My idea to stop springer gillnetting,hopefull

fish-bones · 12-04-2003, 11:20 PM

I don,t know how a person or group would go about filing a suit against a dept. of the state or federal government? My idea is to file against the dept. in charge of endangered species that allow the states of Wa. and Oregon GILLNETTERS to take salmon listed as endangered.This is the worst case of mismanagement of a species that they are supposed to protect.It might stop them until they can figure out how to allow netting in the Columbia river without taking any protected native fish.The organization that stopped the state from moving the Caspian Terns off of sand island in the lower Columbia acomplished there goal in this way, I think this is a way to go for now.It should work. I don,t know the proceedure or cost to do this.If anybody has any ideas about this,let me know.

fishbones

freespool · 12-05-2003, 08:50 AM

They didn't file a lawsuit to stop them from moving the terns. They filed to stop harassing the the birds. I.E. noise makers etc.

free

Tyeebuster · 12-05-2003, 12:13 PM

Wouldn't this be a problem for the sports fishery also? The gillneters, as well as the sports fishery, are allowed to "take" wild fish. The issue currently at hand is how to split the impact or "take" of wild salmon.

I don't think a law suit would have the desired result.

BUGLEMAN · 12-05-2003, 12:19 PM

The issue at hand is the split with the indians. They are getting well over thier share of 50% more like about 85% of the ESA impact.

Hoosier Daddy · 12-05-2003, 12:57 PM

I think Tyee is right. A lawsuit on that basis would likely have the effect (if successful) of stopping ALL fishing because even catch and release by sport fishers of endangered salmon are considered in the take estimates.

fish-bones · 12-05-2003, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyeebuster:
[QBI
I
] Wouldn't this be a problem for the sports fishery also? The gillneters, as well as the sports fishery, are allowed to "take" wild fish. The issue currently at hand is how to split the impact or "take" of wild salmon.

I don't think a law suit would have the desired result. [/QB]

fish-bones · 12-05-2003, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyeebuster:
I wasn,t aware that sportsmen could keep even ONE springer with its adipose fin in tack. I know from the last springer season ,the gamies supposed to have arrested some guys for having a couple of fish hidden.i read that right here ,on Ifish.net. Correct me if i,m wrong.If i,m wrong than i released fish for nothing.

fishbones

Wouldn't this be a problem for the sports fishery also? The gillneters, as well as the sports fishery, are allowed to "take" wild fish. The issue currently at hand is how to split the impact or "take" of wild salmon.

I don't think a law suit would have the desired result.

Lured In · 12-05-2003, 01:39 PM

Fishbones...while I can appreciate to your distaste for gillnetters, the reality is not the "take" that you refer to, it is the IMPACT on ESA listed fish. No fishery (sport or commercial) is allowed to harvest (take or keep) wild spring chinook.

The impact is what is mostly measured and mostly monitored by the Columbia River Compact

(CRC). The impact is split between Treaty (Indian) and Non-Treaty (sport and commercial). The Non-Treaty impact is further divided between sport above Bonneville and below.

The focus is on minimizing the impact of the fisheries (sport and commercial) on ESA listed (unmarked) fish. Fundamentally, the problem with Gillnetting is that it is impossible to prevent or even minimize the catch of ESA listed fish. This is also true of the sport fishery. So the focus turns to minimizing the mortality rate of "unmarked fish".

So we now have a "tangle net fishery" (even though they neglected to use them in the first part of the springer fishery). The idea being that unmarked fish would be less impacted (mortality rate) than via gillnets, while still allowing the fishery.

Oddly enough, we have no such restriction in the sport fishery. No barbless hook rules, no single point hook rules, no bait ban, etc. Is it not possible that we could reduce our own impact by implementing some of these? (I am not saying we should, only highlighting that our side is not as rosey as some may think.)

As I see it, here is the issue. Nets do not target salmon over steelhead or salmon over sturgeon. (again you can minimize by not prevent) Thus you have additional impacts (especially on wild winter steelhead). If for no other reason, this alone should be enough to change the net fisheries.

Tyeebuster · 12-05-2003, 03:15 PM

Well put Lured. More directly the "take" assigned to the sport caught wild fish is 10%. This assumption means that the mortality rate of released fish caught on a hook and line will be 1 out of ten. This is the simple assignment of morality, it becomes more complex when assigning the "take" (mortality) to the wild fish "impact". This is more difficult due to the fact that not all of the unmarked fish are wild. Therefore, the "take" (or impact) is further reduced by the porportion of unmarked fish to wild fish.

The "take" or mortality of the commercial fishery is currently under review. Depending on what you want to believe the mortality is as low as 20% to as high as 60%. It appears that the revised mortality figures will be desided in the near future.

As illistrated above, both fisheries have an assigned "take" so to make the argument that commercials kill or "take" fish and sports do not is fruitless and counter productive to our cause.

