Looks like some ruffled feathers.Commercials

[HntnFsh]

Heres a link to an article in the Longview paper.
http://www.tdn.com/articles/2008/02/...y/10099037.txt

This is the remark I'm talking about

"We work with sport groups to hammer out a deal in good faith, then a couple of radicals go behind the scenes with dirty tactics to sabotage the whole process," said Bruce Crookshanks, a Rochester, Wash., commercial fisherman.

It seems like Bruce Cruikshanks isnt a happy camper.

Any ideas on who hes refering to?

[wayout]

Originally Posted by HntnFsh

Heres a link to an article in the Longview paper.
http://www.tdn.com/articles/2008/02/...y/10099037.txt

This is the remark I'm talking about

"We work with sport groups to hammer out a deal in good faith, then a couple of radicals go behind the scenes with dirty tactics to sabotage the whole process," said Bruce Crookshanks, a Rochester, Wash., commercial fisherman.

It seems like Bruce Cruikshanks isnt a happy camper.

Any ideas on who hes refering to?

This guy...

[Gun Rod Bow]

The gillnetters are doing a lot more whining and a lot less sneering these days.

[Biteme]

They are hoisting a few beers in celebration tonight. The status quo continues at least for those willing to trailer there boats upriver. the few that do will make good money this year.

[Ginny Ross]

Gillnetter talking points, repeated consistently throughout the day:

1) We support and commend the Stakeholders Vision process. (Coupled with plaintiff cries to "Give it time to work...!")

2) While letting the Stakeholder process work, the Commission should stay with the status quo allocation (in fairness and to give that process a chance.)

3) The SAFE areas are not good enough, and their purpose is not to replace the lower mainstem fishery.

Friends -- they were all saying the same thing, and it didn't seem to matter that we outnumbered them 2 or 3 to one.

Geesh.

[wayout]

Originally Posted by Ginny Ross

Gillnetter talking points, repeated consistently throughout the day:

1) We support and commend the Stakeholders Vision process. (Coupled with plaintiff cries to "Give it time to work...!")

2) While letting the Stakeholder process work, the Commission should stay with the status quo allocation (in fairness and to give that process a chance.)

3) The SAFE areas are not good enough, and their purpose is not to replace the lower mainstem fishery.

Friends -- they were all saying the same thing, and it didn't seem to matter that we outnumbered them 2 or 3 to one.

Geesh.

It was the same in Vancouver. Commercials love the stakeholder process and they say it over and over....Give the process time to work, and don't change anything until we get through the process.

[PATRICK 11-14]

Originally Posted by wayout

It was the same in Vancouver. Commercials love the stakeholder process and they say it over and over....Give the process time to work, and don't change anything until we get through the process.

The writing is on the wall!!! There time is comming to an END!!!!!

[MsOutdrs]

Originally Posted by Ginny Ross

Gillnetter talking points, repeated consistently throughout the day:

1) We support and commend the Stakeholders Vision process. (Coupled with plaintiff cries to "Give it time to work...!")

2) While letting the Stakeholder process work, the Commission should stay with the status quo allocation (in fairness and to give that process a chance.)

3) The SAFE areas are not good enough, and their purpose is not to replace the lower mainstem fishery.

Friends -- they were all saying the same thing, and it didn't seem to matter that we outnumbered them 2 or 3 to one.

Geesh.

So, Ginnie...what that tells me is that its not numbers but influential money coming from who to who? In addition, I'm not sure what our "sportfishermen..including myself" ploy was but what disturbed me is that we sporties didn't sound like we were there to preserve the fast-disappearing fish as much as we wanted OUR chance to fish. I have a problem with that. My biggest concern is that particularly with the Willamette run, none of us are going to have that chance to fish here in the very near future if we ALL don't give up fishing that particular fishery for awhile.

Next time, I hope we do a better job trying to prove to the Fish Gods that if they continue what they are doing, they are going to be successful in destroying our fisheries. I found I couldn't testify because what I felt didn't seem to concur with our folks and I didn't want to say something that might damage their testimony. Course, at the end, I figured it wouldn't have mattered anyway!

(PS...were you the one filming that charade all day??? If so, good job and how are you going to use that? I was thinking, while no one probably wants to watch 8 hrs of it, myself included..since I already sat thru it, might be useful to edit it to a few of the really good sport talking points, the commercials, and then the fiasco at the end of the day with the fish commission. Would be good stuff to provide to the CCA Chapters for their meetings...and maybe reach those sport fishermen who weren't there...just a thought)

[Bill Monroe]

That turnout was impressive, but turnouts aren't going to turn heads.

