Bill Monroe 12/21 Oregonian

[cosmo]

This from the Sundayt Oregonian. Bill, any plans to print a sport fishing view on the matter? Like in all things, how the picture looks depends upon who paints it.


Gill-netter responds to cautionary words

12/21/03
The Oregonian

T his week we highlight a thoughtful letter from a gill-netter, who writes eloquently on behalf of the vast majority of the public, those who pay taxes to support our spring chinook fishing but don't directly participate when they want to eat one.


"I'm writing to clear up inaccuracies in your article, 'Spring chinook outlook bright' (Sunday, Dec. 14).

"We are all trying to help salmon recover, but the subtitle 'Battle looms' warrants clarification.

"With a predicted run of close to 500,000 overall spring chinook in 2004, there is more than enough for all and we've worked hard with sport fishing groups to make the 'battle' concept a thing of the past.

"You state commercial gill-netters want more fish out of the big runs. That is true. During last season 's overall spring chinook run of approximately 360,000 fish, the commercial fishermen harvested 10,864 and the sport industry an estimated 65,000.

"The commercial catch provided fresh wild salmon to the increasing U.S. domestic fish-buying public, which has a right to a bigger share of the common spring resource.

"Our nets have been studied in the Columbia mainstem for four years and released fish tracked through intense sport fisheries, marine mammals, treaty gill-net fisheries and over the many dams blocking their migration.

"We have extraordinarily selective fishing gear that we pay for ourselves. Our recovery boxes are proven to reduce mortalities.

"It's inaccurate to say the commercial industry wants a 50-50 split of the harvest.

"Even in our most recent high season of 2002 we harvested 25,000 total chinook out of another very large run while in that year the sports fishery also caught an estimated 65,000.

"Looking ahead, if we could harvest 20,000 fish out of the projected 2004 combined run of close to 500,000 fish, -- that would be only 4 percent of the total.

"That many tangle-net fish represent $1.85 million dollars in ex-vessel, immediate value to the lower Columbia River region before any economic multipliers whatsoever. In a state where the unemployment rate is the highest in the nation, this is valuable revenue.

"Your closing statement, 'commercial fishermen should realize they're only marginally tolerated and should take what they've got,' was particularly upsetting. Besides irresponsible and biased, it's highly inaccurate.

"Oregon's new slogan, 'We love dreamers,' includes commercial fishermen and, specifically, Columbia River fishermen, in promoting locally caught wild fish.

"Excellent articles written by Oregonian reporter Michael Milstein on the downturn in the farmed salmon industry highlight the need to supply the ever-growing demand for wild salmon.

"The public looks to commercial fishermen to supply fresh fish to the growing Portland Metro area. Direct sales of spring salmon are a particular focus in the public market concept and go a long way to promote good relations between harvester and consumer.

"Finally, fishery managers recognize gains in selective fishing and reduced mortality. Tangle nets, recovery boxes, short soak times, and fish-handling classes all combine to make us a viable selective fishery.

"We've worked very hard at our own expense to get to this point. It's time to put the old 'Battle looms' rhetoric away and move forward into a new era where we can live more peacefully and enjoy the bounty of the ocean and river.

"The sports fishery has its place in the scheme of things and so do commercial fishermen and the consumer."

-- Jim Wells, Astoria commercial fisherman and gill-netter

The federal government allows Oregon and Washington a certain small percentage of incidentally killed salmon from endangered Snake River runs that mingle with healthier Willamette and Columbia tributary fish.

The percentage, termed "impacts" in bio-speak, is doled out by fish managers (and the courts) to tribes, sportfishing groups and netters. The pressure is on this time for a higher commercial allocation in 2004 because of the anticipated near-record run of 361,000 spring fish.

Wells also pointed out on the telephone that when runs were a bit lower a few years ago, commercial fishermen relinquished some of their catch to allow continued sportfishing. Different memories might have different versions of the whys, but the whats are basically true.

So, in fact, is Wells' observation of an ongoing attempt by both sides to improve both the fisheries and their relationships with sportsmen and the tribes.

Sport anglers kill about one in 10 of all wild, non-fin-clipped salmon they catch and release.

On Friday, during a joint meeting of the two states, new research was accepted that reduces the commercial tangle-net incidental mortality from one in four fish to fewer than one in five.

That's good news for netters because they'll get to take more salmon for the market.

Last week's column was merely a caution for all sides against greed in yet another banner return for the region's premier salmon fishery.

Good advice for all sides, especially at this time of year.

