I think I'm on the same fence as you but I tell you what, if they get it or look like they are going to get it done "for sure" they'll have a new lifetime member. I hope they get it done...
Re: HB 2266: CCA Washington Proposes Selective Commercial Gear
Way to go Washington!:applause: Ok, for all U non-bandwagon guys, get you check books ready for the coming future! Put your money where your mouth is!!
Keep reading. You've truncated the sentence and it doesn't make sense without the rest. The gear must either avoid non-target species and stocks or it must be capable of live capture and release of non-target species and stocks. It's challenging to put all these ideas in a short sentence but it's important to include them. Thanks, wayout.
Re: HB 2266: CCA Washington Proposes Selective Commercial Gear
I can't believe you don't see the irony in sitting back, watching, doing nothing . . . and still wonder why nothing happens. maybe if you got up off your *&#)@ butt instead of thinking someone has to personally do something for you. It is easy to throw stones, a little harder to get involved . . . .
Re: HB 2266: CCA Washington Proposes Selective Commercial Gear
The CCA will accomplish more with more members imagine if every fisherman in Ore., Wa. would join up.That would be an army of VOTERS !!!
when the CCA went to the commissions, or senators or congressmen they would have to listen and act.
Sitting around and ******** on the internet will do nothing , I realize that $25.00 may be hard to come by right now but rather then buy beer or burgers or a pizza you could give that $25.00 to the CCA and help improve the fishires for everyone including your kids in the future.
I've spent the last 6 months emailing Senator Johnson, Governor Kulengoski and even Merkley once. If you haven't joined a group (doesn't have to be CCA) now is the time to do it.
I've spent a bunch of years wondering if us sportsman would ever be able to get our stuff together long enough to make a difference? It is great seeing some progress, but I know now is not the time to slap each other on the backs. We need to push harder then ever.
Even if these bills die in the process it gives me hope. Hope that we have the stamina to not give up if these fail.:twocents:
Re: HB 2266: CCA Washington Proposes Selective Commercial Gear
I have seen flyby night groups come and go and nothing has happened. Has anything happened in the last 8 years as far as banning gill nets? Or how about providing more opportunity for sport fishermen who represent the absolute majority with salmon?
Am I saying that CCA is a come and go group? Absolutely not. I've seen more pomp and circumstance with getting rid of non-selective fisheries than I have ever seen. I really, really, really hope they get it done.
And yes I will put my money where my mouth is, when and IF they get it done. I'll deliver it personally. :flowered:
I have seen flyby night groups come and go and nothing has happened. Has anything happened in the last 8 years as far as banning gill nets? Or how about providing more opportunity for sport fishermen who represent the absolute majority with salmon?
Am I saying that CCA is a come and go group? Absolutely not. I've seen more pomp and circumstance with getting rid of non-selective fisheries than I have ever seen. I really, really, really hope they get it done.
And yes I will put my money where my mouth is, when and IF they get it done. I'll deliver it personally. :flowered:
That attitude is pathetic. If you spend any time at analyzing how our opposition has gotten where they are it's not by sitting around saying I'll help out once the job is done. Success is won by those who work hard and persevere. What are you doing to change the status quo? $25 will buy you a pizza and a beer..thats great for a night. Or it might buy you a longer season on the water and more fish in the boat.
Re: HB 2266: CCA Washington Proposes Selective Commercial Gear
Pathetic? Sorry just my opinion. Like I said before CCA isn't the first group that came along to do something. Believe me there is more than just a few people that feel this way. Sorry if it upsets you but we've all been here and done that.
I will say again that when I see something ACTUALLY done to help the current situation involving passed legislation, I will give them my lifetime support. No problem. I've just seen to many groups talk the talk.
If I thought that 25 would get rid of the non-selective fisheries on the Columbia it would be a no brainer for anyone who casts a line for salmon. The problem is that I think there are unfortunatly to many commercial intrests in our commisions and DFW departments.
Pathetic? Sorry just my opinion. Like I said before CCA isn't the first group that came along to do something. Believe me there is more than just a few people that feel this way. Sorry if it upsets you but we've all been here and done that.
I will say again that when I see something ACTUALLY done to help the current situation involving passed legislation, I will give them my lifetime support. No problem. I've just seen to many groups talk the talk.
If I thought that 25 would get rid of the non-selective fisheries on the Columbia it would be a no brainer for anyone who casts a line for salmon. The problem is that I think there are unfortunatly to many commercial intrests in our commisions and DFW departments.
I have something that won't require any money from you....just a little time. Email your reps and your senator about how you feel. They need to hear from us now why the issue is hot on the plate.
Doing nothing is why we are being walked on now. Geez.....don't be a door mat!
