Let's apply sustainability to fisheries management

[Trick]

This might have already been posted? I got a kick out of the comments on the bottom.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/in...lity_to_f.html

[MsOutdrs]

Originally Posted by Trick

This might have already been posted? I got a kick out of the comments on the bottom.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/in...lity_to_f.html

Good op-ed tho...I'm sending it to my non-fishing friends who probably don't read these in the paper. Got to start educating the public..get them behind us.

[ChartHead]

I like the quote:

"In the Northwest, a river without a salmon is a body without a soul."
-Timothy Egan

[dgdawg]

So, what's "sustainable?"

Fish weirs were "sustainable?" Would we all be practicing "sustainable fisheries management" if we dropped our fishing rods and went out and set up fish weirs along the Columbia and it's tributaries? Probably not.

"Sustainability" is a nice, and very popular, concept to toss around but without defining what you mean or quantifying it, it's meaningless.

[ampersat]

Well, let's define it then. It's not about who's going to let us, it's about who's going to stop us.

[Squeeg]

Isn't "Sustainable" and "Fisheries Management" an Oxymoron?

[Ginny Ross]

In my personal opinion, the intention of the Oped was to point out that selective fisheries are sustainable because they protect the wild portion of the run from harvest and make it possible for the wild run to recover and increase. Survival of wild runs is vital for sustaining hatchery programs, which in turn, are vital for sustaining fisheries in many cases.

[freespool]

Originally Posted by Ginny Ross

The intention of the Oped was to point out that selective fisheries are sustainable because they protect the wild portion of the run from harvest and make it possible for the wild run to recover and increase. Survival of wild runs is vital for sustaining hatchery programs, which in turn, are vital for sustaining fisheries in many cases.

Do you really believe that a stock that is suffering from habitat deficiencies like water quality, lack of large woody debris recruitment, poor stream complexity, no over wintering back channel alcove habitat, poor estuary habitat, will somehow recover by simply increasing the spawning component?
Until the habitat road blocks are removed or addressed, recovery can not take place.

[crabbait]

True, Freespool. And all the habitat in the world won't bring back an extinct species. It is going to take work from all angles, not just harvest, not just habitat, not just hydro.

It is not an either/or choice.

[Ginny Ross]

Originally Posted by freespool

Do you really believe that a stock that is suffering from habitat deficiencies like water quality, lack of large woody debris recruitment, poor stream complexity, no over wintering back channel alcove habitat, poor estuary habitat, will somehow recover by simply increasing the spawning component?
Until the habitat road blocks are removed or addressed, recovery can not take place.

Scientists claim summer chinook habitat in the Okanagon can handle 10,000 spawners. Escapement is currently less than half that and it's riddled with hatchery fish, often exceeding the HSRG recommendations by 100% or more.

[freespool]

Originally Posted by Ginny Ross

Scientists claim summer chinook habitat in the Okanagon can handle 10,000 spawners. Escapement is currently less than half that and it's riddled with hatchery fish, often exceeding the HSRG recommendations by 100% or more.

I have not read the stock fitness report, but let's say that the allowable level is to high.
So we completely retool the LCR commercial fleet to deal with the situation.
Please explain how this is going to help Willamette stocks, or any other stocks that face blocked passage?
What about stocks that are suffering the effects of poor water quality, or other environmental limiting factors?
It's going to take more than a one size fits all solution.

[Farfish]

Originally Posted by Ginny Ross

Scientists claim summer chinook habitat in the Okanagon can handle 10,000 spawners. Escapement is currently less than half that and it's riddled with hatchery fish, often exceeding the HSRG recommendations by 100% or more.

The Wells dam count for summer chinook was over 25,000 this year. That ought to be enough to meet the hatchery broodstock needs and have ample spawning in the Methow and Okanagan. If 25000 passed wells and as you say less than 5000 spawned in the Okanagan, where did the other fish go? Do the Colvilles really catch that many?

[Ginny Ross]

Originally Posted by freespool

I have not read the stock fitness report, but let's say that the allowable level is to high.
So we completely retool the LCR commercial fleet to deal with the situation.
Please explain how this is going to help Willamette stocks, or any other stocks that face blocked passage?
What about stocks that are suffering the effects of poor water quality, or other environmental limiting factors?
It's going to take more than a one size fits all solution.

Barney,

Agreed. But no one has proposed a one-size fits all solution. If you are concerned primarily with habitat issues and you want to join or spearhead an organization to focus on those matters....then do!

In any case, assuming your curiosity is genuine and you really want to know in fine detail how ending gillnetting will improve Willamette stocks, please contact Stan Steele.

No amount of distraction such as yours will take CCA's focus off of reforming non-selective and poorly managed salmon harvest. That tops the list and is the charter and purpose of CCAPNW right now along with other positions clearly set forth on the website. If you don't feel harvest management is the first priority, fine. Get active helping out on the other H's. Wouldn't that make more sense than this crazy game of "H" one-upsmanship??

Ginny

[Ginny Ross]

Originally Posted by Farfish

The Wells dam count for summer chinook was over 25,000 this year. That ought to be enough to meet the hatchery broodstock needs and have ample spawning in the Methow and Okanagan. If 25000 passed wells and as you say less than 5000 spawned in the Okanagan, where did the other fish go? Do the Colvilles really catch that many?

The problem is that they are about 70% hatchery fish. There were less than 5,000 wild spawners.

Thanks,
Ginny

[freespool]

Originally Posted by Ginny Ross

Barney,

Agreed. But no one has proposed a one-size fits all solution. If you are concerned primarily with habitat issues and you want to join or spearhead an organization to focus on those matters....then do!

