Commision goes for the gillnetters

[David Johnson]

I got this news release tonight from NSIA.

NSIA spent 4 months of outreach with Sportfishing leaders in two states. At the same time, we instituted an intensive education program with members of the Commission, ODF&W Staff and members of the Oregon Legislature. We built large consensus supporting a full April mainstem sportfishery for Spring Chinook. The Oregon Commission disregared the business, communities and Legislators in support of the gillnetters. You should be outraged.

This decision reduces our allocation by nearly 1/3! E-mail your or call your legislator today. www.leg.state.or.us/findlegsltr/findset.htm


Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Contact: Anne Pressentin Young (503) 947-6020
Internet: www.dfw.state.or.us Fax: (503) 947-6009


For Immediate Release Friday, Jan. 9, 2004

Fish and Wildlife Commission gives guidance for 2004 Columbia River
spring chinook fisheries
Wolf management plan framework adopted

SALEM - The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission Friday supported
splitting the allowable impacts to wild fish during this year's
Columbia River spring chinook fisheries 40-50 percent to the commercial
fishery and 50-60 percent to the sport fishery.

Decisions on the 2004 Columbia spring chinook sport and commercial
fisheries will be made Feb. 5 in Oregon City by the states of Oregon and
Washington meeting as the Columbia River Compact. The first harvest is
expected to begin later in February.

Biologists estimate the policy guidance could result in a total
mainstem harvest of about 50,000 spring chinook, split for sport anglers
and the commercial fishing industry. Biologists also estimate that
454,000 hatchery-bred spring chinook will enter the Columbia River this
year and be available for harvest in the mainstem Columbia and
tributaries. Of those, 96,300 hatchery spring chinook are estimated to
be destined for the Willamette River.

The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission is the policymaking body for
fish and wildlife issues in the state. The seven-member panel meets
monthly.

The Commission also supported a pilot regulation prohibiting sport
anglers from removing wild chinook and steelhead from the water in the
Columbia River between Tongue Point and McNary Dam. The goal of the
potential new rule is to reduce the unintended mortality associated with
handling and releasing fish.


Spring chinook provide tremendous economic benefit to both the
commercial and sport-fishing industries because the meat is prized for
its flavor and it is the first fresh non-farmed salmon of the season to
reach barbecues and specialty markets.

Columbia River spring chinook seasons are set to protect wild chinook
listed under the federal Endangered Species Act while allowing harvest
on adipose fin-clipped hatchery chinook. Federal law limits the
allowable impact to wild populations from unintended mortalities
associated with the non-Indian fisheries to 2.0 percent of the total
wild run.

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

[Kruechief]

I better send the email tomorrow...

To many beers, a broken down truck, a cancelled fishing trip, a second pay freeze... :tongue:

I think I may be a little postal at this point

I don't want to say anything that will have Der Homeland Security beating down my door! :shocked:

Krue

[steelheadslayer]

[img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

So, why don't the commercial guys have to leave the native salmon and steelhead in the water rather than shaking them out of their net to flop on the deck until the net is all the way in and then checking origin of the fish?

[Uglygreen]

Steelheadslayer, ive seen netters picking their nets before, but have never seen them do that... have you?

UG

[ 01-10-2004, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: Uglygreen ]

[Pickles]

wasn't last year 65 - 35 the higher being for us!

[steelheadslayer]

UG, YES, I have and so have other people down river from you.

[anger management]

All sports fishers need to unite together to stop the gill netters from getting this allocation. The nets need to be banned period.

[Uglygreen]

Fish addict - you are right - I stand corrected with foot in mouth.

Steelheadslayer - just curious, did you take some video or anything, and maybe turn them in? Cause I keep hearing this, and Ive watched INTENTLY on maybe a couple dozen occasions and have not seen this. Everytime I watch they pick the fish as the net comes in, releasing or reviving the wild ones as they pick. I have doubts that what you have seen is common practice.

UG

[Tyeebuster]

While I was not able to go to the meetings, I did send letters to the WDF&W and the representatives of both the 18th and 19th districts. I also helped several others in mailing the same. The letter I send to the WDF&W was from the position of a City political leader. So, from my letter they were unable to see my true bias as a sportfisher. The response was amazing. They assured me that the allocation would favor the sport fishers. I fact they claimed that 4 of the 6 options would result in a larger share to the sportfishers. However, they failed to state that 1 of the options was status quo, 1 was better than status quo and the other 4 were WORSE than the status quo. I followed up with a letter pointing this fact out and still awaiting a reply.

