IFish Fishing Forum banner

News Release: Safe for Salmon

17K views 108 replies 46 participants last post by  Trick 
#1 Ā·
View attachment 15043

In my mail....

Attached please find the SAFE for Salmonā€™s campaign inaugural press release proudly announcing the dropping of its bill in the Oregon Senate and the Oregon House of Representatives.

SAFE for Salmon is seeking to modernize the management of Columbia River fisheries thereby reversing the downward spiral that salmon, sportfishing and commercial fishing are facing in Oregon and Washington.

SB 554 and its companion bill HB 2734 are win-win solutions that will stabilize commercial fishing harvests, increase sportfishing opportunities, aid recovery of wild fish population and simulate local economies throughout Oregon. SAFE for Salmon will also put a stop to the longstanding and bitter conflict between commercial and sportfishing interests over harvest allocation. This conflict has been prevalently on display recently as Washington and Oregonā€™s Departments of Fish & Wildlife quarrel over the allocation matrix for the Columbia River.

This is a crucial issue to the nearly 600,000 licensed anglers in Oregon who have had their recent seasons curtailed and abruptly closed due to the current management structure. This is a crucial issue to 10,000 + employees of an Oregon sportfishing industry that is hurting from shortened seasons and is hemorrhaging jobs. This is a crucial issue to communities throughout Oregon that depend on the dollars generated by full and regular fishing seasons.

There is intense desire to change the status quo in a way that works for all Columbia River stakeholders. Readers will be interested to learn that a win-win solution exists in Salem that will improve the Columbia River for all.

I sincerely hope that you will cover these exciting developments. Please contact me with any questions or requests. Thank you so much for your interest and we look forward to keeping you apprised of our progress.

Kind Regards,

Colin Cochran
Campaign Director
SAFE for Salmon
503.631.4747

www.safeforsalmon.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 16, 2009

Contact: Colin Cochran, 503.631.4747, safeforsalmon@gmail.com
Win-Win Solution for Columbia River fisheries goes to Legislature

The SAFE for Salmon proposal, SB 554/HB 2734, proposed by the SAFE for Salmon coalition, resolves a long-standing dispute between sport and commercial fishing interests

SALEM ā€“ SB 554 and its House companion, HB 2734, co-sponsored by a bi-partisan core of legislators in both houses, offers the 2009 Legislature a chance to end forever divisive and often bitter feuding over harvests of the Columbia River's non-treaty, non-endangered hatchery salmon.

In a nutshell, the bill:

a) ā€“ Moves all non-tribal commercial fishing into well-established (and perhaps some new) selected SAFE zones off the mainstem Columbia River below Bonneville Dam.

b) ā€“ Increases the number of hatchery smolts released in those zones.

c) ā€“ Prioritizes the lower Columbia mainstem for sport fishing.

d) ā€“ Ends wasteful gill-net bycatch of federally protected salmon and small sturgeon.

e) ā€“ Reduces stray hatchery salmon on spawning grounds.

f) ā€“ Increases smolts (especially coho and fall chinook) entering the Pacific Ocean.

SB 554/HB 2734, is proposed by a broad coalition of sport and conservation groups known as ā€œSAFE for Salmon.ā€ It provides a permanent separation of sport and commercial fishing while enhancing fisheries for each group.

Commercial and sport-fishing industries are locked in annual arguments over catch allocations of hatchery salmon in the Columbia. The impasse currently embroils fish and wildlife commissions in Oregon and Washington in an untimely debate over who gets how many fish, leaving user groups reeling from unpredictable, abbreviated seasons.

SAFE for Salmon proposes to use the SAFE (Select Area Fisheries Enhancement) zones as intended when they were created in the 1990s.

ā€œMillions of Bonneville Power Administration rate-payer dollars have been spent to provide safe areas where the gill-net fleet can fish with minimum effect on ESA listed stocks,ā€ said Bill Shake, a co-author of the proposal. Shake is a retired northwest regional assistant director for fisheries and Columbia River senior policy adviser for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. His timely testimony was made in January 2008 to the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission.

"SAFE for Salmon is one of those rare creatures that benefits everybody at little to no cost," said Jim Martin, principal author of the SAFE for Salmon proposal and retired chief of fisheries for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. "Wild fish avoid capture in gill nets, thus aiding their recovery; commercial fishing fleets capture the same amount or more fish, anglers get full and regular fishing seasons, and the Oregon economy reaps the benefits from two rejuvenated and healthy industries that create jobs, drive our local communities and pump millions into the state."