In any case, assuming your curiosity is genuine and you really want to know in fine detail how ending gillnetting will improve Willamette stocks, please contact Stan Steele.

No amount of distraction such as yours will take CCA's focus off of non-selective and poorly managed salmon harvest. That tops the list and is the charter and purpose of CCAPNW right now along with other positions clearly set forth on the website. If you don't feel harvest management is the first priority, fine. Get active helping out on the other H's. Wouldn't that make more sense than this crazy game of "H" one-upsmanship??

Ginny

So why hasn't CCA joined the other sportfishing advocacy groups in demanding that the CR summer chinook fishery be harvested selectively?
Or added their name to the litigant list suing the federal government to spill more water for smolt migration?
From my perspective CCA has put on the blinders as far as other issues are concerned, and by their actions are saying the answer is a selective commercial harvest method, ignoring the known limiting factors like spill and commercial selective summer chinook harvest.

[Ginny Ross]

Originally Posted by freespool

So why hasn't CCA joined the other sportfishing advocacy groups in demanding that the CR summer chinook fishery be harvested selectively?

It has ... adamantly.

From my perspective CCA has put on the blinders as far as other issues are concerned, and by their actions are saying the answer is a selective commercial harvest method, ignoring the known limiting factors like spill and commercial selective summer chinook harvest.

To claim that advocacy for a particular reform proves the act or intention of "ignoring" other reforms is patently illogical.

Here is a good summary of CCA Washington priorities:

http://www.ccapnw.org/ccawa-positions.pdf

See #1 on the list.

It's a question of priorities. CCA is addressing a very serious problem area where few organizations dare to tread and even fewer politicians have the spine to enter. You characterize this clearly defined effort to solve a tough issue as wearing blinders to other issues --- I call it a lazer focus.

Ginny

[sealgal2008]

Originally Posted by Ginny Ross

Scientific review of salmon hatchery and recovery efforts in the Pacific Northwest points to selective fishing as a key reform needed to restore depleted wild salmon and steelhead populations and to fully realize our significant investments in hatcheries, habitat restoration, and hydropower operations. To restore and rebuild depleted and ESA listed stocks, both commercial and recreational fishers must become more selective in targeting abundant stocks for harvest while minimizing impacts to less viable stocks. Such targeting requires the widespread use of harvest gear and practices capable of live capture, sorting and unharmed release of fish. Selective fishing methods will minimize mortality rates and bycatch of non-targeted stocks and facilitate efficient harvest of targeted hatchery stocks to prevent their interference with wild salmon recovery. CCA Washington supports the implementation of selective fishing and other science-based harvest reforms as a critical component of salmon and steelhead recovery efforts.

It's a question of priorities. CCA is addressing a very serious problem area where few organizations dare to tread and even fewer politicians have the spine to enter. You characterize this clearly defined effort to solve a tough issue as wearing blinders to other issues --- I call it a lazer focus.

Ginny

This position statement sounds good but the entire premise rests on the word unharmed. What does it mean to release a fish unharmed? Two years and so far no definition of what unharmed means to CCA. A "lazer focus" on selective harvest and a clear mandate that non target wild fish be released unharmed. And still no definition of what releasing a fish unharmed entails.

Clearly, releasing anything "unharmed" means that which was released left the encounter in the same condition in which it entered the encounter. Does CCA agree with this definition?

[freespool]

Originally Posted by Ginny Ross

It has ... adamantly. I'll need your email address to send you our powerpoint.

To claim that advocacy for a particular reform proves the act or intention of "ignoring" other reforms is patently illogical.

Here is a good summary of CCA Washington priorities:

http://www.ccapnw.org/ccawa-positions.pdf

Here is #1 on the list and why it is important:

Selective Fishing

Scientific review of salmon hatchery and recovery efforts in the Pacific Northwest points to selective fishing as a key reform needed to restore depleted wild salmon and steelhead populations and to fully realize our significant investments in hatcheries, habitat restoration, and hydropower operations. To restore and rebuild depleted and ESA listed stocks, both commercial and recreational fishers must become more selective in targeting abundant stocks for harvest while minimizing impacts to less viable stocks. Such targeting requires the widespread use of harvest gear and practices capable of live capture, sorting and unharmed release of fish. Selective fishing methods will minimize mortality rates and bycatch of non-targeted stocks and facilitate efficient harvest of targeted hatchery stocks to prevent their interference with wild salmon recovery. CCA Washington supports the implementation of selective fishing and other science-based harvest reforms as a critical component of salmon and steelhead recovery efforts.

It's a question of priorities. CCA is addressing a very serious problem area where few organizations dare to tread and even fewer politicians have the spine to enter. You characterize this clearly defined effort to solve a tough issue as wearing blinders to other issues --- I call it a lazer focus.

Ginny

So this scientific review board is now the holy grail of salmon recovery?
I've seen the federal government take a official position that said hatchery fish are the same as wild fish, and dams are the same as water falls and rapids, and presently they are saying fish are better off migrating in barges, yet this new hatchery reform idea somehow passes the smell test?
Until this idea gets a through look see by folks who don't have a dog in the fight, I'm going to be very skeptical.
This smells like another idea to save the dams to me.
The dithering phase of CR salmon recovery must come to an end, if recovery is really the plan, and I fear the feds are far more concerned with saving the dams and not the fish.

