Ban Gill Nets Initiative!

[Born to be Wild]

Ban Gill Nets Initiative?

Well I think it should be obvious to casual friends of mine <names edited> that what I posted months ago that gill nets are not in the sports fishermen’s best interest!

As I stated that when you figure in the equation of:
Gillnets = more hatchery fish
Gillnets = more mortality on wild fish
More mortality on wild fish = less sport fishing on hatchery fish and wild fish for sports and commercials.

Is that better than:
0 (zero) Gillnets = 0 (zero) mortality on hatchery and wild fish (commercially).
Sports mortality alone = larger season on available hatchery fish.
Larger hatchery sports season = big boost to the economy and happy fishermen!

Allowing sports fishermen alone and educating them will allow a very proficient and beneficial fishery, but allowing the on-going practice of gill net fisheries allows the smaller economic benefit and reduces the larger economic benefit in many different ways.

Sorry folks, but the gill net fishery has outgrown its time as the “Buffalo Hunter’s” has!
This from any logical, biological standpoint is totally ridiculous and a detriment to our current situation!

Gill Netter’s,
from whatever ethical or unethical justification you pry on, your time has come!
There is no (zero) room for you today in our current fisheries management!

If you had any kind of conscious, you would plead for fisheries management to buy you out!

Shame on you, and now you river pillager’s are fighting to hurt the un-healthy steelhead runs even more instead of helping them recover?

It’s time to form an alliance with all other sports fisher’s regardless of our differences, but we all have the same common goal to rid the Columbia River or any other river as far as that goes, to get rid of the Columbia River gill netters for once and for all!

Let’s be come united and put this forth on the ballot again and this time, win!

Sure the last time the commercial gill netter's showed people in the Seattle area via television commercials of how their family’s were going to college financed by the gill-net monies, etc., but let's show them a few harbor seal’s entangled in gill nets and see what these voter's think!
Remember the boycott on tuna that was caught in nets some years ago and the images of all the other critters that were caught in those same nets?

Show the non-fisherman the added advantages of sports caught fish and the devastating loss of wild fish and other species caught in commercial gill nets!

Are you ready to get together as a group and get rid of this destructive gill net behavior?

It’s about time!
Quit moanin' and groain' and let's do it!

Dano

[ 02-28-2004, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: Born to be Wild ]

[BUGLEMAN]

Rightly said, is there an Initiative as of Yet and some seed money?

[glassblower]

There is a reason why the gillnets were removed from the bays and ocean. Why anyone thinks they should be in the Columbia (or any place) is poor thinking. Next; teach people what garbage cans are for...

[Born to be Wild]

Thanks for editing my post Skein! :smile:

I got home last night at the Sportsman’s club on the Kalama and someone there set me off about the gill netters.
A few beers didn't help either.
This particular individual has lived there all his life and like most people have a major attitude regarding gill netting in the river and no understanding of it.

He is working with a couple sports fishing groups and asked for my help in joining forces and organizing an anti-gill netters alliance.

Sorry, but I just get sick of hearing about gill nets on a dailey basis.
Kind of takes the pleasure out of fishing.

I was told a few years ago that after the anti gill net ballot failed that it would require a certain amount of years to get it on the ballot again.
I don't know that much about politics’.

Does anybody know the time frame and when the last time the anti gill net ban was on the ballot.

I’m very serious about getting involved with this and getting the gill-netters removed from the lower Columbia.
It is bad business and absolutely makes no sense at all.

I think from lessons learned from the last failed attempt, we could accomplish it this time around.

Dano

[boater]

dan, you ever look at this site and see who belongs to them ? LINK

[Jignfloat]

If its going to be another "Ban all nets" type initiative, the only recommendation I would have is to time it "Post Gary Locke"....as most of us from Wa. know, his alliance with the Commercial Fishermans Guild is profound. That is one very large reason the initiative was defeated last go'round. Soon as its up and running, I will gladly pack paper work for signatures again. Last time we turned in many signatures, having collected them from several commercial construction sites in the Seattle area.

Hope it happens....Russ

[Born to be Wild]

Boater,

I looked at the link you provided and didn't figure out what you were getting at.
Maybe I didn't explore the site good enough.

I guess a couple points I was trying to bring out was that awhile back I got involved with a ifish gill net thread where some were suggesting that we work together with the gill netters and I said; "as long as we have gill nets, we will have conflict".

This latest steelhead mortality issue is a good reminder of that.

Also for those that suggest we need the gill-netters to lobby for more hatchery fish I don't buy into that.
We could settle for less hatchery fish without the gill-netters and still have plenty of hatchery fish for the sportsmen and we would in all probability gain more time on the water due to the lack of the commercial mortality.

Actually I believe that is why the Falcon to Humbug ocean coho quota was increased last year to 88,000 from the time it left the Ocean Salmon Industry meeting to when the PFMC or NOAA started juggling the numbers.

The commercial troll fleet pointed out at the meeting that they had the "credit card" effect and would loose time on the ocean last year due to over harvesting some Klamath River stocks the year before.
The commercials suggested that the sports be given some of the commercial incidental mortality on wild coho since they wouldn't be using it due to there lost time on the water.

As I said I am not familiar with the political scheme of things and I'll ask again, does anyone know when we would be eligible to get an anti nets initiative on the ballot again?