Senator Alan Bates (D-Ashland), SAFE for Salmon's chief sponsor in the Senate, praised SAFE for Salmon as a new way forward. "For too long the competing interests on the Columbia River have been locked in conflict as one side's gains often came at the expense of the others,ā€ he said. ā€œSAFE for Salmon is unique in its balance and offers a fair compromise that will help all sides, including the fish, prosper beyond their current state."

SAFE for Salmon, has been introduced in the Oregon House of Representative by Representative Scott Brunn (R-West Linn). Brunn called gill-netting on the lower Columbia ā€œantiquated and indiscriminate.ā€ ā€œThe evidence that gill-netting causes ecologic and economic damage is clear,ā€ he said. ā€œIt's time to bring Oregon's Salmon fisheries into the 21st century."


###​
For more information on the SAFE for Salmon Campaign go to www.safeforsalmon.com or call 503.631.4747

 
See less See more
#2 Ā·
I agree with this proposal in principal.
There has been some dsicussion about where the extra smolts will come. The discussion has included taking 1,000,000 Spring Chinook smolts from the Middle Fork Willamette Hatchery. These smolts will then be acclimated in net pens in the "Safe Areas", and then released as soon as 3 weeks of acclimation.
This proposal of taking 1,000,000 Springer smolts from the Middle Fork Willamette, I am not in favor of. As it stands right now, we South Valley folks get very little opportunity at catching Springers in our home waters. To me, it would make more sense at taking Springer smolts from several hatcheries, and not just the Middle Fork Willamette Hatchery.:twocents:
 
#3 Ā·
Excellent point...But SAFE for Salmon does not designate a hatchery, nor is it limited to spring chinook. The recent story in the Register Guard quotes the department saying the springer smolts under its plan (for the one million, eventually) would more likely be split among a number of hatcheries.

SAFE for Salmon is a unique opportunity for the legislature to set a new, dynamic policy which would then be up to the department to set into place.
 
#5 Ā·
Has a date been set for the nets to be out of the mainstem for good? And is this bill only for springers? Why should the upper willy guys be impacted, albiet maybe not much but why them, why can't they get the smolts from an area that has a strong run. Why hit an area that is already down! :twocents:
 
#8 Ā·
Has a date been set for the nets to be out of the mainstem for good? And is this bill only for springers?
Good questions:

The the House and Senate versions of this bill set an explicit date of Jan 1 2010 (see Section 2), after which gillnets are prohibited in the mainstem CR.

It does give ODFW the authority to enact this change prior to that date if they want to. However, Jan 1, 2010 is the date the bill goes into effect -- ODFW cannot change that.

This is a statutory change to Oregon law.

No, this is not about only spring chinook. It includes all fisheries.

It is a complete ban on commercial gillnetting in the mainstem, Lower Columbia River.

This is HUGE. This is what has been asked for in countless IFISH threads and thousands of posts about gillnetting.

Now we need to win passage.
 
#6 Ā·
#9 Ā·
I would hope that something similar is being proposed in Wa, If Oregon implements a ban on mainstem gillnets Is Wa bound by the compact to have concurent rules? does this eliminate target sturgeon fisheries mainstem as well? This is great news if the anwers are yes to the above and it all passes. If the answers are no or I dont know it needs a bit more work.
 
#10 Ā·
Washington would not be bound by the Compact (I don't think), but its pro-sport commission could simply authorize the same thing. And, in fact, that state has already been moving coho and fall chinook smolts downriver into SAFE zones, so it's not as if there isn't already precedent.

There are relative few netters in Washington compared with the Oregon fleet.

And yes, applies to mainstem sturgeon as well as all other species, including shad.
 
#15 Ā·
It IS year-round, all-species.

I'm not sure about the definitions, but the intent is pretty clear...designated areas only...existing and, possibly, a few new ones.
 
#12 Ā·
What if alternative commercial harvest methods are developed and implemented that have significantly reduced by-catch and mortality rates. This bill only mentions gillnets. Would these new commercial methods be allowed on the mainstem again rekindling the allocation feud?