Bill Monroe: 503-221-8231; billmonroe@news.oregonian.com

[Flatfish]

Cosmo,

are you adding to the article( which I read and I cannot see anything here that is new except for the first 3 sentences)?

Giving kudos to Bill?

Or are we seeing how the beginnings of your painting?

As is usual, I am in the dark on where this is headed

Mark and the dog.

[boater]

just think, the average joe american will read this rubish and think it`s 100 percent accurate. all i can say is what a poor job by a newspaper reporter.

[BUGLEMAN]

It's not easy being green.

- Kermit the Frog

[SteelieSteve]

After reading this I think back to the gillnetters careful release of those wild netted fish... toss them back and who cares. I do not agree to any wild fish netting. Heck I don't agree to any netting period! If they want to net let them move to Alaska. Just say no to river netting. [img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img]

[Perfect Drift]

Never !!!!

And sport fishers don't put one cent into any local economies. Nope, we never stay in motels or eat food away from home. None of us own boats or any other equipment.

Come down off of cloud nine my friend,
you're dreamin

[cosmo]

Mark and the in the dark dog,

I'm just posting the article and asking a question. Nothing fancy.

I don't know where to begin to go with it. I read it and laughed.

Sorry, but all I can say is that is inaccurate. The tangle tooth nets are a failure! Look at the numbers of by-catch kills and you'll see what I mean! They are non-selective and are further proof that gill nets are an antiquated and obsolete way of harvesting fish.There are more efficent ways to harvest fish for the consumer without killing endangered species.
Recovery boxes? Yeah maybe they would work if commercial netters used them like they were supposed to.
Listen guys! the commercial netters are NOT interested in working with us (sports anglers)they have proven it time and time again!Look at the long history of the rancor between the two groups. That is why a united front consisting of concerned sports anglers is so important

[ 12-22-2003, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: Stew ]

[freespool]

Stew,thank you for your insight. With a mortality rate of 28% on incidental nontargeted species,I'd say a nonlethal harvest method is way overdue.

free

[ 12-22-2003, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: freespool ]

[blacktail]

Here's my favorite line...the U.S domestic fish buying public has a right to a bigger share.

What a crock of you know what!

Someone eating at an artsy-fartsy restaurant in Soho deserves a plate of salmon more than us local fishermen?

Mike

[Jerry Dove]

Hey folks, we all need to work together. I am neither for ao against nets, I just feel that we gain more by working together. Jerry

[riverrat]

The article is a desperate cry for help, from the commercial netter to the public, to support netting, nothing more.
My Christmas wish is for the banning of nets in the Columbia River!!! Let the commercial boys net in the ocean, or (gulp) they can use their commercial license for multiple hooks on long lines???
Merry Christmas to all!!!

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

OK, Lets try some testimony from last months Commission Meeting:

"JOHN ESLER: I didn’t mean to say that in anything except that you work for Salmon for All which perhaps with less of a focus on sports fishing than some of the other people who have spoken.

