Your Spring chinook seasons next year....don't loose out

[David Johnson]

THIS IS AN EMAIL I JSUT GOT FROM NSIA, READ THIS AND LET THE COMMISION KNOW WE ARE OUT HERE.


The 2002 season for Spring Chinook is still somewhat undecided. Your input is needed and valuable. It is difficult for us to make an argument that there are tens of thousands more sportfishers than commercial fishers when they don't hear from us!!!

The FINAL decision will be made at the Washington Commission on December 7th or 8th, and at the Oregon Commission December 14th. Mark your calendars, if this is an important fishery to you or your business.

Below is a press release from ODF&W. We have our work cut out for us. We are still attempting to obtain a sport season that DOES NOT CLOSE in the Columbia, and a quality sportfishery in the Willamette that does not diminish due to heavy commercial interception. For help writing letters, making phone calls, or if you want to see a copy of the testimony NSIA presented at the hearing, call Liz @ 503 631 8859 or Phil @ 503 635 6365.

PS at a two state public hearing in Vancouver last Tuesday, approximately 40 NSIA members showed up. THANKS! At the Oregon Commission meeting Friday, you can thank Steve Grutbo, Dan Grogan, Trey Carskadon, Don Swartz, Randy Woolsey, Ron Hillar, Paul Raney, Phil Donovan and myself. There were almost as many Commercial fishing representatives. This is a lot of heaving lifting, please lend a hand, if you can.


Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Contact: Anne Pressentin (503) 872-5264 x5356
Internet: www.dfw.state.or.us Fax: (503) 872-5700

For Immediate Release November 16, 2001

Commission Hears Options for 2002 Willamette and Columbia Rivers Spring Chinook Allocation

PORTLAND - The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission heard options Friday for sharing spring chinook runs between sport and commercial fishing interests that seek to sustain wild and hatchery runs, give season stability, and provide economic benefits.
A final decision on the Willamette and Columbia rivers spring chinook sharing plan will be made in December by both the Washington and Oregon fish and wildlife commissions.
The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission establishes rules and sets policy for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) to implement. The six-member panel meets monthly in Portland and in other locations throughout the state.
To set spring chinook fisheries, the Commission has to consider an equitable split between commercial and sport harvest for Willamette spring chinook and splitting an allowed impact to wild Upriver Columbia spring chinook. The allowed total impact ranges from 0.85 to 1.7 percent of the wild run, depending on the number of fish.
Two allocation options presented by staff for the harvest of Willamette River fish in Lower Willamette and Lower Columbia River fisheries are patterned after Willamette spring chinook allocation plans in place from 1987-1997. No fishing would be allowed if the hatchery run size is less than 23,000 fish. Sport fishing would be allowed with a run size between 23,000 and 40,000 fish. Splitting the hatchery fish run between commercial and sport interests would occur when it reaches 40,000. Option One allows sport anglers to harvest 76 percent of a run-size of 40,000 to 75,000 fish and 70 percent if the run is greater than 75,000. Option Two uses a more graduated approach for the allocation as the run size increases, which has the effect of providing more sport fishing when there is between 40,000 and 50,000 fish.
In 2001, the Willamette spring chinook run was 80,000 fish and the Upriver spring chinook run was 417,000 fish.
The second consideration is the sharing of Upriver wild impacts. ODFW staff presented three options. The first option establishes a decision matrix with a sliding scale based on run size of Upriver hatchery and wild fish and the Willamette hatchery run size. A sport fishery in the Lower Columbia through April would be allowed if the Willamette run was greater than 40,000 and the Upriver run was greater than 75,000.
The second option establishes a 50-50 split of the impact, which would likely allow a full April sport fishery if the Upriver run is greater than 75,000 fish. The third option sets the sport impact rate at 1 percent, which provides a high likelihood of a full April sport fishery with Upriver runs greater than 50,000. However, under the third option, commercial interests would not have access to their Willamette allocation during years of low Upriver runs.
The Commission will accept written comment on the options through Dec. 13, 2001. Write to ODFW Commission, PO Box 59, Portland, OR 97207. Public testimony will be taken at the next Commission meeting on Dec. 14, 2001 in Portland. For more information about the options, contact ODFW Fish Division at (503) 872-5252.

[David Johnson]

THE ODFW STAFF WANT TO GIVE THE COMMERCIALS A MUCH LARGER PERCENTAGE OF YOUR FISH NEXT YEAR, LET THEM KNOW YOUR VOICE.

[Fishbulb]

Just whose fish are they? The sport fishing industry would like hook and liners to think that they are the only ones that have the right to harvest these fish. The sport industry would love to persuade the non-fishing public that the commercial fleet is hoarding huge hauls of these fish for no one to benefit from or that the sporty is a noble conservationist trying only to save salmon stocks. The truth is they want to do this only in order to expand their own enterprise. This has been the theme of the last 100 years. One user group pitted against another.

