I just don't get it. - www.ifish.net
The Oregonian's Bill Monroe!

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-19-2017, 09:12 AM   #1
CKthumper
Ifish Nate
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cornelius, OR
Posts: 3,044
Default I just don't get it.

All the indignation over the current state of the reforms. GRB, the point man in the crusade, has posted several generally positive comments, yet so many carry on as though it was the commercials, not the sports, who will get 70 to 80% of impacts.

On the OR/WA differences-

As I read it, WA said they would give the nets two more years, then revisit the issue. Did I miss where they said they would definitely end netting after 2018?

As I read it, OR gave no time line. Did I miss where they said they would never end it?

As I read it, SB 830 included the much maligned "adaptive management" clause, allowing for conditional continued netting. Did I miss where it says nets will be permanently banned?

Most of my posting on this issue is contrary to majority opinion. Many of my opinions are based on numbers put up by the Col. R. Compact, others on my own intuition or experience. For that contrary posting I've been called "ignorant or stupid", and "congratulated" as being "part of the problem".

I've also received a couple pms thanking me for voicing a different take. But I wonder whether it's worth my while to continue, as if I'm a voice calling out in the wilderness...

__________________
It's a great day in the neighborhood

Last edited by CKthumper; 03-19-2017 at 09:18 AM.
CKthumper is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-19-2017, 09:19 AM   #2
joe_camo
Sturgeon
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,118
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Perhaps the statement "not being able to see the forest through the trees" would be fitting in this situation.
__________________
"If you ever wonder. Just look at Joe Camos advice. And do the opposite." Quote from GRB 03-19-2017
joe_camo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 09:26 AM   #3
Rykat
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,331
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Are you sincere?

The ODFWC is dragging its feet . . when it should just follow through or match WA as their position allows a little more time to show reasonableness. Not so with Oregon.

Youngs Bay closure
Barbless hooks
Transferred smolts
ODFWC commissioners treating sport anglers like we are morons.

Finally, the fall Chinook fishery last year was a disaster as BGF and GRB pointed out with early closures . . in order to basically stock pile (for upriver later) chinook for commercial net mop ups . . as ODFWC knew guys like me (Average Joe type) would never connect those dots . . without EyeFish, GRB, BGF and others explaining these dirty tricks and surprises.

In short, WDFWC isn't rigging the game with every fishery like ODFWC does.

And while I'm still no policy wonk (and would rather just go fishing), I'm getting smarter about all the dirty tricks and delays the fish processors and commercials try.

Bad news for any gill net apologists out there. Guys like me are waking up, getting involved . . and slowly catching on. The learning curve is steep, but the truth is never complicated.

If anything, the best and simplest argument is more must be done to save wild fish. You can't get there with gill nets or tangle nets or any other net. Just a fact. Correction: any net that captures a fish by the gills. Seines don't do that.

Last edited by Rykat; 03-19-2017 at 09:30 AM.
Rykat is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Old 03-19-2017, 09:36 AM   #4
Bill Rogue V.
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Salem, OR
Posts: 11,998
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Seems to me the commission could use its rule-making power to ban mainstem gill nets if conservation goals regarding endangered stocks are not being met. "Adaptive management" goes both ways.


SECTION 3a. (1) The Legislative Assembly finds that it is the policy of the State of
Oregon that rules as a whole related to Columbia River fish management and reform that
are adopted by the State Fish and Wildlife Commission:
(a) Optimize overall economic benefits to this state;
Enrolled Senate Bill 830 (SB 830-A) Page 1
(b) Enhance the economic viability of Oregon’s recreational and commercial fisheries and
the communities that rely on these fisheries;
(c) Contribute to native fish conservation and recovery;
(d) Promote orderly fishery management with the State of Washington; and
(e) Provide consistency with agreements made with Indian tribes pursuant to state or
federal court orders.
(2) If economic, including commercial harvest, or conservation objectives related to
Columbia River fish management and reform adopted by rule of the commission are not met,
then by rule the commission must provide for adaptive management actions that are designed
to efficiently achieve the respective economic, including commercial harvest, or conservation
objectives, including but not limited to:
(a) Modifying or halting the schedule and degree of shifts in harvest and impact allocations
specified in rules of the commission as necessary to attain harvest objectives
through improved harvest levels in either off-channel or mainstem fisheries, within the
context of naturally varying run sizes;
(b) Advancing additional fishery opportunities, seasons or selective fishing gear; or
(c) Improving hatchery fish production or the timing, size or location of hatchery fish
releases.
__________________
Another aging baby boomer hurtling toward his dotage.
Bill Rogue V. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 09:43 AM   #5
joe_camo
Sturgeon
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,118
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rykat View Post
Are you sincere?

The ODFWC is dragging its feet . . when it should just follow through or match WA as their position allows a little more time to show reasonableness. Not so with Oregon.

Youngs Bay closure
Barbless hooks
Transferred smolts
ODFWC commissioners treating sport anglers like we are morons.

Finally, the fall Chinook fishery last year was a disaster as BGF and GRB pointed out with early closures . . in order to basically stock pile (for upriver later) chinook for commercial net mop ups . . as ODFWC knew guys like me (Average Joe type) would never connect those dots . . without EyeFish, GRB, BGF and others explaining these dirty tricks and surprises.

In short, WDFWC isn't rigging the game with every fishery like ODFWC does.

And while I'm still no policy wonk (and would rather just go fishing), I'm getting smarter about all the dirty tricks and delays the fish processors and commercials try.

Bad news for any gill net apologists out there. Guys like me are waking up, getting involved . . and slowly catching on. The learning curve is steep, but the truth is never complicated.

If anything, the best and simplest argument is more must be done to save wild fish. You can't get there with gill nets or tangle nets or any other net. Just a fact. Correction: any net that captures a fish by the gills. Seines don't do that.
You do recognize that Oregon and Washington are different states with completely different state governments and different commissions.

