ODFW Meeting - Salmon Allocation Prospects/News

Member Neal Dietz attended the meeting and sent me this report:

Steve,
Only have time for a short email, not enough for a complete post. I won't
be back on the computer until sometime Friday, and then I'll post what I
learned at tonights meeting. Until then, here are some highlights, feel
free to post them if you like.

Steve King was there and had the following to say about his recommendations:

Willamette and Clackamas open 7 days a week, 2 fish per day, no season
limit, clipped fish only. Natives must be released unharmed.

No tackle changes will be proposed, all customary gear will be allowed.

NMFS is very pleased with the Willamette basin plan.

Wild runs in the Willamette basin are showing signs of improvement.

He "thinks" he will be able to reach an agreement that will allow an April
Columbia springer fishing season. The next meeting for this will be on Feb.
20th in at the Portland headquarters, and he wants fishermen to be there to
voice their opinions.

After numerous questions (including mine), he will work to get a June and
July fishery on the Columbia for clipped Chinook, but there are no
guarantees what so ever at this point in time.

He is expecting a HUGE Coho run this fall, and 3 fish per day may be
instituted at Bouy 10.

We should be able to go back to 40 fish per year again starting next year.

Starting next year, commercial fisherman will be required to use tangle nets
instead of gill nets, with very limited drift times to ensure survival of
wild fish. Indians are not even looking at using tangle nets and cannot be
forced to. (big surprise there)
----------

Thanks Neal. That is one very encouraging set of fishing prospects. I hope they all come true. We deserve it. YAY! - RT

[Jim]

Is it really true that commercials will be required to use tooth tangle nets...!!...??? both Washington and Oregon??!!

If this is true then we owe a great big thank you to our country to the north for all the money they spent in alternative ways of commercially fishing!! If done correctly the tooth tangle net realized about a 1% mortality on natives released after being caught...this is exciting for me can you tell?? Been working behind the scenes on this one for ummm...3-4 years. RT do you know where I could confirm this??

Jim

Hi Jim.

I don't know how to get confirmation. I only have what was reported by Neal, and Hogtide in his post, about the meeting tonight. Maybe calling both the ODFW & WDFW could get some answers, but it seems like these were presented as likely scenarios not written in stone yet. ...

I would hope a lot of you will join me and other sportfishers in attending the big one at the ODFW headquarters on Feb. 20th (does anyone know the meeting time). There is very likely to be a rep from the NMFS there to answer questions. Do you think he might show up in a suit of armor? I know he won't be able to defend there position of the unfair allocation percentages for sure! Perhaps a good showing of us sportsfishers will help get us a better quota though. ...

As for the 'tooth tangle' commercial nets, when I first heard about them I was skeptical. But I have heard more and they sound like a much better alternative. With a far less mortality rate on native fish I think the ODFW/WDFW will be doing the obvious right thing in requiring the non-Indian netter to use them. If that means a slight less harvest per hour worked for these guys I hope they won't complain about it, because these nets just might allow them to continue to net fish where the killing nets won't for long. To hear that the Indians are balking at these better nets is not suprising at this point, because we have learned within the allocation negotiations that they don't really care about the native fish like they care about max harvest/dollars per amount of work time. The 'curtains of death' nets will enable them to unfortunatley do that. ... Things are geting interesting. - RT

[WaterDog]

I'll 2nd what Neal said. I was there too. Sounds good on paper, now we'll see how it works in the real world.

[finclipped]

First, this sounds like great news for wild fish and for sports anglers, however (there's always a however); I think the effects of the commercial nets will be minimal, at least for the springers. It sounds like we will share a 2% allocation, (no guarantees) with the non tribal commercials. I don't think this will have much of a positive impact on the wild runs as the tribes will continue to use the "jaws of death" methods to fish for springers. In addition, while we take a minor victory in a 2% allocation, (up from 1/2% last year) has any one noticed the tribes are now requesting a 13% allocation from 8.5% last year? Apparently this is okay with ODFW and WDFW. I don't know how any progress will ever be made until we reduce the number of wild fish being harvested. I think sports anglers are certainly doing "our share" to reduce impact.

As a side note, the Vancouver paper reported this morning that three different gillnetters associations are at odds at allowing monofilament nets in the Columbia. Monofilament is cheaper than the conventionaly nets and are used in other areas of Washington. Thus the cheaper nets would encourage more gillnetters to take part in this fishery. It was decided to not allow this type of net, however the gillnetters can't agree on any thing any better than sports anglers.

