure the tooth nets are proposed in place of gillnets, not in addition to.

[rags]

Let me ask a question on gillnetters. Since their season is so short is this just extra income for some retired guys or off duty firemen? What else do these guys do besides gillnet? Why do they have so much power?

[finclipped]

I posted this response in another thread, but it seems like this is the one with all of the controversy.

I don't think net fishing can be justified, however keep in mind what these "tangle nets" are trying to do. They are trying to find a commercial fishing technique that will reduce kill impact on wild fish by requiring that wild fish are released in a survivable manner. By reducing commercial take of wild fish, we will all have greater access to harvestable hatchery fish. This is something that commercial fisherman have never done in the past. I think the writing is on the wall... soon commercial fisherman will be required to fish selectively, something that will have a positive impact on wild ESA listed fish. Something sports anglers are already doing. Now, if we could just convince the tribes....
If it were up to me, no nets would be allowed in the river, but its not. I say let them test these nets, for the benefit of future fish runs.

Commercial fisherman are powerful, because they have gill net associations that pool membership to fight (legal costs, etc) for all gillnetters. What if sportsanglers imployed the same technique?

[boater]

if these nets work, the non-treaty commercials will be able to target more of the same fish we as sportsman do, why would any sportsman want this to happen, i just cant see any logic in thinking that these nets are good.

[Nanook]

The fact remains that very few of the netters are actually making a living from their harvest.

If you check them out, the majority have other business interests and this "fishing" activity is important to them ONLY to show a business loss, which it does, thus pad their overall tax burden.

Every where else in the world that the nets have been totally removed, the quantity of fish has doubled as well as the size of the fish. images/icons/rolleyes.gif

http://w1.511.telia.com/~u51102888/anims/animal1/bear1.gif

[Hoosier Daddy]

The non-treaty commercials are already supposed to be targeting the same stocks we are. The quotas all come from the same pool of available fish. Since these quotas are based on estimated impacts to non-target wild fish, and the mortality rates associated with releasing these fish from commercial and sport angling, a reduction in mortality estimates on wild fish from the gillnet fishery would equal higher quotas all around, for "them" and for "us". The same would apply if someone invented a new miracle hook that cut catch-and-release mortality in half. We could protest this, because it may give the commercials a higher quota, but we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot, because it would do the same for us. Obviously, this is all based on the math of how it would work, not the politics.

[boater]

also the state "contracted" these 20 boats from a lottery drawing, so they probly get paid plus they can sell the fish to. images/icons/mad.gif, also if these nets work, which i think they will say they do, they will be able to realy hammer large hatchery runs like the chum on hood canal and all these hatchery runs that return only to get clubed will get realy hit hard.

[ 04-17-2001: Message edited by: boater ]

[POS Clerk]

Chnookie…

But it is entirely political, please note the following letter sent to ODFW/Commission:

February 14, 2001

Paul McCracken, Chair
Honorable Commissioners
Oregon Fish & Wildlife Commission
2501 SW lst
Portland, OR 97201

Re: Columbia River Spring Chinook Fishing Seasons

Honorable Chairman McCracken and Commissioners

On behalf of the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, I am writing to
share the concerns and deliberations of the Board of Directors with regards
to the Spring Chinook salmon fishing seasons which are to be set by the
states of Oregon and Washington next Tuesday at a Compact meeting in the OR
commission meeting room.

It is our understanding that the parties to US vs. OR have come to a sharing
arrangement that provides for a 2% non-treaty allocation. Additionally, we
understand that the Commission will be giving direction to staff member Guy
Norman on the sport/commercial allocations for the season and a fishery
management regime for both.

Here is where we must interject our most serious concern. If it is accurate
that the staff of ODF&W takes it's direction from the Commission with regard
to these fishery issues, does that not dictate that an opportunity for the
public to comment to the commission be provided? According to staff
projections, a maximized sport fishery would generate 180,000 angler days. A
federally funded study of fishing in Oregon done in 1996 provides that each
angler day generates over $100.00 in direct expenditures, not including
multipliers that must be applied to all manufacturing and service sectors.

If staff modeling is correct (we will outline below our concerns about the
models) Oregon is about to give direction on a fishery which would generate
$18 million for Oregon and Washington communities without a public process to
examine where the public benefits of the resource are allocated. We hope
that you will give consideration to our comments before giving direction to
staff.

NSIA would ask that the Commission instruct staff to fully prosecute a
selective recreational fishery 7 days/week in the Columbia. Under the staff
modeling, sportfishing would likely be possible through all of April, with an
impact allocation of .85% to the selective fishery. It is our belief that
the fishery would extend beyond April 30th due to the optimistic assumptions
that are in the model. Specifically, the model suggests that there would be
a full 180,000 angler days if the selective fishery started on March 1 and
went through May 15th. Catch rates assumptions center around .3 fish per rod
per day.

When we look at fisheries recently reopened due to selective fisheries, such
as coho in the Columbia and Spring Chinook in the Willamette, we find the
participation and catch rates fall below the expectations presented by the
staff. Our belief is that it takes time to rebuild fisheries that have long
been closed, and that some folks are not quite ready to embrace selective
fisheries. Both of these are in play here in the Columbia where it has been
since 1978 that there has been a directed spring chinook fishery of any
duration on up-river stocks. While we entirely share the department's
enthusiasm for the anticipated revenues generated by tens of thousands of
anglers taking 180,000 trips, it is more realistic to expect that the fishery
will take some time to build to that level. In the fall (Aug & Sept.) 1999 &
2000 the Columbia experienced about 120,000 and 190,000 angler days in well
established fisheries, with beautiful weather and family vacation time in
full swing. Also, in the fall, there is little concurrent tributary fishing
to speak of. It is doubtful that a new fishery would build to this level in
the first year. The weather is far less desirable, the water conditions more
unpredictable, and spring chinook catch rates are usually in the range of
0.1 to 0.2 fish per rod per day.