You do also recognize that Oregon has Senate bill 830 that now must be addressed in decisions the ODFWC makes with respect to Columbia River fisheries - Washington has no limitations under Oregon legislation.

You should also recall that the strictly Oregon legislation SB830 (and all the adaptive management clauses within) has been successfully defended in court from all the gill netters challenges.

The issue with the bi state agreement is Oregon has been ham strung by SB830 and Washington has not, this is the cause of the non concurrence between the commissions.
__________________
"If you ever wonder. Just look at Joe Camos advice. And do the opposite." Quote from GRB 03-19-2017
joe_camo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 09:52 AM   #6
crabbait
King Salmon
 
crabbait's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Jose, Costa Rica
Posts: 36,046
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Quote:
The issue with the bi state agreement is Oregon has been ham strung by SB830 and Washington has not, this is the cause of the non concurrence between the commissions.
Pfft...

The "cause of the non-concurrence" is Buckmaster's attempt to circumvent the intent of SB 830, pure and simple.

The gill net community has had these years to explore and develop alternative harvest methods. Instead of pursuing those methods they chose to sit on their hands and hope that alternative methods were not developed in the hopes that reversion to gill nets would be the result.

In other words, the gill net fleet has yet to come to grips with the fact that gill nets are coming off the main stem and will never be coming back. The options are develop alternative methods of commercial harvest (seines, fish wheels, hook and line, weirs, harvest at choke points like fish ladders, etc) or start considering buyouts.

A good first step would be to make gill net permits non-transferable after a certain date (2019?).
__________________
The government you elect is the government you deserve. - Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by crabbait; 03-19-2017 at 09:59 AM.
crabbait is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 10:00 AM   #7
Gun Rod Bow
 
Gun Rod Bow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sherwood, OR
Posts: 12,330
Default Re: I just don't get it.

The cause of non concurrence between the states is having the gillnetters lobbyist on the ODFW commission.

And his twisting of the meaning of SB 830

As evidenced by the legislators letters who passed 830. And Governor Brown.

Gear testing will get re-done. After a 2 year extension in the fall we will get back on track.

And yes CK. Big picture. We have moved the ball way down the field.

No gillnets spring. No gillnets summer. During a 2 year extension in zones 4-5 in the fall we will get to full implementation.

Compared to where we were 5 years ago. We've come very far toward a lower Columbia without gillnets.
__________________
"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in." Greek Proverb
Gun Rod Bow is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 10:09 AM   #8
Pipe Dream
Ifish Nate
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: University Place and Whidbey Island
Posts: 2,182
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CKthumper View Post
All the indignation over the current state of the reforms. GRB, the point man in the crusade, has posted several generally positive comments, yet so many carry on as though it was the commercials, not the sports, who will get 70 to 80% of impacts.

On the OR/WA differences-

As I read it, WA said they would give the nets two more years, then revisit the issue. Did I miss where they said they would definitely end netting after 2018?

As I read it, OR gave no time line. Did I miss where they said they would never end it?

As I read it, SB 830 included the much maligned "adaptive management" clause, allowing for conditional continued netting. Did I miss where it says nets will be permanently banned?

Most of my posting on this issue is contrary to majority opinion. Many of my opinions are based on numbers put up by the Col. R. Compact, others on my own intuition or experience. For that contrary posting I've been called "ignorant or stupid", and "congratulated" as being "part of the problem".

I've also received a couple pms thanking me for voicing a different take. But I wonder whether it's worth my while to continue, as if I'm a voice calling out in the wilderness...
I have opined previously that WFWC's letter of 15 March was too polite leaving room for some readers to arrive at alternate interpretations, as in this case. To that end here are some pertinent portions of that letter:

"The WFWC updates to the policy for fall Chinook were taken in the spirit of finding a compromise solution that could be supported by both commissions, adaptively managing the fisheries, and remaining true to our commitment to a new vision for Columbia River management.. Elements of that vision, which were adopted in Oregon rules and in the WFWC policy, include:

1) Promote the recovery of ESA-listed species and the conservatin of wild stocks of salmon and steelhead,

2) Prioritize recreational fisheries in the mainstem and commercial fisheries in the off-channel areas of the lower Columbia River,

3) Seek to phase out the use of non-selective gillnets in the non-tribal commercial fisheries in the mainstem Columbia River, and transition gillnet use to off channel areas,

4) Enhance the economic benefits of off-channel commercial fisheries in a manner consistent with conservation and wild stock recovery objectives; and

5) In a manner that is consistent with conservation and does not impair the resource, seek to enhance the overall economic well-being and stability of Columbia River fisheries.

Consistent with that vision, the revised WFWC policy provides guidance to increase the commercial fall Chinook share from 20% to 25% (a 25% increase) and explicitly provides for a gillnet fishery above the Lewis Riover targeting Upriver Bright Chinook salmon in 2017 and 2018. These policy modifications were taken after review of extensive staff analyses and comments by hundreds of stakeholders."

My take is that the WFWC has reiterated that their policy calls for removing gillnets from the mainstem; that the gillnet season above the Lewis is for 2017 and 2018 only, and that policy modifications were taken after due public process.
Pipe Dream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 10:11 AM   #9
joe_camo
Sturgeon
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,118
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gun Rod Bow View Post
The cause of non concurrence between the states is having the gillnetters lobbyist on the ODFW commission.

And his twisting of the meaning of SB 830

As evidenced by the legislators letters who passed 830. And Governor Brown.

Gear testing will get re-done. After a 2 year extension in the fall we will get back on track.

And yes CK. Big picture. We have moved the ball way down the field.

No gillnets spring. No gillnets summer. During a 2 year extension in zones 4-5 in the fall we will get to full implementation.

Compared to where we were 5 years ago. We've come very far toward a lower Columbia without gillnets.
If the intent of SB830 is at all ambiguous that would be a result of how it was written.

