Jon Englund Taking Heat

[cosmo]

Anglers’ boycott of Englund called ‘profoundly disturbing’
Sport fishers upset at vote on spring chinook allocations

By KATE RAMSAYER
The Daily Astorian

Some anglers are pushing for a boycott of Englund Marine Supply because of a vote owner Jon Englund of Astoria cast with the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission.

The boycott could ruin one of his companies, Englund said.

The controversy stems from a decision by the commission to set a number divvying up allocation impacts of spring chinook salmon between commercial and recreational fishers, a decision that influences the length of fishing seasons.

The commission decided Jan. 6 – in a 4-3 vote with Englund in the majority – to allocate 55 percent to recreational fishermen and 45 percent to commercial fishermen, with the possibility to change it 5 percent either way. Last year, recreational fishermen received 60 percent of the allocation.

The 55-45 split is not the final number. Managers from Oregon and Washington will set that Thursday at a Columbia River Compact meeting.

A group of sport fishers said that because Englund sells commercial fishermen gillnets and other gillnet equipment and gets most of his business from the commercial sector, he shouldn’t have voted.

“He should flatly recuse himself from voting on these issues,” said Bob Rees, president of the Northwest Guides and Anglers Association.

Rees said he was not a part of the group that is boycotting Englund, but knows of the discussion among anglers. “Something that is so clear as the allocation of commercial versus sport impacts ... it’s a clear conflict of interest.”

However, Marla Rae, chairwoman of the ODFW Commission, said that Englund did everything by the book.

The state statutes encourage the governor to appoint people with backgrounds in commercial and recreational fishing to the commission. There is a set way to handle potential or actual conflicts of interests – decisions that may, in the case of potential, or will, in the case of actual, affect a commissioner financially.

In the impact allocation vote, Englund declared a potential conflict of interest and was allowed to participate in the debate and vote.

“Jon has done nothing wrong,” Rae said. “He has done it by the book, and for him to be attacked is profoundly disturbing. He is a person of high integrity, he’s a standup guy with deep values, he has a lifelong commitment not just to his community but to his state, to his family, his employees.”

On a discussion board on the Web site ifish.net, some anglers echo Rae’s assessment, saying that Englund made the decision fairly, while others say they will never shop at his stores again.

Englund said he and the rest of the commission made the decision after studying the issue for five months. He added that he was asked to join the commission by people from up and down the Oregon Coast, who said that the body needed someone who understood both sport and commercial fishing.

Englund said that he met with the head of the Oregon Ethics Commission before becoming a commissioner to make sure there was no conflict of interest in general.

“We supply both commercial and recreational, and they are both important to the businesses here in the lower Columbia,” Englund said. He estimated that his company generates 60 percent of its income from commercial and industrial fishing and 40 percent from recreational fishing, when the revenue from a branch of Englund Marine called US Distributing, which deals exclusively with recreational fishing, is factored in.

The boycott is mostly affecting US Distributing, Englund said. The Portland-based company, which employs 14 people, sells items like boats, paint, engine parts and lights to boat dealers and distributors.

Already, four or five dealers have written Englund saying they would no longer do business with the company, and others are calling, he said.

“The potential could destroy that place,” he said, later adding, “The devastation is that they’re boycotting us because a certain group didn’t get what they wanted.”

Englund said he didn’t yet know how the boycott was affecting Englund Marine Supply.

Impact allocations influence the length of the fishing season, but aren’t the same thing as harvest limits. Because runs of protected salmon are mixed in with the chinook that fishers are allowed to catch, non-Indian fishermen have a set amount of those protected salmon that they can kill before their season closes. Commercial fishers are allocated a portion of that impact, and anglers are allocated the rest.

The state has formulas that determine how many protected fish are killed based on how many fish are caught and the method used, and once a group of fishers reaches their allocation the season is closed.



I guess I see this whole thing a bit differently than Marla Rae and the Daily Astorian. Companies can choose to do business with whoever they like. John Englund has voted to reduce sport catch of fall chinook in the Columbia, voted to increase commercial mortality on wild steelhead, and voted twice now to to reduce sport catch of spring chinook (from 65% to 60, then 60% to 55). If I was a dealer whos health depended on sport fishing, how could you possibly justify doing business with the man? What a sales call!!! "Uh hello Mr. Customer, the owner of our company has voted repeatedly to reduce the opportunities your business depends upon, but we'ed really like to see growth with your account this year."
61% of the salmon harvest in Oregon are harvested commercially, and the Commission, beneath a veil of "equity", says the commercial industry needs more, at the expense of sport opportunities???????
The most laughable part of this whole undertaking is that immediately following the Oregon Commission decision the Oregonian runs the article about declining license sales. Yo! Rocket scientists! You've been blazing a path of cutting sport opportunities in the largest and most newsworthy fishery in the state, the Columbia River, and wondering where your customers have gone? Really!
Governor Kulongoski put the largest, and virtually the only, supplier of commercial fishing equipment in the state on the Commission, and this issue started right then. John Englund has developed his own voting record from there, and if he's surprised by the actions of his recreational customers, my only question is, "What would you possibly expect!" Maybe Mr. Englund felt his customers were too detached from the proceedings to understand the implications of his actions.
This state harvests a vast quantity of chinook in the ocean via the troll fleet. Inland waters represent the bulk of opportunity for sport anglers and to be held to an equity standard that somehow is growing towards "equal" on the Columbia is ludicrous. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife needs to take care of its customer, the sport angler.
Thankfully, sport anglers are engaged and starting to take an active roll in the future of their sport. If some of the dealers out there are doing the same, more power to them.

