Oregon backs off (kind of, sort of) - www.ifish.net
The Oregonian's Bill Monroe!

Go Back   www.ifish.net > Ifish Fishing and Hunting > Ifish Community

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-17-2017, 06:59 PM   #1
Bill Monroe
King Salmon
 
Bill Monroe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Oregon City
Posts: 20,816
Default Oregon backs off (kind of, sort of)

Will Washington blink?

http://www.oregonlive.com/outdoors/i...gill-nets.html

__________________
Bill Monroe

"Yet it isn't the gold that I'm wanting
So much as just finding the gold."
Robert Service



Bill Monroe is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-17-2017, 07:23 PM   #2
Stick'em
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,462
Default Re: Oregon backs off (kind of, sort of)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Monroe View Post
What's missing is that sportsmen may get the opportunity to take unmarked Summer run Chinook.
__________________
Mo Feeesh!
Stick'em is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2017, 07:44 PM   #3
backley
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 112
Default Re: Oregon backs off (kind of, sort of)

It is time for Governor Brown to ask for the resignation of four commissioners. There is more at play here than gill nets. The four un-elected Oregon commissioners broke Oregon law, went against the policy of three governors, and violated their oath of office. They have done this for a total of 85 Oregon gill net permit holders who average a mere $ 10 K per year.
This is stinking thinking at a time when the ODFW is short of funds so you anger the group of sports hunters and fishers who supply over half of the agency's budget.
I bought my license with the Columbia River Endorsement for the past two years. It was all a lie to get more $ from me.
If the commissioners don't follow the law, I want my $ returned.
Let's just do another ballot measure and ban the gill nets from the entire river!
backley is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Old 03-17-2017, 07:50 PM   #4
b ruff
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,042
Default

Interesting they would back off the spring tanglenet? fishery, especially since the Washington staff recommend approving it.

Also the mortality rate for that fishery is lower than the seine mortality rate.

Guessing it's the SAFE areas...
b ruff is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2017, 07:51 PM   #5
pukpmk
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Idaho
Posts: 166
Default Re: Oregon backs off (kind of, sort of)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Monroe View Post
Why the heck should Washington blink????? The riffraff resides south of the I5 bridge. Shame on the Oregon Committee.
__________________
US Army Retired
pukpmk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2017, 09:31 PM   #6
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,204
Default Re: Oregon backs off (kind of, sort of)

Commission adjusts Columbia River salmon fisheries rules

March 17, 2017

CORVALLIS, Ore.—The Commission voted unanimously to further adjust Columbia River salmon fisheries rules today along the following lines:

Spring Chinook 80/20 sport/commercial allocation of allowable ESA impacts. Commercial priority to off-channel large-mesh gillnet fisheries not constrained by run-size buffer. Mainstem commercial fisheries only occurring with tangle net gear after the run update if remaining impact balances allow.

Summer Chinook 80/20 sport/commercial allocation of harvestable surplus; large-mesh gillnets not allowed for mainstem commercial fisheries.

Fall Chinook 70/30 sport/commercial allocation of allowable ESA impacts of the limiting fall Chinook stock (tule or Snake River wild), and <70/>30 for the non-constraining stock. Large-mesh gillnets allowed in mainstem commercial Zones 4-5; assign up to 2 percent of the commercial fishery impacts for use with alternative gears in the lower river; commercial Coho fisheries restricted to tangle nets in Zones 1-3.

Youngs Bay sport closure remains in effect.

More details will be available next week, when the new rules are posted online.
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2017, 09:50 PM   #7
Pipe Dream
Ifish Nate
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: University Place and Whidbey Island
Posts: 2,260
Default Re: Oregon backs off (kind of, sort of)

Quote:
Originally Posted by pukpmk View Post
Why the heck should Washington blink????? The riffraff resides south of the I5 bridge. Shame on the Oregon Committee.
The WDFW Commission seems to have a much narrower definition of adaptive management than does their Oregon counterpart. If the WA Commission were to even consider "blinking" will they face the same problems at home; an irate group of stakeholders whom the Commission is currently asking pay higher license fees?

And would "blinking" require that the WA Commission reopen public hearings for a change to its policy? Not sure they want to go there.

No, the best thing is for the WA Commission to simply let it play out south of the border rather than become complicit in the actions of the Oregon Commission. No "blinking!"