SB 830, law that exists in Oregon and not in Washington, results in the exact same lack of concurrence you claim M81 would have caused. A handshake agreement/deal does not super cede law.
__________________
"If you ever wonder. Just look at Joe Camos advice. And do the opposite." Quote from GRB 03-19-2017
joe_camo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 10:34 AM   #10
Rykat
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,331
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Pipe Dream summed it up:

"A new vision." That should be NW Steelheaders and CCA's slogan on the reforms.

Pipe is on a roll.
Rykat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 10:56 AM   #11
Gun Rod Bow
 
Gun Rod Bow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sherwood, OR
Posts: 12,330
Default Re: I just don't get it.

When conservationists from Trout Unlimited, the Wild Salmon Center and CCA brought up a new vision for harvest, prioritizing removal of hatchery fish while protecting wild fish they were ridiculed by commissioners Buckmaster and Akenson.

Pretty sad
__________________
"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in." Greek Proverb
Gun Rod Bow is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 11:03 AM   #12
Pipe Dream
Ifish Nate
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: University Place and Whidbey Island
Posts: 2,182
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rykat View Post
Pipe Dream summed it up:

"A new vision." That should be NW Steelheaders and CCA's slogan on the reforms.

Pipe is on a roll.
The "new vision" is actually from the WFWC letter and characterizes all of the efforts on both sides of the river that went into the public process resulting in the Columbia River Reform agreement.

But I do concur - it is a great rallying cry!

Again, the WFWC letter of 15 March reiterates the basic tenants of that agreement and readers should not try to read into any part of it an interpretation outside the overall intent which includes removing gillnets from the mainstem.
Pipe Dream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 11:09 AM   #13
longcaster
Cutthroat
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 40
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Again No mention of what Idaho thinks on these subjects ,do you not think our fish are netted as well or do you think Idaho is to small a player to be included? sorry I just don't get it we need to all be working together for the betterment of the fish and the economy of our areas sport fishing sustains these fisheries.....
longcaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 11:14 AM   #14
Gun Rod Bow
 
Gun Rod Bow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sherwood, OR
Posts: 12,330
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Pipe Dream.

Those guiding principles from the WFWC were in my written testimony that I ended up having to abandon after Commisdioner Buckmaster chastised two gentlemen that testified before me.

All ten guiding principles were attached to the back.

The original bi state policy dated November 12, 2012 was linked to CCAs message to members a couple of weeks ago
__________________
"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in." Greek Proverb
Gun Rod Bow is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 11:22 AM   #15
Pipe Dream
Ifish Nate
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: University Place and Whidbey Island
Posts: 2,182
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gun Rod Bow View Post
Pipe Dream.

Those guiding principles from the WFWC were in my written testimony that I ended up having to abandon after Commisdioner Buckmaster chastised two gentlemen that testified before me.

All ten guiding principles were attached to the back.

The original bi state policy dated November 12, 2012 was linked to CCAs message to members a couple of weeks ago
Too bad you weren't able to reiterate those guiding principles so that there could be an immediate comparison to what was being done by the OFWC.
Pipe Dream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 11:25 AM   #16
Rykat
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,331
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by longcaster View Post
Again No mention of what Idaho thinks on these subjects ,do you not think our fish are netted as well or do you think Idaho is to small a player to be included? sorry I just don't get it we need to all be working together for the betterment of the fish and the economy of our areas sport fishing sustains these fisheries.....
Keep posting about it and it will gain traction. This "allocation" argument is a big tent. I can promise you, "those" you see talking about "specific points" on policy agree with you. Yeah, I'm kind of talking for them, but I trust those guys won't throw you under the bus for an extra fish in the freezer. It's bigger than that.

You can always tell who's twisting things . . by the way they cherry pick to make a very minor point that's usually self serving. Proof? CCA is about conservation and saving wild fish. It stands by policies that save wild fish. The other side? Not so much. They claim a gill net is the only way to remove enough hatchery fish to save wild fish . . so just accept the collateral damage of that. Like in some kind of blanket bombing . . some innocent people will die, but it's worth it. As you know, netting also removes the bigger, stronger, better DNA in wild fish too. That really weakens the stock. Sports guys let those big fish go when fish and game tell us it's time to stop harvesting when you hook those hogs . . and let them go upriver. Gill nets can't do that. They get 'em all, regardless.

Last edited by Rykat; 03-19-2017 at 11:34 AM.
Rykat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 02:07 PM   #17
b ruff
Chromer
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 946
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Rogue V. View Post
Seems to me the commission could use its rule-making power to ban mainstem gill nets if conservation goals regarding endangered stocks are not being met. "Adaptive management" goes both ways.


SECTION 3a. (1) The Legislative Assembly finds that it is the policy of the State of
Oregon that rules as a whole related to Columbia River fish management and reform that
are adopted by the State Fish and Wildlife Commission:
(a) Optimize overall economic benefits to this state;
Enrolled Senate Bill 830 (SB 830-A) Page 1
(b) Enhance the economic viability of Oregon?s recreational and commercial fisheries and
the communities that rely on these fisheries;
(c) Contribute to native fish conservation and recovery;
(d) Promote orderly fishery management with the State of Washington; and
(e) Provide consistency with agreements made with Indian tribes pursuant to state or
federal court orders.
(2) If economic, including commercial harvest, or conservation objectives related to
Columbia River fish management and reform adopted by rule of the commission are not met,
then by rule the commission must provide for adaptive management actions that are designed
to efficiently achieve the respective economic, including commercial harvest, or conservation
objectives, including but not limited to:
(a) Modifying or halting the schedule and degree of shifts in harvest and impact allocations
specified in rules of the commission as necessary to attain harvest objectives
through improved harvest levels in either off-channel or mainstem fisheries, within the
context of naturally varying run sizes;
(b) Advancing additional fishery opportunities, seasons or selective fishing gear; or
(c) Improving hatchery fish production or the timing, size or location of hatchery fish
releases.
Bill, they absolutely could do that if warranted. It's fairly easy for ODFW to regulate the commercial impacts on the main stem as they get so few openers anyway.
What ODFW decided was that conservation goals were being met, along with recreational economic goals.
The only factor not met was commercial economic goals. So, adaptive management...
I imagine I will get slammed (again) for simply reciting ODFW doctrine, so be it.
b ruff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 02:17 PM   #18
RiverJohn
King Salmon
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,279
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Lets take ignore the comments on here that only kiss-up to the gill-net industry for a minute.