[Smoked Salmon]

Jon Englund is not going to get poor over this supposed boycott.

It sounds like a bunch of hard working employees may lose their jobs, through no fault of their own.

That is what boycotts can do. Congrats.

Bill

[POS Clerk]

The state statutes encourage the governor to appoint people with backgrounds in commercial and recreational fishing to the commission.

Who was the last recreational interest person? :whazzup:

Here are the two Commissioners referenced in the article:

[eyeFISH]

What goes around....

[Killertraylor]

This ifish intiated "boycott" will have a negligible affect on his business in my opinion. Those of us intelligent enough to know that Mr. Englund didn't do anything unethical will continue to give him our business when shopping in Astoria, Newport, Ilwaco, and North Bend. Those communities are 100% behind him, as are most of the sportfishermen I've spoken to who are well informed. Mr. Englund is a well respected businessman and will be just fine 5 years from now - I guarantee it!

[fish_on]

“We supply both commercial and recreational, and they are both important to the businesses here in the lower Columbia,” Englund said. He estimated that his company generates 60 percent of its income from commercial and industrial fishing and 40 percent from recreational fishing, when the revenue from a branch of Englund Marine called US Distributing, which deals exclusively with recreational fishing, is factored in.

Strange that is about the split in fish he would have liked to see. I know of 1 major boat maker that is no longer doing business with them. I will not buy anything they distribute or shop in their stores.

[pnwcoast]

Can't shame me into changing my mind. It's not about Mr. Englund the person. I'm sure he is a nice guy.
Sweepy and I have had several phone conversations about what a great guy Sweepy thinks John Englund is.
Can't change my mind because it ain't about John Englund the person.
It's about a message to the State of Oregon.

[steel_beaver]

The boycott could ruin one of his companies, Englund said.

If he said that in the media, he is scared....means he is loosing money over this. I'm not boycoting anything since I never shop at his store anyway, but I'm not surprised his partners are... I'd go someplace else if one of my "partners" was killing my business opportunity...

The boycot is not what will hurt his business....he hurt his business by choosing to vote in favor of the few hundred gillnetters...

S_B

[pearl]

That is what boycotts can do. Congrats.

Sad but true.

But the reality is I owe Brian Bush's, Page Stevens Dan Grogans, Norm Daniels and a host of others employee's a chance to make a living as well.

I guess Mr Englund chose to protect one entity of his business while exposing the other.

Don't blame the people that make the choice as where to spend their money. America was built on choice and the free enterprise system.


I will spend where I see fit.

[crabbait]

Mr. Englund probably had less "say" in his vote than we may realize. His constituents are the Astoria and Oregon Coast communities. I am sure that he has a long history with these people, has done business with commercial fishermen for a lot of years. He has voted in support of commercial interests in the past. How could he justify recusing himself to his "base"? How could an honorable man sell the net and then vote against the netter?

While it would be easy to make Jon Englund the problem, the real issue is the poor return of ESA listed salmon. It is the impact of both our fisheries on these stocks that limit our ability to harvest hatchery fish. I am against the net, not the netter.

[Killertraylor]

Mr. Englund probably had less "say" in his vote than we may realize. His constituents are the Astoria and Oregon Coast communities. I am sure that he has a long history with these people, has done business with commercial fishermen for a lot of years. He has voted in support of commercial interests in the past. How could he justify recusing himself to his "base"? How could an honorable man sell the net and then vote against the netter?

While it would be easy to make Jon Englund the problem, the real issue is the poor return of ESA listed salmon. It is the impact of both our fisheries on these stocks that limit our ability to harvest hatchery fish. I am against the net, not the netter.

EXACTLY!!! Thank you for putting it better than I did.

[Bill Monroe]

No matter what side you take, you've got to wonder just what those 14 employees must be going through...I'm just guessing a lot of them (sport) fish...and pay mortgages, send kids to college...maybe even buy boats.

Seems unnecessary to me.

[Thumper]

"Have it, flame on, but the fact is that there's a whole lot of wasted energy being spent on what amounts to a gangland execution."

Nope. Mr. Englund voted, knowing full well the political fallout he might suffer. He should have recused himself. Tough.

[Old Coot]

KT, I politely disagree about whether he did something unethical. From the Oregon Dep't of Human Resosurces website:

"Code of Ethics
The Code of Ethics applies to you if you are a Public Sector Employee. You are a Public Sector Employee if you:
serve any public body in the state (e.g. state, county, city, district) in any capacity (e.g. employee, officer, agent or otherwise) whether or not you are paid.

The Code of Ethics prohibits certain conduct: You may not use your public position in any way to obtain financial gain for (a) yourself, (b) your household, or (c) a business with which you or a member of your household is associated."


I don't believe that this requires a genius to interpret, but I do believe that Mr. Englund had an ethical obligation to recuse himself from the discussion and vote in order to avoid even the appearance, that he used his public position to obtain financial gain for (a) himself, (b) his household, and (c) his business.

I, too, will spend my dollars as I see appropriate.

John Coffey

[Old Coot]

Crabby, I see sit differently. Englund was not elected by a constituent base, he is an appointee. As such, his constituent base is either the governor or the population of Oregon, not just his customers. If he cannot take the pressure of his cash constituents, he should not have accepted appointment.

Further, a recusal is not a "no" vote. It is an act of an individual who values ethics and honor more than personal profit.

I am likely a fool for even thinking that a politician could grasp the concept of either personal ethics or personal honor.