The letters I helped with that were from the point of view of the sportfishers got a much different response. They didn't even attempt to play the numbers shell game. They just responded with a reply along the lines of thanks for your letter.

As a side note the only response I received from the State Representatives came from Brian Hatfield and Brian Blake. No response from Mark Doumit, Ed Orcutt, Tom Mielke, or Joe Zarelli. Again letters were written to these individuals from the City Representative point of view and how sport fishing helps the economy and I received NO RESPONSE. The response form Blake and Hatfield were certainly in favor OF THE COMMERCIAL FISHERY. It would appear to me that the only way to resolve this problem is through the INITIATIVE PROCESS. Good day!

Lots of armchair QB's out there. For those that have jobs and cannot go to meetings then please make the calls and write the emails because it does make a difference! We saw that during last years hatchery crisis.
For those that have the time to get involved then stow the lipservice and get involved!

[guitgary]

I emailed my state representative early this AM and recieved a response from him indicating that a final decision had not yet been made...is this just political double-speak or maybe the final decision hasen't been made yet?

[slabhunter]

Stew, you hit the nail on the head. [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] I sure hope to see more sportfishers in Olympia next weekend.

[Jennie@ifish]

OK, we didn't make a good showing at the meeting on Friday. Sour grapes or not, we can still do something.

The meeting in Olympia is Saturday.

What say the big bads from ifish show up? :smile:

Caravan of trucks, cars, with ifish stickers show up to tell them how we feel? I'd be willing to have a meeting spot in PDX and hand out free stickers and caravan there!

Meet at Salmon Creek on I5, hand out stickers, and go? You can always take it off, if you don't like it there, but I think this would be a good show of force.

Yeah, yeah, Salem would have been easier, and give up a fishing day on the weekend? Am I crazy? Yes! I'd rather give up one Saturday than the entire month of April!!!

Anyone join Bill and I for a drive North?

Jen

[freespool]

Sorry I missed the meeting in Salem due to inclimate weather. Frankly I thought that it would have been canceled. Gillnetters have payed lobbists who I'm sure lobby politicians very hard in their behalf. Perhaps the sportsman and sportfishing industry should hire their own lobbists. Seems like the gillnetters have figured out how this game is played fairly well. Organization and team work seem to be working very well for the commercial fishing concerns in this case. Why not beat them at their own game?


salmon hugger

[ 01-11-2004, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: freespool ]

[Pete]

Olympia on the 17th would be great ... I'm in.

The Olympia hearing will be where the Washington commission gives their staff direction on what they would like the allocation to be, just as Oregon did last Friday. A big showing of sports anglers would help send a message. It will be important, for those that choose to testify, to send a strong message that protecting ESA fish is best done by a strong allocation to sports anglers. Part two is that sports anglers are far more important to the economy of the region.

Washington Commission Agenda ... scroll down to Item 10

We should also make a point of having a big showing on February 5th in Oregon City when the Columbia River Compact will hear public testimony before adopting a the final allocation. Let's plan to be in Oregon City, too!

The next Compact hearing is scheduled for Thursday, February 5, 2004 at 10 AM at the
Museum of the Oregon Territory in Oregon City, Oregon to review salmon, steelhead, sturgeon,
and smelt stock status; consider fishing options in the mainstem Columbia River and Select
Areas; and consider miscellaneous regulations for Columbia River commercial fisheries.

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

[ 01-11-2004, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: Pete ]

[fish-bones]

I think everybody knows how i feel about scumbag gillnetters from my different posts.I am all for banning them once and for all.I just have to be part of an iniative to get on the ballot to end this.I would do what i can and hope that everybody who visits Ifish to help any way they can.We have a good resource to get the word out easy,not like the last iniative that failed terribly.I never saw even one commercial on TV that explained anything against allowing netting in our rivers.we are the only states that allow netting any rivers.I know its going to take money to do this but theres lots of sportsmen out there that can chip in,not to mention all the businesses that benefit from money sportsmen spend.All boat dealers,tackle manufacturers,tackle stores,private launch ramps and on and on.lets see if we can get this thing going.

LETS HEAR IT FOR THE END OF GILLNETTING.

fish-bones

Originally posted by anger management:
All sports fishers need to unite together to stop the gill netters from getting this allocation. The nets need to be banned period.

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

[Pete]

This is not the time or place for name calling.

To be effective, we must all be courteous and well informed. Please do not undermine the process by introducing actions that will not support our credibility or our objectives at this time. The only question on the table at this 11th hour is whether sports fishers will get a 50% allocation of the ESA impacts in the Columbia, or something as high as a 60% impact.