Seriously speaking:

If commercials get their quota by following selective methods on Mainstem + Youngs Bay nets.

Where lies the problem ?



__________________
God does not deduct from man's allotted span, the hours spent fishing!!
RiverJohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 02:19 PM   #19
RiverJohn
King Salmon
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,279
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Let me add...
I am not anti commercial harvest - and have yet to understand why the selective adjustment cannot move forward.
__________________
God does not deduct from man's allotted span, the hours spent fishing!!
RiverJohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 02:35 PM   #20
eyeFISH
King Salmon
 
eyeFISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,847
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by crabbait View Post
Pfft...

The "cause of the non-concurrence" is Buckmaster's attempt to circumvent the intent of SB 830, pure and simple.


WINNER!
__________________
http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg

Long Live the Kings!
eyeFISH.... The Keen Eye MD
eyeFISH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 03:04 PM   #21
Gun Rod Bow
 
Gun Rod Bow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sherwood, OR
Posts: 12,330
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by b ruff View Post
Bill, they absolutely could do that if warranted. It's fairly easy for ODFW to regulate the commercial impacts on the main stem as they get so few openers anyway.
What ODFW decided was that conservation goals were being met, along with recreational economic goals.
The only factor not met was commercial economic goals. So, adaptive management...
I imagine I will get slammed (again) for simply reciting ODFW doctrine, so be it.
The only reason they judged commercial economics hadn't been met is because Team Buckmaster arbitrarily increased them.

The agreed to viability number was $3.86 million annually. That number was exceeded each year of the transition

Aka. Moving the goalpost in the 4th quarter
__________________
"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; 03-19-2017 at 03:05 PM.
Gun Rod Bow is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 03:43 PM   #22
Pipe Dream
Ifish Nate
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: University Place and Whidbey Island
Posts: 2,182
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gun Rod Bow View Post
The only reason they judged commercial economics hadn't been met is because Team Buckmaster arbitrarily increased them.

The agreed to viability number was $3.86 million annually. That number was exceeded each year of the transition

Aka. Moving the goalpost in the 4th quarter
I heard the reference to an economic hole several times from Commissioners; guess if they had changed the number to $10MM they could have referred to it as an epic economic crisis. Maybe words they need to keep in mind for the future ODFW budget(s).
Pipe Dream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 03:52 PM   #23
West_side Coug
Steelhead
 
West_side Coug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 107
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gun Rod Bow View Post
The only reason they judged commercial economics hadn't been met is because Team Buckmaster arbitrarily increased them.

The agreed to viability number was $3.86 million annually. That number was exceeded each year of the transition

Aka. Moving the goalpost in the 4th quarter
How are they able to do this? I'm not a lawyer, but numbers are pretty solid things that usually can't be arbitrarily moved. Is the Senate Bill really just this poorly written that these basic definitions can be changed on a whim? Another depends on the definition of "is" type of deal? How was this able to happen?
West_side Coug is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 04:17 PM   #24
crabbait
King Salmon
 
crabbait's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Jose, Costa Rica
Posts: 36,046
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Buckmaster asked staff to compute possible commercial landings without SB 830 and used those numbers instead of the historically accurate $3.86 million.
__________________
The government you elect is the government you deserve. - Thomas Jefferson
crabbait is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 04:41 PM   #25
b ruff
Chromer
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 946
Default

What they did makes sense and comes directly from the language of SB 830.
Don't blame me, I didn't write it.
b ruff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 04:50 PM   #26
Pipe Dream
Ifish Nate
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: University Place and Whidbey Island
Posts: 2,182
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by b ruff View Post
What they did makes sense and comes directly from the language of SB 830.
Don't blame me, I didn't write it.
I'd be interested in where that latitude (or, better yet, methodology) is specified in SB830. Can you cite the specifics that somehow override the specified hard dollar number?

Or is "making sense" just revisionist theory?
Pipe Dream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 05:26 PM   #27
joe_camo
Sturgeon
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,118
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by longcaster View Post
Again No mention of what Idaho thinks on these subjects ,do you not think our fish are netted as well or do you think Idaho is to small a player to be included? sorry I just don't get it we need to all be working together for the betterment of the fish and the economy of our areas sport fishing sustains these fisheries.....
As you can clearly see over the years the far upriver anglers are always forgotten. Often the anglers above Bonneville get forgotten, when the lower river anglers go over their impacts it shortens seasons and opportunities for anglers up river.

The driver in these fisheries is harvest close to Portland. In the bi state agreement there is no consideration for Idaho anglers, you were never given a voice or a seat at the table - but there is a big push for anglers to get more harvest of your wild fish at buoy 10. Use up the impacts before the upriver fish get above Bonneville - that is currently a point of non concurrence.
__________________
"If you ever wonder. Just look at Joe Camos advice. And do the opposite." Quote from GRB 03-19-2017
joe_camo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 05:35 PM   #28
b ruff
Chromer
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 946
Default

Question: why did the new "sport friendly" commissioner vote with the other commissioners?
Why did Washington, who isn't subject to SB830 vote to leave the majority of the main stem gillnets in place for two more years, with no guarantee they will be removed after those two years?
b ruff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 05:37 PM   #29
Don G Baldi
Ifish Nate
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Salem/Little Italy
Posts: 3,343
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joe_camo View Post
As you can clearly see over the years the far upriver anglers are always forgotten. Often the anglers above Bonneville get forgotten, when the lower river anglers go over their impacts it shortens seasons and opportunities for anglers up river.