I really think we could beat them this time around.

Remember the boycott on tuna that was caught in nets some years ago and the images of all the other critters that were caught in those same nets?

Maybe we could have commercials showing those same kinds of images?
Maybe commercials with some local celebrity fishermen like Kevin Duckworth, etc. endorsing the initiative?

I think we could beat it but just simply couldn’t rely on the sports fishermen to out vote the rest of the state.
We would have to get organized and spend some money as the gill-netters did the last go around.

Dan

[freespool]

What effect would this have on the Columbia River? This river is governed by both Oregon&Washington,how can one state dictate law over the other? Doesn't make much sense to me,pass a ban on gillnets on the Columbia in Washington,then Oregon challenges it in court and nullifies it.

salmon hugger

[WHO'S BELLS RINGING?]

I WOULD BE FIRST IN LINE FOR A STACK OF PETITIONS OUR ECONOMY NEEDS TO RID ITSELF OF MANY THINGS NETS SHOULD BE ON THE TOP OF THE LIST,FOR EVERY FISH THEY NET WE AS COSUMERS LOSE 100'S OF DOLLARS. IT JUST FRIES MY HIDE WHEN THEY GO IN AND WE GET CUT OFFFFFFFFFFFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Pete]

Oregon and Washington regulations govern the Columbia through a federal agency called the Columbia River Compact, which was formed to administer a federal settlement of the U.S. v. Oregon case. Additionally, compliance with federal ESA and commerce issues are outside the control of the states. Further, treaty rights are superior to any state or even federal regulation. There are far bigger issues on the horizon if the feds decide they can reduce the flow of the Columbia, which could seriously impact spawning and survival. There is a bounty of fish. Gill net mortality on wild steelhead last year was reported as 229 fish ... I don't know quite what a state based gill net ban would accomplish.

[sturgn]

Not just the Salmon are affected by the gill nets, have you ever been in the Estuary during and after a Sturgeon day for the netters? I could tell they had netted by the number of floating Sturgeon, it would make me ill to see all dead sturgeon floating down there.

I try to stay out of these political discussions, but I see no reason to have a Gill net fishery on any river period. They dont make any money at it, Most salmon that are purchased at the store come from farms anyway, I guess I just dont understand thh whole mentality of it?

Can someone explain why its seems to be a right that people can net the rivers? Dont give me that they have always done it and its all they know argument either(Except for the tribal fishery). I am in the Electronics field and when my business gets slow, theres nobody jumpin in and saying thats all they know and they have to work. They say sorry find a new job or learn a new skill. I see no difference in this situation.

[ 02-21-2004, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: sturgn ]

[boater]

Originally posted by sturgn:


I guess I just dont understand thh whole mentality of it?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">the stae by law has got to provide a viable fishery for the commercial fisherman that didnt get bought out, if i had to guess i`d say that the wdfw is getting pressure from back east to find some way to make sure they get one and thats why the state is wanting to increase the take of esa listed steelhead, that will give the gillnetters more salmon to harvest and then the people back east will get a bigger payment on the loan they gave the state to buy out the gillnetters. and then you have the people who think if we ban commercial gillnetting all the hatcherys will close, if that was the case and the only reason hatcherys were still operating then why when it comes to the columbia river do the sportsman get more of virtualy every fish that swims it ?

[SuperPanga]

To all sportfishers who want to ban gillnetting, be careful,you may be opening a door that you may not be able to close again. A ban on gillnetting may open the door to animal rights groups that would like all hunting, fishing etc. banned. It may make a sport fishing ban possible in the not to distant future. Their reasoning will be , gee, we stopped x number of fish killed by gill nets but wait a minute--- sport fishers are killing *** number of fish. Think about that.

[BUGLEMAN]

:smile:

[Born to be Wild]

I don't think so SuperPanga.

I don't think your logic works on that one.
Maybe we shouldn't have banned riding a motorcycle without a helmet.
Next thing you know we will have to wear a helmet while driving a car. :grin:

No, I don't think that is a consideration.

There is a reason that this behavior or methadology is not taking place anywhere else in the United States.
It is obviously a problem that needs to be fixed.
100 years ago fine, this day and age, no way.
I was told that at the old WDFW office in Olympia they had a poster that said; Jesus was a gill netter.
Shows the mentality of some.

Maybe we could issue them some commercial deer and elk tags too and let them shoot them from a helocopter. :grin:

Dano

[boater]

dan, alittle reading from the last attempt

NET BAN INITIATIVE STIRS UP RHETORIC ON BOTH SIDES

Talk is heating up over an initiative on Washington's November ballot that would outlaw most commercial fishing by nets in state waters. The measure, known as Initiative 696, was written by sports fishing advocate Tom Nelson, editor of The Reel News, a monthly fishing publication based in Renton, Washington. Backers obtained 234,750 signatures to get the measure on the ballot. Election officials determined that 194,000 were valid--14,000 more than the minimum required by law.

I-696 would ban all non-tribal nets, commercial trolling except for reef nets, crab and shrimp pots and herring dip-bag nets in the state, which includes areas within three miles of the Washington coast.