I would not be surprised if there is a review of the mortality rate of sport caught fish in the near future. Which is why I am on the record for NOT removing fish from the water for any reason, using single hooks, and doing everything in your control to maximize the survivability of released fish. Lower PROVEN mortality = Greater fishing opprotunity.

BTW - I am one of the most anti-gillnetters known and have stated that on many posts here. However, I feel that we need to organize and demonstrate that sport fishers have as low of impact on the fish as possible and a high economic benefit. I am not sure we are there yet.

fish-bones · 12-05-2003, 03:15 PM

Thanks for your reply to my post. I beleive all that you wrote and understand it. I still believe that suing the (ESA)would put the gillnetting on hold ,the same as the Caspian terns issue.When ever anything is challenged ,they can,t proceed until the issue is addressed.I know i am stubin on this issue ,but fishing is my passion,and i don,t like the state giving a LIONS share to the crummy gillnetters, without putting up a good fight.I still say that i will give the first HUNDRED DOLLARS to reach my GOAl.What ever we have to do.

FISHBONES

Quote:

Originally posted by Lured In:
Fishbones...while I can appreciate to your distaste for gillnetters, the reality is not the "take" that you refer to, it is the IMPACT on ESA listed fish. No fishery (sport or commercial) is allowed to harvest (take or keep) wild spring chinook.

The impact is what is mostly measured and mostly monitored by the Columbia River Compact (CRC). The impact is split between Treaty (Indian) and Non-Treaty (sport and commercial). The Non-Treaty impact is further divided between sport above Bonneville and below.

The focus is on minimizing the impact of the fisheries (sport and commercial) on ESA listed (unmarked) fish. Fundamentally, the problem with Gillnetting is that it is impossible to prevent or even minimize the catch of ESA listed fish. This is also true of the sport fishery. So the focus turns to minimizing the mortality rate of "unmarked fish".

So we now have a "tangle net fishery" (even though they neglected to use them in the first part of the springer fishery). The idea being that unmarked fish would be less impacted (mortality rate) than via gillnets, while still allowing the fishery.

Oddly enough, we have no such restriction in the sport fishery. No barbless hook rules, no single point hook rules, no bait ban, etc. Is it not possible that we could reduce our own impact by implementing some of these? (I am not saying we should, only highlighting that our side is not as rosey as some may think.)

As I see it, here is the issue. Nets do not target salmon over steelhead or salmon over sturgeon. (again you can minimize by not prevent) Thus you have additional impacts (especially on wild winter steelhead). If for no other reason, this alone should be enough to change the net fisheries.

fish-bones · 12-05-2003, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by freespool:
They didn't file a lawsuit to stop them from moving the terns. They filed to stop harassing the the birds. I.E. noise makers etc.

free

slabhunter · 12-05-2003, 11:30 PM

Perhaps it might be better to file the lawsuit at the state level for there not being an economic impact statement. Guides, resteraunts, and mini-marts lose business when the opertunity to sportfish is impacted by nonselective netting. Last spring our season was shut down April 6. it was reduced to four days per week April 9,(closed above the I5 bridge.) How much of an impact did this have?

fish-bones · 12-05-2003, 11:47 PM

I know they filed to stop the state from harassing the terns with noise makers,but the purpose was to discourage the terns from nesting on the island,where they had easy access to feeding on salmon smolt. that was what i meant by moving them. not by physically moving them.OK I,M SORRY FOR THE MISUNDERSTANDING.i,M TRYING to find a solution to ending the gillnetting of the Columbia River.I think a lawsuit to prevent the taking of endangered fish is a start.anyone who has any ideas should post them.

fishbonesOriginally posted by freespool:
They didn't file a lawsuit to stop them from moving the terns. They filed to stop harassing the the birds. I.E. noise makers etc.

free [/QUOTE]

fishhog4u · 12-09-2003, 06:46 PM

Let me give you all a little insight what happened up here in my neck of the woods last year.
There was a commercial chinook opening in the southern part of Bellingham bay. The commercial fishers loaded up on kings only to find out, that the price they got for those fish, really wasn't worth their time and expence.
Now, if I (being a sport fisherman) caught one of these "ENDANGERED" fish, once it entered the river and bumped my head and wanted to take it home to momma and the kids, I would have risked: my boat, vehicle and gear being confiscated and fined in addition. I would have been branded as a poacher!!! Either chinook are endangered or they are not.
I was soooo ****ed when I heard about this. I fired off an email to the Washington Department of fish and game explaining my thoughts on this matter. I received a canned statement from some lackie staing how "those" fish that were caught were "only" a specific run of hatchery only fish. Give me a break!!!!
Im all for people making their living off of the land. But, in an industry surrounded by government buy-outs, I feel that the economy would be better off if they gave up on commercial fishing and promoted out area (the Northwest) as the salmon capitol of the world!!! Poeple would come from all over the world to catch salmon, if there were greater numbers.. Just try and buy a permit to commercial fish sometime!!!!
I have heard that a sports caught fish is worth like $20.00 - $25.00 to the economy where as a commercial caught fish is like $6.00. Is that some sort of special economics class that I was sleeping through in college?? I think not!!!
my $.02 worth......