Is there going to be a reciprocity agreement allowing WA anglers to fish the SAFE area with a WA license? Seems only fair since fish are being reprogrammed from WA tributaries too.

Will the DFW's still use gillnets to conduct their test fisheries for historic database maintenance?
 
#22 Ā·
Any feeling yet how ODFW will testify on this?
A recent episode of outdoor gps had Owin interviewing Steve Williams (at least I believe that is who it was, wish I had recorded it). The question of SAFE for Salmon came up. The question was answered in a most politically correct manner but I do recall a comment about needing all user groups to help in the fight for the fish from some very powerful, un-fish-friendly special interests.

Not sure how excluding an entire user group (commercials) from the mainstem, as SAFE for Salmon does, is going to help in that arena.
 
#23 Ā·
Excellent point. What we have not been able to convince the netters is the fact that SAFE for Salmon offers them more fish, longer seasons, stability and better market values (fresher fish).

After all these years of fish wars, I suppose I can't blame the suspicion. They seem to view this as a means to their end and it is not.
 
#25 Ā·
No, not absurd.

The commissioners typically don't testify on issues dealing with ODFW at the legislative level.
ODFW staff will however give postions on pending issues.

My guess would be a hesistant endorsement with alot of exceptions...and legislators typically listen to the input...only way around this is alot of public response to your legislators
 
#27 Ā·
Thanks

I am very pleased that the Commissioners are not giving input
 
#26 Ā·
It seems that if there was EVER a time to get ahold of your voting congressman... NOW is the time.

I wish I was more politically active, and knew exactly who to contact... but I don't.

So... someone help those of us who want to be heard!! Who do we contact with our support?
 
#28 Ā·
It seems that if there was EVER a time to get ahold of your voting congressman... NOW is the time.

I wish I was more politically active, and knew exactly who to contact... but I don't.

So... someone help those of us who want to be heard!! Who do we contact with our support?

Here ya go, just type in your address and zip code, and it will tell you who represents you in Salem.

http://www.leg.state.or.us/writelegsltr/
 
#29 Ā·
Sorry if this is too much of a sidetrack but...

Anyone see the movie "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee"? There was one particular scene I wish I could find a video clip of.

The scene depicted a young tribal member excitedly telling an older tribal member that he should be happy to be a part of the local reservation. Reason being that they were allowed to kill their own meat. The youngster then yipped and yelled and chased a cow around a corral with a rifle preloaded with 1 bullet. In the background were other tribal members processing their "kill" in that very same restricted corral.

A very powerful scene that caused many tears to be shed from my very eyes. Kinda makes one think.

Thanks for allowing me to share this image.

Now I ask you.. are we fighting over who gets to kill the last fish? Or are we seeking solutions for recovery of our decimated salmon?

I wonder what a recreational SAFE zone would look like.
 
#41 Ā·
Sorry if this is too much of a sidetrack but...
<snip>
The scene depicted a young tribal member excitedly telling an older tribal member that he should be happy to be a part of the local reservation. Reason being that they were allowed to kill their own meat. The youngster then yipped and yelled and chased a cow around a corral with a rifle preloaded with 1 bullet. In the background were other tribal members processing their "kill" in that very same restricted corral
<snip>
I wonder what a recreational SAFE zone would look like.
Eagle Creek at the bridge ?
 
#30 Ā·
We're not fighting over the last fish. Never have been.

On the second Thursday in April take a drive to the Columbia above I-5 and off the airport...that's what a recreational SAFE zone could look like most of the year...or a lot more of it anyway.

We're not after corraled cattle here. We're fishing safely (pun intended), helping wild fish escape, feeding the economy (sport and improved commercial) and buying licenses and tags that pay for river restoration, habitat, etc.

This is a watershed opportunity to change the paradigm.
 
#42 Ā·
We're not fighting over the last fish. Never have been. That thought runs contrary to what I have heard many sport and commercial fishers say at various meetings. I guess they are all mistaken.

On the second Thursday in April take a drive to the Columbia above I-5 and off the airport...that's what a recreational SAFE zone could look like most of the year...or a lot more of it anyway. Mainstem SAFE zones Bill?:passout:

We're not after corraled cattle here. We're fishing safely (pun intended), helping wild fish escape, feeding the economy (sport and improved commercial) and buying licenses and tags that pay for river restoration, habitat, etc. Cramming a bunch of fish into a confined area... cattle may be a diiferent species but the analogy still fits pretty accurately. Wild fish are not escaping, they are just being killed at a slower rate in the sport fishery. The impacts will still be used hence the same number of wild fish die. Licenses and tackle are being sold now so no change to the habitat, etc theory.