OLIVER WALDMAN: That’s correct. Let me introduce myself. I haven’t done it yet. I apologize. I am the Director of Salmon for All. (Address on Sign-up Sheet: None other than Astoria; Telephone: None.) And as you know, Salmon for All is a trade association of gillnetters on the Columbia River. And in addition to being their Executive Director, I am the General Counsel for Salmon for All. And on the side, I teach Business Law at the Clatsop Community College in the Oregon State system. So, I really came today to introduce myself. Most of the issues that you talked about today are very explosive issues. In fact one of the first comments that I, I heard from your response to Steve King’s testimony was the industry leaders feel this. And in fact there have been some faxes going around recently about our upcoming meeting in Longview about how the commercial industry says this, and we want this, and we want that, and this is how the commercial industry is and says and walks and talks and catches fish. And there simply isn’t time to correct all of that. I’m starting to see that as a problem. I’m starting to see that as something where it almost needs, I almost need to write a book just to create a debate format or a dialogue on these issues. It becomes very hard to come in and think I’m in the minority. I need to explain every single comment and turn them around and say, “Wow, this is how it really is.” And, of course, I have just as much information on my fishery as the next person; and I also have information on the sport fishery. But I would like to limit my role to promoting my fishery. And I’m looking ahead to a promising spring chinook season. I have comments on the Matrix. I have comments on impact sharing versus allocation. I have comments on the numbers used today, the types of fishing that we do, the gear. I did want to start positively and not take too long and tell you that I will continue to be in contact with the Commission now about these issues to prevent this from being an explosive situation or even a combative one where I feel the need to engage in fisticuffs about this figure or that figure, this stat or that stat, this kind of fishing or that kind of fishing, in this area or not in this area. I mean, it gets very quick to heat, to passion, to anger. And I don’t think that’s appropriate any more for our fishery. We talk about the bad old days. Well, we have a lot of fish now. We have a different fishery. We have different nets, different gear. In fact we have, have one of America’s few Selective fisheries. We have fishermen who order their gear in October, special nets and build recovery boxes on their boats, have select short net sets, short times, area closures. These are things that create something called a Selective fishery on a national level. That’s the cutting edge of fisheries. That’s what we’re working with now. We’re working with a lot of fish. And we’re working with good gear. That’s my basic message. I would like to address the mortalities to some degree because it’s a scientific issue that I would like to have further dialogues with whoever is listening with the sport fishing fleet--and I look forward to Longview and I look forward to other meetings that I have with the sport fishing industry--but the Matrix as designed was designed with an equal mortality figure for the gear. And that is a fact. Both fleets were assigned a 10% mortality for their gear for spring chinook. Our problems this spring began with science where the assumptions for our gear tripled or quintupled when concerned with 8-inch gear. So with the same fishery, the same boats, the same fishermen, all of a sudden instead of fishing a 10% mortality, we were fishing a 50% with 8 inch and a 25% to 30% average out mortality for the tangle net. Now that’s the same thing but with a very different paper result. It shows up as an enormous fish kill. It shows up as an enormous burn on the impacts. It shows up as a contortion of the Matrix. And thus we have a conflict. And thus I have a conflict because I believe I have a great fishery. And I believe that through proper negotiation and proper dialogue we can get to a very successful spring 2004 harvest. However, again, I’m in the minority. It’s a great term. I’m willing to stand up here and begin the discussion on my fisheries as if successful fisheries. I’m not willing to engage in explosive debate. I don’t have time. Some of the issues that I would like to leave open for the Commission to think about are industry versus industry issue where sometimes the industries have the same point of view and we’re all working for jobs, we’re all working for opportunity, we’re all working for our regions, either a Metro, or in my case a rural region. We’re looking at science concerns that have become much bigger than us because they indicate that the ESA is really doing our allotment. And then when we figure out mortality, it implicates our ESA management which is a national issue and involves different rulemaking than our own. And, you know, I, I would like to point out that we have a lot of fish and that we almost caught a lot of fish this year. And I won’t comment on sport fishing because it’s not my business on whether or not that was successful or not. I, I know we live in a regulated system. I know exactly how many spring chinook were caught by both fleets over the last two years. I know how many angler days there were. And I know how many commercial fishing days there were. And I’m looking from my industry’s point of view to improve the balance of those big picture numbers. That’s what I’m looking for. I’m looking for more spring chinook. I’m looking for more days on the water to catch fish. And there are differences. Your, I think the biggest problem facing the Commission is that the commercial harvest is about numbers of fish. We fish in the rain. We fish at night. We fish on off days. We fish three days in a row and then don’t go fishing for four days. We fish when and where we have to fish. We don’t want the opportunity to catch fish. We want fish. Whereas much of the tourism and recreational aspects of com, of sport fishing, I believe, are based on the opportunity. The month of April, that’s a beautiful goal for sport fishing because it provides Guides the ability to schedule their clients, hotels can book, planes can book, people can plan their vacation. Those are opportunity-based incentives for the sport fishing industry. My incentives are spring chinook at $5 a pound ex-vessel to commercial fishermen, blue collar guys who spend $5,000 a year individually on ESA-compliant gear. A year! Two nets, strings, and, and time and boat and gas and fuel. You could not get a lot of fish to create a fishery. So that is the beginning of my issue. And like I said, the end is a successful fishery in 2004. A lot of fish, more spring chinook, and better gear science. Those are our goals. If you’d like to engage in a dialogue at this point, I don’t want to go over time. But I do look forward to beginning this dialogue. I deeply appreciate the effort to delay the allotment decision to allow this dialogue to really mature and be a dialogue and not a monologue. Thank you."

[blacktail]

POSClerk,

I read through that guy's speech and it gave me "the brain pain".

Were you able to glean any useful information from it?

Mike

[Get Bent]

when we get an outdoor writer that dosen't suport the gill netters and will write both sides of the real truth

[img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img]

[Bill Monroe]

Scott,

I'll give you guys just six more years to knock this off or else I'll be oughtta here.