In addition to this, we are introducing selective fisheries for spring
chinook to tens of thousand of anglers. With approximately 60% of the
hatchery fish marked, and about 50% of the in-river fish marked, some folks
will choose to fish the tributaries, where (in the Willamette) there is a
higher mark rate or (in the Wind or Drano) selective fishing will not be
required at all.

With regard to the catch rate, again, we share the dream of a catch rate of
.3 fish/trip. Historically, good spring chinook fishing is represented by 8
trips/fish and average fishing is 10 trips per one spring chinook. NSIA can
support the conservation benefits attendant to these kinds of overly
optimistic assumptions. Where we object is when additional "political"
constraints are placed on top of careful modeling.

Operating under staff's modeling, it requires .8% to fully prosecute a
recreational fishery through at least April 30th. We request that a Snake
River Spring Chinook impact of .85 be assigned to the selective recreational
fishery for the following reasons:

1. A FAIR DIVISION: It has been explained to us that .3% impacts are being
saved for a Shad gillnet fishery, a non-treaty(?) Indian fishery and
incidental steelhead fishery. This .3% needs to be taken off the top of the
2% non-treaty impacts. The staff proposes .5% impacts are given to the
non-selective early gillnet season, and .5% to the tangle net experiment. The
staff proposal allows the gillnet fleet an allocation of over 1% of the SRW
impacts, leaving the angling community with .7%. It is not appropriate that
the sport fishery should be penalized to conduct an experiment fishery for
the benefit of the gillnet industry.

2. SPORTFISHERS WORKED YEARS FOR MASS MARKING. The sportfishing community has
worked for many years to legislate and gain appropriations for mass marking
of hatchery fish. This was not done with the support or help of the
commercial fleet. It would seem good faith and a just result for our efforts
that we can fully enjoy the fruits of a selective fishery. The conservation
provided by our efforts should pass on to the spawning beds.


3. SPORTFISHERS MAXIMIZE THE CAPTURE OF HATCHERY FISH. There is a huge number
of hatchery fish returning this year. The sportfishing community is going to
be able to handle 11,000 fish for every 100 Snake River wild (SRW) release
mortalities. Given that nearly 50% of all returning fish are marked, we will
remove about 5,500 marked hatchery fish for 100 SRW mortalities. The Gill
net fishery will remove only 1100 fish for every 100 SRW mortalities.
Certainly, there are fish for both fisheries, but in order to maximize the
removal and public utilization of hatchery fish, the recreational fishery
should be fully prosecuted, with remaining impacts assigned to the commercial
fishery. We support the gill net test fishery, but believe that it is only
fair that the impacts are not taken from the sport fisheries, but should come
from the commercial share.

4. CONSERVATION. While a 10% release mortality is generally used, recent
studies done on spring chinook at Willamette Falls demonstrate the rate to be
closer to 8%. We have attached the ISRP comments on the tangle net test
fishery. Their concerns appear to be strenuous.

Investing just a .85% impact to a selective 7-days per week recreational
fishery is a fair approach to spring chinook fishing in the main stem below
Bonneville for the year 2001. The ODF&W, the WDF&W as well as the
Sportfishing Industry will benefit in increased revenues. The fishery will
allow for maximum utilization of hatchery fish, and do so while providing
maximum protection of naturally spawning fish.

We thank you for your serious consideration of our request.


Liz Hamilton
Executive Director

Encl: Staff model
ISRP comments on tangle net fishery experiment

[Hoosier Daddy]

Noted POS. Only one comment about that letter. I think the reason the fishery on the Columbia shut down earlier than expected was that the 0.3 fish per day estimate got blown away. I don't know what the actual rate ended up at, but I hear it was much higher than that.

To anyone else reading this post: I am VERY FAR from being a supporter of gillnetters, and I do realize there has, and probably will continue to be, a huge amount of politics involved. My only point on this post was to try to point out how the original statement that "toothnets could benefit sportfishers" (paraphrased) might be true in a mathematical sense. I DO understand that it may not be what happens in the real world.

[BellBuoy]

The tangle net fishery has one purpose and that is to find a way to give commercials more time on the river. Lets face it the non fishing public wants commercial harvest to put fish on their menu. And I absolutely agree. I just can't agree with the method.
Look at the number of fish reaching the ladders at that dams in spite of all that effort by sport fishing. This is where I have my complaint. Why experiment with different types of nets when live trapping is a very real option. And live trapping upriver of sport fishers allows not only for a viable economically sound sport fishing industry but leaves a large number of fish in the river for an effecient commercial harvest. Live harvest by trapping say at the ladders, would allow almost zero impact on ESA fish and non targeted fish. Just slip the wild or unwanted species back in the river above the trap. Hatchery operations have done this for years.
There is one complication that being who shares and how much in the revenues from the operation but if it were mandated tribes and commercials could work out a system based on treaty rights and previous landings.
The biggest winner here could of course be the fish and that's what matters most. I know the 13% of ESA fish headed to die in tribal fisheries would appreciate it.

[GoFish]

Great Stuff!!!
You folks give me hope. Lets organize a "1000 Rod March" to the fish commision offices. I'll supply the cool-aid. images/icons/grin.gif

[boater]

http://www.nwefish.com/psga/members/buck/eight_proposals.html

[finclipped]

That is the most hypocritical piece of Bull...t I have ever read. Protect wild fish? How do they figure gillnets protect wild fish? I particularily liked points 5, 6 and 7. images/icons/mad.gif