[Ginny Ross]

Originally Posted by freespool

So this scientific review board is now the holy grail of salmon recovery?
I've seen the federal government take a official position that said hatchery fish are the same as wild fish, and dams are the same as water falls and rapids, and presently they are saying fish are better off migrating in barges, yet this new hatchery reform idea somehow passes the smell test?
Until this idea gets a through look see by folks who don't have a dog in the fight, I'm going to be very skeptical.
This smells like another idea to save the dams to me.
The dithering phase of CR salmon recovery must come to an end, if recovery is really the plan, and I fear the feds are far more concerned with saving the dams and not the fish.

The HSRG is far from "the federal government." That being said, I see your point. I don't think there is any foundation for the sinister connection you suggest. Harvest is just an area in dire need of immediate attention and reform in order to make the (substantial, necessary and ongoing) investments in other H reforms more effective.

Ginny

[Ginny Ross]

Originally Posted by sealgal2008

This position statement sounds good but the entire premise rests on the word unharmed. What does it mean to release a fish unharmed? Two years and so far no definition of what unharmed means to CCA.

If you don't understand a word, how about checking a dictionary?

Clearly, releasing anything "unharmed" means that which was released left the encounter in the same condition in which it entered the encounter

...but if the definition is so clear, I guess you don't need further help on this.

A "lazer focus" on selective harvest and a clear mandate that non target wild fish be released unharmed. And still no definition of what releasing a fish unharmed entails.

What is crystal clear is that gear designed to soak for an hour or more while strangling and suffocating target fish and any non-target fish even remotely similar in size, underwater, prior to being hauled in and untangled in the dark of night to hopefully release any remaining non-target fish alive, fails the test of unharmed release, and it fails the test miserably.

[sealgal2008]

Originally Posted by Ginny Ross

If you don't understand a word, how about checking a dictionary?



...but if the definition is so clear, I guess you don't need further help on this.

What is crystal clear is that gear designed to soak for an hour or more while strangling and suffocating target fish and any non-target fish even remotely similar in size, underwater, prior to being hauled in and untangled in the dark of night to hopefully release any remaining non-target fish alive, fails the test of unharmed release, and it fails the test miserably.

Adjective

unharmed (comparative more unharmed, superlative most unharmed)
Positive
unharmed

Comparative
more unharmed

Superlative
most unharmed

1. which has not suffered harm; which has not been injured or damaged

Noun

Singular
harm

Plural
harms

harm (plural harms)

1. Injury; hurt; damage; detriment; misfortune.
2. That which causes injury, damage, or loss.

Above are the definitions of unharmed and harm. I agree 100% that nets harm fish, there is not debate or question about that fact - that is not in dispute what so ever. I agree that nets harm fish even without the above definitions. What I want to know and have never even once recieved a straight answer is what CCA considers "unharmed" with respect to its mission statement. Is the definition CCA uses in its mission statement the same as the above definition of unharmed and harm?

Several people in the CCA GRC have stated to me that the definition of unharmed is obvious but they have all refused to define what unharmed means in relation to the mission statement. When i asked the first CCAPNW executive director, Matt Kayser, what unharmed meant when I talked to him face to face he answered with a blank stare with no additional comment. perhaps the answer is so obvious that I am missing it totally. Simple question maybe someone at CCA can give a simple answer - What does releasing a fish unharmed entail? Selective fishing methods that release unwanted fish unharmed is #1 on CCAs mission statement for both commercial and recreational fisheries - so what does Unharmed mean? Does unharmed fit the definitions posted above?

Betty

[cooky]

Originally Posted by sealgal2008

Several people in the CCA GRC have stated to me that the definition of unharmed is obvious but they have all refused to define what unharmed means in relation to the mission statement. When i asked the first CCAPNW executive director, Matt Kayser, what unharmed meant when I talked to him face to face he answered with a blank stare with no additional comment. perhaps the answer is so obvious that I am missing it totally. Simple question maybe someone at CCA can give a simple answer - What does releasing a fish unharmed entail? Selective fishing methods that release unwanted fish unharmed is #1 on CCAs mission statement for both commercial and recreational fisheries - so what does Unharmed mean? Does unharmed fit the definitions posted above?

Betty

Betty, what do you think unharmed means??? BTW how is missouri?

[Farfish]

The question of "released unharmed" could be debated more easily.

So right now in the fall, the gillnet fishery releases steelhead (and if it went to a hatchery fish retention only then it would release unmarked chinook and coho). I don't know what the current mortality rate is that the states use.

Lets say, for the sake of argument, that it is 50%. That would mean that half of the steelhead that are caught would die when they were caught or after they were released. I think most people would think that doesn't really fit the definition of unharmed.

Right now, upstream of Buoy 10, if an unmarked coho or steelhead is caught with sport gear, it only gets a 10% release mortality rate. It seems that some people maybe do feel that this is consistent with the idea of releasing fish unharmed, but I get the idea that Sealgal does not.

To me it is a bit of a subjective call. Any gear with a release mortality rate greater than zero will kill some fish.

But to me the interesting question is, if a commercial selective fishing gear could be found with a release mortality rate of 10%, would that satisfy the majority of the people who argue for commercial selective fisheries? Maybe for some it would, maybe others would not. It is still pretty subjective as to how low release mortality rates need to be to make people happy.

The ocean sport fishery for coho has a release mortality rate of 19%, the Bouy 10 fishery has a 21% release mortality rate for coho. The spring tanglenet fishery for chinook has a release mortalty rate of 14.7% and for steelhead, I am pretty sure I read it was 18%. If there are people who think that no release mortality rate above 10% qualifies as "unharmed" then none of these fisheries would qualify as appropriate selective fisheries and need to be changed to a better selective gear.

It is pretty darned subjective as to how low you need to go with release mortality rates.

[Ginny Ross]

Originally Posted by sealgal2008

Perhaps the answer is so obvious that I am missing it totally.