[love2fish]

Jennie, what time are we all going to meet at Salmon Creek for the caravan? I can make it.

love2fish

[fish-bones]

I,d take you up on the offer to tag along.let me know if this would be possible.

FISH-BONES

Originally posted by Jennie@ifish:
OK, we didn't make a good showing at the meeting on Friday. Sour grapes or not, we can still do something.

The meeting in Olympia is Saturday.

What say the big bads from ifish show up? :smile:

Caravan of trucks, cars, with ifish stickers show up to tell them how we feel? I'd be willing to have a meeting spot in PDX and hand out free stickers and caravan there!

Meet at Salmon Creek on I5, hand out stickers, and go? You can always take it off, if you don't like it there, but I think this would be a good show of force.

Yeah, yeah, Salem would have been easier, and give up a fishing day on the weekend? Am I crazy? Yes! I'd rather give up one Saturday than the entire month of April!!!

Anyone join Bill and I for a drive North?

Jen

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

[Pete]

Here's the details for the meeting ... the agenda is linked in my post above.

Meeting 10 AM to 1:05 PM

Directions and Access to Natural Resources Building: From I-5, take State Capitol exit (105). The exit puts you on 14th Avenue. Go through the tunnel and turn right onto Capitol Way. Turn right onto 11th Avenue. Turn right onto Washington. Turn left into the parking lot. Visitor parking is on the P-1 level of the building.

It's a little over 100 miles from Portland to Olympia. If we were to meet at Salmon Creek, I'd suggest meeting no later than 8 AM, but I'm open to suggestions.

[David Johnson]

From Freespool-

Gillnetters have payed lobbists who I'm sure lobby politicians very hard in their behalf. Perhaps the sportsman and sportfishing industry should hire their own lobbists. Seems like the gillnetters have figured out how this game is played faily well. Organization and team work seem to be working very well for the commercial fishing concerns in this case. Why not beat them at their own game?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">NSIA and the NW Steelheaders do have paid lobbists. Sports fishermen are divided and the gill netters are not. Gill netters get their point accross, most the time the sports fishermand doesn't.

[boater]

Originally posted by Pete:
The only question on the table at this 11th hour is whether sports fishers will get a 50% allocation of the ESA impacts in the Columbia, or something as high as a 60% impact.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">but thats only on the esa listed spring kings, the 2 percent allowcation for the esa listed steelhead doesnt look like it`s being negotiated, at least not in public.

[love2fish]

Pete, 8 a.m. would get us there with a little time to spare. We could always meet for breakfast a little earlier if there was enough interest. Fatty Patty's on Hwy. 99 is good, and there is the Oak Tree in Woodland.

love2fish

but thats only on the esa listed spring kings, the 2 percent allowcation for the esa listed steelhead doesnt look like it`s being negotiated, at least not in public.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The way I understand it boater is they are not negotiating the wild steelhead by catch. I know the first year of the tangle nets had a huge impact on these fish but as far as any real protection of these fish I don't think anything is actually being discussed or if these incidental wild fish "kills" are even taken into account.
The mesh size of the nets have been reduced to hopefully address this problem but whether it's actually helped in the 2003 season is not known.
I will ask our (ANWS) paid lobbyist Phil Donavan about it at the next executive committee meeting this Thursday about it.

[boater]

stew, here`s a link from feb of last year, link , unless i`m reading it wrong it looks to me like the gillnetters got a 1.8 percent impact on esa listed steelhead

[David Johnson]

Now that you mention Fatty Patty's love2fish I'm there!

Count me in if this thing is a go.

[boater]

stew, here`s another link that shows the esa steelhead allowcation that goes to the gillnetters, LINK , this one shows 1.6 to 1.8 percent.

[Pete]

I think there may be some talk that the allowable impact on listed steelhead may be increased. The staff report to ODFW merely says, "Assumptons: Steelhead does not become a constraint in the tangle net fishery".

[ssteelheadsteve]

While a few of us guides will feel the impact of this decision a more urgent question goes unanswered again.What are they going to do to not wipe out the last of the Willamette and Columbia trib Winter Steelhead runs ? Not to mention the Sandy/Clck BS WS ? Answer is they don't care and neither do the sports.BOO HOO
You catch 2 less Springs on average per boat and the Netters DESTROY the no charge to the public(free) W Steelhead while you sit on your hands and whimper.I would not trade a single Springer for a Wild Santiam WS.But then how many of you ever caught WS that averaged 14-16 lbs ? Oh for the good old days like 1980 ! Angler priorities in this state are screwed up ! When the hatchery money dries up and/or Oregon Trout has it's way there won't be hatchery fish or enough wild fish to angle for.

