Gillnetters Running Scared

[mrfish48]

FROM THE DAILY ASTORIAN 2/6/08

State says fish tales don't quite ring true
Some sport fishers love Gary Loomis, but commercial operators and state biologists cast doubt on many of his assertions

By CASSANDRA PROFITA
The Daily Astorian

His pitch is dynamic and persuasive - but is it true?

Over the past year, renowned outdoorsman and fishing rod inventor Gary Loomis, featured in an article reprinted in The Daily Astorian Dec. 28, has been rallying troops of sport fishers to join a regional branch of the Coastal Conservation Association with a speech that blames commercial fishing for Northwest salmon woes.

But one of his battle cries doesn't add up, according to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

And commercial gillnetters, who have been targeted by Loomis as a factor in salmon declines, say they're being unfairly tainted in an effort to recruit new members to the CCA, a national sportfishing advocacy group that has worked to ban commercial fishing in the Gulf states.

Over and over in his CCA promotions, Loomis recounts the story of the coho salmon run on Cedar Creek in Washington. The creek was so degraded by 1992, Loomis says it only supported 32 salmon before he and the Fish First organization took up the task of rebuilding its coho runs. The group improved habitat and started a near-natural fry production and rearing program on the creek.

But just as their efforts were beginning to pay off, Loomis claims a late-addition commercial gillnet harvest in 2003 cleaned out the Cedar Creek run he'd labored to rebuild. He says the run was 16,000 fish in 2002 and was expected to be 30,000 in 2003, but because the gillnet season it dropped to 6,100.

In a recent report, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Director Jeff Koenings said those numbers aren't consistent with the data his agency has been collecting or with the way the Columbia River fishery is managed.

Koenings said his agency has been monitoring coho abundance on Cedar Creek and estimating the adult returns since 1999. According to his data, "the actual returns of unmarked coho to Cedar Creek are much lower than those numbers reported to the media."

"It's propaganda," said Hobe Kytr, a spokesman for the commercial fishing group Salmon for All, who reviewed state data on Cedar Creek coho. "It's not based on a word of truth. The Cedar Creek coho story is one Gary Loomis has been telling all over the Northwest, and it keeps getting better and better every time he tells it."

In 2002, WDFW counted 690 adult coho returning to Cedar Creek - nowhere near the 16,000 fish claimed by Loomis. In fact, the most returning adult coho WDFW has counted on Cedar Creek since 1999 was 2,355 in 2005.

"Cedar Creek is a small watershed," said Guy Norman, regional director for WDFW. "Even though it is important - we would definitely agree it's very a important natural production coho stream for the Columbia River - the capacity based on our habitat analysis is a few thousand fish. ... We wouldn't expect runs in the 30,000 range."

Norman said Loomis' work on Cedar Creek has been central to the progress in rebuilding the coho run, and reductions in harvest opportunity have helped too.

"Fish First and Gary Loomis have indeed worked hard and conducted habitat restoration, and that's definitely helped productivity," he said. "Even though the potential is not anywhere near 30,000 - it's much less than that - they're helping with that habitat potential."

Commercial harvest by gillnetters reached 21 percent of the entire coho run in 2003, which would not account for the dramatic drop in returns to Cedar Creek claimed by Loomis. Norman said the overall coho harvest rate is in keeping with what gillnetters would have taken from the Cedar Creek run. Based on the harvest rate, WDFW estimates the commercial harvest of Cedar Creek coho in 2003 to be 487.

But Loomis defends his numbers, saying WDFW isn't properly accounting for the coho that swim by the fish trap. To get to Cedar Creek, coho must swim up the Lewis River about eight miles. A few miles up the creek, there's a a waterfall with a fish ladder that contains the fish trap.

Loomis says when his group launched the Fish First project on the creek, a former hatchery manager at the nearby Lewis River Hatchery told him for every fish caught in the trap eight or nine jump the falls and are never counted. For an easy estimate of the actual run size, Loomis multiplied the number caught in the trap by 10.

"There are more fish going up there than they're able to count," Loomis said in an interview last week. "The trouble is Jeff Koening only used the numbers that went through the trap. They didn't do anything about the percentage that are jumping the falls."

Actually, Norman said the state does have an "expansion factor" that accounts for the efficiency of the fish trap.

"We realize we're not getting every fish in the trap," he said. "We use a tag and recapture method to get a handle on what percentage of the fish we're actually seeing."

Loomis said the state agency has a reason to downplay the potential run size on Cedar Creek.

"They've been in charge of it for the last 140 years," he said. "Have they done a good job or a poor job? If they've killed off 100 times more than they tell you they killed off, then they really did a bad job."

He also points to observer data suggesting gillnetters have underreported their catch, which would throw off the state's harvest estimates.

WDFW "can only report the numbers that they get," he said.

Underlying the numbers game on salmon runs is a battle for fishing seasons on the Columbia. Though Loomis says his push for CCA is about protecting the fish, not gaining ground for sport fishers in the current tug of war over spring chinook salmon impacts, commercial fishermen note that his recruiting efforts started about a year before this year's allocation decision, which will take place on Friday. Chinook salmon impacts are split between commercial and sport fishing groups.

Jim Wells, president of Salmon for All, said Loomis is using the gillnet fleet as "a whipping post" to build membership in CCA so they can be more of a force in the allocation decision.