My impression of the commissioners' unanimous message to the audience was that they want you to work within the process, like it or not. Every commissioner up there told you to do that. "It's not perfect, but it's still new. You've just barely met each other." I think that's a pretty close quote from Bobby Levy.

Further, all three commissioners whose terms are up were resouningly confirmed yesterday.

All that said, sure there are some bargaining chips in the numbers of you that went. And they're useable in the stakeholder process.

If everyone decides to shun that process, the commission will have the easy out of saying "Hey, sports had their chance to work with us on changes."

The leaderships, seems to me, need to figure out how to interject this energy into that process.

The other significant development I saw yesterday was the commission chair asking Rod Sando for help in all this...Sando has a long history of issue resolution, including (I think) some vexing tribal fishing issues in Minnesota.

And Sando was one of Liz's (NSIA) arrangements.

Criticize and flame all you want, but looks to me as if that's the road to take...

[AuntyM]

I think I'll walk down the road paved by the WDFW Commission Bill. Their message was clearer. Put the fish first and do what's best for the resource, for a change.

[Bill Monroe]

Looks like close to the same path to me...Slightly different road signs, but the same path.

[BCF]

Originally Posted by MsOutdrs

My biggest concern is that particularly with the Willamette run, none of us are going to have that chance to fish here in the very near future if we ALL don't give up fishing that particular fishery for awhile.

Let's not allow the commercial gillnetters to specifically target this fishery first. In the past few years these guys have fished virtually unsupervised and with a specific goal of taking every last Willamette hatchery salmon in the system.

I am going to bet if you pull this fishery out of the path of the nets it will make a tremendous improvement in the "show up" numbers.

The other requirement is to have observers on these boats. No observers no commercial fishing period.

BCF

[Bill Monroe]

There will be no gill-netting on the lower Columbia this spring...Both states have said that.

[Cliff D.]

You should look up the definiton of retired in the dictionary, Bill. Thanks again for all your efforts in keeping the rest of us informed.

[husker]

Bill----do your part and write an editorial ripping the commission. Please be part of the solution. Stop defending the commission and rip them for being the biased folks they are..


thats just my humble opinion

[Straydog]

Originally Posted by husker

Bill----do your part and write an editorial ripping the commission. Please be part of the solution. Stop defending the commission and rip them for being the biased folks they are..


thats just my humble opinion

"ripping" this commission or any other volunteer citizen board will get us nothing but grief and a bad (worse?) reputation..

I am confident Bill understands this, even if he did feel someone needed to be ripped, but I get real anxious when I read a post encouraging "ripping" the decision makers while promoting CCA.

Tough talk to a volunteer board might make one feel better, but the chances of the results resembling anything good for the rippers is slim to none.

Just from a citizen volunteer school board member that gets his back up in a big way when people stand on the sidelines and "rip" me....

[NEUTRON]

Straydog, Thanks! Ron has his red hat on too tight and it's squeezing his brain cells. I'm going to the next wrestling match he officiates and scream from the stands: you missed the call, homey. How's that for ripping.... JK..

[Bill Monroe]

I won't be ripping the commission. Never have. Tweaked them once in a while, but never ripped. They're in a much better position to see and understand all of this than any of us.

Tomorrow's column does, however, point out the commission's adamant stance on the stakeholder process...

If you all want change...figure it out within that process instead of ripping it, too...

It's frustrating and discouraging (for the commission and department, too) to see all of this useful, passionate and well-meaning energy not being put to its best and highest use...

[JohnnyP]

Let's cut to the chase...what is the "best and highest use" of our passion?????

Understand your hands are somewhat tied but subtle hints would me much appreciated.

[flyin chrome]

In nearly all of the posts relating to the allocation hearing, as well as some of the testimony I heard yesterday, I heard a fair amount about predation and spill rates. While I completely agree that these are issues that need to be addressed, this meeting was NOT about how to save the fish!!! This was a meeting to determine the EQUITABLE share of the resource that would be enjoyed among user groups. It will do us no good to go and whine about sealions and birds at an allocation hearing!!! We do need change and the nets need to be restricted to the safe areas in my opinion. I would love a stakeholders group that seeks to address the issue of predation. We are not even close to that my friends. It goes back to the idea that we are all divided. Recognize what the purpose is....identify some goals.....and lets get something done for crying out loud!!! Yes, I'm doing my best as a president for a cca chapter and I did take the day off to drive clear to Salem at 4 am from Bend.

[Bill Monroe]

Originally Posted by JohnnyP

Let's cut to the chase...what is the "best and highest use" of our passion?????