Perhaps.

[jacksalmon]

While I agree with most of what is said above, you all better start coming to the realization that it is all just worthless chatter until there is a cap on the human population. People, not fish, are the problem. I don't dislike people, they are some of my best friends. But, what is wrong with capping a family at two kids? Many problems are solved with this approach and nothing is lost. I repeat, nothing is lost. What is the advantage in this time of having more than two kids in a family? There is none and all this talk about saving fish runs and capping greenhouse emissions is worthless until the number of people gets reduced to a sustainable level. You can't talk about sustainable fish runs until you also talk about sustainable human populations.

[Smalma]

The relevant question was asked by dgdawg - "what is sutainability?"

Usually we associate lasting or enduring with sustainability. The cold reality is that sustainability under the ESA situation is a much lower standard than sustainability with some sort of fishing. What are we talking about?

We as fishers are under siege over how much if any of our wild salmonid stocks potentially productivity will be used to support fishing. Through history more and more of that productivity has been used to support non-fishing uses. The failure to account for that shifting use of productivity was one of the major failures of the so called MSY management.

Sadly we have reached the point for many of our wild stocks even the no fishing option no long assures sustainability of those stocks.

Tight lines
Curt

[sealgal2008]

Adjective

unharmed (comparative more unharmed, superlative most unharmed)
Positive
unharmed

Comparative
more unharmed

Superlative
most unharmed

1. which has not suffered harm; which has not been injured or damaged

Noun

Singular
harm

Plural
harms

harm (plural harms)

1. Injury; hurt; damage; detriment; misfortune.
2. That which causes injury, damage, or loss.

The above definitions are for unharmed and harm. If the definitions are applied to CCAs mission statement #1 - which is focused like a laser on selective fisheries - then what current sport or commercial fisheries would pass the "release unharmed" mandate?

How could a wild salmon be successfully released from a net unharmed?(which has not suffered harm; which has not been injured or damaged) Easy - it cannot.

How can a wild salmon be hooked in a manner under which it may be drug to the angler against it will and then unhooked and successfully be released unharmed? (which has not suffered harm; which has not been injured or damaged) The hook did damage, or harmed the wild fish, when it was set. The wild fish will suffer addition harm while being played out and unhooked. How can a hooked wild fish be released unharmed? Easy - it cannot.

From CCA Washingtons #1 priority - "To restore and rebuild depleted and ESA listed stocks, both commercial and recreational fishers must become more selective in targeting abundant stocks for harvest while minimizing impacts to less viable stocks. Such targeting requires the widespread use of harvest gear and practices capable of live capture, sorting and unharmed release of fish"

Ladies and gentleman - commercial and recreational fishers are mandated under this mission statement to release non target fish unharmed. Unharmed release of wild depleted stocks of fish means an end to both netting and recreational fishing with a hook. It looks as if live sorting will have to occur at the fish passage facilities at the dams.

Betty

[crabbait]

That is your definition, Betty. If you want to be involved in the real definition I suggest you join the CCA and engage in some meaningful dialog.

I don't have a "legal" definition and I haven't talked to anyone in CCA or anyone else about it but it would seem to me that if a salmon were able to complete it's spawning successfully it would meet my definition of "unharmed".

By the way, Betty, even with no human involvement at all they arrive on the spawning ground more than a little tattered and none of them survive the process.

[roadsend]

Originally Posted by jacksalmon

While I agree with most of what is said above, you all better start coming to the realization that it is all just worthless chatter until there is a cap on the human population. People, not fish, are the problem. I don't dislike people, they are some of my best friends. But, what is wrong with capping a family at two kids? Many problems are solved with this approach and nothing is lost. I repeat, nothing is lost. What is the advantage in this time of having more than two kids in a family? There is none and all this talk about saving fish runs and capping greenhouse emissions is worthless until the number of people gets reduced to a sustainable level. You can't talk about sustainable fish runs until you also talk about sustainable human populations.

The increase in human population in our region has been driven by immigration from other states, not the birth rate. We are not going to change this reality in the foreseeable future.
We need to focus on doing the best we can do for our fish runs in the face of an expanding human population.

[crawdad]

"To claim that advocacy for a particular reform proves the act or intention of "ignoring" other reforms is patently illogical."

Well put Ginny.

[Ginny Ross]

Pretty clever attempted fear-mongering, Betty, but it's not going to work. If you want to impose definitions and conclusions in this debate, fine. Don't try to speak for other organizations though --- start your own and get busy on your project of ending all fishing or whatever it is you are trying to do. Good luck getting any supporters here.

In the meantime, just realize that a CCA position statement is not a 'mission' statement. Moreover, the words of the position statements are abundantly clear on their face and yours is the only concern I've ever heard over lack of clarity of these statements. You are going to have to suffer along in your confusion alone, I'm afraid, because the meaning is pretty clear to most.

Besides, what is being espoused is that the gear be designed for live capture -- the actual result must be moving in that direction. The entire point of sportfishing is live capture. The gear is specifically designed for that, so there is no need to address the design issue. Commercial fisheries have a loooooooong way to go to meet this standard, and your attempts to distract by trying to get a debate going over the precise meaning of 'unharmed' release in this context is just a tempest in a teapot.

[crabbait]

"To claim that advocacy for a particular reform proves the act or intention of "ignoring" other reforms is patently illogical."

Well put Ginny.

Absolutely. Addressing in-river commercial and sport impacts is just one small part of the "harvest" problem. The effects of hydro power production and reduced habitat must also be addressed if we are going to recover ESA stocks.