Maybe if the Oregon Governor follows through and cans some or all of her Commissioners she will replace them with people who have some integrity.

Here's hoping.

Last edited by Pipe Dream; 03-19-2017 at 08:26 AM.
Pipe Dream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2017, 11:23 PM   #8
HuskyKMA
Tuna!
 
HuskyKMA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Castle Rock, WA
Posts: 1,876
Default Re: Oregon backs off (kind of, sort of)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pipe Dream View Post
The WDFW Commission seems to have a much narrower definition of adaptive management that does their Oregon counterpart. If the WA Commission were to even consider "blinking" will they face the same problems at home; an irate group of stakeholders whom the Commission is currently asking pay higher license fees?

And would "blinking" require that the WA Commission reopen public hearings for a change to its policy? Not sure they want to go there.

No, the best thing is for the WA Commission to simply let it play out south of the border rather than become complicit in the actions of the Oregon Commission. No "blinking!"

Maybe if the Oregon Governor follows through and cans some or all of her Commissioners she will replace them with people who have some integrity.

Here's hoping.
Yep, WDFW needs to hold the line and not budge an inch. So far that's what they've been doing. As much as the Oregonians are rightfully going after their commission, we Washingtonians need to do our part and encourage our commission to stand their ground!
__________________
@HuskyKMA
HuskyKMA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2017, 06:16 AM   #9
RiverJohn
King Salmon
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,314
Default Re: Oregon backs off (kind of, sort of)

Translation - A major loss to sports anglers.
__________________
God does not deduct from man's allotted span, the hours spent fishing!!
RiverJohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2017, 07:22 AM   #10
Bill Rogue V.
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Salem, OR
Posts: 12,317
Default Re: Oregon backs off (kind of, sort of)

Time to go forward with the initiative -- and decide what to do with the pool from the Columbia River Endorsement fee, which needs to die.
__________________
The language of God is science.
Bill Rogue V. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2017, 07:35 AM   #11
john.ishy
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: oregon city
Posts: 484
Default Re: Oregon backs off (kind of, sort of)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stick'em View Post
What's missing is that sportsmen may get the opportunity to take unmarked Summer run Chinook.
With weather conditions and high water deeply cutting into the springer season,
politics and shrinking opportunity are going to take a toll on the sports fishing industry.
Caught some really nice summer run Chinook over the past few seasons, but the clipped version still eludes me. My thoughts are, if I improve my fishing skills, catch rates should remain the same.

I'm just going to keep on fishing because I'll get old if I don't.
john.ishy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2017, 07:40 AM   #12
Don G Baldi
Sturgeon
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Salem/Little Italy
Posts: 3,541
Default Re: Oregon backs off (kind of, sort of)

One thing kind of sticks in mind when Bucky was discussing his grand plan - the motion he made - concerning alternative gear. He and Akenson were discussing the use of 'alternative gear' vs 'seine net' and Bucky wanted the broader definition used for the record. Hook & line would be 'alternative gear'. Perhaps that opens the door for going after the 2% set aside? At least it allows the commercial fleet to try various methods.
__________________
Bucket: empty it before you kick it
Don G Baldi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2017, 07:58 AM   #13
Pipe Dream
Ifish Nate
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: University Place and Whidbey Island
Posts: 2,260
Default Re: Oregon backs off (kind of, sort of)

Quote:
Originally Posted by HuskyKMA View Post
Yep, WDFW needs to hold the line and not budge an inch. So far that's what they've been doing. As much as the Oregonians are rightfully going after their commission, we Washingtonians need to do our part and encourage our commission to stand their ground!
WDFW Commission Chair Smith's letter of 15 March was, in my opinion, far too diplomatic given to whom it was being sent and their apparent difficulty in reading legislation and their own Governor's letter of direction.

I am sure there will be another formal letter from the ODFW Commission and the WDFW Commission needs to respond by saying retention of gillnets on the main stem is contrary to the CR Reforms as previously agreed to and is unacceptable. End of that chapter.

