Do Salty Dogs support Englund marine?

Nalu · 01-26-2006, 12:08 PM

The ruckus on the main board over Jon Englunds vote has taken on a life of its own. The idea to boycott has grown legs, and now major manufactures have sent letters stating they will not support one of Englunds enterprises, US Distributing.

The big vendors include:

North River
Stevens Marine
Fishersmans

Feel free to post your feelings, but this isn't an attempt to divide or polarize people, just a question.

From your business dealings, and knowing the commision vote that has taken place, do you still support Englunds?

Salty Walty · 01-26-2006, 12:27 PM

Yes.

kamloops · 01-26-2006, 12:30 PM

Yes

Mark Mc · 01-26-2006, 12:31 PM

Yes. In fact I think I'll do more business with them.

Hooked on Fish · 01-26-2006, 12:44 PM

Yes. I'll buy based upon price and selection. (My mechanic just bought a couple of parts that came from there, although my business won't make much differece one way or another) I'm old enough to know what it means to make up my own mind and at times that may be popular, but it seems more often it may not be. I'm new enough to the area that I don't feel I know enough about the issues nor the impacts of all the parties involved. Until I more fully understand and feel comfortable to make up my own mind, I'll give the "little guy" or man taking a stand with his lively hood, ie. Englund, netters, and guides, the benefit of the doubt and do my best to work with them and trust they'll do the same towards the common good. So, I'll continue to buy filets and smelt from a friendly commercial netter I've met and do business with Englunds if it makes sense for me. I'm also old enough to know I'm not sharp enough to debate with the the higher IQ's that hang out around here, so I'll just say my

worth because there have been a couple of ifishers that wanted to know where I stand, and now everyone knows.

Let the flames begin.

Smoked Salmon · 01-26-2006, 12:47 PM

I can't think of much I actually need, but I will be making a point of patronizing his booth at the upcoming Sportsman's Show. Not so sure about the other booths though.

Bill

corrirod · 01-26-2006, 12:50 PM

Yes and No. Perhaps I should recuse myself from this vote?

And perhaps many other Salty Dogs should also for the same reasons of knowing, and liking Dean Fleck?

I will still buy product from Englunds for 2 reasons, 1. is I like the store manager at the Newport store, and 2. is I'm sure, regardless of how hard I try "not" to buy from them, there will be times when I can't buy the item from anywhere else.

In regards to Jon's decision to vote on the gillnet matter, I feel he should've recused himself. I wouldn't be upset if he didn't vote for the sportfishing interest, but I am upset he voted at all.

That said, I have no problem with anyone wanting to show their distaste by boycotting his stores. It's your right to spend your money anywhere you'd like and if one store owner upsets you, for any reason , then you should be able to go somewhere else.

It's kinda like taking your Dodge into the mechanic and having him tell you he hates working on Dodge's and they really stink and later you find out he gives better service or discounts to Ford customers. Would you keep going to that mechanic just because you know his wife and kids depend on the money or should you be able to find some other mechanic who wants your business?

Jon's a big boy. He knows what he did and he understands all the repercussions that can happen because of his actions and his position in the community. I won't join the "pitty party" club for him and I also won't head up the "hanging party" either. What happens, happens.

Kentucky Hog Hunter · 01-26-2006, 01:10 PM

Very interesting results to this point in the poll....

I suspected that allot of the loyal hard core people who spent allot of time on the coast in the summer would have the opinion they have.....

Englunds the store is awesome for its selection of commercial & recreational gear and face it, when you are in Newport or Astoria and you need tuna tackle, where else you gonna go......

Like I said, people will have to make those decisions in regards to where they spend their $$$$$$

I look forward to keeping up with this poll as I feel it is going to be very divided given the types of fishing people love to do.....

Nalu · 01-26-2006, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Yes. In fact I think I'll do more business with them.

Quote:

I can't think of much I actually need, but I will be making a point of patronizing his booth at the upcoming Sportsman's Show. Not so sure about the other booths though.

Mark- Yep

Bill- Funny, my dad said the exact same thing to me.

Rod- I get ya' man!

I don't support the vote that was placed by Jon Englund, nor do I support gill nets. However, I do support phenomenal service, exceptional variety of product, awesome attitudes, and a company that makes me feel like this little 2 bit guy is the best customer they have.

Silver One · 01-26-2006, 01:16 PM

Nalu,

Yes, in fact I just started a thread on the main board (Salmon Politics, Ignore at your own peril !)

