In Person Q&A With NMFS Representative

[finclipped]

RT, Thanks for the update. I find it interesting the interaction between the NMFS, Tribes, WDFW and ODFW. The question of fairness seems "discretionary" in that NMFS can assign blame and assess punishment to those groups they see fit.

Why is it the Tribes can not fish selectively? As I understand it, our hatchery fish will soon all be finclipped. Why can't tribes use none lethal fishing methods to target hatchery stock? If tribes fish selectively and sportsmen fish selectively, we can reduce the incidental mortality on native fish.

Sports anglers will soon be able to identify all hatchery fish and harvest selectivety, which will reduce mortality. Is it too much to ask the tribes do something similar, maybe fish wheels or tangle nets or maybe even a dip net? I think this would improve native runs of steelhead, and springers, while giving opportunities for user groups to fish. If both groups fish selectively, we can divide the incidental take or better yet reduce it.

I have seen tribes do not want to mark hatchery fish. What could possibly be their motivation?

I wouldn't mind attending a NMFS meeting.

[Drachir]

RT,
I really enjoyed your questions for the NMFS
Rep. last night. You had some very good questions and definitely put him in a very tough spot a time or two. I also want to say it was a pleasure to meet you, and have a face to put with your handle on I-Fish. I sure hope there will be some reporcussions from this and allow us Sports Anglers a few more fish, or at least the opportunity, to catch more fish in 2001's Salmon Seasons.

Thanks Rick. It was definitely a good feeling for me to get some direct interaction with a NMFS representative. -- Finclipped, I agree with your post. The federal courts do not unfortunately. I strongly believe they see it wrong because they aren't fishermen and they don't see what really goes on out there. ... What do the Indians want. From all credible indications, including court documents and other statements directly attributed to the Col. Tribal Comm., is the vast majority of havestable fish for themselves, and even beyond that by overfishing without proper enforcement. They also want the sportcatch minimized as much as is possible without too much negative impact on hatchery production of fish we pay for for them to catch. That's the shameful facts.

------------------
Know fish or no fish. - RT

At the invitation of my fishing buddy and President of the Whitewater Boaters Association of Oregon Bill Heater, I attended their monthly meeting last night. Their guest speaker was a rep of the NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service), who now has taken over the states of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho in regulation of fish allocation and management decisions of the Columbia River (and other region watersheds). The NMFS rep was a mid-Columbia hatchery specialist. And a nice fellow. After speaking at length with him I can understand better the tough Gov. mandates those guys work under. However, he could not defend the NMFS position regarding Col. salmon allocation between Col. Tribal netters and non-Indian user groups. In response to my question of how negotiations are going for next year's huge springer run he said, as it's stands now, it's likely to fall at 9.2% ESA impact to the Indians and 2.5% to non-Indians. While this is better than last spring's fiasco of 8% to Indians and 0.5% to non-Indians, it still falls way short of what we feel is fair! Apparently the States of Oregon and Washington feel that way too and are expected to proceed with their lawsuit with the "Unfair Pair". He did give some specific insight to why these allocations don't follow the 50/50 Treaty splits called for; the U.S. government has taken the Indian position that since the dams have reduced the runs so significantly that the Col. tribes deserve more of the allocation. I do understand that reasoning, but do the Indians use electricity from BPA and other dams? Yes. When I brought up that, unlike Indian gillnetters, sportfishers can fish selectively by C&R of non-clipped fish he said that some of the clipped fish we will harvest are broodstock fish propogated from native fish stock that they want a good return from; thus a limiting factor to a sportfish allocatioin. He agreed with my position that they should have clipped those broodstock fish on the ventral fin, so that with the vast majority of the 300,000+ fish returning being regular hatchery springers with most being adipose finclipped would be available for a big sportfish allocation. Hopefully the NW State's lawsuit will help bring about these proper changes, and will help get us more than a 2.5% ESA impact allocation on next spring's huge run.
------------------
Know fish or no fish. - RT