[eyeFISH]

As the opening line to one of my kids favorite movies so eloquently put it, "Life's not fair...." ( Scar in Disney's Lion King)

Everyone of us lives and dies by the decisions we make on a daily basis. Every decision has consequences, sometimes big sometimes small. Each decision we make is a learning opportunity. This case is no different.

In the real world of public opinion, perception IS reality. Apparently enough people perceived some impropriety in his vote, and they've chosen to act on those perceptions... real or not. As old Blue Eyes once sung, "That's life..."

Is anyone really surprised by this outcome?

[Killertraylor]

Do what you want, Old Coot. When they say Mr. Englund gains 60% of his profits from commercial interests, I'd guess that less than 10% of that is from the spring chinook gillnet fishery. The rest is from sardine fishermen, crabbers, hake fishermen, shrimpers, salmon fishermen, guides, trollers, etc. So to say that he clearly had a financial interest in his vote (when 40% of his business is to recreational fishermen!!) is just not true. If you don't know the man, don't be so quick to condemn him just because he didn't vote the way YOU wanted him to.

[Kentucky Hog Hunter]

After talking to Liz at NSIA and going on my rant about banning nets and finally coming to the conclusion that that is not going to happen, I think we have to compromise.

Fact is, we just need more fish for both sides and we can all be happy....

Crabby said it right, we need a better return of ESA listed fish so we can all have more fish....

Bill Monroe is probably right, it will only make a difference of a few days.....

Keep in mind, the 60/40 split in essence means we the sportsmen gets to kill the majority (60%) of the endangered species.... One other thing, I am anti-net not netter.... They have a right to make a living as well, I just wish they could do it without killing native stocks of endangered salmon & steelhead..... How we get there, I only wish I had an answer.....

Peace

[Rank Amateur]

"Code of Ethics
The Code of Ethics applies to you if you are a Public Sector Employee. You are a Public Sector Employee if you:
serve any public body in the state (e.g. state, county, city, district) in any capacity (e.g. employee, officer, agent or otherwise) whether or not you are paid.

The Code of Ethics prohibits certain conduct: You may not use your public position in any way to obtain financial gain for (a) yourself, (b) your household, or (c) a business with which you or a member of your household is associated."



I'm confused the above statement seems so clear, so why are all the informed people so ignoring it. His duty was to recluse himself. He had the easy out, he could have told his constituents that he had an conflict of interest and they would have understood. Now he will suffer the wrath, well maybe.

So you guys are saying, that if I own a game farm and sit on the commision it would be ok for me to vote to allow canned hunts in Oregon?

[FisherJack]

Killertraylor - Even if you consider 10% or less to be small, the law does not excuse a public official from his or her ethical obligations simply because the public official's profit related to the vote may be small.

Jack

[Killertraylor]

You obviously don't get it. Mr. Englund makes soooooo much more money from sportsfishermen than he does on the spring chinook gillnet fishery. He's just as qualified to sit on the commission as any sportfisherman on this blog. You have every right to spend your dollars elsewhere. Just know that informed sportsfishermen who know the man all think its crazy and childish to organize a boycott against him just because he didn't vote YOUR way.

[Killertraylor]

So, Fisher Jack, if he had voted the other way, I'm sure you'd be here claiming he should have recused himself because he makes 40% of his profits from recreational fishermen??? Give me a break!!!! There was nothing financial about Mr. Englund's vote.

[Kentucky Hog Hunter]

Very interesting perspectives Joe....

i am just wondering how all the Salty Dogs feel about this given that when they are down in Newport for the Summer Albecore season and they are the only reliable place to go to get tackle and clones

I'll bet they will still go to his store and buy the things they need to keep them fishing, what do you thinK?

[The Greek]

"He added that he was asked to join the commission by people from up and down the Oregon Coast, who said that the body needed someone who understood both sport and commercial fishing."

This is not the whole story. Joan Dukes(D)( friend of the gillnetters ) Told governor Kulongoski that if he didn't appoint Jon Englund to the commission, that she would vote republican in a evenly split house. The commercial lobby worked some political magic and had their best man( Englund ) appointed.

[Kentucky Hog Hunter]

"He added that he was asked to join the commission by people from up and down the Oregon Coast, who said that the body needed someone who understood both sport and commercial fishing."

This is not the whole story. Joan Dukes(D)( friend of the gillnetters ) Told governor Kulongoski that if he didn't appoint Jon Englund to the commission, that she would vote republican in a evenly split house. The commercial lobby worked some political magic and had their best man( Englund ) appointed.

Man, gotta love the political process.... Sounds like they need to appoint an educated hillbilly or something

Oooops, I resemble that remark :grin:

[The Greek]

K.T. said.... "There was nothing financial about Mr. Englund's vote."

If there wasn't then, there is now. :blush:
Chris V.

[FisherJack]

Bill Monroe posted this last night and then later deleted it:

It's sad (I'm just aching to say reprehensible. Blackmail?) that 14 people who did nothing worse than treat customers like they treat their families are now on the block because a few industry giants found an achilies heel to take it all out on. The whole issue is over whether to allow something between two to five more angling days on the Columbia (given the run this year) that won't make a lot of difference to that industry's employees anyway ... sure wouldn't cost them THEIR jobs. Have it, flame on, but the fact is that there's a whole lot of wasted energy being spent on what amounts to a gangland execution. Michael Milstein's story will be in the Oregonian in the morning. I opted out of writing the news story for a severe want of objectivity.