"This isn't about conservation," said Jim Wells, president of Salmon for All. "He knew these impact splits were coming up. He needed membership in his group and he's using fictitious numbers for Cedar Creek to get it. Those numbers were never there in the first place, and now he's blaming the gillnetters for wiping them out."

[fishpez]

Wow! Here we go! I hope people would write more about the CCA. We need the free advertisement.

jc

[swampy]

My , I'm with Gary. I have less than complete confidence in the WDFW and none in the netters, for what it's woth.

[Yamhillbilly]

I agree. Who is taking and who is giving?

[adobe wall]

I have stood right at the fish trap (before I even knew what Fish First was) on Cedar Creek and watched many, many salmon bypass the trap. I still am skeptical that 16000 fish could come out of that creek but I have no doubt the trap is situated to let a lot of fish swim right by.

I don't think we need the Cedar Creek example to justify getting rid of the gillnets. I'm glad they're running scared.

regards, aw

[Lead Bouncer]

Ive seen the presentation four times and the numbers dont change. Jim Wells, needs to believe this is all about the 2008 harvest. If it was about the overharvest of the last 140 years, he would have to explain, where all the fish went.

On the otherhand, the state fought and lost the Tribal suit over bad culverts. So, either the state doesnt believe the culverts matter, or they didnt want to spend the money to fix them, cause hatchery fish already use good culverts. As long as the hatcheries get there escapement, then the commercial harvest has a steady flow of fish. Everyone pays in and an outdated industry gets the bulk of the reward. Native fish would use the culverts and that would cost too much to rebuild native runs, which are prohibited from harvest. Except for the ESA listed fish on Cedar Creek.

[NorthRiverS]

My opinion is that gillnetters have no case. There are methods of harvesting fish without killing federally protected natives. Gillnetters will never, ever be able to say that... End of story..... Wake up ODFW ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

NRS

"NorthRiver Pirates"

[butwhymalemodels]

Originally Posted by mrfish48

renowned outdoorsman and fishing rod inventor Gary Loomis

Gary Loomis invented the fishing rod?

Good research, Cassandra Profita.

[RWTIII]

"SALMON FOR ALL" And the highest paying hobby I know of "FOR THE GILLNETTERS"

[drano100]

Who cares we now have an advocacy group that we can control the agenda of in state, that just might have the resources to remove the nets from the lower CR for good. It must be working if you see this kind of reaction from Wells and Koening in just the first year.
Dr Koening is no friend of the sports fishermen and with any luck will be gone soon, Jim Wells can’t figure out how to use his recovery boxes or tell time, he should work on that before worrying about Fish First. 15,000 Coho from cedar creek probably not, but commercial netter did take about 32,000 Coho out of the lower river this fall not counting the 10,000 or so they got in the SAFA areas.

[ponyboy]

That's a total bait and switch article. They can't talk about the real issues like their destructive outdated methods, so they make it a he said she said to divert sensible discussion................weak..........

[weekender]

The more you say my name, the more my price goes up...

[KChookem]

CCA is not about one man, one stream or one run of fish.

Gary Loomis does get credit for having the vision, energy, zeal and fortitude to change the way anglers think, and in the near future, the way fish are managed.

I believe we are at the beginning of the days when the NW Steelheaders, CCA, NSIA, RFA and other like minded organizations will work together for the benefit of fish, and our fishing future.

[luckyr]

I just got back from the Sportman Show the CCA had banners all over and several places to sign up. I wore my CCA hat and got several thumbs up and comments. Gary may have brought the CCA but the fight is ours with their help. I liken gillnetting to having a farm and never planting a seed or even buying any land. Yes, a farmer but all you have is a tractor. Just show for harvest.

[pinkfly]

I am not for or against the CCA, but I do have a question. Since Gary Loomis is the founder of G.Loomis would that not make him somewhat biased on the issue? Seems like the less commercials there are the more G.Loomis rods would sell.

Just a thought.

By the way I own a GL2 and I love it.

[steelies_R_US]

Free press..............Sounds good to me

[Flatfish]

Interesting read. What's funny.....let's say everything Loomis said is not true(Not sayin it is. Just go with me here).

So what?

Who cares if a fisherman's claimed numbers don't jive with reality? Things have been that way for so long, it's a stereotype.

BUT.....I went to Loomis' presentation. Honestly, I don't care what he said as far as numbers are concerned. What I do remember VERY clearly was Gary himself. He is focused. He is detirmined. I don't see him quitting if it gets hard. He is a people person. He cares about the resource. He seemed to be a fine leader. He seemed smart. He seemed like he was realistic enough to realize if Fish First didn't give the desired results, to look outside the present box.

Folks, the netters could care less about what Loomis is saying at these CCA meetings. What they are afraid of is sporties standing united. They don't have enough money or manpower to fight if that happens. they know it. that's what this article is about.

Kinda reminds me or a rather repetitive series of 'hatch box, fish first, blah blah blah' statement from a well informed member. Gotty try and draw attention from the real issue with a sideshow. Wag the dog.

I joined CCA. Not because I think Cedar Creek silvers were wiped out by nets. I joined because of Gary Loomis. He is the right man at the right time doing the right thing.

I wonder how much those nets will fetch on ebay.