Commercial
Fall bumper crop of political slogans
fishing interests are slowly coming together to fight Initiative 696, with bumper stickers appearing around Seattle's waterfront that say "I'm a fisherman, not a felon." If I-696 passes, net fishing would become a Class C felony, clouding the future of the proposed buy-back system for state commercial fishermen. The program was spelled out in the recent US/Canada agreement over salmon harvests between the two countries.

Commercial groups have the support of Gov. Gary Locke, the League of Women Voters, most mainstream environmental groups--including Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and the Washington Environmental Council--along with some sports groups like the Northwest Sportsfishing Industry Association and the Westport Charterboat Association.

All take issue with the draconian nature of the initiative and its harsh tone. According to the pro-initiative website, "the purpose of Initiative 696 is straightforward and simple--to stop the killing of endangered and threatened salmon, seabirds and sealife by removing commercial fishing nets from Washington waters. Nets are so deadly efficient that many Washington fishery stocks have been netted to near collapse. This has led to Endangered Species listings of many fish stocks and seabirds. State and federal leadership have failed to protect our marine resources. The burden now falls on the voters of Washington State. ESA listings and salmon recovery efforts have already cost the taxpayers millions of dollars in 1999. The expenses and liabilities will only grow unless we remove destructive nets from Washington waters."

Commercial interests say it boils down to nothing more than a fish allocation issue. If nets are banned, they say sports fishermen will get more fish to catch--mainly chinook and coho. Data from the Pacific Fishery Management Council shows that sporties in Puget Sound already catch considerably more chinook and coho than the commercial sector.

The Puget Sound sports sector caught more than 58,000 chinook in 1997, the last year for which recreational catch figures are available, whereas non-treaty commercials caught only 21,600. As for coho, sporties boated 130,000 fish, while non-treaty commercials caught only 9,600. Treaty fishermen (the Indian fishery) caught 41,000 chinook and 142,000 coho.

These numbers point to the fact that members of the Puget Sound commercial fleet--most of whom spend the summer season in Alaska anyway--are allowed mainly to fish fall chum runs in Hood Canal, where hatchery fish are plentiful. In 1997, the commercial catch by non-treaty gillnetters and purse seiners amounted to nearly 682,000 chums. Treaty fishermen caught 660,000 chums.

A letter from Washington state officials of Trout Unlimited to their members has recognized these facts. In part, it says "opponents of the net ban will be able to paint the net ban supporters as greedy by pointing out to the public the imbalance in the harvest of these fish."

The TU letter--which admits the initiative will likely be defeated by a wide margin--doesn't take sides, but does point out that Trout Unlimited will be "lumped together with groups that believe that the only way to have more fish is to take them from other fishers. TU's hard-won reputation will be lost."

On the other hand, if I-696 passes, the fate of the state's commercial license buy-out program "isn't clear to us, either," said Bruce Crawford, license division manager for WDF&W. He said the US/Canada agreement calls for a $30 million federal buy-out program designed to reduce US harvest of Fraser River sockeye.

Crawford said the Senate has allocated $15 million for the buy-out in next year's budget, but the House has set aside no dollars for it. Crawford said it was likely a conference committee would agree to partial funding, and more for the buy-out the following year, but he was cautious about expressing an opinion on the legality of the situation.

"Can a state affect a law that nullifies part of a federal treaty?" Crawford asked.

When the
Seiners in Hood Canal
Columbia River Alliance came out in support of Initiative 696 on Sept. 24, the rhetorical exuberance in its newsletter seemed to borrow from Greenpeace's old campaign against high seas gillnetting. "The commercial net fishery has wiped out salmon stocks and created havoc with herring, pollock, lingcod, sablefish, rockfish and whiting populations. Species population levels are so low that a net ban is necessary to prevent extinction," said the Sept. 24 Alliance Alert.

But Seattle Greenpeace spokesman Paul Clarke said his group did not support the net ban initiative because "it casts its net too wide. There is room in our environment for a vibrant sustainable fishery."

CRA's Lovelin admitted the ban would have no effect on tribal gillnetting, but he hoped that Indian fishermen "will see this as a good opportunity to explore selective fishing techniques, too."

According to Tony Meyer of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, 1,300 to 1,500 tribal members are currently fishing commercially in the state--down from over 3,000 in the early 1980s. Commission chairman Billy Frank has gone on record opposing the proposed net ban as well. If the initiative passes, about 1,500 non-treaty fisherman would be affected by the ban. -B.R.

[Bill Monroe]

Pete's right...There are a lot bigger problems facing us all on the Columbia...
Ban gill nets so you can watch tribal fishermen use theirs?
Pay attention to the corps and BPA...that's where a whole lot of effort needs to go...

[crabbait]

As long as the Columbia is a hatchery supported put-and-take fishery there will need to be a method for commercial fishermen to get their share. A lot of the money that bought those hatchery salmon comes out of the pockets of the non-fishing J. Q. Public. Commercial harvest is how the public gets to access the fish.

Every anti-net effort previously has focused on the economic value of sport caught versus commercial caught salmon. This argument is easily defeated by the commercial interests because it makes the sport fisherman look like he only cares about taking away the commercial fisherman's share (greedy!).

A successful initiative would have to include a method or means for commercial fishermen to catch their share of the fish without impacting endangered and non-target species (selective harvest).

Remember, sport fisheries have been closed in the past due to commercials by-catch of endangered non-target species, not because they caught too many clipped springers.