I'm looking forward to the story, Bill. I think you made the right decision in opting out of writing the story due to your admitted severe lack of objectivity. Now if Englund had only opted out of voting (recused himself), he wouldn't have the problems he now has.

Jack

[The Greek]

Terry...I trust you would be a better candidate for the commission.
Chris V. :grin:

[drhall99]

Would you buy paint from the man who knowingly sold spray paint to the graffiti artist that tagged your house?
NO, you wouldn’t!

In my opinion, he voted as he saw fit. His reasons were NOT to be equitable to all parties. He voted to benefit those that he represents. We, however, have an obligation and the right to use our monetary influence in any way that is legal and moral to get our point across. Boycotting is very legal and moral. The morality issue lies with Mr. Englund’s decision. If US Distributing shuts it’s doors, it is his failing, not ours. You say he had little choice in his vote. Why? If he voted differently, would the gillnetters buy their nets from someone else? It's very likely that they would have gone elsewhere which is all I am doing. I think that Mr. Englund underestimated the frustration that has been building up in regards to the gill net industry. I think that it is important to remember that HE is the one who seconded the 55/45 split. This last vote isn’t an isolated incident. He has a history that we should not ignore!

He made his choices, I am making mine! I will continue to boycott products sold or distributed by any Englund Marine company.

If you don’t agree with the boycott, then by all means, don’t do it! Boycotting is very democratic and this is how I choose to cast my vote. It’s how I choose to make sure that my voice heard, loud and clear. I feel that the sportfishing community has been largely ignored by the commission. Hopefully this will get the message out that we are tired of it.

[garyk]

The revisionist history in the starting article followed by the hand-wringing over holding people responsible for their deliberate actions, illustrates how these ethical scandals take on a life of their own.

Mr.Englund role wasn't just voting when ethics demanded recusal. Englund dug himself deeper by providing the second to the motion to bring it to a vote. The motion for 55/45 was doomed for lack of a second until Englund spoke up.

The central issue in this is NOT HOW he voted, but that he voted at all.

When you're not springer fishing the Columbia above the Willamette this year, like at Bonneville, you can thank Mr.Englund, Klarquist et al.

If we don't have ethical commissions, maybe it's time we demand that we do!

[shecatchesifish]

I applaud Jon for giving his time to volunteer for public service and having to make decisions that everyone doesn't agree with on either side. I will not hurt his employees and their children for his actions.
Always be careful with boycotts they work both ways.

[Silver One]

This is to everyone posting here who has never had the good fortune of shopping at a Englund Marine store. When you walk in you are first struck by how different Englunds is from any other retail store. Yeah, there is commercial gear but there is fishing stuff (sport) you won't find anywhere else. Then there is the staff, I have been to and shopped in every store from Astoria to Cresent City and a couple things jump to mind. You see the same faces year after year. These faces seek you out and give you a retail experience that is reminiscent of a time long past. I for one appreciate that attention from employees who obviously value my business and their jobs. The fact that in todays day and age a retail business person can keep and maintain that type of employee year after year and keep me coming back is testimount to him and the business he has built.

As a commissioner from a small coastal community which has seen its renewable natural resource based economies dwindle and who supply the non fishing public their only access to those resources (fish, crab etc.) I can certainly empathize with his vote. If you choose to boycott his business understand that you choose to boycott his employees and the many communities that benefits from Englunds presence. This will be yet another blow to coastal communities who struggle everyday to provide family wage jobs.

Rather than focussing on allocation why not focus on the real culprits if you want to impact the future of salmon runs. I.E. predators killing salmon coming and going to the sea.....spring time dam flows for flushing smolts through dam turbins to name a few.

I know it's easier to pick out a scapegoat but does it accomplish anything? Thanks for hearing me out!

Mike

[Beefcake]

As long as the topics of lost jobs was brought up in this thread, let's expand on it. This was the main emphasis of the meeting in Salem. The gillnetters provided testimony after testimony implying that without an increase in their impact numbers hundreds of jobs would be lost in Clatsop County, and the commission believed it (as evidenced by the statements of members of the panel just before the final vote). This was obviously false for two reasons. First, the option of "status quo" would not cause any lost jobs in Astoria. They are getting more per pound and more consistent prices throughout the season than ever before. Therefore, a vote for the status quo would have resulted in exactly that. Second, the Astoria area holds two of the main "terminal areas" (net pen programs not counted in their catch statistics), which accounts for roughly 30-40% of their total catch for the year. According to the testimony of one of the gillnetters, Youngs Bay alone can easily handle 50 boats netting at once, and I believe Knappa / Blind Slough can accommodate about the same. Therefore, if there are 175 active gillnetters between the two states, that would mean the 87.5 active gillnetters in Oregon could all fish at once in the terminal areas.

On the flipside, the owner of NorthRiver Boats (Brian Bush?) testified that when the springer season closed early last year, his sales in Oregon dropped more than 30% and never rebounded. I'm sure that this fall season didn't help (when we got to watch the netters **** the river during the peak season, then the compact slapped us in the face by re-opening our season in what - the last week of October? first of November?). Anyway, these job losses are real. I have a friend that was employed by NR and lost his job due to the drop in sales (can't mention his name since he isn't a member here anymore). The last gillnetter to speak at the Salem meeting (president of the gillnetters union) framed the debate as "lost Astoria jobs vs. lost Portland jobs", which was once again false. The fact is that sportfishing has a huge impact on rural economies. NorthRiver Boats are built in the area of the state that was hit hardest by the demise of the timber industry. Most guides live in rural areas near rivers. And we all spend money on motels, gas, food, bait, tackle, and souvenirs when we visit these rural areas. Some of you want us to feel sorry for Englund's employees; no dice here. I don't believe their jobs are more important than those provided NorthRiver, which were lost last year due to government mismanagement.