[Kelpers7]

Quote from an article I was reading...

In 1997 he sold G.Loomis to Shimano American Corporation. It was time to move forward with his life and his passion for the very creatures that he’s chased all over the world. He started a conversation group called Fish-First, to help fund restoration projects on the Lewis River and to ultimately take the politics out of fish management.

[STGRule]

Who cares if a fisherman's claimed numbers don't jive with reality?

While I can let some stuff slide, I do have to admit I do care in this instance. Integrity, truth and honesty are powerful juju in leaders. Admitted pulling of numbers out of the air isn't conducive to believability. I will always take what is stated by anybody with a grain of salt. But stuff with hard data will be believed before conjecture.

I do firmly believe that the CCA is good for the NW. This stuff probably isn't. The ends do not justify the means.

[Trick]

Originally Posted by pinkfly

I am not for or against the CCA, but I do have a question. Since Gary Loomis is the founder of G.Loomis would that not make him somewhat biased on the issue? Seems like the less commercials there are the more G.Loomis rods would sell.

Just a thought.

By the way I own a GL2 and I love it.

Gary Loomis has a passion fo fish, I have a passion for fish, you have a passion for fish.....Were all biased on saving fish for our future and the future of our children.

[MetalHead]

Originally Posted by STGRule

While I can let some stuff slide, I do have to admit I do care in this instance. Integrity, truth and honesty are powerful juju in leaders. Admitted pulling of numbers out of the air isn't conducive to believability. I will always take what is stated by anybody with a grain of salt. But stuff with hard data will be believed before conjecture.

I do firmly believe that the CCA is good for the NW. This stuff probably isn't. The ends do not justify the means.

This is exactly how we feel about WDFW up here and two prime examples from this year, are the visioning group and how they are identified. And as anyone who attended the meeting on 1/12 and listened to staff sidestep the question from Commissioner Wecker about where the upriver (can't remember the name of the tribe <Wannasomethings>) allocation alotment comes from? We all know and it is in WDFW reports that is comes from the sport allocation but staff couldn't get those words to come out of their mouths as close as they would come is out of the 2%. There are many examples of massaging the truth to fit their agenda over the years, Listen to anyone who's been involved in the crabbing mess up here. I know of no sportsmen in Washington that believe WDFW is working for our fish and wildlife.

[AuntyM]

Listen to anyone who's been involved in the crabbing mess up here. I know of no sportsmen in Washington that believe WDFW is working for our fish and wildlife.

I have been involved in the crabbing mess up here, and that is a perfect example of why I don't have any faith in WDFW top level management. There are those staff/bios working in the trenches who are trying to make a difference though, and we need to recognize and appreciate their efforts. If not for them, things would be much darker and difficult.

I didn't join the Gary Loomis fan club association. I joined the Coastal Conservation Association. I've been burned before, so rather than worship some really good business man/rod maker, I did my research on the organization and I joined because of what I found out about CCA.

And THAT is what's scaring the commercials. Because they know what CCA has accomplished too.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by MetalHead

And as anyone who attended the meeting on 1/12 and listened to staff sidestep the question from Commissioner Wecker about where the upriver (can't remember the name of the tribe <Wannasomethings>) allocation alotment comes from? We all know and it is in WDFW reports that is comes from the sport allocation but staff couldn't get those words to come out of their mouths as close as they would come is out of the 2%.

The Wanapum allocation of something like 0.06% comes out of the non-Indian allocation, because they don't have treaty rights, yes. It's also been several years since enough fish reached their waters to allow any take. But keep in mind that the 2% non-Indian allocation is part of the 15% Indian impact allocation. Were it not for the generosity of the tribes, we wouldn't be fishing at all.

[Jerry Dove]

Originally Posted by KChookem

CCA is not about one man, one stream or one run of fish.

Gary Loomis does get credit for having the vision, energy, zeal and fortitude to change the way anglers think, and in the near future, the way fish are managed.

I believe we are at the beginning of the days when the NW Steelheaders, CCA, NSIA, RFA and other like minded organizations will work together for the benefit of fish, and our fishing future.

KChookem, very well put. I think the new motto for CCA should be ""WORKING TOGETHER TO IMPROVE FISH AND FISHING" maybe with a tag for the NW "IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST". I was sorry to hear that one of our very active groups were told not to mention CCA in there booth at the Sport Show. That kind of stuff will not help anything. Let's show a group effort Friday in Salem. JD

[fishpez]

Originally Posted by KChookem

CCA is not about one man, one stream or one run of fish.

Gary Loomis does get credit for having the vision, energy, zeal and fortitude to change the way anglers think, and in the near future, the way fish are managed.

I believe we are at the beginning of the days when the NW Steelheaders, CCA, NSIA, RFA and other like minded organizations will work together for the benefit of fish, and our fishing future.

Well said!

jc

[Backlash2]

Originally Posted by Flatfish

Interesting read. What's funny.....let's say everything Loomis said is not true(Not sayin it is. Just go with me here).

So what?

Who cares if a fisherman's claimed numbers don't jive with reality? Things have been that way for so long, it's a stereotype.

BUT.....I went to Loomis' presentation. Honestly, I don't care what he said as far as numbers are concerned. What I do remember VERY clearly was Gary himself. He is focused. He is detirmined. I don't see him quitting if it gets hard. He is a people person. He cares about the resource. He seemed to be a fine leader. He seemed smart. He seemed like he was realistic enough to realize if Fish First didn't give the desired results, to look outside the present box.