The WDFW Commission should not become complicit in undermining the CR Reforms!
Pipe Dream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2017, 07:59 AM   #14
ricochet
Chromer
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Molalla
Posts: 697
Default Re: Oregon backs off (kind of, sort of)

Have to agree with what "backley" stated! If our governor doesn't take some action soon, I believe the sportsmen will hit "boil over".
ricochet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2017, 08:05 AM   #15
Pipe Dream
Ifish Nate
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: University Place and Whidbey Island
Posts: 2,260
Default Re: Oregon backs off (kind of, sort of)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amahnee View Post
That's a pipe dream, Pipe Dream! 😎
Do I really expect that to happen? No, I do not.

Being an outsider looking across the border I find the political duplicity, squirming and posturing both entertaining and disheartening. But having all of the public pronouncements on the record and subsequent failures to follow through just provides more ammunition for pro Reform folks - who, by the way, have my utmost respect.

Stay the course and fight the good fight!
Pipe Dream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2017, 09:49 AM   #16
fishchaser
Ifish Nate
 
fishchaser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Happy Rock, Or
Posts: 3,084
Default Oregon backs off (kind of, sort of)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Platypus View Post
Have to agree with what "backley" stated! If our governor doesn't take some action soon, I believe the sportsmen will hit "boil over".


I'm already at BOIL OVER. I'm about to blow the pressure cooker out the ceiling!

I think the legislature needs to OVERRIDE the commissions compromise, and force them them to comply completely to Washington


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
I'm retired, having fun is MY JOB!!
TEAM BANANA
US Army Retired
Member # 496
fishchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2017, 10:09 AM   #17
beachboi26
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: portland
Posts: 1,063
Default Re: Oregon backs off (kind of, sort of)

I am about ready to take my business else where,to where they appreciate sportfishing and are FOR sportfishing. The only real viable and lucrative fishery we have is the fall fishery here
beachboi26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2017, 11:06 AM   #18
Meanwhile
Ifish Nate
 
Meanwhile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Scappoose
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Oregon backs off (kind of, sort of)

The Governor talked to enough commissioners individually to assure that the regs as passed would be sufficient for her approval. Each communication was obviously passed back and forth individually to meet any complaints about open meetings law. There was never a quorum unless you look at the entire string of communications. The decision and reg were agreed to prior to the meeting, that much is obvious. I believe a public records request for all calls, emails and personal meetings between the Governor & staff to the commissioners would show a telling timeline.

Hours of testimony as if any of it mattered.



Meanwhile is a 30' Grady White Marlin.
__________________
Grady White Marlin, twin 250's.
"Meanwhile. . ."
Meanwhile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2017, 11:16 AM   #19
Rykat
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,391
Default Re: Oregon backs off (kind of, sort of)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meanwhile View Post
The Governor talked to enough commissioners individually to assure that the regs as passed would be sufficient for her approval. Each communication was obviously passed back and forth individually to meet any complaints about open meetings law. There was never a quorum unless you look at the entire string of communications. The decision and reg were agreed to prior to the meeting, that much is obvious. I believe a public records request for all calls, emails and personal meetings between the Governor & staff to the commissioners would show a telling timeline.

Hours of testimony as if any of it mattered.



Meanwhile is a 30' Grady White Marlin.

The problem is that these kind of volunteer appointments are given very generous fiduciary cover for their bad or irresponsible decisions. Unless someone is making money off of their service to serve . . being ignorant or biased is just fine coz you're a volunteer after all.
Rykat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2017, 09:40 PM   #20
Natester
Chromer
 
Natester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Woodland / Kalama, WA
Posts: 686
Default Re: Oregon backs off (kind of, sort of)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stick'em View Post
What's missing is that sportsmen may get the opportunity to take unmarked Summer run Chinook.
Why does Oregon even get involved in summer Chinook regulations, they do not even run up any of their rivers!
__________________
Since two-thirds of the earths surface is water therefore God intended us to spend two-thirds of our time fishing.
Natester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 06:05 AM   #21
Big Bubba
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Northwest
Posts: 414
Default Re: Oregon backs off (kind of, sort of)

Often times public meetings are a charade only for the benefit to abide by the state rules and to give the public the impression their opinions matter. Not uncommon the outcome of the meeting has been pre determined.

Team Buckmaster knows they are dragging a dead horse. Or, they are really stupid. Their Failed Mary attempt recently resulted in a spanking by the Governor and Oregon legislators. Big momentum shift. Now they are on the ropes, hoping to negotiate what ever is left for their agenda. It is not much.