On a side not: Suppose ODFW/WDFW/Columbia Compact got permission to raise the wild steelhead impact allocation to 5-6% but left the commercial impact limit at 2-3%. If the commercials met/exceeded the 2-3% limit their season would end but sport fishing could continue by using an allocation of an additional 1-2% impact. Evidently, the powers that be feel that the steelhead run is healthy enough to sustain the additional impact. Could it be that they are looking for a way to deconflict the sport and commercial seasons?

[garyk]

For an Oregon historical perspective...

I've lost track but 10-plus years ago the Association of Northwest Steelheaders qualified a ballot initiative in Oregon.

Unfortunately, it was soundly defeated. The argument was not compelling to the public. Gillnets are a big issue to Columbia River sportfishers - but totally inconsequential to likely 99% of the voting public. As mentioned above, the public - including key conservation groups that were needed as allies - saw the fight as simply one of allocation. Which group was going to kill the fish? On that question, the public didn't care. The Steelheaders were never able to frame the issue as one of 'conservation'.

As noted above, Army Corp of Engineer decisions on summer water flows are a huge issue. In the same way that gillnets aren't on the public's radar screen, the same can largely be said for these water flows and fisherman. Water flows and related policy issues are likely a better focus for everyone's energy; while continually advocating that the commercials move to a non-lethal, fully selective mode of fishing.

[AuntyM]

Crabbait,

If the commercials met/exceeded the 2-3% limit their season would end but sport fishing could continue by using an allocation of an additional 1-2% impact.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That is a very dangerous assumption. Most sport groups in WA do not believe commercials would be stopped at 2-3%. Why do you?

Tripling the take of ESA listed wild steelhead that have NOT recovered is a big mistake and one I hope NOAA Fisheries will not allow.

I agree with you that commercial harvests will and should continue, to allow the public to access the hatchery fish.

There are too many other, fish friendly ways to do it. I am certain what we need to overcome is the resistance of the commercials to consider those ways, if they want to stay in business. Even if it is more labor intensive, they should change or get out for the sake of the endangered or threatened stocks. Stocks that previously supported them and their way of life need their help NOW!

If we know how many "wild" steelhead die in these fisheries, does anyone know how many of the hatchery steelhead are killed? They can't harvest those fish, so it's a serious waste for the sport fishers and upriver tribal fishers.

Banning gillnets is nothing new. It's a hot issue worldwide, not just in the US. Until we learn that only sustainable harvests are acceptable, this fight with sport interests will continue. We want our share but we don't want to wipe out other fisheries to do it. If the Feds were to ban gillnets in all US inland waters, the tribes could not use them either. However... the tribes "own" 50% of the harvestable fish. It's best if we all quit agonizing over that and work to change those conditions that we can and push for the use of more selective and less harmful methods.

[crabbait]

I never said I believed it Aunty M. It is simply one option that they may be considering.

It makes sense to me that they would want to avoid the enormous backlash that occurs when commercial impacts close sport seasons. The option that I mentioned would allow sport fishing to continue while keeping commercial impact to wild steelhead stocks at their historic levels.

Just because it makes sense does not mean that it will be adopted or even considered.

[ 02-22-2004, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: crabbait ]

Have them all stand at the fish ladders and pick out the ones they want? Show me the statistics, data or facts for anyone that is truely making a living off of their catch and sell to market in the Columbia River. Anyone? Commercial fishing is a very honorable trade and I support them 100 percent. Gillnet fishing is not. :depressed:

The tribes can also keep as many as they want for ceremonial purposes or subsistance. [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[BUGLEMAN]

There is an underlying inequity with the commercial harvest. Can I get a boat and go out and harvest these fish. Why should someone be enriched by this resourse and others can't? Why should they be entitled to just dip cash out of the river with a net or a gaff at the fishladder and I can't? My taxes have paid for these fish just as much as thiers.

[AuntyM]

Crabbait,

If I misunderstood you, then perhaps someone else would have also. Good to clear that up then aye?

Any live trapping method on the river will entail hand sorting/releasing so it would be more labor intensive.

But something I hope ALL commercial fishermen will consider... they can not even come CLOSE to harvesting the amount they are allowed BECAUSE they are sticking to gill or tangle tooth nets that have too high a rate of impact.

If they can use a better method to gather those harvestable fish, they'd likely make some serious cash even though they had to work harder.

[AuntyM]

There is an underlying inequity with the commercial harvest.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Bugleman, I think you are correct. My thought is that this is a situation the general public approves of, so this is what we get.

Gathering and selling of natural resources has been around a long time. When it is over used or abused is when society starts to examine the practices. Change may come someday, but on this issue... everyone that utilizes the resource is pointing a finger at all other parties and we have no concensus by our leaders as to the best course of action. Hence, public pressure for change does not accumulate enough to force change.

Well... that's only my non expert opinion of course.

[fish-bones]

HEH,BORN TO BE WILD.Iv,e been posting to get rid of GILLNETTERS for some time now,asking for help to get this on an iniative with not much help as yet.I even said that I would donate the first HUNDRED DOLLARS. It is great to see your post and the responses to it.I will help as much as I can, and still willing to donate the first HUNDRED DOLLARS.I have some good ideas ,and i,m sure you have ,with everybody working to rid WA.&OR.of the scummy gillnetters.I have an idea of getting non-fisherman interested,even if they are just pleasure boaters.There is a lot of sources to ask for help in funding this initiative.