The paper also reported on the four options being considered for sports angling by ODFW and WDFW. All but one indicate a finclipped fishery only. The one exception allows keeping any fish until the allocation is met sometime in late March. The others have different day restrictions, but indicate a Main Stem Columbia Fishery to Bonneville dam until late April when the allocation is expected to be met.

I really like the idea of a June and July finclipped fishery.

[Barnyard]

I talked to the gill netter who contracted with WDFW to test tangle nets. He said they work pretty good on Chinook but don't work for Coho..Still better than gill gripers though....

[WildHawg]

Great news!! An April fishery on the Columbia would be a blessing indeed. I'm pleased to hear that tooth tangle nets are a viable alternative (at least for Chinook) for the commercial folks. Anything that limits wild mortality is a plus for the Columbia.

I surely do wish alternatives to gillnets could be found for native fisheries. I say again: I Fish Special Guest--any take on why a dipnet fishery may or may not be a viable alternative to at least minimize gillnet fishing while allowing a selective alternative fishery?? Your take on the issue would be appreciated. Thanks, Hawg

[Clamman]

To answer a few questions about the Columbia River,

Monofilament gillnets are a two sided sword that unless you have used them are hard to understand. They can be cheaper initially, but they need to be mended more often, have a higher dropout rate, and can potentially skew catches from one area to the next.

Dipnetting in the fishway sounds inticing I am sure to many of you. But let me ask you this, tangle nets have been proven to have mortality rates (even with fish monitored in closed systems) of less than 5%. This is lower than most hook and line fisheries. Lets say for simplicity both hook and line and tangle nets have the same mortality rate. Would you hook and line users be receptive to giving up your way of harvest to dipnet? I doubt many of you would answer yes. The same is probably true for the other user groups. There would also have to be some legislative changes for harvest methods, access to the fishways, not to mention the tribes might want first rights. You have to understand ODFW/WDFW manage the Columbia River for all harvest user groups as fairly as they can.

Everyone is fighting over crumbs for harvest, sports, commercials and believe it or not the Indians. While the big business, power managers still have the same impacts. The people who are against harvest sit back and laugh when you bicker and complain about other harvest user groups. Getting rid of all harvest would suit them just fine, because it would be one less loophole for them to deal with.

Writing to your congressmen and women is a great thing when trying to get a fair allocation, but I don't think the Biggest user should be allowed to escape everones concerns

[WheresMyBobber]

Well, I wanted to follow up on my note to RT on the meeting the other night, but alas, I left my handout and notes in my locker at work so I don't have them in front of me. I'll do the best I can from memory.

The time for the meeting in Portland for public input on the Columbia river allocations and regulations on the 20th hasn't been set yet. Steve (King) said it would be made public, but we can also call to find out. I don't have his number handy, but I think it can be found on the Ifish homepage under Willamette Springer info, or obviously through the ODFW.

The entire Willamette basin plan will be available to the public soon, and according to Steve it is a very good document with a lot of historical data. Again, this can be obtained by calling his office.

Since the meeting the other night was to discuss the Willamette plan and regs, most of the time was spent discussing that. I got the feeling he was pretty sure his proposal would be approved, which means 7 days a week on the Willamette (above and below the falls) and Clack, 2 clipped fish per day, no season limits. If I remember correctly, approx. 54% of all fish returning to the Willamette this year are expected to be adipose clipped hatchery fish, but that number could be higher depending on how each hatchery's escapement went. Next year almost all of the returning hatchery fish should be clipped.

As for the Columbia, like I said, he "thinks" he will be able to reach an agreement that will allow an April sport fishery, but he is still in discussions on this. As for a June/July fishery, I think the possibility is much smaller, although he definitely understands our desire to fish for hatchery fish. Steve himself said he has reservations about that, because he has concerns about it turning into a major fishery that would have more of an impact on wild runs than what is allowed. This will be discussed in depth at the meeting in Portland on the 20th, and is why anybody wishing to voice their thoughts and opinions should be there.

As for going back to 40 fish per year, I walked away with the impression that this is a "will happen", as opposed to a "might happen". He is hoping to get this in place for next year.

I also walked away with the impression that the tangle nets are a "will happen", that will be instituted next year for commercial fishermen. Steve said he has already been in discussions with the commercial folks telling them to get ready. There was discussion of these nets being used in other places with low mortality and minimal damage to the fish if the drift times were closely monitored.

I wish I had my notes in front of me, but hopefully this will help to clarify some of what I sent to RT the other night.