Folks, the netters could care less about what Loomis is saying at these CCA meetings. What they are afraid of is sporties standing united. They don't have enough money or manpower to fight if that happens. they know it. that's what this article is about.

Kinda reminds me or a rather repetitive series of 'hatch box, fish first, blah blah blah' statement from a well informed member. Gotty try and draw attention from the real issue with a sideshow. Wag the dog.

I joined CCA. Not because I think Cedar Creek silvers were wiped out by nets. I joined because of Gary Loomis. He is the right man at the right time doing the right thing.

I wonder how much those nets will fetch on ebay.

100%

I don't believe Gary is intentionally misleading people. I sure as he** can't say the same for Salmon for All or WDFW, and neither can anyone else that's been paying attention for as long as I can remember.

This isn't about Mr. Loomis, folks. This is the beginning of their desperate fight back against CCA and it's conservation motivated, science based, common sense driven swather that's about to bury them.

Do any of you honestly believe that without CCA's rapidly growing membership, and the huge number of dedicated sportfisherman showing up at WDFW meetings (thank you from an eastsider) this winter that the current 65/35 proposal, or the netters backpeddling would have happened? I know better.

Again, in this context I don't care about Fish First or Cedar Creek. This is about people finally standing up and demanding accountability where there hasn't been any...ever. It's your right...fight for them.

[Slayer]

Watch the propaganda machine "Spin". If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck then it's most likely a duck. Gillnetters are running scared and so are some politicains. Let's keep the ball rolling, Join CCA!

[Trick]

It is really exciting to feel and see the changes that are sure to come. I also was on the CCA fence when they came on the scene. After hearing and reading all the supporting documentation of their past accomplishments down south, seeing so many members of this board that I respect join the CCA, I had to be a part of it.

Can't wait to attend my first meeting. I can feel the change. Washington, Idaho, Oregon.....It's time to stand up for the fish and the sportsman of our states!

Get those letters in to your legislators! Were not rolling over anymore!

[Mojo]

I for one like what CCA is selling. They are the first group that has come to Idaho and asked our opinion. They are supportive of our efforts (see the definition of "Grass Roots"). They have actually already begun lobbying for our causes, and that give me and the other disenfranchised upriver folks hope. A membership at this stage of the game is an inexpensive bet that could pay off huge in the long run. Gathering a large group of people who each do a small amount of work, TOGETHER, should yeild massive positive changes in the future.

Heck, the CCA magaizine is worth the price of admission.

[wolfcreek]

I applaud Gary Loomis and his efforts. He has been the catalyst that has most of us sportsmen and women thru the CCA all on the same page for the preservation of our sportfisheries here in the Northwest for years to come. Hopefuly thru our efforts our Grandchildren and their Children will be able to enjoy the same memories that I remeber fishing my Father as a child.

[PISCES]

Originally Posted by Flatfish

Interesting read. What's funny.....let's say everything Loomis said is not true(Not sayin it is. Just go with me here).

So what?

Who cares if a fisherman's claimed numbers don't jive with reality? Things have been that way for so long, it's a stereotype.

BUT.....I went to Loomis' presentation. Honestly, I don't care what he said as far as numbers are concerned. What I do remember VERY clearly was Gary himself. He is focused. He is detirmined. I don't see him quitting if it gets hard. He is a people person. He cares about the resource. He seemed to be a fine leader. He seemed smart. He seemed like he was realistic enough to realize if Fish First didn't give the desired results, to look outside the present box.

Folks, the netters could care less about what Loomis is saying at these CCA meetings. What they are afraid of is sporties standing united. They don't have enough money or manpower to fight if that happens. they know it. that's what this article is about.

Kinda reminds me or a rather repetitive series of 'hatch box, fish first, blah blah blah' statement from a well informed member. Gotty try and draw attention from the real issue with a sideshow. Wag the dog.

I joined CCA. Not because I think Cedar Creek silvers were wiped out by nets. I joined because of Gary Loomis. He is the right man at the right time doing the right thing.

I wonder how much those nets will fetch on ebay.

Let me get this straight, it's ok for the chaimen of CCA PNW to claim numbers that don't jive with reality and tell lies in order to get more people signed up with CCA? WOW, is this really how CCA wants to be known as? Liars? How will our politicians feel abou this?

Dawhunt, Splash, Backlash2, Hawgboss, drano100, crabbait, eyefish, metalhead, fineline, stlhdr1, Jack smith, remember the Fish First thread by Fishbulb? You were all nay-sayers about the data and here in this story, concrete evidence that prooves him wrong.

[Gr8waves]

Originally Posted by PISCES

Let me get this straight, it's ok for the chaimen of CCA PNW to claim numbers that don't jive with reality and tell lies in order to get more people signed up with CCA? WOW, is this really how CCA wants to be known as? Liars? How will our politicians feel abou this?

Dawhunt, Splash, Backlash2, Hawgboss, drano100, crabbait, eyefish, metalhead, fineline, stlhdr1, Jack smith, remember the Fish First thread by Fishbulb? You were all nay-sayers about the data and here in this story, concrete evidence that prooves him wrong.