The driver in these fisheries is harvest close to Portland. In the bi state agreement there is no consideration for Idaho anglers, you were never given a voice or a seat at the table - but there is a big push for anglers to get more harvest of your wild fish at buoy 10. Use up the impacts before the upriver fish get above Bonneville - that is currently a point of non concurrence.
Restrict salmon to mark select for all harvesters and there will be plenty of fish for Idaho and everyone else from Astoria up river.
__________________
Bucket: empty it before you kick it
Don G Baldi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 05:40 PM   #30
b ruff
Chromer
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 946
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pipe Dream View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by b ruff View Post
What they did makes sense and comes directly from the language of SB 830.
Don't blame me, I didn't write it.
I'd be interested in where that latitude (or, better yet, methodology) is specified in SB830. Can you cite the specifics that somehow override the specified hard dollar number?

Or is "making sense" just revisionist theory?
"Makes sense" is my opinion. Agree or disagree.
The legislation is easy to find online, as are the (dreaded) re-balancing numbers that ODFW came up with.
Check it out and decide for yourself.
b ruff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 05:44 PM   #31
joe_camo
Sturgeon
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,118
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don G Baldi View Post
Restrict salmon to mark select for all harvesters and there will be plenty of fish for Idaho and everyone else from Astoria up river.
No argument here.
__________________
"If you ever wonder. Just look at Joe Camos advice. And do the opposite." Quote from GRB 03-19-2017
joe_camo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 06:09 PM   #32
Gun Rod Bow
 
Gun Rod Bow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sherwood, OR
Posts: 12,330
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by b ruff View Post
What they did makes sense and comes directly from the language of SB 830.
Don't blame me, I didn't write it.
No. Not actually. 830 says enhance sport and commercial fisheries.

If you heard Buckmaster when I challenged him he noted the Kitzhaber letter from 2014. That's not law. Or rule.

And that completely ignores a letter from the same John Kitzhaber specifically telling the commission they interpreted his letter wrong.

So this is as I said, a fabrication by Team Buckmaster. Moving the goal post in the 4th quarter
__________________
"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in." Greek Proverb
Gun Rod Bow is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 06:23 PM   #33
crabbait
King Salmon
 
crabbait's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Jose, Costa Rica
Posts: 36,046
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by b ruff View Post
Question: why did the new "sport friendly" commissioner vote with the other commissioners?
Why did Washington, who isn't subject to SB830 vote to leave the majority of the main stem gillnets in place for two more years, with no guarantee they will be removed after those two years?
Washington is for no gill nets in the main stem for spring or summer fishing, gill nets in the fall only and they recommend a 25% share for commercials v. Oregon's 30%.
__________________
The government you elect is the government you deserve. - Thomas Jefferson
crabbait is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 06:25 PM   #34
b ruff
Chromer
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 946
Default

Then why was the vote 7-0?
What can we make of the new commissioner siding with "Team Buckmaster"?
b ruff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 06:29 PM   #35
crabbait
King Salmon
 
crabbait's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Jose, Costa Rica
Posts: 36,046
Default Re: I just don't get it.

They were to follow the staff recommendation and seek concurrence with Washington. At this point the only contention is the fall percentage. Team Buckmaster moved to the center.
__________________
The government you elect is the government you deserve. - Thomas Jefferson
crabbait is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 07:19 PM   #36
b ruff
Chromer
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 946
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crabbait View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by b ruff View Post
Question: why did the new "sport friendly" commissioner vote with the other commissioners?
Why did Washington, who isn't subject to SB830 vote to leave the majority of the main stem gillnets in place for two more years, with no guarantee they will be removed after those two years?
Washington is for no gill nets in the main stem for spring or summer fishing, gill nets in the fall only and they recommend a 25% share for commercials v. Oregon's 30%.
The fall main stem gill net fishery is the"majority" I was referring to.
b ruff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 07:25 PM   #37
Gun Rod Bow
 
Gun Rod Bow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sherwood, OR
Posts: 12,330
Default Re: I just don't get it.

B ruff.

You are sure jumping around a lot trying to find traction.

Go back to the video of the WFWC January meeting.

They moved to re-double efforts to implement fall selective gear and get it applied during a 2 year extension that will include intensified observation.

They are also starting the process of gillnet permit buy outs.
__________________
"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in." Greek Proverb
Gun Rod Bow is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 07:40 PM   #38
b ruff
Chromer
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 946
Default

Jumping around?
Uhh, ok, whatever you say.
I enjoy having an open, honest, debate and discussion on the issues.
Didn't know I needed to ask your permission before I posted, lol.
b ruff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 09:46 PM   #39
Pipe Dream
Ifish Nate
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: University Place and Whidbey Island
Posts: 2,182
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by crabbait View Post
Washington is for no gill nets in the main stem for spring or summer fishing, gill nets in the fall only and they recommend a 25% share for commercials v. Oregon's 30%.
I believe that fall gill net was an extension for two years only; 2017 and 2018. That per WFWC Chair Smith's letter of 15 March.
Pipe Dream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2017, 09:53 PM   #40
Pipe Dream
Ifish Nate
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: University Place and Whidbey Island
Posts: 2,182
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by b ruff View Post
"Makes sense" is my opinion. Agree or disagree.
The legislation is easy to find online, as are the (dreaded) re-balancing numbers that ODFW came up with.
Check it out and decide for yourself.
Actually, I was expecting that you would jump on the opportunity to lead me by the hand, step by step, from the legislation's original number and any language (re-balancing??) which supports the Commission's having asked for a "what if" analyses leading to (gasp) emergent economic hole.