Re: HB 2266: CCA Washington Proposes Selective Commercial Gear
Its not just the rural communities. There are tons of businesses in the Portland/Vancouver metro areas that are part of the sport fishing industry. That's why I concluded there is something very "fishy" going on, at least in Oregon. Why would our governor and fish commission appear to be so in favor of gillnets when that industry does only support a few coastal communities compared to a ton of businesses in Portland/Vancouver and the surrounding communities that are supported by the sports fishing industry. Again...I do not lay the blame on ODF&W...they have to take their marching orders. And I have not a thing against commercial fishing...its a needed commodity. I'm just for getting rid of the non-selective way they harvest the fish. In my book, they are the #1 piece to change to sustain our fish runs...after that, we have habitat, those darned sealions/bird, and on and on. All the pieces have to be looked at and probably fixed but the gillnets are the most pressing at this time. And its "one thing at a time". And if we ALL have to stop fishing for a few years...if that's what it takes...then we should.
Re: HB 2266: CCA Washington Proposes Selective Commercial Gear
I read through this whole bill and noticed a few things:
1) This is not a net ban but a massive expansion of net fisheries.
2) Those words "released unharmed" are written into the bill to include both the sport and commercial fisheries. If released unharmed is in this bill when it becomes law it will give the antis a substantial legal case to ban sport fishing with hooks. The antis will be able to show that no matter how careful a sport fisher may be that every fish has been HARMED by a hookset and then harned further by the hooks removal.
3) Not once in the entire bill is CCA mentioned as being a sponsor of the bill, this bill does not even recognize the existence of CCA. Of course CCA is the "conservation" group that keeps sponsoring catch and kill fishing derbies to raise money for conservation.
I read through this whole bill and noticed a few things:
1) This is not a net ban but a massive expansion of net fisheries.
2) Those words "released unharmed" are written into the bill to include both the sport and commercial fisheries. If released unharmed is in this bill when it becomes law it will give the antis a substantial legal case to ban sport fishing with hooks. The antis will be able to show that no matter how careful a sport fisher may be that every fish has been HARMED by a hookset and then harned further by the hooks removal.
3) Not once in the entire bill is CCA mentioned as being a sponsor of the bill, this bill does not even recognize the existence of CCA. Of course CCA is the "conservation" group that keeps sponsoring catch and kill fishing derbies to raise money for conservation.
Re: HB 2266: CCA Washington Proposes Selective Commercial Gear
What really gets me is some of the "professionals" complaining about the whole subject of nets yet they are down the road on a whim to buy bait from the same intruders. Nobody will be raising there families on these "little fish" through this depression like they used to in the early days. I bet very few of "our" buyers even know how to dip but they want to tell you about everything in the river. Stick to your guns out there fellas, don't contribute to the cause that has you so angry, get some scents...he he.
Re: HB 2266: CCA Washington Proposes Selective Commercial Gear
Actually I am not sure this bill would do much for sport fisherman and this is why.
"Take" as defined by the Endangered Species Act is defined as "to harm or harass". By law, a certain amount of "take" is allowed to occur which is what largely governs the amount of harvest. The amount of take allowed under the ESA for listed fish species is split between sport, tribal, and commercial fisheries.
So, even if the commercials found a way to select out the hatchery fish (as the bill proposes) they would still be "harassing" the wild fish and generating a certain level of "take" just as they are now.
Sport fisherman release wild (sometimes unclipped hatchery fish) fish but nevertheless we are still allowed only so much harvest because only so much "take" is allowed under the ESA.
Although this bill would be a good thing for wild fish it may not lead to any more fishing days for sport fisherman.
For sport fisherman to get more days there must be more fish, or less take by other user groups.
Re: HB 2266: CCA Washington Proposes Selective Commercial Gear
This is a post I made on a different website...
*********************
One comment that I would make about this admirable bill is that it says the Department within five years must only be authorizing commercial fishing gear that is 'designed to minimize mortality' on nontarget species...and I guarantee you right now that the Department will say that they are already doing that...by using tangle nets.
With no concrete numbers as to what "minimize" means...i.e., "must result in less than 15% release mortality", or something like that, then the provisions don't have much in the way of teeth...and would leave the door wide open to continue using tangle nets for Chinook.
Here's the same advice I've given every time this comes up...what we're trying to do here is to get rid of gillnets, but all we do is *****foot around it and say ten other things instead.
How about "The Legislature finds that the use of gillnets in the Columbia River runs counter to the economic, cultural, social, and recreational needs of the State of Washington, and hereby bans their use in the Columbia River".
It's only one sentence long, doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not, and more importantly, actually does ban gillnets in the Columbia River.
Re: HB 2266: CCA Washington Proposes Selective Commercial Gear
I just heard that the sponsors missed the filing deadline for this legislative session, but it will be considered in the following session...I think there are some revisions that can be made, and some brains to pick in the meantime, mebbe more legislators to get on board.