At least I know the net mortality is now 18.5 percent, not 28, and that most of the American public pays into the Mitchell Act, not us...

(Oh, and that rubbish has two b's)...

[boater]

Originally posted by Bill Monroe:


(Oh, and that rubbish has two b's)...

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">i guess that makes up even, my spelling &lt;edit&gt; just like your reporting does.

[ 12-22-2003, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

Bill,
How about commenting on the economical impact to the state of Oregon that sports fishing has versus commercial netting?
Give the public it's salmon but don't kill endangered species to do it! It's as simple as that but the netters have not figured out how to do that yet and seems like they have little interest in doing so.

[ 12-22-2003, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Stew ]

[Flatfish]

Nothing more than a thread intending to induce flames.

AUP?

I doubt it.

Mark and the dog.

[The Overfishin Condition]

Question... How many states allow commercial gillnetting in their rivers? I need someone in the know to answer this question. The fact is, that letter is about enough to make any sports fishermen feel like doing the technicolor yawn, be it factual or otherwise. Second fact being, that even if we disagree, flaming poor Bill won't help us, or make it better. Furthermore, I doubt this article will do much as far as instigating anyone from the general public into taking part in the open discussions about netting.

[STGRule]

Non-moderator response.

A. Jennie can we get a spell checker please?
B. This was an opinion piece. Period.
C. Don't agree? Write your own.
D. The Mitchell Act was not introduced to ensure salmonids for all.
E. People who don't fish have a right to as much fish as those who do.
F. Nobody has a monopoly on the resource.
G. (Personal Opinion) Nets suck. Come up with a better way.
H. Find a way to work with commercial fishers or lose all the way around.
I. Yeah, yeah, I know its wishy-washy. Please come up with a better idea.

[ 12-22-2003, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

[freespool]

Stew I asked that very question at the meeting last week at GI Joes. The answer I was given was as follows. The state of Oregon started looking into this only 2yrs ago. No final numbers are forth coming as of yet. My guess is it's staggering. Think about all the fisherman and what they lay out to persue their quary.


free

[The Overfishin Condition]

I agree with you on all points STGRule, save for E, which doesn't sit right with me. It might be correct. Perhaps it's just the way it is written. Are you saying that the non-fishing population should get just as much fish as the fishing population? Per-capita or as a two whole groups? I just don't feel that's a realistic idea. I'd say everyone has a fair share at fish from the river, you want some, go and get it. If the commerical netters were allocated enough fish to let everyone get their "share" there would be no fish left. Since I'm obviously confused, can you clear up your point there.

[STGRule]

TOC, I'm thinking simple. My Mom and Dad are in their seventies. Mom LOVES fish. The only way she gets it is in the store or if we give it to her. We can do that to a certain extent but her neighbors who love fish too don't have kids to supply them. We can't even give her as much as she wants. She is just one person. Multiply. I don't want them eating farmed fish (and yes this is a major change in thinking for me). I don't want the pollution, disease and other problems that are asociated at this time with farmed fish. I wouldn't eat it. I don't want anybody I love to eat it either. While I know that wild fish have their fair share of the same problems too, it isn't as bad as farmed fish. That's all I mean.

Simple solution is to get rid of the nets that kill endangered species. Commercial are entitled to their share but at what cost?

[Perfect Drift]

Bill, I wasn't speaking to you, only the netting issue.
Fisheries is mandated to support netting only until 'we, the voters' tell them not to. That's the law. Change the law and they be gone.
I believe not many will argue that sport fishers out contribute the netters, that the real commerical impact, is in 'our' dollars.OUR VOTES SHOUT AND CARRY ON but we need to pass legistation, it's the only way, the only way.

[Joe Schwab]

Cool heads must remain on this issue. No one is going to win on a head to head fight. Oregon law grants equal access to the fish, and the commission is mandated to determine what is equal. Also Washington has a equal voice in the management and harvest of Columbia River fish. And they have a strong commercial lobby.

The way to resolve this is to show up at the meetings with facts and honest opinions. Not with threats and assumptions.

Gillnetters are highly organized and fund their lobbyists. We are just getting started

The best option to pursue is one that keeps the river open. I have heard people advocating lawsuits in Federal Court under the Endangered Species Act. This is not what any of us need.

I for one, do not want the 9th "Circus" Court to run our fishery.


Don't kill the messenger. [img]graemlins/program.gif[/img] Bill will report both sides.