This is a watershed opportunity to change the paradigm. If the paradigm is to eliminate entire user groups then we best be careful as someone might decide sportfishing should go next. The river does belong to everyone doesn't it?
Still curious as to how much bank access there is in the SAFE zones. :whistle:

I wonder how many feet of aluminum can fit into the bridge area at Eagle Creek?

Allocation battles will not go away under this plan. They will just shift from sport vs commercial to sport vs sport vs sport vd sport (estuary/lower river/upper river/trib(assuming the tribs even get any fish anymore)).
 
#36 Ā·
It's all one big golden circle Cos. It's all one linked continuous sequence of events. Blank pages beyond what is already penned in a novella.
 
#44 Ā·
Feel free to disagree. Granted the sport/commercial battles could be ugly and bitter. The pie remains the same size whether the commercials are part of it or not and that pie still needs to be split up. The battles may not be to the same extreme but they will still exist. I don't think anybody enjoys the "civil wars". I certainly don't.

Here is a real solution. :flowered:

It accomplishes many of the same things as the SAFE plan without taking anything (except gillnets) from anybody and leaves all user groups intact and engaged to protect our resources from those that view them as a hinderance to their interests.

How much bank access exists in the SAFE zones for the young, disabled and elderly? These fish and these rivers belong to everyone.

SAFE fish are only available to those with the means to access those areas. Trib fish are available to everyone downstream.
 
#45 Ā·
First, no one is eliminating a user group. The SAFE plan actually enhances (where have we heard that word?) commercial harvests and continues to send fish to tributaries.

More important, though, I don't think any of us want to disparage the legislative efforts of others when it comes to making changes.

But what do you think will happen if commercial mainstem harvests (and the prevailing opinion is that there's no way they can effectively take that many fish in the mainstem with those methods) drop below sport when it comes to acceptable mortalities?

Think about that. It not only extends the status quo, it exacerbates it tenfold. It will make this year's mess look like the good old days.
 
#46 Ā·
I am thrilled that the SAFE for Salmon plan is being put forward! We need a REAL solution to the problems on the Columbia River that is designed by people that understand the issues and are able to craft a win-win solution for all parties involved. SAFE for Salmon accomplishes this.

SAFE for Salmon is about action. They are making things happen now. This is not about maintaining status quo and kicking the can down the road hoping someone else will rescue our Columbia River fisheries.

I am onboard with this plan because I am tired of the endless discussion and arguing from so many people that have "better" ideas but no plan or way to implement their solutions or any way to even get their solutions heard by the people who are making the actual decisions.

SAFE for Salmon is effective because of the people and organizations involved with it. I know these people, trust their years of experience, and I see eye to eye with them on the issues, and know that this is our best chance to make positive change happen for our Columbia River sport fisheries and commercial fisheries.

SAFE for Salmon is about fixing the issues, and as I write this, they are out actively doing what they do best, presenting the issues and plan to people who have the ability to make this change happen.

We have never had a better opportunity or a better time to make this change happen, and we are incredibly lucky to have such a knowledgeable and effective group spearheading the SAFE for Salmon campaign.
 
#48 Ā·
The commercials love it when we can't get on the same page. It's the reason 85 active Oregon gillnet boats effectively constrain thousands of sports anglers and tens of thousands of angler days. For most of us, this is the best opportunity we've ever had to change the direction of Columbia River fisheries. While the discussion is well-underway here on Ifish there's another discussion in Salem going on right now that will determine our collective future. There is a will in Salem to get something done. Whatever flavor you choose the most important place you can share your perspective right now is at the Capitol. I pray we don't squander this opportunity and hope we make our voices heard that sportfishing is important to Oregon and this region. Sportfishing deserves better than it's getting today. If we don't get it done this time it's only because we were unable to rally ourselves...we are 600,000 license holders strong of which roughly 180,000 of us hold tags --- together we can move mountains --- and this issue is one of them. Make a difference and contact your state representative and state senator and continue to contact them to make sure they're with us in our effort to restore sportfishing opportunity on the Columbia River.

All the best

Trey
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top