boater · 12-09-2003, 07:55 PM

[ 12-09-2003, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: boater ]

Pete · 12-09-2003, 08:12 PM

Sounds like there's a little misunderstanding of the ESA impact issue. The non-Indian anglers are permitted a combined 2% impact on ESA listed fish. The allocation between sport and commercial has been in favor of the sport anglers under the current matrix, which adjusts to permit the commercials a larger permissible impact when the runs are larger. Sport angler mortality impact on ESA listed fish is what ends our season. For the last couple years, sports kill about 10% of the ESA fish we handle. We can improve that by not lifting fish from the water, playing fish more quickly and by using hooks that release easily. Keep in mind, too, that the most significant ESA mortality impact is the effect of Dams. If that impact were fully considered, there would likely be no sport fishing season. That said, yes, gillnetters could improve their ESA mortality rate, about 30% of the ESA fish they handled last year, but it isn't what has been suggested in this thread. The gillnetters do work to reduce their impact - they have strong economic incentive to do so. Until we are all willing to work together to achieve a solution, we won't find one that works.

monoman · 12-09-2003, 09:04 PM

Pete

You are wrong on at least one point in your post. What ended our season last year was the total ESA take. The netters went over their allocation, the run was than managed as one number, we did not get to fish for our allotted share.

Bill Monroe · 12-10-2003, 03:31 AM

I don't think Pete said that was what happened last year, but rather that's what happens typically. Last year was anything but typical, but remember that the system of tweaking is only a couple of years old. Last year's early arrival of upriver fish surprised everyone...first time it's happened since most have been watching the numbers. I doubt they'll get caught again on that one, but it seems like it's always something. Once the ESA impacts were met, it wasn't possible to improve fishing time until late, when the run was definitely larger than predicted. No decision has been made on sharing. We've actually had a couple of years of more fishing than ever before, in part because of stronger runs but also in part because the system of management has been refined a great deal since the early days of the EDA and blanket closures by early March on the Columbia. The nets will improve their methods, we'll almost certainly not be allowed to remove fish from the water when releasing and seasons will be even more tuned to allow us as much fishing as possible. A lot of that will be due to people like Pete getting involved, getting grounded in science and management and making themselves heard.
Not filing lawsuits.

finclipped · 12-10-2003, 06:13 AM

Last year and and 2002, were the first two years that the tangle nets were widely used for commercial take.

Last year was a "surprise" in that there were a higher percentage of ESA fish in the tangle net catch, resulting in an over harvest of the commercial ESA allocation.

In 2002, the tangle nets "surprised" us in that the ESA steelhead allocation was blown out of the water and basically ignored by the states. If I remember correctly they went over their salmon ESA allocation as well.

If this is a typical, I wonder what this year has in store? Well I guess we'll have to wait and let ODFW/WDFW surprise us.

Both user groups should work on lowering there impact, and in the long run this will increase the catch for both groups. Next step, non lethal commercial harvest methods.

[ 12-10-2003, 07:15 AM: Message edited by: finclipped ]

cosmo · 12-10-2003, 08:35 AM

The mortality rate for tangle nets has been set at 24.8%, per recent studies. This will be the rate used to manage the tangle net fishery in 2004.

The sport fishery is managed at 10% mortality rate.

In a time when we want to maximize harvest of hatchery fish to limit inermingling of wild and hatchery stocks, its an important thought that given equal impacts, the sports fishry can harvest almost 2.5X the hatchery fish from the river as the tangle nets. There may be some fisheries where sprt fisheries are incapable of harvesting the necessary amounts of fish (silvers) but spring chinook is not one of them.

freespool · 12-10-2003, 01:47 PM

I totally agree with Pete and Bill Monroe on this issue. Caspian Terns don't involve quotas or user groups. Spring chinook can and will be managed,how much and how fairly is up to the sportman who gets involved. Try attending the meetings so your views maybe heard.

free

[ 12-10-2003, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: freespool ]

fish-bones · 12-10-2003, 02:23 PM

Pete,
I don,t understand your explanation of sports esa impact of 10% kill of fish the sportsmen handled.I,ve never been questioned,how many or have i ever filled any punch-card out showing that i,ve killed any. The gillneters must give the states of WA. & OR.SOME TALLY of fish caught.EXPLAIN to me so i can understand and than i can say the GILLNETERS ARN,T the problem ,EVEN IF OUR STATES ARE THE ONLY ONES TO ALLOW GILLNETTING IN A RIVER.Help me to accept this MENTALITY .