Pisces - I joined CCA after looking at what they had done nationally to remove destructive and indiscriminate commercial fishing practices in other areas. I have no problem with commercial fishing, just gillnets. I did not know of the involvement of Mr Loomis with CCA so it has ZERO influence on my decision to join CCA.

[Thumper]

Originally Posted by PISCES

Dawhunt, Splash, Backlash2, Hawgboss, drano100, crabbait, eyefish, metalhead, fineline, stlhdr1, Jack smith, remember the Fish First thread by Fishbulb? You were all nay-sayers about the data and here in this story, concrete evidence that prooves him wrong.

Well, a difference of opinion anyway.

CCA is much more than Gary Loomis. CCA is about the gillnets in the Columbia right now killing native steelhead. CCA is about fostering selective fishing by commercials in the Columbia. CCA is about lots of non-Columbia issues too.

CCA is about fighting to save our precious resources. For our kids, and theirs. For generation after generation to come.

And that is a lot more important than Gary Loomis.

[AuntyM]

Originally Posted by PISCES

Let me get this straight, it's ok for the chaimen of CCA PNW to claim numbers that don't jive with reality and tell lies in order to get more people signed up with CCA? WOW, is this really how CCA wants to be known as? Liars? How will our politicians feel abou this?

Dawhunt, Splash, Backlash2, Hawgboss, drano100, crabbait, eyefish, metalhead, fineline, stlhdr1, Jack smith, remember the Fish First thread by Fishbulb? You were all nay-sayers about the data and here in this story, concrete evidence that prooves him wrong.

According to what is contained in the article, there is no evidence proving Mr. Loomis wrong.

Almost everything posted by Fishbulb has an obvious gillnetter bias.

An NOAA F bio that I know commented on another board that there is no way to prove either sides contention. After more than six years of dialog with him and considering his credentials and proven lack of bias, I believe him above all others.

Depending on WHERE the gillnetting took place in the river, Mr. Loomis's scenario is plausible, even if the numbers aren't 100% accurate.

[drano100]

Originally Posted by PISCES

Let me get this straight, it's ok for the chaimen of CCA PNW to claim numbers that don't jive with reality and tell lies in order to get more people signed up with CCA? WOW, is this really how CCA wants to be known as? Liars? How will our politicians feel abou this?

Dawhunt, Splash, Backlash2, Hawgboss, drano100, crabbait, eyefish, metalhead, fineline, stlhdr1, Jack smith, remember the Fish First thread by Fishbulb? You were all nay-sayers about the data and here in this story, concrete evidence that prooves him wrong.

HHHMMM Jim Well can break the law(more then 1), pays the fines which means he was guilty
or pleaded no contest but still has creditability and is still president for Salmon for All, even quoted in the paper with Dr Death too. WOW is this really what gill-netting want to be known for lawbreakers. Wait how will the politicians feel about this?



Careful now it can be slung both ways, a fisherman telling fish stories what’s new about that, now if Gary had gone out knowingly and fished illegally, and more than likely killed ESA list fish in the possess then you might have something to take to the press but he did not. Jim Wells of the other hand did and the heads of F & W departments still stand by him side by side now that’s sad but very newsworthy. Bill you still writing for the paper?

[DriftR]

I'll get in on this one. I've always believed in majority rules. Call me old fashioned but that's the way I am.
I contacted the ODFW and spoke with the licensing division manager(In Salem) who handles the Columbia River Gill net permits. That was this week. I wanted to get some first hand information on the process, cost, numbers of permits issused yearly for gillnetters.
I was told that numbers for 2007 (2008 data not available) showed that Oregon issued 305 gillnet permits(308 available) for the Columbia River Gill Net Fishery. The cost for those permits run $75.00 per year. By my calcs the total monies received in 07 for 305 permits was $22,875.00.
Then I asked how does one get a gillnet permit when they come available? After the total number of permits drops below 200 then the ODFW will hold a lottery (ORS #508.792) for those permits available below 200. Then the ODFW will cap the permits issued after the lottery at 200 total when the lottery reaches 200.
So, until the gillnetters retire or give up their permits it looks like a very long time before the numbers of gillnetters even drop below 200.
Now, I spent around $65.00 for my OR fishing license, Salmon, Steelhead,Sturgeon and Halibut tag, Hatchery tag, shellfish license tag in 07. Like many other Oregon residents I assume that is normal. So if 1,000 such complete license & tags are issued then that dollar amount would be $65,000 per year. You can bet that there are many more than 1000 licenses issued in the State of Oregon each year. Take into consideration the daily license fees and out of state license fees to fish in Oregon and the numbers climb.
This is one reason I don't like gillnets or the people who sell or use them. With our total monies paid each year we are adding way more into the state coffers for hatcheries than gillnetters. We are much larger in numbers and provide more profit than the miserable $22,875.00 generated in permits for gill netters in 2007. And we sport fisherman do not kill or maim wild & threatened stock of salmon, steelhead or sturgeon.
I am against all gillnets period. End of story. I will not conduct business with any firm asscociated with the gillnet industry.
Do your part and write your state reps, governor and ODFW and voice your opinions.

[Hagar]

I know of no one who has ever physically stood on Cedar Creek that believes the 16,000 or 30,000 numbers Gary throws around. That include members I know of Fish First. It is pure fantasy. Not close. They have done some wonderful enhancement work but it is literally a small creek and cannot produce those numbers.