As far as a boycott, I will gladly support companies that boycott Mr. Englund's businesses. However, I have a more radical idea if we want to get our message heard. How about boycotting fishing in Astoria for a year. I mean, several of the moving testimonies at the Salem meeting were from the Port of Astoria, City Commissioners from Astoria, and Astoria resaurant owners. I'm thinking the restaurant owners would change their tune if we weren't there spending money during the estuary sturgeon season and Bouy 10, and the port might get nervous if they don't make any launch fees this year, and the hotel owners would sure as heck show up at the next allocation meeting on our behalf. I know this is a half-cocked idea, and I'm not sure I'm sold on it myself, but maybe we need to draw some serious attention to the value of sportfishing in the economy. Plus, it would be fun to fill up our gas tanks in Portland, take a picnic lunch, and park boats all through downtown Astoria with "On Stike" signs in mid-August. Just a thought.

[Nalu]

I find it curious that the response to trying to sway an individual's vote, (or show dissasisfaction) is to threaten their personal financial success, as well as that of their employees. This in response to absolutely no factual data that supports the claim that a particular vote would bring greater financial gain for the individual.

I understand that some feel he should not have voted at all, and I respect that opinion. In such, then it would seem that the target of this attack would be the Oregon Ethics Commision, and the chairwomen of the council.

A lot of people that know Mr. Englund have come forward to give heartfelt character references saying that they do not believe his decision was or would be influenced by economics of his store. No information has been presented that he would benefit financially from a vote either way. I guess I don't understand how he can be lynched because of it.

As Silver One mentioned above, when you walk into an Englunds marine, you can feel the difference. It's the people. If you haven't been in one, imagine this....The Les Schwab of fishing stores. At all stores. It's a complete and total company culture, and in my experience that always comes from the top down.

Guess it's obvious why some of the best business and community leaders don't want to get involved with the process.

These attacks, led by high profile, respected people have made it so that I find myself wondering if I should even post out of fear of being attacked. Will I be the next one to be branded if I don't agree? That's sure what it feels like, and it's a little scary.

But no, I went ahead and shared my thoughts, and voiced my opinion even though I might lose business. Why? Because I choose to decide on my own, regardless of the financial impact. Others just might do the same.

[drhall99]

Just a quick note - I want to say that I appreciate the way that both sides are making their points without name-calling or insults. Hopefully, it can continue like this .

[The Overfishin Condition]

Crabby... In answer to your question...

How could an honorable man sell the net and then vote against the netter?

The same way that "honorable" man could sell a guy a fishing pole, then second a movement and vote against the fisherman.

Deductive logic says that if that's your definition of "honor" the only way to have upheld it was to not vote at all. You've said it yourself now, if not in so many words.

The bulk of the boycotters are upset because he voted, not because he voted against us. A person in his position who was concerned with his employees, all of his customers, and his civic duty should've considered the implications of not just what his vote was, but voting period.

Voting was a lose/lose. He could've rescued himself.

[firstBoat]

It is good for people to take a stand, but if the option to not-buy drives one through the doors of a LARGE retailer.

Who wins?

[Todd]

"Keep in mind, the 60/40 split in essence means we the sportsmen gets to kill the majority (60%) of the endangered species.... "

Not true...the 60/40 [actually 55/45] split is for the harvestable hatchery spring Chinook.

The 2% allowable ESA impact on listed wild Chinook is split 1.2% for the commercial fishers, and .8% for the sportfishers.

For me, the issue isn't the rec./comm. split of harvestable fish, as the hatchery run is underutilized anyway...the big deal is that the commercial fishery can't manage to catch their share without catching TWO non-target, ESA-listed fish, for every targeted hatchery springer that they catch.

Those two non-target fish (comprised of wild LCR steelhead and wild spring Chinook) suffer very high mortality in the "gillnet and release" strategy employed by the commercial fleet.

If the commercial fleet and the state agencies would develop a REAL selective fishing technique, not a gillnet that they call a "tangle net", then this issue would be much less explosive...

The limit on the overall number of Chinook that can be harvested is not set by the numbers of hatchery fish...it is set by the impacts on ESA fish during the fisheries, and the fact of the matter is, the commercial fleet proportionately inflicts a much, much greater mortality on the listed species than do the sporties.

Besides the economic waste of an artificially shortened sport fishery, there is the monumental waste of recovery money spent over the years on steelhead and wild spring Chinook...recovery money that is wasted by watching it swim into very non-selective gillnets.

Fish on...

Todd

[fergy61]

It's sad (I'm just aching to say reprehensible. Blackmail?) that 14 people who did nothing worse than treat customers like they treat their families are now on the block because a few industry giants found an achilles heel to take it all out on. The whole issue is over whether to allow something between two to five more angling days on the Columbia (given the run this year) that won't make a lot of difference to that industry's employees anyway...sure wouldn't cost them THEIR jobs. Have it, flame on, but the fact is that there's a whole lot of wasted energy being spent on what amounts to a gangland execution. Michael Milstein's story will be in the Oregonian in the morning. I opted out of writing the news story for a severe want of objectivity.

Oh really? You are about as waffley as they come. What about your short sheeted article? Forgot all about that aye? The employees of Englunds don't have anything to do with the decisions of John Englund, or the people who want to boycott the place. Should people not boycott because of his employees? I've been in his store enough times to know that his commercial customers represent much more than 60% of his business. He voted for his main customer base..PERIOD!