[ 12-22-2003, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: Capt. Hook ]

[corkyking]

Paraphrased from *** Clerk's post:

“LARRY LOBBYIST: That’s correct. Let me introduce myself. I haven’t done it yet. I apologize. I am the Director of Salmon for Sportsmen. And as you know, Salmon for Sportsmen is an association of sport fishermen on the Columbia River. And in addition to being their Executive Director, I am the General Counsel for Salmon for Sportsmen. And on the side, I teach Business Law at the Claptrap Community College in the Oregon State system. So, I really came today to introduce myself. Most of the issues that you talked about today are very explosive issues.” Salmon for Sportsmen is determined to see the end of all netting from the 200 mile limit to the headwaters of all Northwest rivers.................


Until sportsmen are politically organized and have this guy working for them there will be nets in the river

[Rubber Hooks]

I have one question. How many Spring Chinook are actually sold in Oregon and Washington markets ?.I keep hearing about the people that don't fish have a right to buy Spring Chinook in their local markets. I don't ever remember seeing any Chinook labeled "Columbia Spring Chinook" in any of the local markets that I trade at. Any figures quoted by the commercial netters are highly suspect. I will believe it only when I see figures from an independent study that is not paid for by the netters. The netters are constantly using this ploy to get public sympathy for their cause.
If the netters want to continue their practises, let them have an entirely separate ESA number, completely independent from the Sport Fishing quota. When the netters reach that number, They are done until next year. If they exceed that number, then next years ESA number should be lowered to reflect this.
Rubber Hooks

[Pete]

We'll find out on January 9th what the Oregon Commission recommends for the Spring Chinook Allocation. The Washington Commission will announce their recommendation on January 17th. The final allocation decision will be on February 5th in Oregon City ... I plan to be there and encourage others to attend also.

The current Oregon proposal relies on an allocation which recognizes efforts to reduce impacts on ESA listed fish. Recently released PIT tag research on tangle net mortality shows an 18.5% mortality. Older research on sport fishing mortality shows a 10% mortality rate. There's room to improve both numbers. If sport mortality is reduced to 5%, we can essentially fish unrestricted. I think we could accomplish that without much difficulty by keeping all fish to be released in the water, using appropriate gear to play and release fish quickly and perhaps voluntarily using barbless hooks. The second part of that effort would be to fund the research to demonstrate a lower ESA mortality from improved sport technique. There's potential for sport fishers to catch and retain a lot more clipped spring chinook if we can do it without adversely affecting the ESA stocks. I think as sportsmen, that represents our best course of action.

[Hoosier Daddy]

Let's not forget that sport anglers kill endangered fish too. Even if they're released some die. If you go down the road with that argument as a main one, be prepared to get hammered on the head with it. You can compare rates of impacts or whatever, but it is there....

[Smj]

Where to buy Columbia spring chinook....Last year Zupans had it, also I believe it was at one of the other trendier markets. If I remember right it was around $16.00/Lb.

STG, not trying to be nasty in any way...Can/would your mom pay that much for springer?

Oh ya, Leave Bill alone, I value his presence on this forum more than alot of the people here.

Smj

[BrokeItOff]

Could there be a buyout for the the netters? Could the government buy them out and then not issue any more concessions, or rather than the government, could any orgainization(ie. a salmon conservation organization) go out and buy the netters concessions and not use them?

Sorry if these questions are ignorant, it just seems that rather than fighting them, compensate them and then get rid of the problem.

Shane

[Bait O' Eggs]

I am not usually a Bill fan, but I will give him plenty of credit for posting in an open forum. [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

It is not easy to be a public person by being the outdoor writer for the only state paper and then let it all hang out to be beat on the internet. Maybe his skin got thick by being in the paper business for so long, but he doesnt seem to let it bother him when the gets pushed in the corner and the members of ifish give him the ropeadope like in this thread.

It wouldnt be too hard to make a way for the commercials to harvest with almost no impact to the wild stock.

1. Harvest fish at the Bonneville ladder. Simply let the wild fish go and just take your allotment from marked fish.
2. Put fish traps in the lower river if Bonneville is to high. It wouldnt be to hard to built a trap to catch enough fish for the commercial allotment.

Both methods should kill almost no wild fish. A fish survives a lot better in a pen of fresh flowing water than it does wrapped up in a death trap of net.

Of course it would take a management system that really wanted to make changes to make it happen. To many politics are involved and little to nothing gets accomplished.

[Mojo]

Please answer me these questions...