I just heard that the sponsors missed the filing deadline for this legislative session, but it will be considered in the following session...I think there are some revisions that can be made, and some brains to pick in the meantime, mebbe more legislators to get on board.
Do you have any substantiation or clarification for this comment? The bill is drafted, has been dropped, is assigned a number, and is currently in committee. It did not miss a "filing deadline". See info link in my (revised) original post. Thanks for letting us know in more detail what you are saying. ~GR
With all due respect, if your analysis is correct, others within CCA have already taken note. Furthermore, I have faith in them to take this legislation to the next level in the future, or introduce new legislation to address your concerns.
Please, this will be a close call. We either win together or point fingers at each other. Failure is not an option. If its the only legislation you ever support in your life, you just helped save wild fish.
:meme:
Earlier this week, House Bill 2266 was introduced in the Washington House of Representatives. HB 2266 was authored by CCA and sponsored by Representatives Geoff Simpson, Ed Orcutt, Skip Preist, Hans Dunshee, Dave Upthegrove and Deb Wallace. HB 2266 represents an important first step to bring conservation-based reforms to the management of Washington’s fisheries by prioritizing the “long-term sustainability, recovery of wild endangered stocks, and the best available science for sound management practices" in WDFW's fisheries management.
HB 2266 permits and requires the use of mark-selective fishing gear that is essential to the health and restoration of wild fish runs. Wild fish are “unmarked” – their adipose fin remains intact, while the hatchery fish they mingle with in mixed-stock fisheries have had their adipose fin removed. Sport and commercial harvesters can easily identify wild fish and avoid their harvest, but only if their gear permits such live capture and sorting. While recreational angling by hook and line is highly selective, gillnets fail at this task because they suffocate fish by ensnaring their gills before selection and safe release is possible. As a result, large numbers of wild and endangered salmon and steelhead are harvested before they can reach their spawning grounds. Under current law, the commercial gear capable of selective harvest (seines, pound nets, etc) is illegal (it was banned in the 1930s).
The purpose of HB 2266 is to promote recovery of wild salmon and steelhead based on the recommendations of leading scientists, who have identified the “selective removal of hatchery fish with low mortality of natural fish” as essential to our region’s salmon recovery efforts.
The legislation will likely be joined by companion bill in the Senate next week.
CCA Washington will continue to be active this legislative session to promote the conservation of our marine resources and appreciate your active involvement in this effort.
Why don't they save their money for a total ban on gillnets legislation instead of playing footsy. This bill sounds like there are too many loop holes and gray area's, not to mention that it might not make the session. I thought the netters were already required to release fish, and had air- ation boxes and all that. In my opinion CCA needs to stop screwing around and come to the plate with a big bat, then more will listen and donate.:twocents:
Ginny, they didn't miss the "official" deadline, but the legislature's informal rules this year have kicked everything out for the rest of the session that isn't budget related...they'll get to it next session. This only applies to the House...the Senate will continue to have non-budget committee hearings, but without both houses considering it, it won't go anywhere this session.
I don't think anyone "dropped the ball", I just think they weren't aware of the House's internal processes this session, for whatever reason. It was in on time, but they won't be considering it this session.
Perhaps the biggest problem with this bill is that all it does is allow commercial gear types that no one will use in the LCR because they don't work there.
It doesn't ban gillnets, so they won't be going anywhere.
As I wrote on another site, it's like passing a bill that allows us as sporties to use spears...yeah, it's another way for us to fish, but no one would do it, because it wouldn't work...you wouldn't catch anything with it, so why use it?
Until a bill is written that actually bans gillnets outright, they are all that will be used in the LCR, as they are the only commercial fishing technique that works there.
Perhaps the biggest problem with this bill is that all it does is allow commercial gear types that no one will use in the LCR because they don't work there.
It doesn't ban gillnets, so they won't be going anywhere.
As I wrote on another site, it's like passing a bill that allows us as sporties to use spears...yeah, it's another way for us to fish, but no one would do it, because it wouldn't work...you wouldn't catch anything with it, so why use it?
Until a bill is written that actually bans gillnets outright, they are all that will be used in the LCR, as they are the only commercial fishing technique that works there.
Historically beach seins, various traps, and fish wheels were used very sucessfully. If they worked 100 years ago with the technology avalible then, why wouldn't they work even better with modern technology such as better nets, side looking sonar, and better boats?
Also, the Coville Tribal experimant just prooved without a doubt that seins (both beach and purse) can work very sucessfully hundreds of miles upriver later in the year under worse (warmer water tempratures) conditions.
I dont think you can make that statement untill and unless someone gives it a real effort.
- Brad
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Ask a question
Ask a question
IFish Fishing Forum
6.9M posts
80.4K members
Since 2000
A forum community dedicated to anglers and fishing enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about safety, gear, tackle, tips, tricks, reviews, reports, accessories, classifieds, and more!