Understand your hands are somewhat tied but subtle hints would me much appreciated.

Great question...Gotta think on it.

And my hands are not tied...

(sent you a pm, too, John)

[HntnFsh]

Originally Posted by AuntyM

I think I'll walk down the road paved by the WDFW Commission Bill. Their message was clearer. Put the fish first and do what's best for the resource, for a change.

I posted this on the other thread too.I wonder if WDFW will use part of the 65-35 split.To get some LCR sport fishing time.

How much would they be willing to give up of the split to attain that Lower river fishery? If at all.

Just seems to me like they may be willing to use it as a bargaining chip.Or am I all wet?

[Amahnee]

So If I get a commercial license and a net permit do I have to sell the fish?

[Hagar]

It appears to me that ODFW Commissioners just ducked under the table when it came time to make the right decision.

This isn't the first time they have tried to deflect the heat by using a variation of the stakeholder process. They have never been successful! Jim Martin headed one process when he was still with the agency.

Currrently you have a few dozen people that are harvesting a large number of fish and substantially impacting steelhead and endangered fish.

The rational change behind the Washington Commissioner who finally weighed in on Friday is the kind of thought and logic that is missing in Oregon. Take a look a the Columbian article on Saturday for his quote.

The stakeholder process is just an excuse for the Department and Commission to stay out of the line of fire. It's pretty obvious.

[Jerry Dove]

Originally Posted by Ginny Ross

Gillnetter talking points, repeated consistently throughout the day:

1) We support and commend the Stakeholders Vision process. (Coupled with plaintiff cries to "Give it time to work...!")

2) While letting the Stakeholder process work, the Commission should stay with the status quo allocation (in fairness and to give that process a chance.)

3) The SAFE areas are not good enough, and their purpose is not to replace the lower mainstem fishery.

Friends -- they were all saying the same thing, and it didn't seem to matter that we outnumbered them 2 or 3 to one.

Geesh.

Ginney, were the the pretty lady doing the filming at the meeting? If you were, I was setting next to you when ever you sat down to adjust your camara. I read where you told Bill Monroe that you would be filming. Just wondering.

[Ginny Ross]

Originally Posted by Jerry Dove

Ginney, were the the pretty lady doing the filming at the meeting?

Part right -- I was the lady videoing -- trying mightily not to scowl at times!

If you were, I was setting next to you when ever you sat down to adjust your camara. I read where you told Bill Monroe that you would be filming. Just wondering.

Cool! It has been great to meet so many of you fellow soldiers in this effort. One thing that struck me is how hard it was to sit and listen to non-stop fish talk ALL DAY and not to actually be fishing. Made me nuts. I have never had to endure that before! Plus, the whole time the gillnetters were talking I thought about dead and dying ESA listed steelhead hens full of the next wild generation being pulled from nets and tossed overboard like trash fish. All that talk about "pusheads" just about made me want to cry.

Anyway...nice to meet you.

[Gun Rod Bow]

Originally Posted by Bill Monroe

Criticize and flame all you want, but looks to me as if that's the road to take...

Ahh Bill, an invitation to criticise you and now I don't even feel like it...

The reason the comms love the Visioning right now is they have the deck stacked.

Ginny while bravely sitting next to Bruce Buckmaster pointed out that he claimed no affiliation when he joined the Stakeholders group.

When Marla Rae heard the outburst of laughter in regards to the Visioning process I hope sent a strong message. If ODFW is serious about the Visioning working, it had better be a balanced group.

That is probably the very next item that needs to be addressed. I'll be writing letters to Erlicker and Rae this week.

I do agree with Bill (no...really) that the Commisioners are doing what they are there to do. It's not their fault.

If the Visioning becomes truly ballanced, even sport and comm interests, AND straight up conservation interests as the wild card (tie breaker) it could work. But in it's current structure, it never will.

[lurking_out_loud]

Originally Posted by Bill Monroe

There will be no gill-netting on the lower Columbia this spring...Both states have said that.

Does that decision include Youngs Bay and the other SAFE areas in th lower river?

[Bill Monroe]

Originally Posted by lurking_out_loud

Does that decision include Youngs Bay and the other SAFE areas in th lower river?

No.

[MsOutdrs]

Bill..trying to picture just what it will look like for the two opposing factions to come to some agreement. Not to give up hope, but how are we/they going to get gillnetters, who claim to make their living using the easiest/quickest method, to change their feelings, and how are we/they going to get guides who make their living to give. Not to mention the sporties who probably support the guides' stance. This is going to take one sharp "mediator"!!!