Mike

slabhunter · 01-26-2006, 01:17 PM

I voted to take my dollars elsewhere.

Mass marking and the mark-selective fisheries have a greater impact on the wild steelhead and salmon.

IMHO the more harmfull gillnets are no longer viable on the mainstem Columbia River. With the less favorable ocean conditions we should be working to protect these populations for future generations, rather than increasing them as bycatch in the least sustainable fisheries.

Hans Mak

Mark Mc · 01-26-2006, 01:29 PM

This reminds me of when......after the Exxon Valdez disaster, I vowed to never buy gas from Exxon again. That worked for a while. Then Exxon bought out BP. And there has been more consolidation in that industry. So even when I buy gas from the "Towne Pump" or Tesoro, I honestly can't be sure where that gasoline came from or who refined it. Just who sold it to me.

A guy could spend all his waking hours...all his energy...trying to figure out where every little component & ingredient....that went into everything he wants to buy came from....and how righteous the company is that made the product overseas....Yea I make some effort but I probably have a few things within arms reach that were made by a kid in a 3rd world country.

You know the saying about....knowing when to fight the battles? Focusing on the big things? Well for some people the + or - 5% allocation on the CR is a big enough deal....that they want to fight that battle. And I respect them for that. It's not for me though.

For me, the "battles worth fighting" are things like:
- Keeping sport reps on the PFMC (battle coming our way soon)
- Fighting unacceptable sport limits for tuna
- Getting Wyden, Smith, and our congressional reps aligned with sportfishers regarding marine sanctuary proposals.

If we don't win these kind of battles, there will be no access to fish at all, so this + / - 5% allocation thing will be a completely moot point.....not even a scintilla of relevence.

edit: BTW just to be clear though, I personally do not support the use of gill nets as an in-river harvest method here in the lower 48. If there was a proposal to ban gillnetting in the CR, you bet I would write a letter in support. of such ban.

Nalu · 01-26-2006, 01:37 PM

I agree with you Mark.

Although I don't agree with the vote, like 99.9% of the people here, it is a curious line in the sand.

And what happens when lines get drawn? The overall weaker side tends to lose.

I understand that people may not like Gov. K., but now the people in the Capitol are stepping up and defending Jon Englunds right to vote and not have his business effected by it.

The anti-fishing people have got to be rolling on the floor laughing! What could possibly be better than making sure there is a huge divide between the two largest user groups fighting for consumptive use?

kamloops · 01-26-2006, 01:45 PM

Hey

I thought we were getting more halibut up here?
Do you guys know something I don't?

skein · 01-26-2006, 01:48 PM

Quote:

- Getting Wyden, Smith, and our congressional reps aligned with sportfishers regarding marine sanctuary proposals.... Nalu

I suspect Mssrs Wyden, Smith and others (including Ted) are becoming painfully aware of The Big Ruckus and may not want to step into the same doo-doo that Jon did. So whichever way you may feel, right now the sleeping dragon, i.e. sportfishing community, is awake and stalking the land.

Perhaps those same elected officials will be less inclined to throw their support behind Teddy's Lockdown. I know my vote will be influenced by what they do.

Skein

ron m · 01-26-2006, 01:48 PM

I widh I had been at the meeting, I'd have liked to heard the info given by the ODFW staff and the testimony. I don't support gillnetting, but his was one of 4 votes. Were the other 3 all commercial fishermen? Maybe they heard evidence that gave them what they consideredc good reasons to vote that way.

While I won't boycott Englund's stores, I did read in the paper that the businesses that have decided to boycott his wholesale business in Portland are haveing a big impact. That may get him to rethink his vote, but maybe not for the right reasons.

Regarding having him recuse himself on that issue, would we want the sportsfishermen on the commission to not vote because there was a conflict of interest if they salmon fish on the Columbia. I'm sure the answer is no, so why should we expect commercial fishermen or a marine bussiness owner to recuse himmself? After all, one would almost for sure have an interest in fishing and/or hunting to even agree (or want) to sit on the ODFW Commission. Given that, almost every vote has the potential for conflict of interest.

ron m

Smoked Salmon · 01-26-2006, 01:50 PM

I hear you loud and clear on the battle choices. I was a little off yesterday as a result from reading all the anger directed at Mr Englund. Today seems better, because I have refocused my efforts on improving the overall health of the salmon in my little watershed. By concentrating on salmon recovery I am a happier person, and have a little more ownership when I gleefully put the blood in the boat.