I do not have a problem when some one negotiating has lofty goals as long as they are realistic and have a sense of integrity. The conclusions for healthy negotiations dictate both sides do some compromising and each side walk away giving some thing up. This situation does not merit such a conclusion for two reasons. First a decision was agreed to in 2012 approved by two state authorities mandated to make such a decision. Second, Team Buckmaster severely lacks sound reasoning and credibility. Frankly they should be dismissed from the process due to their blatant breach of ethics. They have forfeited their right to continue in this process. There is no candy coating this conduct.

Evidence of this exists in the statements made by the commissioner unwilling to negotiate if Washington does not meet their latest demands. Nonsense. Who is she to dictate to all of Washington? Her demands are full of emotions and not prudent. Childish and not the kind of conduct you want at the table. Encourage her to take her bat and go home. But thanks for playing.

Washington needs to hold true to the agreement. It is not a Washington Agreement, it is a two state agreement. Don't blame Washington for being honorable and complying with the agreement. Washington need not make any further changes. Focus on the original agreement not on Washington's Commission. Do not give Oregon a wall to bounce their ball off of.

If Oregon does not want to comply, let them continue to embarrass themselves. Eventually, public opinion, lawsuits or ballot measures will prevail and be a costly mistake for the Oregon commission because they could lose so much more if the decision is taken out of their futurity. A court ruling or ballot measure could do just that.

The hot rock is now in Oregon's pocket. Lets hope they are smart enough to make some good decisions soon. Washington needs to hold firm.
Big Bubba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 07:32 AM   #22
Rykat
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,391
Default Re: Oregon backs off (kind of, sort of)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Bubba View Post
Often times public meetings are a charade only for the benefit to abide by the state rules and to give the public the impression their opinions matter. Not uncommon the outcome of the meeting has been pre determined.

Team Buckmaster knows they are dragging a dead horse. Or, they are really stupid. Their Failed Mary attempt recently resulted in a spanking by the Governor and Oregon legislators. Big momentum shift. Now they are on the ropes, hoping to negotiate what ever is left for their agenda. It is not much.

I do not have a problem when some one negotiating has lofty goals as long as they are realistic and have a sense of integrity. The conclusions for healthy negotiations dictate both sides do some compromising and each side walk away giving some thing up. This situation does not merit such a conclusion for two reasons. First a decision was agreed to in 2012 approved by two state authorities mandated to make such a decision. Second, Team Buckmaster severely lacks sound reasoning and credibility. Frankly they should be dismissed from the process due to their blatant breach of ethics. They have forfeited their right to continue in this process. There is no candy coating this conduct.

Evidence of this exists in the statements made by the commissioner unwilling to negotiate if Washington does not meet their latest demands. Nonsense. Who is she to dictate to all of Washington? Her demands are full of emotions and not prudent. Childish and not the kind of conduct you want at the table. Encourage her to take her bat and go home. But thanks for playing.

Washington needs to hold true to the agreement. It is not a Washington Agreement, it is a two state agreement. Don't blame Washington for being honorable and complying with the agreement. Washington need not make any further changes. Focus on the original agreement not on Washington's Commission. Do not give Oregon a wall to bounce their ball off of.

If Oregon does not want to comply, let them continue to embarrass themselves. Eventually, public opinion, lawsuits or ballot measures will prevail and be a costly mistake for the Oregon commission because they could lose so much more if the decision is taken out of their futurity. A court ruling or ballot measure could do just that.

The hot rock is now in Oregon's pocket. Lets hope they are smart enough to make some good decisions soon. Washington needs to hold firm.
Excellent summation.
Rykat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 08:42 AM   #23
Bill Rogue V.
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Salem, OR
Posts: 12,317
Default Re: Oregon backs off (kind of, sort of)

E-mail to the commission:

Dear Commission members:
The vote Friday to change course and re-approach the bi-state reforms showed some progress toward taking stewardship of our endangered salmon stocks, although it is clear the pro-gillnet faction on the commission would and will continue to drag feet whenever possible to avoid complying with Senate Bill 830.
That said, it was disheartening to see the way two commissioners treated a number of Oregonians testifying on behalf of the sport anglers’ view point. The hostility was palpable and shameful. I don’t understand how commissioners changed with representing the interests of all Oregonians can be so very obviously and publicly biased against hundreds of thousands of license-buying sport anglers and in favor of a few dozen practitioners of an arcane, obsolete and indiscriminate gill net fishery.
I don’t know of a single sport angler who wants to put the gill netters out of business. They just need to get their nets off the main stem so our endangered stocks have more of a chance to survive.
I hope we can achieve this goal as soon as possible, lest we be forced to begin an initiative petition drive to achieve this goal — and very likely cancel the Columbia River Endorsement fee the I and many thousands of others have willingly been paying.
Please be more respectful of the law, and the citizens of this state!
Sincerely,
William Powell
__________________
The language of God is science.
Bill Rogue V. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 10:24 AM   #24
Williams
Ifish Nate
 
Williams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Rhododendron
Posts: 2,261
Default Re: Oregon backs off (kind of, sort of)

You sure got a gift for writing Bill. Great letter.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Williams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 03:42 PM   #25
fishchaser
Ifish Nate
 
fishchaser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Happy Rock, Or
Posts: 3,084
Default Re: Oregon backs off (kind of, sort of)

For awhile, I thought one guy, was going to need his defense lawyer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
I'm retired, having fun is MY JOB!!
TEAM BANANA
US Army Retired
Member # 496
fishchaser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 03:22 PM   #26
Underdog
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 101
Default Re: Oregon backs off (kind of, sort of)

Natester are you saying the Columbia is not oregons river.
__________________
We are not here for a long time We are just here for a good time. Fish every day that you can.
Underdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 03:42 PM   #27
Cutting Edge
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 206
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don G Baldi View Post
One thing kind of sticks in mind when Bucky was discussing his grand plan - the motion he made - concerning alternative gear. He and Akenson were discussing the use of 'alternative gear' vs 'seine net' and Bucky wanted the broader definition used for the record. Hook & line would be 'alternative gear'. Perhaps that opens the door for going after the 2% set aside? At least it allows the commercial fleet to try various methods.
I noticed this as well. I think he's going to try to get tangle nets approved for the summer run
Cutting Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 03:48 PM   #28
Don G Baldi
Sturgeon
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Salem/Little Italy
Posts: 3,541
Default Re: Oregon backs off (kind of, sort of)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cutting Edge View Post
I noticed this as well. I think he's going to try to get tangle nets approved for the summer run
You might very well be right. Actually that makes more sense than him opening the door to any new method.
__________________
Bucket: empty it before you kick it
Don G Baldi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 06:47 PM   #29
Gun Rod Bow
 
Gun Rod Bow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sherwood, OR
Posts: 12,450
Default Re: Oregon backs off (kind of, sort of)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cutting Edge View Post
I noticed this as well. I think he's going to try to get tangle nets approved for the summer run
It doesn't work like that. Tangles won't work with warm water, shad and sockeye

For each gear, each season. Each species new testing needs to be done. I.e. You can't take spring chinook tangle nets and apply them to summer Chinook

Big Bubba. Excellent observations.

Bill. Very good letter
__________________
"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in." Greek Proverb

Last edited by Gun Rod Bow; 03-20-2017 at 07:09 PM.
Gun Rod Bow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 07:21 PM   #30
Natester
Chromer
 
Natester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Woodland / Kalama, WA
Posts: 686
Default Re: Oregon backs off (kind of, sort of)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog View Post
Natester are you saying the Columbia is not oregons river.
Yes you are correct its not Oregon's river, it headwaters in BC, flows through BC, then through Eastern Washington before bordering with Oregon. to my knowledge, it is never totally in Oregon. It is a multi state, and country river.

Oregon is out of bounds in trying to set laws on summer Chinook. The gravel and hatcheries (lots of Native American hatchery fish) that raise summer Chinook are located in Central Washington. The State of Oregon has nothing to do with the raising of these fish. But the Oregon commissioners seem to be good at legislating what is not theirs to begin with. Kind of like taxation without representation. Oregon should look toward Washington State with regard to this fishery.