Neal

[HUNTER1]

This reminds me of an issue I have been pondering regarding the Gillnetters. The tangle nets seem to be a good idea, however will the ODFW & WDFW require their use in all fisheries, such as the fall Coho net seasons(which have all but wiped out some native runs of steelhead & silvers). I read on the Columbia River Compact site that they harvested over 90,000 silvers last fall. How many of these fish were natives? This catch all, kill all fishery occurs while we are using barbless hooks and releasing all non fin-clipped coho. Why? So they can swim into a gillnet. I have written WDFW about these concerns, but I think unless you send a $5000.00 check with your letter they don't read it. Tangle nets atleast will save some natives. Some progress is better than none.

[finclipped]

ISG, with all do respect, I usually agree with your posts, because they are based on fact and you have stated you do not side with the sports anglers, tribal interest or commercial interest, but rather fish.

We are bordering on the idea of "free wealth" and many, including myself, do not agree with this type of mentality. What gives one individual the right to harvest more fish than another? Shouldn't we level the playing field? In areas where there are not enough fish to support a commercial and sports season, I think commercial fishing should be halted. Apparently Canada agrees with this approach.

One common goal of all users groups should be to reduce our impact on wild fish. If tangle nets do indeed reduce the impact on wild coho, they should be used, just as sports anglers are required to release wild fish. I think you would agree that left unmonitored, tribal and commercial fisherman have a greater capacity to completly destroy fish runs and as a group are harvesting a far greater percentage of the wild fish.

Also, if you believe the dams will be removed any time soon, you are kidding yourself. The salmon were sacrificed in the name of progress and we can't go back to what once was. I would be willing to pay higher electricity rates in order to remove dams, but I am in the minority. Until the tribes, commercials, or sports anglers are making those decisions, nothing will change.

I can see the benefit in having a united front from commercials, tribes and sports anglers, if were working toward a common goal, but there are some deep fundamental differences in what consitutes "fairness."

[Clamman]

Finclipped,

I agree with you on the fundamental differences of the user groups, but I also see them all wanting the same thing and that is more fish. That to me seems very fundamental itself. It basically comes down to not only fairness but greed.

I was not impling that the dams be removed though that certainly would be a huge help, but the fish ladders and downstream migration screening are greatly inferior in many of the facilities. Upwards of 40% of the Snake River adults return face barrier mortality, and downstream smolt migrants face up to 80% mortality. The ACOE (Army Core Of Eng.) submitted a report to the NMFS (can be found on their site) for their permit of take. In many of the barriers the improvement of mortality (upstream and down) over the next 5-10 years is less than 2% and in many less than 1%. When you look at these figures, one has to wonder why the other user groups keep taking the brunt of the impact reductions. I know the Indians are very unhappy with the Hydropower status quo maybe the rest of us should be also.


ISG

[finclipped]

Where is my soap box?

I understand motivation and I know what greed is. But I don’t agree that greed can explain why the sportsman are critical of tribes or commercial netters.

I mean think about it, why do sportsman spend tens of thousands of dollars on boats, thousands on fishing equipment, gas, and maintaniance etc., for nothing more than to waste a days worth of time for an opportunity to a catch fish? I mean, it seems rediculous. But if were willing to do this, how do you think we feel about fishing? It would be much more “economical” to slip down to Safeway and buy a fish. Its not about feeding the family. In addition to this we are not rewarded with cash for our efforts. There is no bonus for filling the cooler and no penalty for coming home empty, so I don’t think were in it for the money. Maybe our Greed is the increased possibility of catching a fish.

Think of in a different way. What are sportsanglers giving up? I can’t fish with a net. When I release a steelhead, I give up a meal, but what I got was far more rewarding. This fish represents something bigger than a couple of fillets or a dollar; its future fishing opportunity. You must understand, sportsanglers far out number tribal or commercials. We spend more money for less fish. Our collective efforts typically go unrewarded. So how do you think it makes me feel when I pass a fish stand selling ESA native steelhead for $2 bucks a pound? Or watch as salmon are split open for their eggs and the rest of the carcasses simply discarded on the stream bank? Its natural to be upset, and its disheartening to accept, and I hold these individuals responsible for this waste.

How about this whole springer allocation. We as the largest user group were rewarded with an increase to a 2% allocation (shared with non tribal commercials) for Columbia springers. In order to get the opportunity to fish, we must release all non finclipped fish. These are steps the ODFW and WDFW have imposed in order lower native mortality and allow sportsanglers to fish. What efforts have tribes taken to reduce their impact on natives? Are they using non lethal nets or traps to release wild fish? Are they sharing the resource on an equal basis? Are they targeting there efforts to hatchery stock? If the tribes would simply modify their fishing techniques, they could catch more fish, while reducing the impact on our wild stocks. I mean they are selling the fish right? Whats the motivation behind this?