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Greetings all…

First I would like to say that I appreciate all of the hard work put into this by members of NSIA. I would further like to point out that of the people who spoke for sportfishing last Friday, Pete was the only one who was not getting Paid to be there. I would ask that NSIA and Liz try to remember that politics has absolutely nothing to do with right or wrong. Level heads are what we need. Pete I do appreciate all that you have done thus far.

I have been looking at many of the agreements and legal settlements for what may be the best course of action. I would like to hear what others think.
It boils down to two distinct avenues. We could press ODFW staff to act in accordance with Interim Criteria of the NFCP and negotiate for an allotment that removes the most hatchery fish from the system while impacting the least wild adult spawners. Unfortunately this would not be reliable because rules were written that allows staff to scale to the risk.
The second and I believe the best bet is to push for the 50 / 50 option and agree that an equal split is absolutely the best and fairest in our society. But, we ask that ALL of the allocations be 50 / 50, that includes Steelhead.
From http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1sustfsh/doc..._CRharvest.pdf

“In 2003, the non-Indian commercial spring Chinook tangle-net selective
fishery was managed to limit wild winter steelhead mortality rate to 1.6%-1.8%
(248 to 279 fish in 2003). This allowed for anticipated recreational
fishery impacts and provided a buffer for management uncertainty.”

As you can see the non-Indian commercials have to take way more than 50% of the 2% allotment of wild Steelhead to make their harvest method work for Chinook. As pointed out earlier in this thread it is the Steelhead allocation that is their Achilles heel. It would provide further political oomph when pointed out that in Oregon, Steelhead is a “sportfish” and is not to be commercially harvested, even as a by-catch.

We should then press ODFW and WDFW staff to allow an “experimental fishery” for us sport fishers. If with non-removal of wild fish from the water along with tackle restrictions like barbless circle hook only, we could show a reduction to 5% or less we could fish all season. It would be easily defensible as the commercials were allowed this option to show they could reduce their impacts and it would be unfair to only allow the commercials that option.

[img]graemlins/lurk.gif[/img]

[steelheadslayer]

UG, I agree that it is probably not a common practice. It does bother those who witness it though. I don't have a camcorder or a telephoto camera for the boat so, NO, I don't have any pics. I am in no way inferring that all the commercial netters do this. It's the same way with sportfishers, a few snaggers or dead carcasses on the side of the road with their bellys slit open is all it takes to anger the majority. However, the above statement does not typify sportfishers, if you understand the meaning behind it.

[Flatfish]

Stew,

Well said.

Mark and the dog.

[Laserman]

*** CLERK

I agree with you 100%. Why can't the sportsman have some sort of "Selective Fishiery"

[cosmo]

At an early meetin in this whole process, it was brought up by WDFW staff that 2% steelhead mortality was an arbitrary number, created and used at and by their will and acceptable mortalities could be higher.

My thought is beware somewhat of the steelhead angle, they'll just raise the acceptable impact.

On 10% mortality used by sports, that should be a conservative number. I took part in the study that created that number. An actuality, the study's mortality number came in at 11.something%, which was an average of many different fishing methods. The interesting thing is backbouncing bait and letting the fish swallow it had a very high mortality(it would surprise you), which skewed the average up to the 11+ percent. On the Columbia, that method, for the most part (and I'm not forgetting the dam two years ago) does not exist. Trolling herring and fishing Kwikfish and other artificials has a very, very low mortality rate. I don't know that a the 10% mortality currently being used is not high for a Columbia fishery and its techniques.

[boater]

RCW 77.12.760
Steelhead trout fishery.
Steelhead trout shall be managed solely as a recreational fishery for non-Indian fishermen under the rule-setting authority of the fish and wildlife commission.

Commercial non-Indian steelhead fisheries are not authorized.

[boater]

check out item 9 on this link, link

[SHLEPROCK]

Can someone explain to me where the money goes from commercial fishing(which agency)?
Is it NOAA,NMFS?

[love2fish]

Who's going Saturday??????

love2fish

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Cosmo
It is possible that “they” could just raise the impact limit if “they” were just the State of Oregon or the State of Washington. But it is my understanding that the allotments for all of the endangered runs of fish (Salmon and Steelhead) on the Columbia are currently derived from the U.S. v. Oregon process and include the two States, NOAA Fisheries, and the Tribes. In other words impacts on listed Chinook and Steelhead in Columbia River fisheries are not subject to any State submitted FMEP. Neither State can just submit a higher impact because they are from Section 7 consultations for U. S. v. Oregon fisheries.
If you believe the tribes would sit back quietly and allow an increase in take by the non-Indian commercials and us sporters then you would be woefully underestimating the tribes greed.
If you believe that ODFW would be willing to put this before a federal judge again just to get higher allotments of Steelhead for the commercials you over estimate Mr. Sanders backbone. No one is looking to upset the allocation apple cart.