Bill

Nalu · 01-26-2006, 01:55 PM

Quote:

I suspect Mssrs Wyden, Smith and others (including Ted) are becoming painfully aware of The Big Ruckus and may not want to step into the same doo-doo that Jon did. So whichever way you may feel, right now the sleeping dragon, i.e. sportfishing community, is awake and stalking the land.

Perhaps those same elected officials will be less inclined to throw their support behind Teddy's Lockdown. I know my vote will be influenced by what they do.

Skein

Aren't the commercial guys going to be against the sanctuaries as well? Seems like their support, and a team effort to face sanctuaries head on would be in the best interest of all. Kind of hard to believe that the sportfishing community is in a better position now for cooperative effort with commercial since a respected one of their own is having their feet held to the fire.

Maybe the well organized commericials will just strike a deal, and work to keep marine sanctuaries in close to shore, and away from where they tend to fish...............

skein · 01-26-2006, 02:01 PM

What I'm getting at was the erroneous concept that sportfishermen weren't really that big a factor, and wouldn't bring that much weight to bear either way. I don't think they think that any more.

Skein

husker · 01-26-2006, 02:12 PM

these response's are very troubling to me. englund has been singled out because of his association with gill netters. his desire to increase "by catch". this is also in asscoiation with his business by supporting gill netting. englund benefits 2 fold. nothing like a fox in the hen house

Mark Mc · 01-26-2006, 02:14 PM

You're right Jim. The backlash against Mr Englund is a huge symbolic gesture. Regardless of the **actual** conflict of interest, he is being made the poster boy. And many people are jumping on the bandwagon who may not have previously taken any action before regarding fish politics. So I suppose that is one good thing that may come of this....is that more sporties are paying attention. Now, if that momentum can continue...and harness it for the bigger battles, then great.

Mark Mc · 01-26-2006, 02:26 PM

Husker, my outlook on it has to do with the **degree** of association.

If a person, or business, made all or most of their income from gillnetting, then the arguement of (significant) conflict of interest would be valid. However, Englund Marine makes a very small percentage of their income from the selling of gillnets. That is a fact. Now I don't know the exact percentage, but just for the sake of discussion let's say it is 3%. So he has a 3% connection to a cause that is despised.

By this same logic, the fuel dock selling fuel to the gillnetter should be punished accordingly. If the fuel dock sells 3% of its fuel (sales) to gillnetters, then they should be demonized in the same way.

I just don't see the logic in that.

Abalone · 01-26-2006, 02:29 PM

Skein has it right on the head. Boycott or not it's about bringing attention to this issue.

United we fight divided we fall !

Nalu · 01-26-2006, 02:39 PM

Could somebody please tell me why 3 other commisioners voted for the 55/45 split? People that as I understand it have no connection to gill netting or profiting? If they voted that way, is there no chance that Englund agreed with them based on the same information/

Somebody?

Lip Rip'r · 01-26-2006, 02:41 PM

I tried to keep up with that thread while it was going on the main board. I didn't really see how the conflict came into play.

Saw a lot about him voting for the increased take of wild steelhead by the gillnetters. Didn't really see how a couple extra days of fishing would influence his profit

. Do they need to buy "more" gear to set for the extra days?

One thing I did pick up was that he voted to increase the allowable wild take based on the "scientific" data that it would not impact the fishery. Guess if that was the case, wouldn't he be expected to vote for what is "best for the people"? Seems to me that a few more days of income into the community is a plus for everyone (yes, gill netters are people too) as long as it doesn't impact the fishery. (And I mean this based on the "available" information)

Personally, I'd like to see all gill nets removed from the river/estuary, but I don't have enough information on the topic to boycott Englunds.

Am I missing something here??? Figure there must be a direct link to his bottom line to generate such and outrage/interest that I am not picking up on?

LR_

skein · 01-26-2006, 02:47 PM

Quote:

By this same logic, the fuel dock selling fuel to the gillnetter should be punished accordingly. If the fuel dock sells 3% of its fuel (sales) to gillnetters, then they should be demonized in the same way.

Mark, your arguement would hold more water if the fuel dock owner voted to require a new widget on all boats that would adversely effect their fuel efficiency.