FISH_BONES.

Originally posted by Born to be Wild:
Ban Gill Nets Initiative?

Well I think it should be obvious to casual friends of mine &lt;names edited&gt; that what I posted months ago that gill nets are not in the sports fishermen’s best interest!

As I stated that when you figure in the equation of:
Gillnets = more hatchery fish
Gillnets = more mortality on wild fish
More mortality on wild fish = less sport fishing on hatchery fish and wild fish for sports and commercials.

Is that better than:
0 (zero) Gillnets = 0 (zero) mortality on hatchery and wild fish (commercially).
Sports mortality alone = larger season on available hatchery fish.
Larger hatchery sports season = big boost to the economy and happy fishermen!

Allowing sports fishermen alone and educating them will allow a very proficient and beneficial fishery, but allowing the on-going practice of gill net fisheries allows the smaller economic benefit and reduces the larger economic benefit in many different ways.

Sorry folks, but the gill net fishery has outgrown its time as the “Buffalo Hunter’s” has!
This from any logical, biological standpoint is totally ridiculous and a detriment to our current situation!

Gill Netter’s,
from whatever ethical or unethical justification you pry on, your time has come!
There is no (zero) room for you today in our current fisheries management!

If you had any kind of conscious, you would beg for fisheries management to buy you out!

Shame on you, and now you river pillager’s are fighting to hurt the un-healthy steelhead runs even more instead of helping them recover?

It’s time to form an alliance with all other sports fisher’s regardless of our differences, but we all have the same common goal to rid the Columbia River or any other river as far as that goes, to get rid of the Columbia River gill netters for once and for all!

Let’s be come united and put this forth on the ballot again and this time, win!

Sure the last time the commercial gill netter's showed people in the Seattle area via television commercials of how their family’s were going to college financed by the gill-net monies, etc., but let's show them a few harbor seal’s entangled in gill nets and see what these voter's think!
Remember the boycott on tuna that was caught in nets some years ago and the images of all the other critters that were caught in those same nets?

Show the non-fisherman the added advantages of sports caught fish and the devastating loss of wild fish and other species caught in commercial gill nets!

Are you ready to get together as a group and get rid of this destructive gill net behavior?

It’s about time!
Quit moanin' and groain' and let's do it!

Dano

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

[fish-bones]

Sturgn,we need pictures of things like dead sturgeon or any fish floating after those scummy gillnetters do there netting.We can use them to show the voters we had enough of gillnetting.these are tools to help our cause in banning nets.We need pictures of seals,sealions or any birds dead in these nets.In the Sound they have what they call ghost nets.these are nets lost by GILLNETERS, or any commercial netters.We now have a fee in Washington on boats called DERELICT FEE,and it cost $3.00 per boat,per year.Multiply that times all the boats and your talking about big bucks to clean up after these NETTERS.I,m tired of even hearing the WORD GILLNETTERS.
LETS GET ORGANIZED and make them go away for ever.

FISH-BONES


S

Originally posted by sturgn:
Not just the Salmon are affected by the gill nets, have you ever been in the Estuary during and after a Sturgeon day for the netters? I could tell they had netted by the number of floating Sturgeon, it would make me ill to see all dead sturgeon floating down there.

I try to stay out of these political discussions, but I see no reason to have a Gill net fishery on any river period. They dont make any money at it, Most salmon that are purchased at the store come from farms anyway, I guess I just dont understand thh whole mentality of it?

Can someone explain why its seems to be a right that people can net the rivers? Dont give me that they have always done it and its all they know argument either(Except for the tribal fishery). I am in the Electronics field and when my business gets slow, theres nobody jumpin in and saying thats all they know and they have to work. They say sorry find a new job or learn a new skill. I see no difference in this situation.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

[Born to be Wild]

Fish-Bones,

I think about everyone is "sick & tired” of hearing about gill-netters including Jennie!

I love it up here in the Longview area but I am getting “sick & tired” of hearing about the gill-netters now that I live here!
I have experienced this before as I spent a lot of time up here in the fall in the past and got tired of hearing about the gill-netter’s 15 years ago when I lived in Gladstone Oregon.
I was new to Oregon or the Pacific Northwest and I loved fishing prior to that!
Got sick of hearing about the gill-netters and the BS fisherman’s biology!

Well fishermen are coming around and realizing that their “barbershop biology” was wrong and starting to listen to science.
But the “same old problem” of gill netting the Columbia River is still a problem and will never go away unless the fishermen all get their act together and make changes and I mean get rid of this unacceptable fishery!

I use to defend these guy’s and bought into the lie that says we need them to have hatchery fish.
Wrong!
Even though I caught plenty of hatchery fish to satisfy me and others, I started learning about the more important wild fish.

Now I have no (zero) tolerance for them!
They know who they are and that their fishery is unethical and unjustifiable but they are taking advantage of cashing in on the last buck while they still can.

Enough. Nonsense!
Let’s turn this thing around folks and there is no doubt we can and go forward in the right direction because as I stated, there will never be no peace with nets in the river and forever conflict.

The sports fishermen are continually being short-changed by the relatively small gill-net fleet and this will never change until we do something about it!
It just doesn’t do any good to ***** , moan & groan about it.
That will never resolve the problem!