I wish CCA well and hope they have a lot of success. Statements like he throws around while increasing the effectiveness of his emotional appeal, damage the credibility of the organization. The facts of our fisheries situation are powerful enough to not need such "embellishment".

[ponyboy]

Originally Posted by drano100

HHHMMM Jim Well can break the law(more then 1), pays the fines which means he was guilty
or pleaded no contest but still has creditability and is still president for Salmon for All, even quoted in the paper with Dr Death too. WOW is this really what gill-netting want to be known for lawbreakers. Wait how will the politicians feel about this?



Careful now it can be slung both ways, a fisherman telling fish stories what’s new about that, now if Gary had gone out knowingly and fished illegally, and more than likely killed ESA list fish in the possess then you might have something to take to the press but he did not. Jim Wells of the other hand did and the heads of F & W departments still stand by him side by side now that’s sad but very newsworthy. Bill you still writing for the paper?

Like bad politicians, they dumb down the conversation. They would love for this to be a gillnetters vs. sporties fight instead of a complex conservation issue to which gillnets don't have any future. Instead, they want it to be an argument over Cedar Creek numbers to discredit the opposition. If Gary said something about an issue that he is passionate about that may not hold up in court doesn't invalidate the effort. Gauranteed when the CCA gets their/our operatives involved at the legislative level the science and numbers will be right on.

[ponyboy]

Sweet....... I'm not a fry any more.

[Splash]

How will a politician feel about someone fudging a few numbers to further a cause or be accused of lying by a group opposed to that cause? That's priceless. You've certainly out done yourself this time Picess.


On the other hand:

James Wells plead no contest to unspecified fisheries violations and was fined $427 which was paid. Clatsop County District Court doc# 074067.

The citations issued were for extended soak time and failure to have an operable recovery box. Both of these items are part of a state sponsored workshop he had to attend to participate in the fishery.

Hhmmm... let me think a moment...fudging of numbers to benefit a cause for the resource or blatant violations of law and total disregard for the resource.

NOT EVEN CLOSE!!!

My $25 bet is on the CCA

Seems to me many of you net lovers were saying that Jimmy boy should resign if he was guilty. Hypocrasy?

[Danno]

Originally Posted by DriftR

Then I asked how does one get a gillnet permit when they come available? After the total number of permits drops below 200 then the ODFW will hold a lottery (ORS #508.792) for those permits available below 200. Then the ODFW will cap the permits issued after the lottery at 200 total when the lottery reaches 200.

Can we as a group under CCA start buying these permits and not fish them? Over time, the gillnetters drop out and then it's entirely owned by fish friendly people. Then there won't be a gillnet consortium to stand against.

If five spots become available and 10 gillnetters and a 1,000 sporties toss a ring into the lottery, odds are that the sporties will get the spots. Let's beat them through attrition as well as through legistration. We should use every avenue at our disposal.

[streamcatcher]

Originally Posted by Thumper

Well, a difference of opinion anyway.

CCA is much more than Gary Loomis. CCA is about the gillnets in the Columbia right now killing native steelhead. CCA is about fostering selective fishing by commercials in the Columbia. CCA is about lots of non-Columbia issues too.

CCA is about fighting to save our precious resources. For our kids, and theirs. For generation after generation to come.

And that is a lot more important than Gary Loomis.

Well said.

People cannot think that the efforts of the CCA are going to stop with gillnets or the Columbia...right?!

This is just the beginning--I'm a CCA member and I'm looking forward to our association having a positive impact on several fronts to support healthy runs and promote the sport of fishing --which I believe is part of all Northwesterner's heritage and a huge benefit to our economy on more fronts than any purely commercial enterprise will ever be.

That said, there's no need to invent numbers--nothing to hide, nothing to fear. Even if gillnets have only an incremental effect on reduced stocks, it's having a disproportionate effect on ESA stocks, and benefits too few to be allowed to continue. This is just one important piece of a larger puzzle.

Can we as a group under CCA start buying these permits and not fish them? Over time, the gillnetters drop out and then it's entirely owned by fish friendly people. Then there won't be a gillnet consortium to stand against.

--thoughts about this? Seems like a reasonable approach to simply buying a solution. It would be pretty interesting to have a number of commercial permit holders show up to an allocation meeting and lobby for lower retention among commercials.

SC

[garyk]

"After the total number of permits drops below 200 then the ODFW will hold a lottery (ORS #508.792) for those permits available below 200."

Good post Driftr.

In order to drag ODFW into the modern era, it will be necessary for us to set our sights on amending/appealing ORS 508.792 -- a law set in place to ensure there is a gillnet fishery, whether the managing agency or the public wants it or not.

[Backlash2]

Originally Posted by PISCES

Let me get this straight, it's ok for the chaimen of CCA PNW to claim numbers that don't jive with reality and tell lies in order to get more people signed up with CCA? WOW, is this really how CCA wants to be known as? Liars? How will our politicians feel abou this?

Dawhunt, Splash, Backlash2, Hawgboss, drano100, crabbait, eyefish, metalhead, fineline, stlhdr1, Jack smith, remember the Fish First thread by Fishbulb? You were all nay-sayers about the data and here in this story, concrete evidence that prooves him wrong.