Skein

CATCH AND EAT · 01-26-2006, 02:54 PM

A year ago I responded to the Englund's marine thread and How Jon voted then. At that time I felt more compassion for the man and his good employees. While I still feel you get good service in Astoria and mediorchre service in Ilwaco from his employees I have a definit disdain for his vote which I am sure troubled Mr Englund for some time as to his decision. My humble opinion is he should has recused himself from the vote based on exactly his comments of conflict of interest before the vote.

Here is my decision. I have spent a lot of money with Englunds over the last couple of years putting together tuna and halibut gear. I now feel less compelled to do so in the future, however, I will still buy hooks and necessary items that you really cannot get in Portland stores. (Hey Dan Grogen if you are reading this you might consider better selection of tuna and halibut gear in your Fisherman's Marine and OUtdoor stores)

I'm not going to cut Englund's completely off but I feel a point needs to be made here and when one is making a point sometimes the pocketbook is the sharpest tool to use.

I hold no ill will against him or his business and I hope he remains successful but at this time my dollars will green up a more sportfisher friendly establishment. Sorry Jon but this is to important to let slip by.

And Gov. K.

You have been put on notice as to your wacking ideas and hopefully your proposal will be but dust in the wind.

husker · 01-26-2006, 02:58 PM

Mark Mc- I have no idea how much money englund makes off gill netters but it is my understanding he is there main supplier. Which means he profits from having gill netters in business. Most columbia river fisher people believe gill nets have no business on the river period, me included.

We as sportfisher believe Englund should have not voted on the sport fisher gill net issue because of business involved directly with gill netters. However he voted to give himself a raise. Keep gill netters in business. give them more quota. He was also the man who 2nd'ed the main motion. Englund said prior to the vote he had a conflict of interest going on. Then he voted in alliance with this conflict of interest. "fox in the hen house"

ANDYCOHO · 01-26-2006, 03:14 PM

Quote:

A year ago I responded to the Englund's marine thread and How Jon voted then. At that time I felt more compassion for the man and his good employees. While I still feel you get good service in Astoria and mediorchre service in Ilwaco from his employees I have a definit disdain for his vote which I am sure troubled Mr Englund for some time as to his decision. My humble opinion is he should has recused himself from the vote based on exactly his comments of conflict of interest before the vote.

Here is my decision. I have spent a lot of money with Englunds over the last couple of years putting together tuna and halibut gear. I now feel less compelled to do so in the future, however, I will still buy hooks and necessary items that you really cannot get in Portland stores. (Hey Dan Grogen if you are reading this you might consider better selection of tuna and halibut gear in your Fisherman's Marine and OUtdoor stores)

I'm not going to cut Englund's completely off but I feel a point needs to be made here and when one is making a point sometimes the pocketbook is the sharpest tool to use.

I hold no ill will against him or his business and I hope he remains successful but at this time my dollars will green up a more sportfisher friendly establishment. Sorry Jon but this is to important to let slip by.

I couldn't agree with you any more Bernie, I feel exactly the same way and will pratice my future spending the same.

SnowDog · 01-26-2006, 03:26 PM

EXACTLY.... No need to debte further.

Cheers!
SnowDog

Gundog · 01-26-2006, 03:29 PM

One of the things I keep hearing is sporties against the commercial guys I don't see it that way. Lets be very specific not all commercial guys gill net the Columbia thoses are the guys we want to see go away. I am sure a lot of the commercial guys would not like being lumped in with a small group of gill netters everyone knows the nets are not good.

My only problem with Englund is that he voted. He has a clear conflict of interest not only himself but his son is a chairman for a gill net lobby group for crying out loud. There is nothing wrong with him having different beliefs but he should not have voted. The comparison to a sportfisherman being on the board is not the same unless the sportfisherman is making a living at it. Not spending money at his stores or on his products is a personal choice we all get to make. I don't think the individuals who decide not to do business with him will have near the impact the large businesses will. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. I am very interested in seeing just how many folks really do boycott his booth at the sportsman show. My guess is not many but we will see. Remember it only takes about 50 -100 people to make a protest and make it look huge but many more sit in the background and watch. It takes even less people on this board to make it look like a big deal and a lot of the posts are by the same people over and over.
GD

Nalu · 01-26-2006, 03:36 PM

Quote:

We as sportfisher believe Englund should have not voted on the sport fisher gill net issue because of business involved directly with gill netters.

It is certainly a valid point of view that many share. However, others feel that he had every right to sit on the board and vote as he represents a wide spectrum of the fishing population, commercial, dragger, troller, gill-netter, and yes recreational.