[freespool]

Originally Posted by crabbait

Absolutely. Addressing in-river commercial and sport impacts is just one small part of the "harvest" problem. The effects of hydro power production and reduced habitat must also be addressed if we are going to recover ESA stocks.

But there are "more fish going over the four lower Snake River dams now, than before they were built".
And since they are not coming out anytime soon, let's fix it so sport anglers opportunities are greatly reduced.

[crabbait]

That is a very poor assessment using old "think inside the box" logic, Freespool. Don't buy into the scare tactics and, for goodness sake, stop spreading them yourself!

[freespool]

Originally Posted by crabbait

That is a very poor assessment using old "think inside the box" logic, Freespool. Don't buy into the scare tactics and, for goodness sake, stop spreading them yourself!

Sorry Steve but I'm not buying what you seem to be selling.
Dam operators, irragotors and grain shippers paid lobbyists like James Baucall sp? big bucks to say that the problem is with harvest and not dams.
That theory was hotly contested as nonsense, yet with a little lip stick applied by CCA it's now a good idea?
Safe For Salmon would remove all impacts associated with commercial harvest, the safe areas are up and operational, retooling a marginal commercial fishery to remove excess hatchery fish would cost tax payers millions. Removing hatchery fish from the system could be done at the dam and falls, which would have minimal effect on sport opportunity below the harvest site.

[Todd]

So long as Columbia River fisheries are set by allocation of allowable ESA impacts, selective fishing won't save one single wild fish, and won't aid recovery one iota...and as long as there are ESA fish in the Columbia, that's how the seasons will be set.

Sportfishers will be very disillusioned when they find out that no more wild fish are spawning, no recovery is being aided, and fishing is worse than it is now.

Fish on...

Todd

[Todd]

P.S. Add in the sportfishers patent unwillingness to use single barbless hooks and no bait in mixed stock fisheries where ESA fish are being caught consistently, and the contradictions and hypocrisy become even more pronounced.

[Uglygreen]

Originally Posted by freespool

Sorry Steve but I'm not buying what you seem to be selling.
Dam operators, irragotors and grain shippers paid lobbyists like James Baucall sp? big bucks to say that the problem is with harvest and not dams.
That theory was hotly contested as nonsense, yet with a little lip stick applied by CCA it's now a good idea?
Safe For Salmon would remove all impacts associated with commercial harvest, the safe areas are up and operational, retooling a marginal commercial fishery to remove excess hatchery fish would cost tax payers millions. Removing hatchery fish from the system could be done at the dam and falls, which would have minimal effect on sport opportunity below the harvest site.

Current select area fisheries cost the tax payers and rate payers millions every year, and Safe-For Salmon would increase that cost by millions more every year in perpetuity. 'Reprogramming' millions of smolts from tributary release to lower river net pens will reduce sport oppertunity, drastically in some cases. Select area spring Chinook, for example, are caught well over 90% in commercial nets and only 3% by sport fishers. Taking a million or so smolts out of the Willamette River and 'reprogramming' them to be caught in Youngs Bay will reduce sport spring Chinook sport oppertunity on the Columbia and Willamettte by 20-40% on average.

- Brad

[Uglygreen]

Originally Posted by Todd

So long as Columbia River fisheries are set by allocation of allowable ESA impacts, selective fishing won't save one single wild fish, and won't aid recovery one iota...and as long as there are ESA fish in the Columbia, that's how the seasons will be set.

Sportfishers will be very disillusioned when they find out that no more wild fish are spawning, no recovery is being aided, and fishing is worse than it is now.

Fish on...

Todd

FYI.... The HSRG, using the best and most current science avalible disagrees with Todd's armchair assessment. 36% seems signifigant.

"The HSRG also recommends that the Washington coastal and lower Columbia River sport and commercial [fall] Chinook
fisheries be managed selectively. By doing so, harvest of [ESA] threatened wild Lower Columbia River [fall] Chinook would be
reduced by about 36% under HSRG projections. Similarly, hatchery fish harvest would increase by about 13% and wild
summer Chinook harvest would decline by about 7% if the Columbia River sport and terminal summer Chinook fisheries
were managed as selective."

- Brad

[freespool]

Originally Posted by Uglygreen

FYI.... The HSRG, using the best and most current science avalible disagrees with Todd's armchair assessment.


- Brad

Yes and hatchery fish are the same as wild fish, dams are the same as water falls and rapids, and migrating steelhead are better off in barges, was and is the best available government science.

[Todd]

Unfortunately for the HSRG and those who take their word as gospel, that's mathematically impossible under current and longstanding Columbia River season setting, especially so far as spring Chinook go.

There would be a difference regarding the summer Chinook go, as under a truly selective fishery the harvest of summer Chinook would come to a virtual standstill.

So long as the spring Chinook seasons are managed under the umbrella of the ESA, as many wild springers will die no matter how they are harvested, or who harvests them.

As for your jab about "armchair assessments", my armchair resides on the board of directors of a few sportfishing and conservation groups here in the PNW, on some statewide advisory panels in Olympia, and at several commission meetings in Salem and Olympia every year...just not on the CCA's...and that's where my armchair has been for nearly 20 years.

The world of fish advocacy didn't start when Gary brought the CCA to Washington and Oregon.

Fish on...

Todd

[Uglygreen]

Originally Posted by Todd

Unfortunately for the HSRG and those who take their word as gospel, that's mathematically impossible under current and longstanding Columbia River season setting, especially so far as spring Chinook go.

There would be a difference regarding the summer Chinook go, as under a truly selective fishery the harvest of summer Chinook would come to a virtual standstill.