Guess I was expecting too much.
Pipe Dream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 03:44 AM   #41
b ruff
Chromer
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 946
Default

Yes, way too much.
I am not trying to change anyone's mind, I'm not a lobbyist, I have an opinion, that is all.
As the OP noted, there is very little interest on ifish to differing views on this subject.
You've obviously already read all the info i was referring to and? disagree, great. Why pretend you want me to lead you by the hand, how disingenuous is that?
As I've said many times, there are valid reasons beyond the whole "Team Buckmaster" schtick that led BOTH states to delay the removal of main stem gillnets.
b ruff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 05:47 AM   #42
longcaster
Cutthroat
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 40
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Well it is refreshing to know some understand our plight upriver, I do believe we understand yours as well hence my we need to all work together as I am sure we all want the same things....

and I agree if we did not clip fish on the Clearwater(as we have no wild stocks left) then that would make a whole lot more fish available upriver, but the Oregon vs the US, is the reason for the clipping but that expires soon and I think will be different this time around.... I do wish you guys well with this battle I hope at some time we all are fighting on the same side...
longcaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 07:06 AM   #43
Rykat
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,331
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by longcaster View Post
Well it is refreshing to know some understand our plight upriver, I do believe we understand yours as well hence my we need to all work together as I am sure we all want the same things....

and I agree if we did not clip fish on the Clearwater(as we have no wild stocks left) then that would make a whole lot more fish available upriver, but the Oregon vs the US, is the reason for the clipping but that expires soon and I think will be different this time around.... I do wish you guys well with this battle I hope at some time we all are fighting on the same side...
My Jan 20th testimony was "you guys should work together . . " and it was met with classic Finley disdain and mocking. Four ODFWC members have no intention of working with anyone other than the fish processors and gill net fleet.

Playing nice is not in their plans.
Rykat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 07:36 AM   #44
West_side Coug
Steelhead
 
West_side Coug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 107
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CKthumper View Post
All the indignation over the current state of the reforms. GRB, the point man in the crusade, has posted several generally positive comments, yet so many carry on as though it was the commercials, not the sports, who will get 70 to 80% of impacts.

On the OR/WA differences-

As I read it, WA said they would give the nets two more years, then revisit the issue. Did I miss where they said they would definitely end netting after 2018?

As I read it, OR gave no time line. Did I miss where they said they would never end it?

As I read it, SB 830 included the much maligned "adaptive management" clause, allowing for conditional continued netting. Did I miss where it says nets will be permanently banned?

Most of my posting on this issue is contrary to majority opinion. Many of my opinions are based on numbers put up by the Col. R. Compact, others on my own intuition or experience. For that contrary posting I've been called "ignorant or stupid", and "congratulated" as being "part of the problem".

I've also received a couple pms thanking me for voicing a different take. But I wonder whether it's worth my while to continue, as if I'm a voice calling out in the wilderness...
I think it's a perfectly reasonable response to be dissatisfied with the proposal that came out of Friday's meeting. It's not remotely good enough. Oregon has not established any revised sunset timeline for gillnets on the main stem of the river. Yes, they moved closer to Washington, but they are still not proposing to operate under the same rules. We have moved the ball, but we are still not near the end zone. There is no reason to see this "compromise" as a satisfactory final solution.
West_side Coug is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 07:49 AM   #45
fishchaser
Ifish Nate
 
fishchaser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Happy Rock, Or
Posts: 3,029
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Sent my letters and made a nasty phone call this morning to the governor.


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, 07:58 AM   #46
CKthumper
Ifish Nate
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cornelius, OR
Posts: 3,044
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rykat View Post
Are you sincere?

The ODFWC is dragging its feet . . when it should just follow through or match WA as their position allows a little more time to show reasonableness. Not so with Oregon.

Youngs Bay closure
Barbless hooks
Transferred smolts
ODFWC commissioners treating sport anglers like we are morons.

Finally, the fall Chinook fishery last year was a disaster as BGF and GRB pointed out with early closures . . in order to basically stock pile (for upriver later) chinook for commercial net mop ups . . as ODFWC knew guys like me (Average Joe type) would never connect those dots . . without EyeFish, GRB, BGF and others explaining these dirty tricks and surprises.

In short, WDFWC isn't rigging the game with every fishery like ODFWC does.

And while I'm still no policy wonk (and would rather just go fishing), I'm getting smarter about all the dirty tricks and delays the fish processors and commercials try.

Bad news for any gill net apologists out there. Guys like me are waking up, getting involved . . and slowly catching on. The learning curve is steep, but the truth is never complicated.

If anything, the best and simplest argument is more must be done to save wild fish. You can't get there with gill nets or tangle nets or any other net. Just a fact. Correction: any net that captures a fish by the gills. Seines don't do that.
Yes, I'm sincere.

Both sides are dragging their feet. WA set a time line, OR didn't.

Agreed on the bubble.

WA had been pushing for barbless before the reforms, and it was at their insistence it was imposed. We got barbs back on the Willamette.

Smolt "transfers" are from increased production, not transfers from the Willamette. GRB has stated this several times.

I didn't witness the exchanges between the commission and the sports, so no comment.

The fall fishery was a disaster because they didn't bite. Sports had the river to themselves over the peak of the run and never produced a 2 fish per boat average. And the run came in 20% short of forecast. The sport fishery continued with full retention for a month after the last net session was cancelled.

I agree more must be done to help wild fish. But targeting the fishery that takes the smallest share of any user group (less than 5% under this year's allocations) is not the best way to do it.