Quote:

However he voted to give himself a raise. Keep gill netters in business.

With all due respect, these are fallacious arguments that propogate a wide sterotypical viewpoint.

1. Jon Englund as an employee of Englund marine would have no direct financial impact from a 55/45 split. Englund Marine, even as a company would most likely not have any financial gain by a 55/45 split.

2. Englund Marine does not keep gill netters in business, the federal government does. (maybe the state- help me out here Mark) Englund marine sells a product to the industry.

Quote:

He was also the man who 2nd'ed the main motion.

Since 2 others on the commision voted in favor of the 55/45 split, how is this relevant? Since they were in favor, do you not think that one of them would have seconded? Is it really the widely held opinion that if only Jon Englund hadn't seconded the motion it would have died?

Husker- Again, with all due respect I am not picking on you!

I've asked these questions over and over, and nobody seems to want to answer me.

Bernie makes a good point, and so does Rod above. If you feel that you philisophically disagree with a company, than by all means take your business elsewhere.

I'm just a bit disgusted by the sensationalistic way people have made Jon Englund and Englund Marine out to be. In some peoples mind they are the devil child standing on the river with gill nets in their hands just waiting to take the fish from a 70 year old man and his grandson fishing out of a p-14.

Mark Mc · 01-26-2006, 03:40 PM

All good points here; many angles from which to look at it....this is a good debate.

One thing that is obvious.....Mr Englund has certainly been made aware of the concern over conflict of interest.....no matter how real/unreal it is.....perception IS reality in this case. Hopefully it will make a better commission member out of him, and his colleagues.

Maybe he should be invited to some sportfishers forum in the Portland area sometime, to have a civil conversation????
Salty Dogs Tunaholics convention is already full....

flapbreaker · 01-26-2006, 03:42 PM

This is a quote from one of the above mentioned businesses.

Quote:

"I can no longer support a business (whose) owner does not support our business, or the jobs of our employees"

I can't see anything wrong with that.

Nalu · 01-26-2006, 03:47 PM

Can't disagree with that either.

flapbreaker · 01-26-2006, 03:55 PM

Quote:

It is certainly a valid point of view that many share. However, others feel that he had every right to sit on the board and vote as he represents a wide spectrum of the fishing population, commercial, dragger, troller, gill-netter, and yes <font color="red">recreational </font> .

As far as the columbia allocation goes Jon has consistantly sided with the gillnetters. So the sport guys start to wonder who he's looking out for, a couple hundred gillneters who admit that they barely make any money or thousands of sportfishers and the businessess that support them. Bottom line is we have no recource against the other commissioners so Jon is the whipping boy. He's not an innocent by stander by any means.

flapbreaker · 01-26-2006, 03:56 PM

Hey that was my 1000 post. What do I win?

fishboys · 01-26-2006, 03:58 PM

Are you saying that if he voted for the sports to get a bigger share of the fish, the gillneters and some ******* would still support his stores? To me you saying he didnt vote for profits doesnt hold water. how much did he stand to lose if he voted for the sporties? even if he wanted to . it was a flat out money vote either way. lose a little or lose alot. this is why he should not have voted. just a simple mans view.

Sweepy · 01-26-2006, 04:00 PM

Mark Mc's point about 3% of his income coming from the gillnet industry was very interesting. About 40% of his income is sportsmen related. I've been a patron in both capacities. He treats everyone with a big warm smile.

In a small community that gets into each others business way too much, Mr. Englund is a piller of character. He treats both sides the same, thus the selection to the fish commission. He is not motivated by greed or prejudice. I wish there were more Jon Englunds in the world.

I wish a small portion of the animosity was redirected in a positive way towards helping recover the fish runs. Working with ODFW and Mr. Englund is in the fishing industries best interest.

There is more information that the board is privileged to. I don't think the public has all the facts. Last week the ODFW was going to address their allotment reasons. For some reason the ODFW is quiet about defending the Englund Marine boycott. I am guessing when the ODFW publicly addresses the issue, Mr. Englund will be vindicated. Peace

flapbreaker · 01-26-2006, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Could somebody please tell me why 3 other commisioners voted for the 55/45 split? People that as I understand it have no connection to gill netting or profiting? If they voted that way, is there no chance that Englund agreed with them based on the same information/

Somebody?

If they do have information about the situation that would make sense I would love to hear it. In fact they would be doing themselves a favor to clue us all in.