So long as the spring Chinook seasons are managed under the umbrella of the ESA, as many wild springers will die no matter how they are harvested, or who harvests them.

As for your jab about "armchair assessments", my armchair resides on the board of directors of a few sportfishing and conservation groups here in the PNW, on some statewide advisory panels in Olympia, and at several commission meetings in Salem and Olympia every year...just not on the CCA's...and that's where my armchair has been for nearly 20 years.

The world of fish advocacy didn't start when Gary brought the CCA to Washington and Oregon.

Fish on...

Todd

Sorry, I'm confused. Are you attacking the HSRG because of CCA , or are you attacking CCA because of the HSRG. And what does Gary Loomis have to do with the HSRG and/or it's recommendations? I must have missed that connection somehow. And I'm assuming you have something (other than a armchair assessment) to disprove the HSRG statement previously posted claiming a 36% reduction in harvest of ESA threatened lower Columbia fall Chinook under a selective fishery harvest reform?

And I think you missed the point.... you say "impossible under current and longstanding Columbia River season setting" which is exactly why the HSRG recommends changing to a selective fishery... because a selective fishing harvest reform is what makes a 36% reduction in harvest of ESA threatened lower Columbia fall Chinook possible. (And clearly refutes your statement in post #37)

- Brad

[Todd]

Changing gear types is not the same as changing season setting.

Seasons for spring Chinook are now based on a 2% allowable impact on listed ESA spring Chinook...that doesn't change no matter what gear type is used. The only thing changing gear types will do is change the amount of hatchery fish that are harvested while killing those 2%.

I'd like to see how the HSRG can find a reduction in spring Chinook kills when the amount of spring Chinook kills is the number used to set the seasons.

I'm not bagging on the HSRG, nor am I bagging on the CCA, I'm pointing out that the new crop of advocates who think fish and fishing advocacy started three years ago should get up to speed on how it all works before supporting ideas that won't help.

I was mainly responding to your childish "armchair assessment" comment, noting that I've been active and current with advocacy from lots of places where my armchair ain't, for many years.

Fish on...

Todd

[Uglygreen]

Originally Posted by Todd

Changing gear types is not the same as changing season setting.

Seasons for spring Chinook are now based on a 2% allowable impact on listed ESA spring Chinook...that doesn't change no matter what gear type is used. The only thing changing gear types will do is change the amount of hatchery fish that are harvested while killing those 2%.

I'd like to see how the HSRG can find a reduction in spring Chinook kills when the amount of spring Chinook kills is the number used to set the seasons.

I'm not bagging on the HSRG, nor am I bagging on the CCA, I'm pointing out that the new crop of advocates who think fish and fishing advocacy started three years ago should get up to speed on how it all works before supporting ideas that won't help.

I was mainly responding to your childish "armchair assessment" comment, noting that I've been active and current with advocacy from lots of places where my armchair ain't, for many years.

Fish on...

Todd

Changing gear types necessitates changing how seasons are set, there is no signifigant difference that I see. And I believe 'armchair assessment' is entirely descriptive of your posts that make grand pronouncements with no data or evidence to back up the claims you make. I try to avoid 'armchair assessments' by nearly always backing up what I am saying with evidence that others can go look at to support my position and make their own decision as to the valididy of my claim. You have legal training right? Perhaps you would prefer the terminology 'unsubstantiated allegations' to 'armchair assessments'? because it's the same thing.

And with regard to spring Chinook, the more appropriate question I see in regard to the HSRG recommendation to move to more selective sport and commercial fisheries is: What would the spring Chinook fishery look like if the current selective harvest abilities we already have instituted in that fishery were not in place?

Oh yeah... No meaningful Columbia spring Chinook fishery (above the Willamette) from approximatly 1973 to 2001.

- Brad

[Ginny Ross]

Originally Posted by Todd

The world of fish advocacy didn't start when Gary brought the CCA to Washington and Oregon.

Fish on...

Todd

Are you a member of the Lamiglas Rod Squad --- maybe this is your axe to grind? I can't figure out why you're making such a concerted effort on many boards to divide, to trash the efforts of CCA, and to hold up your opinion about future events as indisputable facts. Maybe no one told you: You're entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. The use of the 2% of impacts in the future is a FUTURE event not governed by your opinion.

You will continue to make your gloom and doom predictions, but they are not facts. Please try to understand the difference.

[Todd]

Good effort, Ginny, but I'm not a "Rod Squad Agent", nor am I on the payroll of anyone but myself. Even if I were, what the hell would that have to do with this? Is there some reason why Lamiglas, a sponsor of this board, should have an axe to grind? If there is, I'm not aware of it.

When you make halfass accusations like that, you better be ready to back them up.

Let's hear it.

I'm not making up facts, but many of you are ignoring them.

That's how LCR seasons are set; by the allocation of allowable ESA impacts. Gear types and associated mortalities are then used to estimate how many hatchery fish you will harvest while killing your share of the allocated ESA impacts.

I don't need to back that up with proof, as it's self-evident to anyone with the barest knowledge of how it works there...it's how it is done there, and it's how it will continue to be done there until the imposition of the ESA is lifted. The only change *may* be the increase in allowable ESA impacts as a run continues to recover, but under current management schemes anything approaching recovery is not likely to ever happen, and even if it did, it would only change the number upwards from 2%, and the allocation of that new number would result in exactly the same thing, just with more dead ESA fish, numbers- and percentage-wise.

As I've said before, I'm dismayed by the vocal support of something that comes concurrently with an utter ignorance of how it will play out in the real world.

Knowing how LCR seasons are set, and why, should be the most basic fundamental to know before coming up with great ideas...especially great ideas that will have fantastically unintended consequences, like this one.