[jeffrey.m]

I have faith that were going to get these gillnetters eventually! Do all you can, whenever you can.

[Thumper]

Originally Posted by MsOutdrs

This is going to take one sharp "mediator"!!!

With Liz Hamilton and Stan Steele among the stakeholders, there is not likely to be an accord that falls short of progress towards selective methods. Them's two tough negotiators.

[rob allen]

sorry i am all for selective harvest but there certainly isn't anything selective about 2 sets of huge treble hooks on a wrapped kwikfish either..

non-net commercial fishery and a selective gear regulation sport fishery is the way to go...

[RiverRogue]

Originally Posted by rob allen

sorry i am all for selective harvest but there certainly isn't anything selective about 2 sets of huge treble hooks on a wrapped kwikfish either..

non-net commercial fishery and a selective gear regulation sport fishery is the way to go...

Have you caught or know any who has caught a wild steelhead while targeting salmon, fishing a quickfish?

[Ginny Ross]

Originally Posted by Thumper

With Liz Hamilton and Stan Steele among the stakeholders, there is not likely to be an accord that falls short of progress towards selective methods. Them's two tough negotiators.

It's very unfortunate that the fish are not represented officially. It should be more like 3 from the commercial ind., 3 from the sport ind, and 4 for conservation interests with no financial ties to harvest or consumption at all (1 from each state OR, WA, ID x 2 since they have the two ESA stocks (I think).)

That would begin to make the "Vision" process real. Right now it is just a food fight among harvesters, with the sport side vastly more concerned about conservation but still a harvest group with a financial stake in consumption of the resource nevertheless.

[drano100]

Originally Posted by rob allen

sorry i am all for selective harvest but there certainly isn't anything selective about 2 sets of huge treble hooks on a wrapped kwikfish either..

non-net commercial fishery and a selective gear regulation sport fishery is the way to go...

Did you know that a bio at OFWD said Friday at the allotment meeting from their studies large single point hooks cause more mortality the double treble hooks, he said something about singles hooks doing more eye pass thru. he also said bait was a nonfactor. It was right after the netters make the same comment you made above, do you have and studies to back up your point he did?

[Gun Rod Bow]

Originally Posted by rob allen

sorry i am all for selective harvest but there certainly isn't anything selective about 2 sets of huge treble hooks on a wrapped kwikfish either..

non-net commercial fishery and a selective gear regulation sport fishery is the way to go...

I'm kind of glad you threw that out there Rob. Because it is pure propoganda. It was brought up by one of the comissioners at the meeting Friday during their questions to ODFW Staff.

I believe the staff member was Williams, big guy, pointed out that when the Deschutes went to single hook requirement, what that means is lures are changed from the factory size trebles to larger gap siwash style hooks. Mortality was slightly worse with single points. They went back to allowing trebles.

On Kwikfish (and he knew exactly what they were) they have found the large gap siwash hooks caused the same or worse damage to fish. He saw no scientific reason to ask for a change from tebles to singles. He based his answer on science.

Personally, I tried the "Linde" method years ago with a treble on the tail and a siwash on the belly and on Spring Chinook the largest majority (over 80% with K-15s) are hooked in the mouth by the tail hook. That single siwash often got burried deeply in the head of the fish. I quit using them.

Remember these are smaller fish, 12-16 lbs average. On the Kenaii, the singles facilitate release, and the bigger fish match up to the bigger hooks on K-16s.

The ODFW staff was quite aware of the gear, and the impact.

As far as bycatch, I wish ODFW would do more studying, but in the data I collected, targeting Spring Chinook with bait and lures over 7 years in the Columbia, Willamette and tribs, over 500 Spring Chinook handled, only 3 Steelhead landed.

Pretty selective.

[roadsend]

Originally Posted by Ginny Ross

It's very unfortunate that the fish are not represented officially. It should be more like 3 from the commercial ind., 3 from the sport ind, and 4 for conservation interests with no financial ties to harvest or consumption at all (1 from each state OR, WA, ID x 2 since they have the two ESA stocks (I think).)

That would begin to make the "Vision" process real. Right now it is just a food fight among harvesters, with the sport side vastly more concerned about conservation but still a harvest group with a financial stake in consumption of the resource nevertheless.

This process is all about harvest allocation and has nothing to do with the anti-harvest PETA type preservation folks.(conservation involves wise use by definition) Strong harvestable runs are in the best interests of sporties and commercials. The anti-harvest folks are active enough in other areas, such as trying to reduce our fishing opportunities with undefined and open ended marine reserves. We would not be wise to invite the participation of folks who want all of us off the river.