On a side note I do understand that this whole situation must be hard on the people who know Mr. Englund. I'm sure he's a great guy. Unfortunately for him the sporties are fed up with the state's lovefest with a few hundred gillnetters and seem to disregard the sport fishers and I think they are tired of it.

Nalu · 01-26-2006, 04:08 PM

What I don't understand is that so many people that do not know Jon personally feel that he was trying to do something unethical. That he was voting with his pocketbook.

Yet every person that knows him says that for years and years he has not done that sort of thing. They point to him as an active community member, a person that supports the local community, and a person of high ethical and moral standards. Lots and LOTS of people have been saying this.

Not one person that claims to know Jon Englund has claimed he is anything but a good man. Yet somehow, people that don't know him, have based an opinion of greed, and unethical behavior based on his votes on the commision.

Again, I just don't understand how people that don't know him personally can say his vote was only based on financial impact. Not one person has provided anything but conjecture on this.

Nalu · 01-26-2006, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Unfortunately for him the sporties are fed up with the state's lovefest with a few hundred gillnetters and seem to disregard the sport fishers and I think they are tired of it.

I think you're right on target FB. I certainly think it is within a persons right to choose where to spend their dollars, and this is a prime example.

flapbreaker · 01-26-2006, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Again, I just don't understand how people that don't know him personally can say his vote was only based on financial impact. Not one person has provided anything but conjecture on this.

Your right it's all speculation as to his intent.

Maybe Jon could issue a statement to be posted on Ifish and enlighten everyone as to why it makes sense to cut the sport fishers allocation. If there really is supporting data I honestly would like to hear it. Not that he's obligated to justify his vote but if he has info that could clear things up for everyone maybe it would be good to get it out there.

Sweepy · 01-26-2006, 04:25 PM

Mr Englund has considered posting in some capacity on ifish, with so much animosity directed towards him, it would not be productive. I think there are some crucial choices being presently mulled over in the larger fishing picture. When the dust settles from these issues, a statement will be brought out, my opinion.

I talked with Jon last night, the percentages for the sportsmen were misleading. He tried to explain the net(not gillnet) percentages were more like 80/20 for the sportsmen. I was in traffic and apologize for not being able to relate a more detailed message. I don't understand why the whole story isn't made public. Being a fair man his entire life and being a friend to all, is his justification for voting. He takes this issue very seriously.

A committee of calm level headed people addressing Mr. Englund would do the fishing industry a lot of good. Mark Mc, Nalu, and David Johnson would be a good start, representing most areas. Peace

Sweepy · 01-26-2006, 04:41 PM

Federal hatchery money protects the commercial fishing industry. Gillnetters are only regulated, locally. until a better harvesting system is introduced, we're stuck. Lobby Wash. DC if you want the gillnetters off the river. Threatening locals has very little effect.

"Just call me Dave", had a great idea about selective harvest at or near the fish ladders instead of gillnetting.

Who has a possible solution for the sealion issue? Peace

fishboys · 01-26-2006, 04:50 PM

Am I missing something here? Has anyone said he is a bad person or a evil man? All I am doing is questoning the ethics of him voting, not his vote, its not like we voted him in and we all have to accept this until the next election. And for those of you who said what if dan grogan was to vote on this,If he was in this position I would also question his vote either way. But dan also said he wouldnt be able to do it due to ethics. this is good for us to talk about, every time these heated topics come around I think we all learn a few things, I know I do

El Shaddai · 01-26-2006, 05:12 PM

This has been hashed pretty hard all ready....my

Jon Englund is not the problem....in fact, as a local businessman he has done many great things to contribute to Oregon's economy...Ted Kulongoski is not the problem....clearly, I am very conservative and did not and would not vote for Ted but on the fisheries issue he is doing a good job....not great, but it could be tons worse.....give credit where credit is due.

While I love to harvest salmon in the Columbia and I am disappointed in the allocation recommendation....the real solution lies in partnering with the netters and the Indians....ultimately, we all share the same goal and together we can remove many obstcales......it has been said that a house divided cannot stand....and this is a perfect example...

Reelentless · 01-26-2006, 05:15 PM

Yes. In fact, I will boycott the stores who are boycotting them. Not that they had anything I wanted to begin with.