fish-bones

Quote:

Originally posted by Pete:
Sounds like there's a little misunderstanding of the ESA impact issue. The non-Indian anglers are permitted a combined 2% impact on ESA listed fish. The allocation between sport and commercial has been in favor of the sport anglers under the current matrix, which adjusts to permit the commercials a larger permissible impact when the runs are larger. Sport angler mortality impact on ESA listed fish is what ends our season. For the last couple years, sports kill about 10% of the ESA fish we handle. We can improve that by not lifting fish from the water, playing fish more quickly and by using hooks that release easily. Keep in mind, too, that the most significant ESA mortality impact is the effect of Dams. If that impact were fully considered, there would likely be no sport fishing season. That said, yes, gillnetters could improve their ESA mortality rate, about 30% of the ESA fish they handled last year, but it isn't what has been suggested in this thread. The gillnetters do work to reduce their impact - they have strong economic incentive to do so. Until we are all willing to work together to achieve a solution, we won't find one that works.

Pete · 12-10-2003, 03:36 PM

fish-bones, You wrote, "I don,t understand your explanation of sports esa impact of 10% kill of fish the sportsmen handled." I believe I know the answer, but I'm not positive so I've sent a request to ODFW to answer your question precisely. I'll post the response here when I get it, OK?

Bill Monroe · 12-10-2003, 04:08 PM

I'll look forward to it as well, but a lot of it could harken back to the research Bob Toman helped with below the Willamette Falls for three years and another couple on the Deschutes...they hooked and released spring chinook then marked them and followed them upriver, matching them with both wild and unhooked fish...

fish-bones · 12-11-2003, 03:48 PM

[I do want to hear your response from the state and i can,t wait to hear there explanation.
The bottom line is the ending of gillnets as soon as possible. I hear a rumor about the FEDS buying out some trollers but i don,t know if this is true.If they are going to we should work to direct them to the GILLNETERS. RIGHT???

fish-bones

QUOTE]Originally posted by Pete:
fish-bones, You wrote, "I don,t understand your explanation of sports esa impact of 10% kill of fish the sportsmen handled." I believe I know the answer, but I'm not positive so I've sent a request to ODFW to answer your question precisely. I'll post the response here when I get it, OK? [/QUOTE]

Lured In · 12-11-2003, 07:10 PM

fishbones...the mortality rate is based off of radio tagging and other measures. Essentially they net or catch a fish, tag it and see if it shows up days or weeks later. This gives a baseline (albeit somewhat questionable, but is the best the DFW's can offer), on how fish survive being netted or caught. (Pete should be able to validate and/or correct my statements when he hears back from ODFW.)

The reality of last years debacle in netting was directly a result of doing too many things at once. The spring netting season generally coincides with the peak of the run of ESA listed wild winter steelhead. In 2002, the first year of 'official' experimental tangle netting, they used 6" mesh nets (coho gillnets) in an attempt to minimize cost to netters and still tangle net the springers. The result was they gillnetted more than the ESA impact of wild winter steelhead. Throughout the rest of 2002, the CRC looked into the ideal size for tangle nets and came down with ~4.25" mesh.

In deciding the season for 2003, biologist believed that a large proportion of the early run (late feb-early march) would be large 5 year old hatchery Willamette fish. Based on this prediction, they let the netters use traditional 9" mesh GILLNETS during the first part of the netting season. This was also supposed to mimimize impacts on ESA listed wild winter steelhead as the mesh would not get caught in their giills.

The Willamette fish didn't show as predicted and the upriver fish did. The result was massive impacts on upriver fish.

IMHO this was the single biggest blunder of the season and their needs to be a law that springer nets have to be 4.25" and not allow the CRC to deviate from it, regardless of what the prediction is. If I were a gillnetter I would be irate over this as they got shafted and made to look like the bad guys when they were following the rules CRC set out.

While I don't approve of netting in the river, it is not likely to go away anytime soon.

We must focus on the fish and look at what is going on behind the scenes. (Such as last years decision to use 9" mesh in the beginning of the year).

monoman · 12-12-2003, 01:46 PM

Lured

The gillnet lobby signed off on the 9" mesh and even lobbied for it. The single worst decision last year, was when they allowed the netters to have a season [one tide] when all signs pointed at too many ESA fish in the system to let it happen. The netters asked for two tides! This ran their take up to some where around 135% of their allocation. The netters wanted that season at that time because of price. They did get what they asked for as far as timing, and they did not ask to delay the season. The price of fresh salmon is a supply and demand item, there was very little other fishing going on at the time, this equals higher prices. They did not get what they agreed on as far as numbers, nor did we.