[PapaHog]

What does Englund”s employees have to do with this? What about the employees of the business owners that were hurt because of his self serving vote?

As stated above North River Boats was down by 30% because of the early closing season. What about the North River employees? North River is only one of many business hurt by this unwise vote.

The loss of revenue by England’s is not the fault of the people not shopping there but the unethical second and vote of the commissioner in question.

As well it should be.

Ken

[crabbait]

The bulk of the boycotters are upset because he voted, not because he voted against us. A person in his position who was concerned with his employees, all of his customers, and his civic duty should've considered the implications of not just what his vote was, but voting period.

Voting was a lose/lose. He could've rescued himself.

I agree that recusing himself would have been the right thing to do. My point was that he had already established himself as a vote for the commercial fishermen. It would have been vey difficult for him to go against his previous voting record.

Recusal may be a much clearer choice for him now.

[Fshklr]

I guess I see this whole thing a bit differently than Marla Rae and the Daily Astorian. Companies can choose to do business with whoever they like. John Englund has voted to reduce sport catch of fall chinook in the Columbia, voted to increase commercial mortality on wild steelhead, and voted twice now to to reduce sport catch of spring chinook (from 65% to 60, then 60% to 55). If I was a dealer whos health depended on sport fishing, how could you possibly justify doing business with the man? What a sales call!!! "Uh hello Mr. Customer, the owner of our company has voted repeatedly to reduce the opportunities your business depends upon, but we'ed really like to see growth with your account this year."
61% of the salmon harvest in Oregon are harvested commercially, and the Commission, beneath a veil of "equity", says the commercial industry needs more, at the expense of sport opportunities???????
The most laughable part of this whole undertaking is that immediately following the Oregon Commission decision the Oregonian runs the article about declining license sales. Yo! Rocket scientists! You've been blazing a path of cutting sport opportunities in the largest and most newsworthy fishery in the state, the Columbia River, and wondering where your customers have gone? Really!
Governor Kulongoski put the largest, and virtually the only, supplier of commercial fishing equipment in the state on the Commission, and this issue started right then. John Englund has developed his own voting record from there, and if he's surprised by the actions of his recreational customers, my only question is, "What would you possibly expect!" Maybe Mr. Englund felt his customers were too detached from the proceedings to understand the implications of his actions.

[riverrat]

If Mr. Englund's business will be adversly affected by his vote, don't you think he would have wanted to state a justification for his vote. Just a thought, if it were my business and my employees livelyhood I certainly would be pounding on a pulpit explaining to all parties my decisions, and my thought processes.

[crabbait]

He has voted this way in years past without the backlash he is getting this year. May have to mark this down as the year the tiger awakened.

[finclipped]

It certainly adds more polarization to an issue that already divides the user groups.

The right thing to do for Mr. England was not to vote.

I think many are making a point, in that jobs in Medford, Roseburg and other area's are just as important than those in Portland, Cathlamet or Astoria. I come from Roseburg, and I can tell you I have seen 20% unemployment, I have seen old trailers parked in the abandoned gravel pits with 2 or 3 kids walking around barefoot. The despair is hard to take. Jobs are important, but the arguments for saving the England employee's over another are weak and self centered. Rural small communities have it hard and I can sympathise with both sides.

Several years ago I went into the Englands in Astoria. They had a small selection of sports gear, and I wasn't given the time of day when I had a questions. Bad vibe, and I had the feeling I wasn't welcome there anyway. A feeling reinforced by the bad blood between the user groups.

[FishinTechnician]

Englund set himself up for this by accepting Gov Kulongski's nomination to the Fish Commission. Poor judgement on both men's part. Clearly a "no brainer". There are lots of other people in this state that would have more fairly acted on the question of allocations than someone connected to the commercial fishing industry. Neither of these gentleman have my support.

[Kentucky Hog Hunter]

Like I said, will the hard core Tuna Fleet boycot when they are on a long weekend down in Newport?

What other alternatives are there to buy tackle down there with the variety they have.... I order most of my Tuna clones online because face it, this is not Fishermans & GI Joes claim to fame..... I have bought clones at Fishermans but the sizes & quantities were very limited.

I feel bad for Mr. Englund's employees.... Allot of those hard workers are going to feel this more then the boss.....

It is just a Rat Holed situation at this point given all the bickering. My competitive fire has dwindled and now I just would like to see a compromise that we can all live with. We just need to figure out why we have a lower predicted return and focus on that at this point.

NSIA is out there fighting for us but the banning the net thing is not going to happen so we need to move on & focus on how we increase fish returns while sharing the bounty with both sides and just move on from this....

[Gundog]

No matter what side you take, you've got to wonder just what those 14 employees must be going through...I'm just guessing a lot of them (sport) fish...and pay mortgages, send kids to college...maybe even buy boats.

Seems unnecessary to me.

Bill how many hundreds of employess are negatively impacted when the season ends early? What about the hard working guides and that is just one group and there is more than 14 of them. In reallity will all 14 lose there jobs? Not unless the business bankrupts. I don't think we should be lumping all commercials together this is a sellect group of gill netters. Very few commercials fish using that method. I have a good friend who is a commercial fisherman and he trolls for salmon in the ocean and does not gill net I am sure he would not want to lumped in with the gill netters.
My .02 GD.