Let’s form an alliance now! (Anti-Columbia River Gill-Net Alliance)!

Dano

[boater]

Originally posted by fish-bones:
We now have a fee in Washington on boats called DERELICT FEE,and it cost $3.00 per boat

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">do you have a link that says somthing about that ??

[fish-bones]

I don,t have a site ,but I do have proof that it exists.If you live in WA. and have a licensed boat ,just look at the fees on your boat license
and you will see it plain as day.Don,t you like paying for those SCUMBAG COMMERCIAL NETTERS CLEANUP.You can call the dept. of licensing and ask them about this fee.They will tell you that it pay,s for abandoned boats, but thats a lot of BULL.It does cover that ,but how many boats do you see abandoned??? The main reason is to recover lost nets that are a hazard to everybody and any thing in the water.What chance do you think you would have if you was a skindiver and got tangled up in one of these nets???

this is just one more reason to rid the state of this SCUM.

FISH-BONES [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

Originally posted by boater:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Originally posted by fish-bones:
We now have a fee in Washington on boats called DERELICT FEE,and it cost $3.00 per boat

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">do you have a link that says somthing about that ?? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

[drano100]

I guess I just don't get it? 40 years ago in Oregon most sportsfisherman were complaining about gill-netters, Still have the same problems today. I can see no reason to have nets in the CR at all. There was mention of the non-fishing public needing there share of hatchery fish. Why? Most of the non-fishing public buy the fish at the market and don't have any idea that they are paying for hatchery fish. The fish in the stores are for the most part are farmed fish. If for some reason the public wants their fair share of the fish then let them go to the hatchery and get them there. the state then could charge them the same amount of money that they pay for gillnet fish $8 $10 $12 a lbs for fresh springers? great way to increase funding for fishery. If gillnetters had a chance for a goverment buyout and did not take it too bad. It was their choice to stay in a dying industry. In my biz if the world changes and their is no real need for my service then I'm out of biz. big brother is not going to come bail me out. Gillnetters had their chance some took it others did not tough for them. Indian netters have rights given by treaty and backed by fed. courts so not much can be done here, but I don't thing other netters have this advantage do they? I know a gillnetter that has permits for the columbia and he no longer nets in the river not enough money in it to make it worth his time so what's that say about this being an industry that you can make a living at. Gillnets should go the way of the old fishwheels that use to line the river no place for them in todays world

[Quasimodo the fish killer]

I have a really dumb question.


instead of griping about it on a board why doesnt someone start a initative pettition to ban gill net fishing for salmon? seems like with some pics of dead sealions and incidental kills of other species that would be easy money to get it passed.
expecially here in oregon with all the tree huggers and bran muffin eaters.

it doesnt make sense to whine about it on here when someone could do something about it. I am sure that several thousand signatures of people against the gill net fisherie would open some eyes.

the gillnet industry may have a lot of money to back them but we got the hippies and the children of the 60s. look what happened with the tuna industry and the dolphins it just took enough people complaining to clean up an industry.


Quasi

.

[Born to be Wild]

That was my whole point about the thread Quasi!

I believe I even mentioned the tuna scenario earlier on this thread.

So are we ready to do it or is it even feasable at this time?
I guess what I was asking is from a political standpoint.

Dan

[boater]

Originally posted by Born to be Wild:
So are we ready to do it or is it even feasable at this time?
Dan

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">i dont think so, i think we need to better educate the non-fishing public about gillnets before we start this so that when we start an inititive the non-fishing public will have a better understanding of what we are trying to ban, we need to design a bumper sticker that clearly shows a dead sea lion pup or some kind of dead bird and sell them for about 10 bucks apiece and put that money into a fund that we could use to start the "ban gillnets" inititive, and we need to make it clear that we are only going to ban gillnets and not stop commercial fishing

[boater]

(picture here) GILLNETS ARE WALLS OF DEATH

[Born to be Wild]

Sounds good to me Boata!

We came up with anti-snagging tee shirts on this forum I guess we can get the anti-gill nets ball a rollin'

Dano

[love2fish]

Great idea boater. There were some pictures of dead sealions in a Columbia River gillnet posted here last year. If we could get those pictures on a bumper sticker or in the paper I'm sure they would have quite an impact.

love2fish

[love2fish]

Tee shirts would be good to. I'll take one!

love2fish

[Pete]

I would hope people would prioritize their time ... there is a very serious threat to Columbia River salmon that is orders of magnitude greater than gill nets and there is an organized effort to address it. Please consider Threat to Columbia River Salmon

[Quasimodo the fish killer]

I think it would also need to be clear that we are fishermen and women not some left wing enviromental group like peta or anything like that.

I also think it has to be organized so that both oregon and washington do it at the same time since both states have licenced gill netters.


Quasi

.

[Born to be Wild]

Well Pete, due to lack of time (moving again), I just skimmed through the report that your URL opened up.

It had NSIA written all over it and that might be a goog thing and that might be a not-so-good thing.

NSIA appears to me to be more concerned about hatchery fish, dollars, etc., and sometimes not in the best interest of wild fish and the sport fishermens future.

But there is more than one battle going on here and even though NSIA has chosen to stay out of the political spectrum with the gill-netters but instead backed groups like the Tillamook Rainforest Coallition, I have some different opinions than NSIA.