We as a user goup have been reduced so much, there is longer an incentive to work with the tribes or commercials. If the tribes would treat the sportsanglers as an equal stakeholder in this situation, we would have more to gain by working with the tribes. Or if they would adjust their philosophy towards doing more to protect wild fish, cooperation could be restored. This is about more than “they got to kill more fish than I did”. We are the only user group, not motivated by money. Yet, we shouldn’t question the motivation by tribes and commercials?????? Come on.

[Clamman]

My turn on the old box,

For the most part I see your point, though I believe there are a few exceptions to your generalities. An increasing number of "sportanglers" are for all intent purposes commercial fisherman. I am talking about the guides and charters. They are very much in it for the money, and I have met very few who don't want more money. For that matter I have met very few sport anglers in general who don't want to catch more fish. Wanting more eventually turns to greed. This is evident in all user groups.

ODFW and WDFW were merely pawns to the federal government in regards to fin-clipped fisheries. This was mandated by the NMFS and by 2002 all spring chinook non-tribal harvest must be selective on the Willamette and the Columbia. And as far as this year, with less than 50% of the upriver run marked, anglers will be turning back more fish than they keep! In other words if a 5,000 fish quota is set, anglers will have to catch more than 10,000 to reach it.

To get back on track to the point I was making in my earlier posts both the tribes and the non-tribal harvesters have been taking it in the shorts for the past decade in regards to upper basin fish recovery. Yet the BPA and all the hydropower systems are still running status quo. What is their motivation? For the most part the only user group that truly understands what the hydropower facilities have done is the one fishing in those areas, the tribes. Don't underestimate that treaty, it might be the only thing to save the Snake and Upper Columbia stocks. The tribes want to catch fish, yes, but their recovery plans are much better than the feds or the states and they have the power to force it through. They actually have a heritage with the fish that pre-exists white man its a religion. That in itself is a considerable amount of motivation. Any person who follows the words of the bible can attest to the faith and devotion that is present with a belief.

I will say this (and I know RT just loves this cliche), United the harvest user groups stand, divided they fall as will all upper basin wild and hatchery fish.

ISG

Just a quick stint on the box ISG - move over . How can you claim that the Indians plan for wild fish recovery is better than the "white man's" as you like to say (Feds/States)? The NMFS (white guys) wanted the ESA impact of the combined fisheries to be 9%. When the states went to bat for the group paying for the fish (sportfishers) to get a part of a 2% impact, the Indians would be OK with that if they could up their take to 13% ESA impact on native fish. That's 3 times the increase for their already outrageously unfair 8.5% to 0.5% advantage; 4.5% increase for them to 1.5% increase for sportfishers and commercial netters combined! And with more money opportunity for them they are OK with upping the native fish kill ESA impact to 15%!!! That's a better plan?!? Are the Col. Indians helping with the 'Upper Basin Recovery' in other ways than mass killing of the native fish? Such as putting their casino and fish harvest big monies and physical effort into fish habitat restoration in spawning tributaries? Or what? If there is a better plan somewhere tell us what it is; and we will applaud it. But still fight the unfair allocations. I have read statements that the 'more money now and to hell with the future of the fish' is closer to the Indian's real 'plan', because when they are all gone the Indians will then get our tax dollars for fish compensation without having to get up and go work the killing curtain gillnets. I don't know this to be fact, but it sure fits. BTW, they also balked at the more selective tooth tangle nets so the spineless NMFS will still allow them to use regular nate killing gillnets. As Finclipped said, come on! ... As for their disdain of the dams, do they really want them to come down and not have the large amounts of cheap electricity to run their hugely profitable gambling casinos (which the Feds thought they should have too for the fish they lost)? Likely not many of them! Moot point anyway as Finclipped pointed out; they aren't coming down. Especially with the energy crisis' that hit periodically, as is happening now. The only good point you made about the dams is striving for better fish passage both ways. Amen to that! ...