[bassin]

[Jennie@ifish]

Twenty years ago, I lived in the Astoria area, and I was smitten by the salt, and bitten by the fish bug. I had no close friends to fish with me, so I set off, by myself. It was a retreat for me, from the every day chore of taking care of small children. When my husband came home from work, I, almost simultaneously left for the water, wherever it might be, for the day.
I cannot tell you the number of times I needed tackle. My nickname with the guys who fished around me, was "Mrs. Borrowitz". Yes, I was always a bait late, and tackle short.
Where on earth did those guys get all of that stuff? I'd gaze into the backs of their trucks, or deep into their tackle bags. Wow! Tons of assorted weights! From tiny split shot, to 14 ounce pyramids! Giant hooks and floats of orange and white reflected off of large metal attractors with flashing tapes! I had no idea at that time what the names of all these things were, but over the years, I learned.
Finally, on one day when the rain came down sideways and the wind blew so strong that I couldn't fish, I decided to surprise everyone. No longer would I be Mrs. Borrowitz. I was growing up in the fishing world! I actually started to catch fish! Sometimes, more then the guys! It was about time I learned the name of some of that tackle, and be able to actually loan something myself, for once! It was time!
So, I looked through the phone book, and found the store of what I thought my dreams were made of. There it was, tucked back in the corner on a pier, in Astoria. I threaded through traffic, and pulled in the lot. The Englund's Marine sign hovered over me, and seemed so huge and I felt so insignificant!
It didn't stop in the lot, either! As I walked into the store, I never felt so lost, or so small!
What I really needed that day, was a net. I was tired of asking all the guys to net my fish for me off of the jetty, and I needed one with a long, long handle, so that I didn't need to get so close to those scary man eating waves, myself.
As I browsed through the store, I was met by sales people who were ever so helpful to me. They showed me so many things, and offered such educational help! I left the store that day with a huge net, duct taped to the side of my car, and my front passenger seat filled with tackle! I was in heaven! My net became fondly known as my "jetty netty", and you have no idea how many men borrowed that net to net their own fish. I was so proud!
Later, I came to know the Englund's, and actually played for a wedding for their children, one year. What nice people! I was proud to know them. I bought more tackle from them, during my stay in the Astoria area. More, and more, and more! I knew that store like the back of my hand. Boxes and boxes of hooks came home with me! Lines of all strengths! And beautiful reels that I nearly strung on a gold chain and wore to church!
--------
It saddens me to no end to hear the struggles that are happening in the tackle industry, today. I am speechless. I suppose I'll have something to say, later. I have very strong feelings about things, but they sway in both directions, and I'm afraid that I don't know how to put them into words, yet. All I know, is that we are playing with people's lives, not just playing with politics. I guess it's always that way, but I've never been so closed to politics, that I could see the devastating results of such strong emotion and passion. I can say that most sincerely, I do not like seeing what I am seeing.
It was hard for me to even write the headlines on the front page. Whenever there is a news event being discussed on ifish, I always put a pointer at the header. This, because I get so many e mails asking where on ifish is the talk about this, or that? This way, people can find it just one click away.
But please, be respectful, and remember, there is a family behind this story. There is a family that took a young girl by the hand and helped her pick out tackle until she was armed enough to be a sports fishing fool that actually brought fish home to her family!
I don't think I ever knew, when I started ifish.net, that people would write words that would affect so many of my friends in both good ways, and bad.
I know that I have been hurt by written words, and likewise, many of the strongest players in the fishing world. As the owner of ifish, I feel responsible for that, in a way, and it causes me great stress.
Please, as you type your feelings, realize just how much impact that they might have on a family and their employees that may not even be responsible for any of this political mess.
Above all, I believe it is a strategic and tragic mistake on the part of the sports fishers to personalize this, or any battle.
Englund's, the business, isn't on the Commission. Englund's, the business, is people who are trying to make a living just like the rest of us.

[Lured In]

While I do not personally shop at Englunds, I do not see an issue with the so called boycott.

There is a 'no win' situation when considering the economics of the allocation of ESA impacts. Somebody is gonig to hurt financially. Whether that is the empty boat ramps, gas stations and sporting goods stores in the PDX area or Mr. Englund's business interests.

While more fish, might ease the tension, it certainly does not dismiss the problem.

With an estimated run size of 100K upriver fish, a 1.2% impact to sporties means a total upriver fish handle (including fish released) of 12,000. (That is at a 10% mortality rate). For the commercial's with a .8% impact, and a 20% mortality (with small mesh tangle nets not typically used early in the season), they can handle (including fish released) 4000 upriver fish.

For the sport fishery, every 0.1% impact equates to 1000 upriver fish that can be handled. For the commercial fishery (best case scenario), every 0.1% impact equates to 500 fish that can be handled. (These calculations are based on a run size of 100K)

Given the above example, going from a 60/40 split to a 55/45 split takes a 1000 fish from sport fisherman and gives 500 fish to the commercial fisherman.

[Bill Monroe]

Bill how many hundreds of employess are negatively impacted when the season ends early? What about the hard working guides and that is just one group and there is more than 14 of them. In reallity will all 14 lose there jobs? Not unless the business bankrupts. I don't think we should be lumping all commercials together this is a sellect group of gill netters. Very few commercials fish using that method. I have a good friend who is a commercial fisherman and he trolls for salmon in the ocean and does not gill net I am sure he would not want to lumped in with the gill netters.
My .02 GD.

Closing two days early on the Columbia isn't going to hurt anyone nearly as much as what may happen to those 14. Guides can go to the Willamette or any of a number of Washington rivers...they'll still buy tackle...if boat sales slump over two days of fishing there's a lot more wrong there than the season or opportunity.