I pay my electric bills. Part of that money goes to hatchery mitigation. I pay state and federal taxes every year. Columbia River hatcheries are almost entirely funded by the Federal Department of Commerce/BPA funds for hydroelectric mitigation. Why should I be excluded from participating in the use of this resource just because I don't own a boat or can't get lucky enough to catch a springer. Why should I be excluded from getting one of these fish at the store. Why should we have to discard so many unuseable surplus hatchery fish that the sport fleet couldn't catch because the fish just weren't on the bite. There is no logical reason.

Maybe we should exclude people from the use of their state and federal timber resources unless they have the ability to get into the forests with no roads, cut the trees down on their own, mill it into lumber and then assemble their own home. We could call it sport timber harvests. I live in a wood home. I am sure glad their are people out their who are in the business of allowing me to partake in the use of this natural resource.

Don't be fooled. This is one $ interest trying to get anothers share. It isn't sporty against commercial. It is Sport Industry $ against commercial harvest groups. Everyone deserves a share of this upcoming harvest even if they don't have a sport fishing license.

[Joe Schwab]

Fishbulb, WAKE UP!!! This is not about one group against the other. This is about fish and the opportunity to take them. Fish are a public resource. What gave these gillnetters the EXCLUSIVE right to harvest a public resource and then pay the state pennies a pound while they get dollars a pound. Compare it to timber? Timber companies pay the state for the wholesale value of the timber. Obviously there are few options to getting timber out of the woods. There are many options to harvest excess fish and still get fish to the non fishing consumer. Traps at fish ladders could selectively harvest hatchery fish and allow wild fish to proceed on their journey.
Go out and try to get a gillnet permit from the state. You can't. You have to buy one from an existing gillnetter. He gets the profit. Granted anglers cannot harvest all the fish that
come in, so does that mean we should turn the gillnets loose on fish runs and harvest wild along with hatchery fish? How many spring chinook did you see at Fred Meyers or Safeway this year? Could you afford them? the salmon you see in the store come from fish farms for the most part. Most spring chinook go out of state or to expensive restaurants. The issue is not one of sport against commercial. The issue is METHOD!!! When you or anyone in the commercial fishery can show me a way to harvest fish alongside a sport fishery without adversely affecting that sport fishery, bring it on! Sports cannot compete alongside gillnets. That is the bottom line. Until that time comes I have no sympathy for the fact you do not have the time or wherewithal to go out and catch your own fish. You want someone to do it for you and you do not care what the consequences are. Shame!!
:depressed: :depressed: :depressed:

[Hookset]

Fishbulb, Have a few questions so I understand your point better. Are you a commercial fisherman? Or is your interest as a consumer, so you may buy a fish from the store? Would you please explain who makes up the Sport Fishing industry?

You also made reference to hook and liners, I assume this is a commercial fising group. The only commercial fishing that I'm aware of on the Columbia is gill netting. Why do hook and liners have a stake in the Columbia allocation?

For starters, I'm a sport fisherman. I fish for the opportunity to catch a fish. If a larger percentage of these available fish are allocated to commercial groups, that impacts my success. And if enough sports fisherpeople are impacted, people stop fishing because they don't catch fish. If enough people stop fishing, they won't buy as much gas, or tackle, or hotel rooms, or food. The amount of dollars lost could number in the millions and impact a wide variety of people and businesses. The same argument could be made to protect commercial interest, except I've read where the dollars lost would only amount to a small percentage compared to sport fishing.

This is not only about dollars, it's about selective fishing. With some native upper Columbia fisheries in danger of extinction, this is also about survival. Sports fisherpeople have the ability to successfuly select hatchery fish. Commercial gill netters do not. Fish traped in a gill net die. How can you protect native fish with the use of gill nets? I've read the information about the tangle nets. The article I read mentioned that a large percentage of the fish survived only to be consumed by seals when unable to escape from the ordeal with the net.

Yes, the controversy surrounding our fisheries is an old one. The picture is becoming clearer each year. We need to save wild fish and provide support to those who provide the greater positive impact, the Sport Fishing Industry.

With the Columbia commercial fishing industry unable to compete on a world wide market and having difficulty finding adequate prices for their catch, the future looks bleak. How much were they paid per pound this fall, ten cents, maybe thirty cents if the fish was chrome bright and un-marked? How can any commercial fisherman keep fishing at those prices? The average sport fishing trip per person averages apx. 75$. With a price of .10 cents a pound the commercial fisherman would have to catch 750 pounds of fish. Who really benifits from that? Maybe pet food manufacturers?

Bottom line, lets save our salmon by acting responsibly and support the industry that provides the greater good, the Sports Fishing Industry.