The same could be said of URB's not from Oregon gravel, but the Oregon commission again is trying to grab more of these (mostly native) fish that do not come from their state and hand them over to the Gilnetters which are proportionally more from Oregon than Washington. There is a term for taking what is not yours.....
__________________
Since two-thirds of the earths surface is water therefore God intended us to spend two-thirds of our time fishing.
Natester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2017, 07:14 AM   #31
Bill Monroe
King Salmon
 
Bill Monroe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Oregon City
Posts: 20,816
Default Re: Oregon backs off (kind of, sort of)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don G Baldi View Post
One thing kind of sticks in mind when Bucky was discussing his grand plan - the motion he made - concerning alternative gear. He and Akenson were discussing the use of 'alternative gear' vs 'seine net' and Bucky wanted the broader definition used for the record. Hook & line would be 'alternative gear'. Perhaps that opens the door for going after the 2% set aside? At least it allows the commercial fleet to try various methods.
As I recall, watching on the livestream, that conversation was centered on fall fishing. Buckmaster wanted his motion to leave the alternative options more flexible.
__________________
Bill Monroe

"Yet it isn't the gold that I'm wanting
So much as just finding the gold."
Robert Service



Bill Monroe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2017, 07:31 AM   #32
Cutting Edge
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 206
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gun Rod Bow View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cutting Edge View Post
I noticed this as well. I think he's going to try to get tangle nets approved for the summer run
It doesn't work like that. Tangles won't work with warm water, shad and sockeye

For each gear, each season. Each species new testing needs to be done. I.e. You can't take spring chinook tangle nets and apply them to summer Chinook

Big Bubba. Excellent observations.

Bill. Very good letter
Well I doubt Buckmaster had seines in mind when crafting the language of the policy they voted on.... I can just see them trying the same methodology as springers..... do a little test netting to make sure there aren't too many nontarget species in the river..... take the spring tangle net mortality and double it because of the warmer water.... something like that... probably see some testing this summer.... Again probably won't be seines
Cutting Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2017, 07:58 AM   #33
Gun Rod Bow
 
Gun Rod Bow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sherwood, OR
Posts: 12,450
Default Re: Oregon backs off (kind of, sort of)

I spoke to staff about why the expanded definition of gear and select/non-select for Summers.

What I was told was the expanded terms were to make room for a potential commercial hook and line fishery
__________________
"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in." Greek Proverb
Gun Rod Bow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2017, 08:08 AM   #34
War-Paint
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Pa’kiut’lĕma
Posts: 360
Default Re: Oregon backs off (kind of, sort of)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Natester View Post
Yes you are correct its not Oregon's river, it headwaters in BC, flows through BC, then through Eastern Washington before bordering with Oregon. to my knowledge, it is never totally in Oregon. It is a multi state, and county river.

Oregon is out of bounds in trying to set laws on summer Chinook. The gravel and hatcheries (lots of Native American hatchery fish) that raise summer Chinook are located in Central Washington. The State of Oregon has nothing to do with the raising of these fish. But the Oregon commissioners seem to be good at legislating what is not theirs to begin with. Kind of like taxation with our representation. Oregon should look toward Washing State with regard to this fishery.

The same could be said of URB's not from Oregon gravel, but again the Oregon commission again is trying to grab more of these (mostly native) fish that do not come from their state and hand them over to the Gilnetters which are proportionally more from Oregon than Washington. There is a term for taking what is not yours.....


Thank you for posting this.
War-Paint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2017, 08:34 AM   #35
steelhead98685
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SW Washington
Posts: 114
Default Re: Oregon backs off (kind of, sort of)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Natester View Post
Yes you are correct its not Oregon's river, it headwaters in BC, flows through BC, then through Eastern Washington before bordering with Oregon. to my knowledge, it is never totally in Oregon. It is a multi state, and county river.

Oregon is out of bounds in trying to set laws on summer Chinook. The gravel and hatcheries (lots of Native American hatchery fish) that raise summer Chinook are located in Central Washington. The State of Oregon has nothing to do with the raising of these fish. But the Oregon commissioners seem to be good at legislating what is not theirs to begin with. Kind of like taxation with our representation. Oregon should look toward Washing State with regard to this fishery.

The same could be said of URB's not from Oregon gravel, but again the Oregon commission again is trying to grab more of these (mostly native) fish that do not come from their state and hand them over to the Gilnetters which are proportionally more from Oregon than Washington. There is a term for taking what is not yours.....
I definitely agree with this opinion.
steelhead98685 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Cast to



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:39 AM.

Terms of Service
 
Page generated in 1.17582 seconds with 58 queries