Fish on...

Todd

[sealgal2008]

Originally Posted by Ginny Ross

Pretty clever attempted fear-mongering, Betty, but it's not going to work. If you want to impose definitions and conclusions in this debate, fine. Don't try to speak for other organizations though --- start your own and get busy on your project of ending all fishing or whatever it is you are trying to do. Good luck getting any supporters here.

In the meantime, just realize that a CCA position statement is not a 'mission' statement. Moreover, the words of the position statements are abundantly clear on their face and yours is the only concern I've ever heard over lack of clarity of these statements. You are going to have to suffer along in your confusion alone, I'm afraid, because the meaning is clear to everyone else without a fear-mongering agenda.

Besides, what is being espoused is that the gear be designed for live capture -- the actual result must be moving in that direction. The entire point of sportfishing is live capture. The gear is specifically designed for that, so there is no need to address the design issue. Commercial fisheries have a loooooooong way to go to meet this standard, and your attempts to distract by trying to get a debate going with CCA over the precise meaning of 'unharmed' release in this context is just a big ridiculous tempest in a teapot and a dead end.

If the definition of unharmed in CCAs position statement is so clear than why the hesitation to post the definition. Fear comes from the unknown. If the definition of unharmed with respect to CCAs position statement were known there would be no confusion or mystery that spawns the fear you speak of. It can all be cleared up easily by posting what the definition of unharmed is with respect to the position statement. After all, CCA is focused like a laser on this issue.

You told me to look up the dictonary definition so I did. you said it was perhaps more simple than I am making it. So Ginny here is your big chance to set me straight on the definition. What is unharmed? I looked in the dictonary but obviously CCA uses another definition. What does the CCA dictonary define as unharmed?

[cosmo]

Originally Posted by Uglygreen

Current select area fisheries cost the tax payers and rate payers millions every year, and Safe-For Salmon would increase that cost by millions more every year in perpetuity. 'Reprogramming' millions of smolts from tributary release to lower river net pens will reduce sport oppertunity, drastically in some cases. Select area spring Chinook, for example, are caught well over 90% in commercial nets and only 3% by sport fishers. Taking a million or so smolts out of the Willamette River and 'reprogramming' them to be caught in Youngs Bay will reduce sport spring Chinook sport oppertunity on the Columbia and Willamettte by 20-40% on average.

- Brad

You're off on this one, and in following posts you go on to talk about how much supporting data and research you bring.

Please go get an understanding of spring chinook release groups in the Willamette, how many are full term and how many are pre-smolt fall releases. Then find out how those fish tend to return as adults. Only then will you get a true understanding of how the fishery may be impacted, but your 20-40% is way out of line.

[Ginny Ross]

Originally Posted by Todd

Good effort, Ginny, but I'm not a "Rod Squad Agent", nor am I on the payroll of anyone but myself.

A quick search led me to a profile of yours on the Lamiglas site which it appeared was connected to their Rod Squad (dealers perhaps)? In any case, I am just trying to understand why you are so aggressively devisive and negative, tearing down CCA efforts, and spending so much time on so many boards pushing this negative agenda. What are you trying to accomplish? You seem to think you have the corner on understanding how fisheries are managed and that your assessments and predictions are ironclad statements of what will happen. Doesn't it seem a tad arrogant?

[Ginny Ross]

Originally Posted by sealgal2008

You told me to look up the dictonary definition so I did.

Well done.

What is unharmed?

You read numerous definitions and you still don't get it? I'm not sure I can help you.

I looked in the dictonary but obviously CCA uses another definition.

If so, it's the first I've heard of it. Like I said, you seem to be in a self-induced state of confusion that only you can solve. One can't wake a person pretending to sleep.

[Uglygreen]

Originally Posted by cosmo

You're off on this one, and in following posts you go on to talk about how much supporting data and research you bring.

Please go get an understanding of spring chinook release groups in the Willamette, how many are full term and how many are pre-smolt fall releases. Then find out how those fish tend to return as adults. Only then will you get a true understanding of how the fishery may be impacted, but your 20-40% is way out of line.

I don't think so. The 20-40% number is an ODFW staff estimate of possible reduced hatchery adult returns to the Willamette system based on the ODFW 2008 Curt Melcher 'strawman' proposal / idea of reprogramming one million spring chinook smolts from Willamette tributary release to Youngs Bay select area net pen release (the Oregon plan) and was also discussed at Oregon fish and wildlife commission meeting February 19-20th, 2009 in Astoria.

- Brad

[sealgal2008]

Originally Posted by Ginny Ross

Well done.

You read numerous definitions and you still don't get it? I'm not sure I can help you.

If so, it's the first I've heard of it. Like I said, you seem to be in a self-induced state of confusion that only you can solve. One can't wake a person pretending to sleep.

Oh, I get it! And am now crystal clear that unharmed under any definition simply means; that which has not been harmed, injured or damaged. You say its simple and it is!

So Ginny - now what happens when we apply this to CCAs #1 position statement? No where in this position statement are harvest methods mentioned for either recreational or commercial fisheries. I am still asleep with respect to what recreational harvest methods will fit into the #1 CCA position statement which they are "focused like a lazer" on selective harvest.

"To restore and rebuild depleted and ESA listed stocks, both commercial and recreational fishers must become more selective in targeting abundant stocks for harvest while minimizing impacts to less viable stocks. Such targeting requires the widespread use of harvest gear and practices capable of live capture, sorting and unharmed release of fish."