I still don't get it.
__________________
It's a great day in the neighborhood
CKthumper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 08:18 AM   #47
RiverJohn
King Salmon
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,279
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by longcaster View Post
Well it is refreshing to know some understand our plight upriver, I do believe we understand yours as well hence my we need to all work together as I am sure we all want the same things....

and I agree if we did not clip fish on the Clearwater(as we have no wild stocks left) then that would make a whole lot more fish available upriver, but the Oregon vs the US, is the reason for the clipping but that expires soon and I think will be different this time around.... I do wish you guys well with this battle I hope at some time we all are fighting on the same side...

I certainly do and often attempt to make sense of the "Above Bonni" runs, get shot down with.."The Indians get them anyway".

Is that really the case ?
__________________
God does not deduct from man's allotted span, the hours spent fishing!!
RiverJohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 08:20 AM   #48
devonian
Chromer
 
devonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Portland
Posts: 841
Default Re: I just don't get it.

I left another VM and emailed Kate Brown, this morning. Her contact info can be found here https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Pages/contact.aspx

Complaining on ifish is great, but we need to continue to apply pressure to Kate Brown. I bet 100,000 calls and emails would move the needle.

It's Monday. Let's be productive. Take 5 minutes to call and email KB and let her know we are not happy with the commissions decision (and lack of professionalism).

I am not against commercial fishing. I am against gill nets, fished at night, with little or no supervision, killing everything they touch.
devonian is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 08:41 AM   #49
joe_camo
Sturgeon
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,118
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CKthumper View Post
I agree more must be done to help wild fish. But targeting the fishery that takes the smallest share of any user group (less than 5% under this year's allocations) is not the best way to do it.

I still don't get it.
The user group being targeted is the same user group we sports share the Below Bonneville impact allocation of ESA salmonids. There have been numerous ongoing allocation battles between the two groups, we sports attained a much larger portion of those impacts through the Kitz deal. The LCR commercials are our only competition for these shared impacts.

Much of the hatchery production is tied with non tribal commercial harvest - we sports need the commercials to maintain hatchery production. The more selective the commercial fishery the more impacts we anglers can take from them and still maintain hatchery production.

Protecting wild fish is simply a talking point to maintain hatchery production and attain more impact allocation.
__________________
"If you ever wonder. Just look at Joe Camos advice. And do the opposite." Quote from GRB 03-19-2017
joe_camo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 08:44 AM   #50
CKthumper
Ifish Nate
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cornelius, OR
Posts: 3,044
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverJohn View Post
I certainly do and often attempt to make sense of the "Above Bonni" runs, get shot down with.."The Indians get them anyway".

Is that really the case ?
From CRC fact sheets:

Tribal fisheries took about 140,000 fall Chinook, about 100,000 of them URB's. (Along with about 15,000 steelhead).

WDFW estimated 107,000 escapement to the Hanford Reach.

In comparison, sport and commercials in the lower river (not counting Select Areas) each took about 58,000, for a total of 115,000.
__________________
It's a great day in the neighborhood

Last edited by CKthumper; 03-20-2017 at 09:00 AM.
CKthumper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 08:52 AM   #51
joe_camo
Sturgeon
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,118
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CKthumper View Post
From CRC fact sheets:

Tribal fisheries took about 140,000 fall Chinook, about 100,000 of them URB's. (Along with about 15,000 steelhead).

WDFW estimated 107,000 escapement to the Hanford Reach.
That really is an eye opener when discussing the attributes and effects of selective and non selective harvest methods on the Lower Columbia River.
__________________
"If you ever wonder. Just look at Joe Camos advice. And do the opposite." Quote from GRB 03-19-2017
joe_camo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 09:04 AM   #52
RiverJohn
King Salmon
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,279
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CKthumper View Post
From CRC fact sheets:

Tribal fisheries took about 140,000 fall Chinook, about 100,000 of them URB's. (Along with about 15,000 steelhead).

WDFW estimated 107,000 escapement to the Hanford Reach.

In comparison, sport and commercials in the lower river (not counting Select Areas) each took about 58,000, for a total of 115,000.
CK, Thanks!
Interesting info.
__________________
God does not deduct from man's allotted span, the hours spent fishing!!
RiverJohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 09:14 AM   #53
CKthumper
Ifish Nate
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cornelius, OR
Posts: 3,044
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Should have pointed out it was 107,000 natural origin to Hanford.
__________________
It's a great day in the neighborhood
CKthumper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 09:17 AM   #54
RascallyRabbit
Tuna!
 
RascallyRabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Orting, WA
Posts: 1,173
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Stupid question here:

If a non-gillnetter wanted to apply for a permit to harvest salmon commercially (in WA or OR) using a selective method is there a path for them to do that at this point in time?

Next stupid question:

If there is a path would they then split commercial impacts with the gillnet fleet?
__________________
Northriver Scout 17'10", Yamaha 80 Jet, T8 Kicker
"There are 10 types of people in this world; those who understand binary and those who don't."
RascallyRabbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 09:28 AM   #55
Fish Dog
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 277
Default Re: I just don't get it.

It's a guessing game at this point. Indications from the Commission meeting point to a experimental hook and line fishery
during the summer. One would have to buy a gillnet permit (active?) and then be part of the lobbying effort to institute
this fishery. Whether they will let all interested fishers participate is a ?. How much quota will be available? Will Wa
concur? lots of questions.
Fish Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 10:10 AM   #56
Big Game Fishing
 
Big Game Fishing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Washougal, WA
Posts: 3,626
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CKthumper View Post
Yes, I'm sincere.

Both sides are dragging their feet. WA set a time line, OR didn't.

Agreed on the bubble.

WA had been pushing for barbless before the reforms, and it was at their insistence it was imposed. We got barbs back on the Willamette.

Smolt "transfers" are from increased production, not transfers from the Willamette. GRB has stated this several times.

I didn't witness the exchanges between the commission and the sports, so no comment.

The fall fishery was a disaster because they didn't bite. Sports had the river to themselves over the peak of the run and never produced a 2 fish per boat average. And the run came in 20% short of forecast. The sport fishery continued with full retention for a month after the last net session was cancelled.