Shleprock

I am no expert on commercial dollars but I will take a stab at your question. The state gets some money from yearly license fees. There is also a poundage fee collected for every pound of salmon commercially caught and brought to a processor. There is also a surcharge that goes to the ODFW R&E program.

[Cowlitzfisherman]

PC

What do I keep missing here?

Doesn't anyone ever ask NMFS, WDFW, ODFW why we are limited to 4% total impact on the listed runs that are returning to the Columbia? Surly no one believes the only "impacts" on these runs only occur when these fish return to the Columbia do they?

We fight for of a split of half of 4%, when most likely, these fish are being impacted far more by other fisheries that are authorized in the north of Falcon meetings. Most likely the Commercial boys are getting double the impact that is allowed in the final fishery of these stocks that return to the Columbia. If that is indeed the case, shouldn't we state these facts in our letters and complaints? I believe that the sport fisher is making a fatal mistake by not addressing this issue. Why is everyone so quite on this issue?

Can someone come up with a logical answer?

Cowlitzfisherman

[Uglygreen]

Yes - if you read the other thread you were posting on this was answered.

Canadian commercials, US ocean trollers, and Tribal commercials all get a guarenteed share of the fish BEFORE sporties or lower Columbia commercials. None of the first three groups mentioned have to pay attention to finclips and all kill and sell wild fish. The reason we are limited to 4% impact is because of the impacts of the other fisheries that come both before and after our catch.

UG

[ 01-14-2004, 07:37 AM: Message edited by: Uglygreen ]

[GutshotApe]

I've forgotten most of what I ever "knew" about the issue...but that won't stop me from expounding on it, anyway.

The feds and/or courts establish a total allowable impact on the wild component...and the upriver Indian netters, who are able to fish to their heart's content essentially, take the lion's share of the total allowable impact...and then some. There may be some wild fish caught/killed in offshore fisheries but most of the fishing mortality occurs once the run enters the Columbia...seems like the US/Canada salmon treaty has stopped most of the formerly significant westside Vancouver Island commercial impact on these fish.

So, the mid-Columbia Indians get first dibs at using up the allowable impacts...and they do take most of what's available. I think there is something factored into the equation for dam passage-related mortality. That leaves very little left over for downriver fishing-related mortality by non-treaty commercial and sport anglers.

I think the driving force behind the current method of dividing the pie resulted from US v. Oregon court case???

Anybody got a better handle on it? :whazzup:

[cosmo]

***, Get the materials that were handed out in the opening meetings of this debate in August.
Not going to argue with you, it was printed in the materials.

Non-tribal impact of Spring Chinook is 2%--tribal impact is something like 9%, 11% or 13% on springers, truth is I don't pay much attention to their numbers.

[finclipped]

The discrepency between Tribal and non tribal is due to the fact, tribes refuse to fish selectively. Thus they gillkill it all, ESA or not.

They are sheltered by the "treaty" and the Boldt decision, which gives them 50% of the harvestable surplus. The problem lies in how they fish, in order to get 50% of the overall harvest, they need 13% of the ESA allocation. That leaves 2% for non tribal fishers.

Tribes refuse to acknowledge a difference between wild and hatchery raised salmon. It should also be noted that the states have no control over the tribes.

[3527766]

I sent my email message to all them!!!

[boater]

Originally posted by *** Clerk:

If you believe that ODFW would be willing to put this before a federal judge again just to get higher allotments of Steelhead for the commercials you over estimate Mr. Sanders backbone. No one is looking to upset the allocation apple cart.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">how much you wana bet ??

[Perfect Drift]

RCW 77.12.760
Steelhead trout fishery.
Steelhead trout shall be managed solely as a recreational fishery for non-Indian fishermen under the rule-setting authority of the fish and wildlife commission.

Commercial non-Indian steelhead fisheries are not authorized.
posted by Boater

I want to say it again, this is the only way to get the netters off of the river, " RCW 77.12.760"
It's the law that they have an allotment, it needs to be law that they be stopped. No other way my friends.

[Tyeebuster]

Well put finclipped. Herin lies the problem, all groups should have an equal "take" of the ESA listed fish. THEN, there should be a quota of total catch for each group. So if you wish to use inefficient methods of fishing you wont be rewarded for it as with the current system!

[Full Freezer]

ttt