The position statement clearly states that both commercial and recreational fishers must become more selective. Yes the current recreational harvest method of hook and line is capable of live capture and sorting but it is in no way capable of unharmed release of fish under any definition. Remember unharmed means no harm injury or damage has been imparted to the fish from the live capture and sorting encounter.

This is not fear mongering, it is just pointing out the language used in the #1 position statement is flawed. Perhaps some editing is in order.

Betty

[Ginny Ross]

Originally Posted by Todd

I'm not making up facts, but many of you are ignoring them. That's how LCR seasons are set; by the allocation of allowable ESA impacts. Gear types and associated mortalities are then used to estimate how many hatchery fish you will harvest while killing your share of the allocated ESA impacts.

That is the current status quo. Your position is that it is impossible, as a matter of fact, to change this status quo. Reasonable people can disagree because, looking at history, it is a proven fact that effective political action changes the status quo.

As I've said before, I'm dismayed by the vocal support of something that comes concurrently with an utter ignorance of how it will play out in the real world. Knowing how LCR seasons are set, and why, should be the most basic fundamental to know before coming up with great ideas...especially great ideas that will have fantastically unintended consequences, like this one.

I'd go easier on the "utter ignorance" claims. Just because you hold the belief others don't understand LCR season setting doesn't mean it is a fact. At least consider the possibility that you might not see the full picture by reading forums, that's all I'm asking.

[Ginny Ross]

Betty,

Thanks for giving so much thought and attention to CCA's position. I'm glad we both agree that by no means do gillnets fit within the definition of selective. Since that is the only commercial gear allowed in the CR right now, the first and most important effort we should rally behind, if there is to be any commercial fishery in the CR at all, is to end the use of these nets.

I regret that solving your riddle as to how sportfishing gear meets one word of the criteria for "selective" is not tops on my to-do list, and frankly I do not see what motivates you to put it on top of yours. It's not my job to solve your riddle. Maybe you have way more time to contemplate low priority semantics than I do, but I'm going to have to draw this to a conclusion.

If you wish, you can continue to wrap yourself around the axle about it. A much more productive use of your time would be to focus on helping to rid the CR and Puget Sound of these archaic miserable gillnets that we both agree do not by any stretch meet the definition of "selective." That's my focus.

Ginny

[Todd]

Ginny, this isn't an anti-CCA rant, it's an "anti-any idea that will not help fish and will hurt sportfishing" rant...and if the CCA is supporting it, then they go in the hopper...along with any other group that would be pushing for it.

Find anything else good while googling me?

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. I don't sell fishing rods, either. Next?

[Todd]

Did you find this while googling me? Might be a little more on point than a profile on a public forum discussing fishing rods...though I'll admit it does seem that knowing about fishing rods is a perfectly acceptable background for making wide policy positions regarding fish management, to some minds.

************

Vice President of Political Affairs, Todd Ripley

Todd has enjoyed fishing for steelhead in Washington for nearly 25 of his 31 years. Camping, hiking, biking, and other outdoor activities consume as much of his time as possible, especially if there’s a good river wherever he’s camping or hiking. His love for all things steelhead eventually lead him to Western Washington University where he graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Marine Biology and a minor in Chemistry. He also played shortstop for the WWU Vikings for a few of his years there. After a couple of years as a biologist, it was back to school, this time Gonzaga University School of Law in Spokane. In 1998 he graduated magna *** laude with an emphasis in environmental law.
After passing the bar, Todd accepted an appointment as an Assistant Attorney General with the Washington State Attorney General’s Office, where he represented the Department of Fish and Wildlife. There his work centered around tribal hunting and fishing rights, enforcement of forfeiture laws against commercial poaching operations, habitat conservation plans under the Endangered Species Act, and other state and federal environmental laws and regulations. Todd currently plans to spend as much time and effort as possible to further the needs of wild steelhead runs.

********

'Bout time to update my profile...I'm not quite 31 any more

That's from the Wild Steelhead Coalition website, and I have been on the WSC's BOD as VP of Political Affairs since its inception in 2000.

Fish on...

Todd

[Ginny Ross]

Originally Posted by Todd

Ginny, this isn't an anti-CCA rant, it's an "anti-any idea that will not help fish and will hurt sportfishing" rant...and if the CCA is supporting it, then they go in the hopper...along with any other group that would be pushing for it.

How will the ending of indiscriminate slaughter of steelhead in gillnets not help sportfishing?

Find anything else good while googling me?

Seems like you have far more in common with CCA's efforts than against, if you really cared to look at it more carefully. The key difference I suppose is that CCA is not a sportfishing group, but the primary and guiding focus is conservation of marine life. I think you should really think twice before proceeding with this claim that the effort to end gillnetting and to selectively harvest more hatchery fish will not help wild fish. It is really eating away at any credibility you might have otherwise had. What about all the ESA listed winter steelhead that die in the nets? They will certainly benefit from ending gillnetting. What crystal ball do you have that says 100% of these ESA steelhead will still die without the nets!!?

[Todd]

Ginny, I've got years worth of credibility worked up in Olympia and in Salem, and I've been doing this for quite a while...not above and on the other threads that I'm not exactly an outlier with my opinions on this topic, I'm just not swallowing the party line on it.

I'm not even remotely worried about losing any of it over this topic, and amongst many very knowledgeable folks, I'm probably gaining quite a bit, at that.

Fish on...

Todd

[Ginny Ross]

I see you have a very positive opinion of yourself and great confidence in your credibility. It's great we all can have our opinions.

[Todd]

Originally Posted by Ginny Ross

It's great we all can have our opinions.

It is indeed...I guess the proof will be in the pudding when and if this program ever gets off the ground.

Fish on...

Todd