I agree more must be done to help wild fish. But targeting the fishery that takes the smallest share of any user group (less than 5% under this year's allocations) is not the best way to do it.

I still don't get it.
No, here's what you don't get.

The fall fishery last year wasn't a disaster because of a slow sport bite.

The fall fishery was a disaster because the compact allocated 50% of a constraining stock to the commercial fishery pre-season.

Then, while they were extremely cautious with their management of the sport fishery, they failed to apply the same type of caution to the commercial fishery. The end result being that the commercial harvest put managers over ESA impacts on SRW'S. That's the disaster.

Had the fishery been properly managed at 70/30 like it was supposed to be, there's a chance we would have stayed under impacts, and they likely would have allowed nets access to more than their allocated 30% because sports had left over impacts.

Instead, last year further highlighted how fast gillnets eat wild impacts without removing enough hatchery fish. The result being the Feds now wanting to reduce hatchery plants.

You want to use the excuse that the run came in under forecast to dismiss commercial overharvest, but fail to acknowledge that the smaller run affected sport catch rates as well. That was actually a good thing, because had sport catch been better we would have gone further over impact allocations!

The fall disaster moving forward is likely to get worse. With smaller runs and less available impacts we all face tighter seasons. Many in the sport fleet are migrating into zones 4-5 more and more in the fall. The plan to hide gillnets up there won't work.

We need real solutions. Allowing the OFWC to drag their feet in perpetuity isn't a viable solution.
__________________
Now Booking Guided trips! Buoy 10 Fishing and Lodging Packages!
www.columbiabiggamefishing.com
Big Game Fishing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 02:25 PM   #57
b ruff
Chromer
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 946
Default

BGF, the run came in under forecast last fall, and the bite was poor at B10, compared to previous years. Hopefully we can agree on that.
By "overly cautious", are you referring to the two days per week mark select rec fishery rule? To me, that was done to extend the season thru labor day. In previous years the rec fishery put up such big numbers the season was put on hold before labor day, as you know.

I understand your point about the commercial fleet over harvest (due to the higher forecast than actual return) biting (!) into the allowed SRW impact, but that argument works both ways.
With a lower impact allocation the commercials would have harvested less fish, leading to more hatchery fish on the gravel. Especially with the poor sport bite down low, we had a really hard time tagging many chinook.
Obviously you know why the nets are in zone 4-5 in August and September. I don't know that the fact that more sports are fishing zones 4-5 in the fall is a valid reason to change management decisions when it concerns keeping the nets above the lower river ESA runs.

Either way, the management is extremely complicated. I generally give them the benefit of the doubt, but I think last year was a bit of an outlier, and mistakes happen.

Do you really think with a 70-30 SRW allocation the sports would have caught that many more fish? If they're not biting, they're not biting, but, admittedly, I am less familiar with the sports harvest success in the upriver zones (4-5).

Currently, the nets are the best tool at harvesting hatchery fish, but yes, they do eat up their impacts quickly. The lack of participation in the seine fishery is an eye opener, as well.

Do you think the smaller impact allocation for the nets is in any way related to the surplus of hatchery fish reaching the spawning grounds and your statement that the feds are going to reduce hatchery production?
b ruff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 02:49 PM   #58
Fish Dog
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 277
Default Re: I just don't get it.

BGF is convinced there is a commercial conspiracy at the DFW's.

Seine participation is limited by opportunity (quota) if it was there guys would gear up.. it's not and it is unlikely
to be with the small runs we are faced with. Almost any laid up dungeness boat would work. House forward,
clear back deck, line hauler would pull purse line, seine block (2000$), seine 12,000, skiff. The big numbers they
put up to capitalize could easily be 1/6 th when it comes right down to it... these are facts.. adaptation is possible.

Won't make any money for a couple of years paying off the above items if they can catch fish, troll dress, and
arrange a market.

That's the nuts and bolts of the seine issue.
Fish Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 03:13 PM   #59
joe_camo
Sturgeon
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,118
Default Re: I just don't get it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by b ruff View Post
BGF, the run came in under forecast last fall, and the bite was poor at B10, compared to previous years. Hopefully we can agree on that.
By "overly cautious", are you referring to the two days per week mark select rec fishery rule? To me, that was done to extend the season thru labor day. In previous years the rec fishery put up such big numbers the season was put on hold before labor day, as you know.
Without the two day per week mark select at buoy 10 the lower river tules would have likely been the fisheries constraining stock - fisheries managers did an excellent job at keeping the fishery open through labor day in 2016


In 2017 that will be much more challenging.
__________________
"If you ever wonder. Just look at Joe Camos advice. And do the opposite." Quote from GRB 03-19-2017
joe_camo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 03:28 PM   #60
CKthumper
Ifish Nate
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cornelius, OR
Posts: 3,044
Default Re: I just don't get it.

BGF has said several times there were still Tule impacts available, and according to one stat posted by the CRC there were. But I wonder if that was before final Tule counts were made. Both LRH and LRW ended up well below forecast. Final URB impact was something like 15.3% instead of the authorized 15%. That equates to about 1,000 fish, and probably less than 100 SRW's. Unfortunate, maybe bad, but not a disaster, IMO.

But to bicker about what happened last year is pointless and outside the parameter of my statement. No one is proposing 50/50, let alone 70/30 in favor of commercials.

Since no one has commented/corrected me on my "As I read it/did I miss something" comments in the OP, I can assume I read them right and didn't miss anything. It looks to me at least part of the indignation is because ODFWC is implementing the reforms based on what 830 says, rather than what so many thought it said or wanted it to say.
__________________
It's a great day in the neighborhood

Last edited by CKthumper; 03-20-2017 at 03:45 PM.
CKthumper 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 12:32 PM.

Terms of Service
 
Page generated in 1.17077 seconds with 83 queries