You're serious?

Concrete evidence?

There isn't 'concrete evidence' either way...in the meantime I'll stand on the side of the line with a man who wants more fish in the rivers...and that's all; Not the side of the line with the people that just want to net the hell out of whatever is left.

"When is Salmon for All's next, or more appropriately FIRST, habitat conservation project scheduled?"
.......and that Pisces, is 'reality'.

Read my post again...and look out for the light!

[Slayer]

Originally Posted by Hagar

I know of no one who has ever physically stood on Cedar Creek that believes the 16,000 or 30,000 numbers Gary throws around. That include members I know of Fish First. It is pure fantasy. Not close. They have done some wonderful enhancement work but it is literally a small creek and cannot produce those numbers.

I wish CCA well and hope they have a lot of success. Statements like he throws around while increasing the effectiveness of his emotional appeal, damage the credibility of the organization. The facts of our fisheries situation are powerful enough to not need such "embellishment".

I fish cedar creek and I believe it

[PISCES]

Originally Posted by Thumper

CCA is about the gillnets in the Columbia right now killing native steelhead.

CCA has proof that native steelhead are being killed? Or is this another fish story?

[fyshndad]

Originally Posted by PISCES

CCA has proof that native steelhead are being killed? Or is this another fish story?

It is well documented that the nets do catch steelhead even while targeting sturgeon let alone salmon
Maybe freespool has a link to that info

Barney ?? Can ya help this guy see the facts & figures

[PISCES]

Originally Posted by AuntyM

According to what is contained in the article, there is no evidence proving Mr. Loomis wrong.

Read the article again .

Almost everything posted by Fishbulb has an obvious gillnetter bias.

An NOAA F bio that I know commented on another board that there is no way to prove either sides contention. After more than six years of dialog with him and considering his credentials and proven lack of bias, I believe him above all others.

Are you talking about Bob the administrator?
Depending on WHERE the gillnetting took place in the river, Mr. Loomis's scenario is plausible, even if the numbers aren't 100% accurate.

Not according to WDFW

[PISCES]

Originally Posted by Slayer

I fish cedar creek and I believe it

Why are you targeting Wild Coho?

[NorthRiverS]

Ifishers,

I know Gary Loomis is a great person to have leading the CCA. However, I just wish Buzz Ramsay would also join the ranks. He is very respected among fishermen, and I know he too would help the cause greatly.

NRS

NorthRiver Pirates"

[Jerry Dove]

Originally Posted by Danno

Can we as a group under CCA start buying these permits and not fish them? Over time, the gillnetters drop out and then it's entirely owned by fish friendly people. Then there won't be a gillnet consortium to stand against.

If five spots become available and 10 gillnetters and a 1,000 sporties toss a ring into the lottery, odds are that the sporties will get the spots. Let's beat them through attrition as well as through legistration. We should use every avenue at our disposal.

I'll buy a couple. JD

[freespool]

Originally Posted by fyshndad

It is well documented that the nets do catch steelhead even while targeting sturgeon let alone salmon
Maybe freespool has a link to that info

Barney ?? Can ya help this guy see the facts & figures

When the >40% gillnet mortality is modeled, ESA salmon and steelhead are accounted for.
It was 3 or 4 years ago that WDFW wanted increase the native steelhead mortality to 6%, what does that tell you?

[AuntyM]

According to what is contained in the article, there is no evidence proving Mr. Loomis wrong.

Read the article again . I did. Nothing wrong with my skills. There is no proof even if you heart REALLY wants there to be some.

Almost everything posted by Fishbulb has an obvious gillnetter bias.

An NOAA F bio that I know commented on another board that there is no way to prove either sides contention. After more than six years of dialog with him and considering his credentials and proven lack of bias, I believe him above all others.

Are you talking about Bob the administrator? WHO?

Depending on WHERE the gillnetting took place in the river, Mr. Loomis's scenario is plausible, even if the numbers aren't 100% accurate.

Not according to WDFW

According to WDFW, gillnets are selective.
According to WDFW, 15% of the crab harvest in Puget Sound is FAIR for sport crabbers who pay EXTRA, while tribes get 50% and commercials get 35%.
According to WDFW, we don't have any overharvest of anything anywhere, ever.

[Ginny Ross]

(Note: This article may help give some background to this discussion to any who are new here. Best, GR)

State fishery managers decided to allow a gillnet season in the Columbia River after most of the early run fish produced by hatcheries had already passed and just as Fish First's naturally produced coho were returning.

"These are endangered fish. These are on the Endangered Species List in the Columbia River," Loomis said. "And they decided the commercial fishermen should get a 30 percent incidental kill. And then they give them an extension with another 15 percent." After seeing 10 years of hard labor negated by a 10-minute decision and a 10-day gillnet season, Loomis said he realized "I'll never be able to raise more fish than the commercial fisherman can harvest."