NSIA has done some good things for sport fishermen but on the other hand they preach selective fisheries which in some cases we would be better off managing for wild fish as are a lot of the Oregon coastal rivers for chinook and coho and some of those are doing exceptionally well!

Focus on the Bonneville problem or whatever it may be but the other issue; the gill-net problem needs to be taken care of also!

So Pete, lets attack all these problems that are "mutual" to all the sports fishermen and make some improvements!

So you can get folks involved in anti-BPA politic's and I will continue work on anti-snagging and anti-gill nets!

There is plenty of problems for all us fishermen if you could only get some of them off their butt's!

I guess a lot of fishermen just want to fish and hope the rest of us involved get the right thing done?

Dano

[ 02-28-2004, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: Born to be Wild ]

[Pete]

Dan, when you have a moment, go back to that article and read through it ... Yes, the original letter posted by Dave Vedder was distributed by the NSIA. But generalizing their position accomplishes nothing. The issue, as well encapsulated on the second page, is that fighting with the netters over allocation of 2% of the ESA impacts is the wrong battle for sportfishers. If we don't focus on the flow and overall ESA issues we will again lose the abundant Columbia River salmon fisheries we've enjoyed for the last few years.

[Thumb Burner]

Dan I would buy a bumbersticker and shirt in a heartbeat. Lets get this rolling its about time. If there is anything you I can do let me know.
Shawn

[Born to be Wild]

Yea Pete I will go back and read it later.
As I stated I am really pressed for time and have been running back and forth from Kalama to Longview all day and night the last couple days.

I still didn't understand your point but it looks to me there is an issue there and eliminating the nets is another issue.
There are all kinds of issues and I want to focus on the nets and snagging as my first prioritiesand I guess attempting to educate the general public or fishermen that with the good that comes from hatchery fish there is also the other side when wild fish and good habitat are present.

Well boater came up with the idea of the bumper sticker and I think that is a great idea.
The tee-shirt is a good one also but the bumper sticker would get far more exposure and especially where it is needed, the general public that doesn't fish.
They also need to see the other side of the story.

I would like to see 2 bumper stickers.
One that shows the negative aspect of killing creatures such as seals or others and one that points towards the purposeful incidental killing of threatened species of fish.

Maybe Greenbuttskunk will help out with the tee shirt process as he has alredy gained experience with the anti-snagging tee shirts.

Maybe Boater could start a thread regarding designing the bumper stickers and tee shirts.

I guess I should make myself clear that I am not against commercial fishermen but some fisheries should be curtailed or eliminated and gill-netting
shouldn't even be considered as it isn't anywhere else in Nort America that I am aware of.

Dan

[jajones]

Less Gill Nets Less Hatcherys Sorry just a thought!!

[Born to be Wild]

Less Gill Nets Less Hatcherys Sorry just a thought!!

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That isn't necessarily true.
And if we did loose some hatchery fish we would still be better off without the nets.
We wouldn't need as many hatchery fish if the nets weren't killing there percentage.
If those fish get listed under the ESA, you will loose hatchery fish anyway like we did on the Oregon coast when the OCN's got listed.
Turns out that was a good thing.

That's a poor excuse to keep the nets fishing.
Maybe we should let the gill netters net other rivers so we can get more hatchery fish?

Dano

[boater]

Originally posted by jajones:
Less Gill Nets Less Hatcherys Sorry just a thought!!

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">how many hatcherys closed when steelhead were made a game fish ??

[Uglygreen]

A few, like Beaver creek on the Elocoman, and about 6-8 others that I would have to look up the names for. But most didnt because those same hatcheries produced salmon for the commercials and tribes to catch. The steelhead hatcheries that did close had their production moved to previously salmon only hatcheries.

UG

[ 02-29-2004, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Uglygreen ]

[boater]

Originally posted by Uglygreen:
A few, like Beaver creek on the Elocoman, and about 6-8 others that I would have to look up the names for. But most didnt because those same hatcheries produced salmon for the commercials and tribes to catch. The steelhead hatcheries that did close had their production moved to previously salmon only hatcheries.

UG

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">can you post some documentation that shows the reason they closed was 100 percent because of steelhead becomming a game fish ?

[Born to be Wild]

A few, like Beaver creek on the Elocoman, and about 6-8 others that I would have to look up the names for. But most didnt because those same hatcheries produced salmon for the commercials and tribes to catch. The steelhead hatcheries that did close had their production moved to previously salmon only hatcheries.

UG

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Hey Brad,

Seems you posted awhile back that the upper Salmon hatchery on the Elocoman was on the "chopping block".
So what's up with that?
How could they possibly close that hatchery when you have both ocean commercials and gill netters targeting Elocoman salmon (chinook and silvers)?

Dan

Well let's see here Dan. You advocate less hatcheries and then on the other hand also believe that there can be a harvest of wild steelhead :whazzup:
Am I missing something here Dan?
But I agree that the gill nets need to go! There are more efficient and selective ways for the commercials to get their share of the fish.
Also the Tillamook Rainforest Coaltion is a good plan. It does not short change the timber interests while providing protection to the habitat of wild and endangered fish runs. Remember there is only one coastal anadramous fish run (Fall chinook) that is not listed with the ESA so it seems to me some action is necessary.
This no spill action by the BPA is very serious and like Pete said it's something we better pay attention to!