HOGGEMIN · 01-26-2006, 05:52 PM

I will give one answer. CHARKBAIT they have great service great prices will be carring hand line stuff and has a lot of Tuna knowledge, if you want something Mark dosen't carry give him a call and Mark might just start stocking it. Mark is aware of the oregon guys and said he will send a donation for the Dogs convention. Besides he sells Purple reels ...............LOL

cosmo · 01-26-2006, 07:21 PM

Quote:

I talked with Jon last night, the percentages for the sportsmen were misleading. He tried to explain the net(not gillnet) percentages were more like 80/20 for the sportsmen. I was in traffic and apologize for not being able to relate a more detailed message. I don't understand why the whole story isn't made public. Being a fair man his entire life and being a friend to all, is his justification for voting. He takes this issue very seriously.

If you guys would allow me a moment of the dogs time, I'd like to look at these 80/20 numbers. What's being refered to is the overall catch of spring chinook, from the Columbia, and throughout the terminal areas and all the tributaries of Oregon and Washington. And yes, these numbers are correct (although the tributary numbers, seem way too big).

So when you look at this stock of fish, Spring Chinook, sports harvest 80% and commercial 20%. The bio's say that these fish do not contibute very much to troll fisheries because they're too small in the ocean (actual numbers are 10% of the 5 year olds, 4% of the four year olds...not much) By these numbers at first glance it seems pretty easy to raise gillnet allocation due to a sense of fairness. And of course, state law calls for "equity" and optimal or something right there.

What isn't as obvious is what happens when you expand this decision into the larger picture, statewide harvest that is also applicable under the law. In fact the law does not describe stock specific "equity". Over the last five years, commercial trollers and netters have harvested 61% of the chinook in this state. Sports 39%. In total numbers, including coho, the percentages stay the same.
The Columbia issue has been the one wrapped in "equity" and "equity" has grown to mean 50/50, fair is fair.
Sport allocation of fall chinook has been reduced to get "fair", and this is the second time on spring chinook, again to get fair and "equitable".

The big question becomes, how do you continue to justify these "equitable" decisions that continue to spread the gap between commercial and sport harvest even further?

You are all the salty dogs, but overall the sport community has no chance of becoming "equitable" in the ocean. Sure there are a lot of silvers caught, but sports are overall ineffective at catching chinook in the ocean (average 37,522 versus 256,573 for commercial). The Columbia is the backbone of sport fisheries and the one where sport anglers, on the whole, can be effective, yet while 250,000 pounds of troll caught commercial chinook came over the rail last March (at like $4.80/lb, that's more than netted spring chinook fetched) we're told that making room for commercial harvest in the river too--is essential.

And here's where I get personal. If it's "equity" over a stock of fish that Mr. Englund is so concerned about, why has he voted to reduce fall sprt allocations on the Columbia? Certainly he understands that those fish have been harvested from Alaska all the way back to the Columbia by commercial anglers. In PFC documents, ocean harvest on fall chinook totals out at like 88% of the harvest taking place in the ocean and 12% in the freshwater. Of that 88%, its understandable that the vast majority is commercial (consider the Oregon coast numbers above). And yet there was need by Mr. Englund to drop fall harvest to 50/50 on the 12% hitting freshwater (which I don't know if the 12% includes tribes also).

In short, as a sport angler, I'm being "equitied" off the water, while overall the 110,000 chinook only gap between commercial and sport anglers is growing larger.

A few more numbers. There are less than 2000 commercial fishermen in this state--total. Their fees, including licenses and poundage fees don't come near 2 million. There were 255,000 salmon and steelhead tags sold to sport anglers last year. In tag sales alone, not including licenses, that's over 5 million.

I'd have much less of a beef with Mr. Englund if he's taken some action on Fall fish (like gave sports back their 2 fish limit and a full season), then proceeded toward equity in the spring. But his votes have been cast time and time again solely for the benefit of the commercial fleet. Any "sport" hasn't shown an inkling out of him---fall, spring or wild steelhead.

The statute says "equitable" So what's "equitable" to you?

Thanks for the time dogs. And I applaud those companies pulling business from a supplier that has worked directly against their interests. It's obvious they gave him the benefit of the doubt for more than a year, and a few decisions now.

skein · 01-26-2006, 08:19 PM

Good info, Cosmos, and thanks. Appreciate your taking the time to put it together and share.

Skein

slabhunter · 01-27-2006, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He was also the man who 2nd'ed the main motion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since 2 others on the commision voted in favor of the 55/45 split, how is this relevant? Since they were in favor, do you not think that one of them would have seconded? Is it really the widely held opinion that if only Jon Englund hadn't seconded the motion it would have died?