As with every part of life, balance is important. Commercial fishing does provide people with fresh sea food which as a consumer I sometimes purchase. I'm not advocating closing commercial fishing, except in areas or methods that can not fish responsibly, like gill netting. If the commercials are allowed to catch fish on the Columbia, the season and limits should be more restrictive then sports fisherpeople. An equal 50/50 split is not fair and negatively impacts sports fishing. The percentages should favor the sports group.

I'm not fooled and I really do understand what's at stake, hope you do too.

Gregg

[Lund]

i am not a commercial fisherman, but yet an avid sportfisher. i do however know that the gillnets in the columbia river last spring caught no more than 2000 spring salmon TOTAL. and i know that 1500 of those fish were marked and released in tooth tangle nets. if im not mistaken the sportsman caught close to if not more than 10,000 fish in the columbia river and 7000 in the willamette river.i've fished many rivers in AK that get netted 24hrs a day for weeks. the whole river may only be as big as the wilson. yet we catch tons of fish. we shouldn't look so hard at pointing fingers at nets until we have all the evidence. our run comes in over a long period of time and the nets don't even touch that. NO, i dont agree with netting a fish to sell it when they cant hardly give them away for 1 penny. but we really need to look at how many spring salmon they got in the nets last year, not many!

[Fishbulb]

Hook and line is the sport fishery.

Don't leave out hydropower, agriculture, forestry and the outher user groups.

The sport fishing industry are those commercial orginizations that accumulate revenue through sport fisheries. For example, profesional guides and groups like NSIA who are backed with money from bait & tackle companies, boat companies, general accomidations and so on.

I am not a commercial fisherman. I can see why you probably think I am by my position. I love to sport fish any chance I get. I just see the truth on a BB that is riddled with inuendo and baseless accusations. Again, the brunt of the arguement against my case is $. The commercial fleet can't contribute the total $ that the sport fleet can is the way it goes. We are the one and only group that has conservation in mind.

The arguement is rediculous.

As far as taxes and fees on commercial fisherman. Look in the states commercial regs and fees and you'll be surprised at how much it costs them. I was.

The commercial fleet is the most selective as a whole. It is incredibly easy to change time place and gear to protect weak stocks. Sport fisheries are so willie nillie that almost any rule change in season is futile.

Impacts to listed stocks are heavily weighted on the sporty side. The sporties get and impact rate and the fishery stops when that has been achieved. The commercial fleet gets a fraction of what the sporties get and they stop when that has been achieved. The sporties impacts are on fish that never go home to the freezer (they could take those fish home if they wanted but the season would be very short as selective fisheries allow the fleet to spread its impact). The same # of wild fish are dead no matter how you look at it. The commercial guys impacts are in fish that are actually retained and sold (not this spring). Both fleets kill wild fish. But all the conservation goals have been set long before either fishery gets started. Allocation meetings are not about conservation they are about who gets what after weaks stocks have been significantly protected. The arguement comes back around to $ (and $ only) when you get into which method generates the most money. That is what I would like for BB participants to realize.

[David Johnson]

What should we think about people like the guy next door to me this summer in Astoria.

He is a Columbia River Pilot. He is also a Gillnetter. He makes $250,000 a year as a River Pilot. He also showed me a freezer in his garauge that had a couple shelves of spring chinook fillets. He gillnetted them. Never sold one. He was telling me about the sockeye season they had and how good eating those fish are. He never sold them. He told me how good they were smoked.

He is not alone. There are a lot of guys out there that gillnet, but not for a living.

The argument is in the numbers any way. Who contibutes more to the economy? Sport fishers. And they contribute their money not for the fish, but for the opportunity to catch a fish. The less opportunity they have to catch one, the less they will put out into the economy.

I would like to see a spring chinook in a super market. In 20 years I don't think I've ever seen one. Even if there was some in the store Joe consummer isn't going to slap down the kind of money a springer is worth, they are going to buy that imported farm salmon for $3 a pound.

I didn't start this post to start a big argument, just letting people know they have the opportunity to voice their opinion to those that make the rules. For so long the sports fishing community has sat around complaining about the nets, now it's time to get with it.

[Hookset]

Thanks David for reminding us about the upcoming decissions regarding Columbia river Spring Chinook allocations. If you desire an opportunity to fish for next years Columbia river Spring Chinook, then at least, the very minimum you can do is draft a letter showing your support. Below is the address and deadline you'll need to get those letters in the mail.

The Commission will accept written comment on the options through Dec. 13, 2001. Write to ODFW Commission, PO Box 59, Portland, OR 97207. Public testimony will be taken at the next Commission meeting on Dec. 14, 2001 in Portland. For more information about the options, contact ODFW Fish Division at (503) 872-5252.

Thanks for your help,

Gregg