[ 02-29-2004, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: Stew ]

[STGRule]

I'll also chime in on the "no-spill". That spill is probably THE most important thing we can have an impact on. They are working on the assumption that they can just barge the fish through. It doesn't work all that well and they end up transporting millions more shad than salmonids. The wild fish will be just chewed up through the turbines. And another HUGE problem with no spill is no sturgeon spawning either. The base of the dams during spill is the ONLY spawning habitat left in the Columbia River Pond. You want to see an immediate problem with every species that evolved in a dynamic river system? Let them not spill.

[Born to be Wild]

With time restraints and so many issues we all must pick out battles. It is with that in mind that I try to focus on those which give us the biggest bang four our bucks.
Straydog

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Like Straydog said we must pick are battles.
I do not have the time to fight all of them.
The "no-spill" issue sounds like a very serious one but is not my priority.
I applaud those that have brought attention to this issue and hope that many ifisher's will get together and fight this one.

I fish lower Columbia River trib fish myself which are well below the dams so gill-netting and snagging is my priority and not to mention that the gill net problem has been around longer than I have.

Well let's see here Dan. You advocate less hatcheries and then on the other hand also believe that there can be a harvest of wild steelhead
Am I missing something here Dan?
But I agree that the gill nets need to go! There are more efficient and selective ways for the commercials to get their share of the fish.
Also the Tillamook Rainforest Coaltion is a good plan. It does not short change the timber interests while providing protection to the habitat of wild and endangered fish runs. Remember there is only one coastal anadramous fish run (Fall chinook) that is not listed with the ESA so it seems to me some action is necessary.
This no spill action by the BPA is very serious and like Pete said it's something we better pay attention to!
Stew

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Well Stew I already answered or tried to explain my opinion on your confusion on the broodstock thread.

Yes I advocate wild chinook, coho, chums and steelhead and feel that you can harvest all of them when the stocks are healthy.
Why let the hatchery fish in those rivers play havoc with the wild fish and supress them?
Why not allow more wild fish production without the hatchery fish and take some of those extra wild fish home for the BBQ?

You asked me the same question there:

I just don't get it Dan You talk about saving wild fish then talk about harvesting them?
Yes you are right that broodstocks are still hatchery fish! I never said it's the perfect scenario but if ODFW is going to have money for wild fish restoration where is it going to come from?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">These are the two replies I gave you:

Stew,

The Nestucca River has had 10,000+ returns of steelhead the last few years or so and if you were to harvest up to 20% of them (approx. 2,000 wild steelhead), you would still have some 8,000 spawners or so which is more than enough.

But instead we decide to go with "another" hatchery program and will have the same old senario that wild steelhead in the Nestucca aren't the best that they can be because of negative hatchery influence!
And then you have the bigger concern on what these hatchery broodstock fish are doing to our native wild stocks that have been segregated from cross-breeding with the domestic hatchery stocks because of their different run/spawn timing.


Nobody knows all the answers, but the one thing we do know is that broodstock are not the same as wild fish, hatchery fish are detrimental to wild fish, and YOU CANNOT DUPLICATE MOTHER NATURE!

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

I will try to answer that and try to explain your confusion Stew.
Let me give you another scenario.
The Siletz River and wild chinook.
We no longer put any hatchery chinook in the basin.
The siletz chinook are extremely healthy, support a good harvest and are doing it on their own.
I am for the lack of hatchery chinook in that basin and I am all for harvest of those wild chinook in that basin.
Now you see, to me that is the perfect scenario.
A healthy run of wild chinook with both an ocean commercial fishery and ocean/freshwater sport fishery on them.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Dan

[Straydog]

With time restraints and so many issues we all must pick out battles. It is with that in mind that I try to focus on those which give us the biggest bang four our bucks.

I don't think some people are grasping the numbers involved in thinking about mortality of ALL fish, wild or hatchery, when comparing between no spill vs mortality due to gill netting.

It has been an ongoing complaint of NSIA that harvest is almost always restricted before the real culprits in our fish woes and it seems some are perpetuating that mind set.

Just because one may disagree with a person or organization on their stance on one issue, should not mean that they can not work cooperatively on issues they share a common opinion on. Surely no one would argue that increased spill has not been a positive for anyone concerned about Columbia fisheries at any level.

[boater]

Originally posted by boater:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Originally posted by Uglygreen:
A few, like Beaver creek on the Elocoman, and about 6-8 others that I would have to look up the names for. But most didnt because those same hatcheries produced salmon for the commercials and tribes to catch. The steelhead hatcheries that did close had their production moved to previously salmon only hatcheries.

UG

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">can you post some documentation that shows the reason they closed was 100 percent because of steelhead becomming a game fish ? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">[img]graemlins/lurk.gif[/img]

[Born to be Wild]

So Boater, are you going to persue the bumper sticker idea you came up with?

I had a couple folks asking me about it and I would like a couple for my van.

Dan

[skybuster]

Don't kid yourselves. Without spill there won't be any fish for anyone.

I would love to get rid of the gillnets as much as anyone, but the spill issue is a greater problem.

The best thing for the river as a whole is to try to keep it as close to natuaral as possible. Eliminating spill is pretty much a death sentence for fish.

I say keep the water flowing!