It's like watching the fighting on deck for space in the boats as the Titanic sinks...

What a shame.

And BTW...the Oregon commission gave its negotiators a 5 percent wiggle...the Washington commission (unreported, I believe) told its negotiators essentially the same...that it's understood Washington may have to come off the 60-40 a bit...

Still, fergodsake, you're arguing over a handful of fish.

[Kentucky Hog Hunter]

Above all, I believe it is a strategic and tragic mistake on the part of the sports fishers to personalize this, or any battle. Englund's, the business, isn't on the Commission. Englund's, the business, is people who are trying to make a living just like the rest of us.

Every time I went to their stores in the past they were just hard working people. My parents came here a couple years ago from Kentucky and when we were down at the CG Museum, I took my dad over there and he was impressed. Back where I come from, people respect other people that are just trying to make a living.

If Englund gets boycotted, the only people who will feel the wrath of that is probably someone who is hard working just trying to make ends meet....

Tough deal for all those families that are employed there realizing what is at stake here.....

Theres got to be a better way. We need to hold individuals accountable for nominating non-biased commission candidates and do a thorough background check prior to having a person nominated.....

Just hope it works out for the employees there because those will be the ones paying the price for the boycott.

[drano100]

hey Bill how about all the other people that lost their jobs last year because sportsfishing was shut down on the river. Are those folk going to get any ink in the Oreg. Not!!! only about poor Jon and how hard it is on his company and emp. Is the paper going to point out that Jon has cut sports take both times he has had the chance, and his stand was kill 4% more of wild steelhead run so the netters could catch more fish, Not!!!. [inflammation removed - cb]

KT buddy you should be happy the nets are in already, killing sturgon at a clip of 40,000 a years, and anything else that swims into them. As far as people up and down the coast wanting him, the story and most know it, was Jon was forced on the gov. in a political play of, I will not vote for your stuff unless you appoint Jon. He should have just not voted not only this year but two years ago too.

[Bill Monroe]

If someone lost a job because the Columbia was closed early, (I reiterate) there's a lot more wrong there than simply one fishing season shortened by a few days or weeks.

This is a far more direct cause-effect, spurred by retribution far as I can see.

I'm gonna go kill a duck...Beavers always feel better about that. Oh wait...wrong audience...edit my post...just kidding duck fans...

[El-Kabong]

any consumer has the RIGHT to shop at businesses that they wish to shop at. For some, that means best price, others like convience, others like to express their opinions towards the owners actions.

I don't normally frequent Englunds, but will think twice about it next time I am in Astoria. Probably won't go there directly as a result of Englunds voting as he did.

Is he free to vote for the commercials, sure. Am I free to vote with my dollars, yep.

EK

[freespool]

And BTW...the Oregon commission gave its negotiators a 5 percent wiggle...the Washington commission (unreported, I believe) told its negotiators essentially the same...that it's understood Washington may have to come off the 60-40 a bit...

Still, fergodsake, you're arguing over a handful of fish.

Although I feel Mr. Englund should not have voted on this issue on ethical grounds, I don't think it's the main point.
For a number of years now, we have been trying to convince the ODF&W and the Fish Commission that sportfishing is big business here in the state of Oregon.
These pleas have been ignored at every turn. ODF&W puts a high value on the gillneter way of life, even though it's a antiquated, ESA species killing operation.
Mr. Englund stuck a stick in the eye of many businesses that depend directly on sportfishing as a source of income.
This may be a message to ODF&W, CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?
Last spring gillnetters generated $1.3 million on the springer run on the lower Columbia River, during the same time frame sportfishers generated $23 million.
This maybe a wakeup call to our politicians, we are many and we spend a lot of money, please do the right thing for our state.



salmon hugger

[takedown]

I want to applaud North River, Stevens Marine, and Fishermans Marine for their bold stance. Obviously, the Oregonian was slanted towards a poor Mr. Englund but at least they reported it. Mr. Englud miscalculated when he figured that it would be business as usual and there would be no repercussions to his ethically challenged position. Folks, this is politics at its finest and the sooner this group (IFish) understands that its all about money and power, the sooner you will see better fishing opportunities. I hope this action is just the beginning to a brighter future. You can look to the above companies to know where I will be spending my recreational dollars.

TD

[drano100]

Bill your right their is something wrong its called mismanagement and it sits on the boards of both Oregon, and Washington's commision, and CRC, who has done anything but a good job in manageing our CR fish runs, also lets not forget there is more then 1 gillnet season on the CR you have the sturgon which is being netted right now, gillnet season opened on the 10th, spring salmon (cut short) , summer salmon (1 fish), fall salmon (1 fish- cut short), and coho ( cut short).The impact is more then just a couple of days.
Are sturgon raised in fedral hat.? no. For some reason the netters now take 40,000 a year, are these John Q Publics fish too?
Bill the question is still out there, are we going to get the whole story on Englund, why some might feel there is a conflit, and what his voting record has been on commerical fishery issues while on the commision, probably not. We will see what a great guy he is, and all the people that could be hurt because a small group of sports fisherman are unhappy with the 55/45 split
Maybe the local rag should be on the list next, don't see alot of support for sportsfishing and a lot of half truths, remember they told you not to go to Salem for the commision meeting on impacts, it was not worth your time, or the great story with the every much one sided slant towards the Net fishery, wait I only buy it now when I have fish to clean anyway.

[Abalone]

If nothing else I am happy to see it bring attention to the issue. For awhile there I didn't think anyone was paying any attention to the Sports anglers.