Gary Loomis looms large in coastal conservation
By MIKE STAHLBERG, Associated Press
The Olympian
December 22, 2007

EUGENE, Ore. - He's hobnobbed with presidents. His likeness hangs alongside those of Ernest Hemingway and Zane Gray in the Sportfishing Hall of Fame. He's been "up to his armpits" in mud working to improve salmon habitat, and now he's up to his eyebrows in politics, having concluded that therein lies the only hope of saving his beloved salmon and steelhead.He's Gary Loomis, a white-haired, 66-year-old dynamo whose smiling likeness graces the cover of the current issue of Outdoor Life Magazine, which named him one of 25 "People Who Have Changed the Face of Hunting & Fishing."
If his name sounds familiar, it might be because it's printed on some of your fishing gear. A machinist by trade and an angler by avocation, Loomis helped pioneer modern carbon-graphite rod technology. In 1982, he started G. Loomis, Inc., which became a leading producer of high-performance fishing rods.
Or the familiarity might stem from the fact Loomis, who lives in Woodland, has been in Eugene-Springfield several times in recent months helping organize a local chapter of the Coastal Conservation Association, the largest sportfishing advocacy group in the United States.

CCA
Formed 30 years ago along the Gulf Coast, the nonprofit CCA bills itself as a "grassroots organization dedicated to the conservation, promotion and enhancement of the marine resources of the United States." It claims more than 94,000 members in 17 state chapters along the Gulf, Atlantic and Pacific coasts.

Loomis is promoting the CCA with the determination of a striped bass chasing a steelhead smolt. He is chairman of both the Oregon and Washington chapters of the CCA's new Pacific Northwest division and has been invited by the governor of Idaho to come talk about launching a chapter in that state.

"Gary Loomis deserves much of the credit for bringing CCA to Washington and Oregon. He has been tireless in spreading the message, and he has the visibility and charisma to draw attention to this issue," said David Cummins, CCA president.
And Loomis has been hooking up lots of members. Since persuading CCA's leadership to create a Pacific Northwest division in March, he's helped launch local chapters in six Oregon and five Washington communities. Nearly 3,000 anglers so far have paid the $25 annual membership fee to join CCA, Loomis said.
His goal is 10 times that many members.

Read the rest here.
=======================================

Coastal Conservation Association moves into the Pacific Northwest
Monday, November 05, 2007BILL MONROE
The Oregonian
T here's a new dog in the fight to rid the Columbia River of gill nets.
. . . and curb over-harvest of salmon and other fish at sea, and perhaps flex some muscle over the growing concern about offshore marine reserves.
. . . and set some political fires beneath the feet of legislators and fish and wildlife commissioners.
. . . and, and, and . . .

"We're going to get to the politicians," said Gary Loomis of Woodland, Wash. "We need to change the way things are done. They'll have to listen to us."

Loomis, godfather of the high-tech, graphite fishing rod industry, is the organizer and head cheerleader behind the appearance in the Pacific Northwest of the Coastal Conservation Association, a 30-year-old Texas-based organization founded to help curb the commercial fishing that nearly destroyed redfish and speckled trout sport fisheries off Texas.
The effort bore enough fruit that chapters spread across the Gulf Coast, then up the Atlantic Coast into New England by the early 1990s and, a few months ago, to the Pacific Coast at Loomis' insistent urging.


The CCA's national political machine encompasses the gamut of fisheries, from grass-roots anglers performing hands-on field work to high-powered political lobbyists in Washington, D.C.


Loomis formed Fish First in 1995 to help resurrect coho salmon runs in Washington's Lewis River, only to see the run decimated in recent years by gill-netting, which he says targeted his fish.

Turning to CCA, however, isn't simply an anti-commercial fishing move, he said, adding that fisheries problems range far beyond the Columbia.

Loomis was interviewed recently after returning from ceremonies inducting him to the Hall of Fame of the International Game Fish Association in Florida, and then to Washington, D.C., for a presidential signing of a bill declaring striped bass a federal game fish (an effort in which CCA also was involved).

"We're not against commercial harvest," he said. "What we need is better ways to selectively harvest."

Read the rest here.

[Slayer]

Originally Posted by PISCES

Why are you targeting Wild Coho?

Did I say I was targeting Wild Coho?

[Nordriftxposure]

Originally Posted by butwhymalemodels

Gary Loomis invented the fishing rod?

Good research, Cassandra Profita.

I thought that to be quite strange myself

[AuntyM]

Originally Posted by Nordriftxposure

I thought that to be quite strange myself

Fishing rod inventor is not the same thing as invented fishing rods. Loomis pioneered the use of graphite for fishing rods. In other words, he invented a "new" kind of rod.

[butwhymalemodels]

Originally Posted by AuntyM

Fishing rod inventor is not the same thing as invented fishing rods. Loomis pioneered the use of graphite for fishing rods. In other words, he invented a "new" kind of rod.

Aye, but if we (PISCES) are taking this article as factual, then we must take it all as factual. No picking and choosing. The article clearly states that Gary Loomis is the inventor of fishing rods.

[garyk]

"Gillnetters Running Scared"

Maybe.

What really matters is they are heavily lobbying the Oregon legislators. You will see the result of this.

Has your legislator heard from you?

[Smoked Salmon]

Originally Posted by AuntyM

Fishing rod inventor is not the same thing as invented fishing rods. Loomis pioneered the use of graphite for fishing rods. In other words, he invented a "new" kind of rod.

That still doesn't sound right. I think he merely made a better graphite rod, one that he was happy using, and that level of craftsmanship was popular with steelhead fishers in the PacNW. No need to say he invented the use of graphite in fishing rods. At least, I can't find anything on the internets that says that.