Yes. Perhaps you were able to view my comments over on the Community Board thread.
I made the time to attend meetings at Vancouver, Cathlamet, St. Helens, and Olympia to support my view.

Regards,
Hans

Old Coot · 01-27-2006, 06:28 PM

From the Oregon Department of Human Resources 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."

That's why. It not HOW he voted, it's THAT he voted.

fishtales · 01-27-2006, 07:54 PM

I have in the past and will in the future continue to support Englund,s stores. Dean is a great guy in Newport and his brother Mark in Coosbay is every bit his equal.
They have stepped beyond the call of duty to support my business and have more than earned my loyalty.
I also respect each persons decision to buy or not to buy however before you make that fatal decision please ask yourselves some very important questions.
On the Oregon coast where are you going to get the inventory the support and the professionalism that all three of their stores exhibit?
I would venture to guess that these guys have probably met many of your needs even if you did not realize where the merchandise came from. Many smaller tackle shops get inventory from them.Think it through and make your own decisions based on facts, and not emotions.
Humbly,
Dick Pickett
Albacorefreak

northriver1 · 01-28-2006, 06:08 AM

The Newport store has earned my business. They have taken the time to help when others could have cared less. Add to that they offer products no other business stocks. Hard to turn your back on a friend.

slabhunter · 01-29-2006, 03:50 PM

Quote:

On the Oregon coast where are you going to get the inventory the support and the professionalism that all three of their stores exhibit?

I'd rather do business locally, however it affects my opportunity to fish with my family.
When I was young my uncles took me fishing. Now, it's my turn to take them.

I lost one this week.

All the more reason to fight for our time on the water.

My perception is that Commissioner Englund failed to understand there is a revolution calling. People are working/volunteering to restore crucial steelhead/salmon habitat. He voted to nix these efforts by killing our recovering fishes as bycatch by increasing the frontloaded, nonselective gillnet allocation.

I'll vote with my dollars and support stores that favor my point of view before going coastal.

Regards,
Hans

kamloops · 01-29-2006, 04:34 PM

Astoria Englund is now 10min away from the Warrenton Boat Basin.

No more driving through downtown.

Great looking store guys.

Wolf EEL · 01-29-2006, 05:17 PM

ya i have know both dean and mark most of life and they are some of the best people u could ever know. they life to go fish they true sportsmen. i wll shop at theirs stores. wes hough wolf eel

SalmonAddict · 01-29-2006, 05:54 PM

I find it interesting that this isssue is so difficult to understand. Net fishing on the high seas is condemned by our government, but it is OK on the CR? NET FISHING IS NOT OK ANYWHERE. It is NEVER SELECTIVE. Just look at the Puget Sound. Net fishing is only good for net fishermen and the others that earn $$ from it. At least in Alaska the commercial fishermen have a responsiblity to ensure fish for everyone!!!Netters included. They don't even fish until escapement goals are met. Here in OR and WA, it is at the very least driven by special interest. Netters in the CR are getting to fish at run peaks. Insane. The net fishermant are cuttign their own throats. It's time that the government, state and fed require the commercial fishermen to give the same amount that is taken by them, if not more. If it is their living, they shouldn't have any problem providing FISH FOR ALL, instead of taking just for their pockets. If it continues even at 60/40, there won't be fish for any. When was the last time run predictions were even close? Yet, the states allow the nets in the river at peak times. It is argued, that the netters are in the river at times when the least impact to wild upriver salmon or wild steelhead are impacted. If you can't get the number right, how can you determine when wild fish are in the system. They must have a OUJI board.
SalmonAddict

KeyWest · 01-29-2006, 06:24 PM

I was in the new store in Astoria on Saturday - very nice! I support Englunds. Jon Englund was trying to do the right thing by serving on a public committee - and look what it got him. 1/2 his business is commercial, the other 1/2 sports. How could any way he voted do anything but hurt his business. If he voted 75% sports 25% commercial, there would be those on this board condeming him for allocating 25% for commercial fishing. Jon's only crime was for trying to serve in a public capacity to help all. "No good deed goes unpunished".

Jon - thanks for doing the right think and becomming involved in the public process. There will always be those who disagree with the way you vote, your decisions, etc. Usually those that are the most vocal are those that are the least willing to become involved themselves.