I'm staying on the box for another minute - be cool ISG . How can you classify sportsanglers as greedy, in comparitive relavence as it should be measured? That's simply untrue with regards to this Columbia springer allocation issue; and I think you know that. And your cahracterization of fishing guides as greedy commercials is also a moot point - because the commercial fishers and sportfishers are grouped together for our unfair much smaller share of the fish. ... And you say that the Treaties may be the only thing that can save the fish. Hmmm. Oh ... maaaybe ...IF THEY ABIDE BY THEM! Instead of sqeezing the real dimwit guys in Washington for many times their proper 50% Treaty share! - RT

[finclipped]

ISG, the reality is I agree with you more than I disagree with you. I realize that ODFW and WDFW are limited to what they can do, however I am thankful they did what they could to help sports anglers. Aluminum smelters, barge owners, farmers and anyone else who benefits from dams are motivated to keep the status quo. If or when dams are removed they will be the user groups who will be most impacted to save the salmon. Just as we collectively are the ones “taking it in the shorts.” However, regarding fish restoration & well being, I feel there are some significant inconsistencies that need to be addressed by the tribes.

I hope one day a can look back and thank the tribes for saving the salmon. It seems to me, the efforts to remove the lower Snake River Dams are consistent with wanting to save salmon. However this power to force the removal of the 4 Snake River Dams has apparently not been used. If they have a wild card, I say use it. Its obvious, that the states are limited in their ability to force change, they only have the power to restrain the largest user group and non tribal commercials, which has been done. I agree that as a combined user group we will be more effective in removing dams. There are alternative energy sources out there and I am willing to pay for them. How about wind or non polluting, more efficient Fuel Cells? We should stop spending money protecting the dams, and instead build power plants in those area’s most impacted from the removal of dams.

Many tribal actions are not consistent with wanting to protect salmon. Lets not overlook the obvious steps that can be taken to improve salmon runs. These are the same actions that sports anglers have been critical of the tribes for not implementing. Taking actions such as using non lethal commercial fishing techniques, targeting hatchery stocks, and making the sports anglers a larger stakeholder, would in the long run make gains in salmon restoration. This would reduce the impact on ESA endangered salmon and steelhead and be a step towards saving salmon for all future users group. These native fish have the genetic code to perpetuate their populations and should be allowed to spawn, not commercially harvested. Its so frustrating to me to know if these actions were implemented, tribes would be responsible for increasing spawning rate, increasing their catch of hatchery fish (to be sold), while at the same time allowing greater access to sports anglers to target hatchery stocks (3 or 4% allocation). A win, win, win for fish, tribes, and non tribal user groups!!!!

Perhaps the most protected right from any user group, is the taking of salmon for religious and ceremonial purposes. This right, will be the last to go. By continuing to deplete the wild fish runs through commercial gillnet fishing, tribes themselves are jeopardizing this apparent deep religious right. Their actions appears to be consistent with what RT said, “more money now, and to hell with the future of the fish.” It seems so basic to me that we need to let the nates spawn, (period).

[dkingfish]

I enjoy reading this board, but have never been much of a computer jockey-never figured out how deep or how fast to troll 'em. How-
ever, I must respond to a comment that Ifish
Special Guest made-that user groups must stand together, or divided will fall. Baby,
that is so true. The coho wars of the early
'80's proves that point. Trollers (big boats
vs small boats)vs sports (charters vs private)vs gillnets vs Tribes vs aquaculture
resulted in basically no fish for anyone-
shattered coastal economies, few angling opportunities, closed hatcheries, and consumers eating inferior farmed fish.
Recognize that each user group brings something to the table as well as taking some
of the resourse. The net pen projects at
Astoria are a result of the gillnetters efforts. Next time you whine about netters
remember the silvers you got at bouy 10 or outside. The Tribes efforts and lawsuits have
netted $millions for upper Columbia hatcheries and habitat inprovement. Trollers
and sports have contributed to countless STEP
and other volunteer projects.
My opinion, which is worth at least as much as you are paying to read it, is that without substantial hatchery production, there will be little, if any, fishing future.
While each species and stream has its own problems, a macro view reveals that all causes for declining fish runs (except maybe marine mammals, volcanoes, & eathquakes) are as a result of man's alteration of the habitat. Do you really think that this will stop? The interests that negatively impact fish-power, industry, farming, forestry, municipal uses, and homes- are not going away. Population projections point to another million people in the Portand area alone in the next 20 years. The cry to remove dams has become very quiet now that blackouts loom.
Fish hatcheries have been in Oregon for over 100 years, and have been the backbone for fisheries for at least the last 40.
The quickest way for the exintion of these species is through the elimination of hatcheries. The anti-hatchery zealots, who
are the forces behind the Endangered Species Act listings, are a tiny tail wagging the dog of fisheries issues. If you want to throw darts at enemies of your sport, aim them at the right target, not other user groups. My
2 cents worth.

[Crusty]

ISG
If I hear any more about the "heritage" issue, I'll puke. I'm half Dane. My "heritage" is ****** and pillaging. Where do you live and what's your wife look like?

Crusty