1)What percentage of Springers, swimming past Astoria, are products of Idaho Hatcheries?

2)What percentage of those fish netted in the Columbia are Idaho hatchery fish?

3)What economic impact do the commercial netters have on MY local economy?

4)When are they (the netters) going to start re-imbursing me for the tax money I spend supporting my hatcheries, hence subsidizing their industry, while they reduce the tax base of Idaho? (Remember that every salmon caught in Idaho brings in $$$, and every salmon netted in the Columbia won't be caught in Idaho).

[luguando]

I find it a bit ironic that we have gill netters or their representatives posing as fellow IFISHers. I thought this board was for the sport fisherman??!! I'll have to hand it to that group, they are VERY organized.

[Bill Monroe]

It's pretty obvious most of you are getting it...and, as a matter of fact, it doesn't really matter where the fish are sold. These salmon are of far higher quality than even farmed Atlantics (which are VERY good). Someone in the east has as much right to the resource as we do.

I know there are gill netters who don't seem to care and even bend or break laws...just like some sports anglers. By in large, though, what I've seen is people also trying to make changes.

And BTW, it's also not an either/or about which has the most economic value. It's a matter of access for all.

If you guys find ways to work together, everyone ultimately benefits. Fractured user groups allow plenty of room for congressional hiccups like the premature release last week of all those coho, or at least their eviction from federal hatcheries.

If we fail on a unified front against that kind of back seat politicking, everyone will ultimately lose.

Anyhow, I'm just glad you're all readers whether you agree or not. And I'm sincere in my wishes to everyone on the board for a Merry Christmas.


(Oh...I deeply resent being called "poor Bill.")

[Pitch Pocket]

I agree with the fish trap idea. Previous comments on fish wheels and traps hit the floor with a thud. As far as I can tell from my limited research, fish wheels were banned many years ago because they were way more efficient than the commercial netters and that competition was legislated out of the scenario.

I like the idea of switching from nets of death to portable fish wheels that allow selective harvest with little to no mortality of the released fish. They can be regulated and actual fish counts can be made in real time.

I'd like Bill Monroe to investigate the demise of fish wheels on the Columbia and offer his editorial thoughts and ideas about the feasability of bringing them back.

There are plenty of fish for a commercial harvest and a sport harvest. It is just not acceptable to kill 18-24% of the endangered fish that are hauled aboard during a net fest.

[Flatfish]

Mojo,

unless I am missing something, my best guess is the hatcheries were put there for the commercials, not the sports angler. So it would seem that we stole their fish. Not the other way around.

Hatcheries ( at least here in the lower Columbia) were started as a mitigation measure to offset the commercial take. This practice started in the late 1800s.

Stew,

make a note how sweet and kind I am being for this. Merry Christmas. :smile:

Pitch Pocket,

If 18-24% mortality is too high, is 10% OK?

Lugando,

I was not aware that Ifish was into segregation. You want me to sit on the back of the bus because I don't agree with you?


My questions are....

What percentage of the run( not impact) of keepers do the sports anglers actually take?

What percentage of the run( not impact) of keepers do the in river commercials take?

What percentage of the run( not impact) of keepers do the Natives take?

What percentage of the run are needed for broodstock at the hatcheries?

How many are left over?

Mark and the dog.

[ 12-23-2003, 08:26 AM: Message edited by: Flatfish ]

[Pitch Pocket]

Flatfish,
You point is well taken. However, I think the sport fish mortality rate can be reduced even further by requiring barbless hooks and limiting the hooks to no more than 2 single points.

Do you think the commercials would give up the nets in exchange for fish wheels if the legislature reversed their ban?

[Motofish]

The article in the Oregonian regarding the down turn of salmon farms pointed out that small farms and farms from Norway were having trouble. Overall the salmon farming industry is still huge and the salmon now coming from South America are super cheap. I don't see how a local gill netter can continue to compete. It's only a matter of time before the majority of the gill netters can't make a profit. I'd also be willing to bet the $$$ generated from local sport fisherman taking 65K fish is more that 1.8 million dollars. How much do you spend on the fever? How many of us are there? It's no contest from a revenue point of view.

[freespool]

Or were the hacheries put into place to make up for the fish and fish habitat lost through dam construction? I think it may have started on the lower river as flatfish said,but as time passed and more dams were built,the bulk of the hacheries were up river.


free

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by Pitch Pocket:
I like the idea of switching from nets of death to portable fish wheels that allow selective harvest with little to no mortality of the released fish. They can be regulated and actual fish counts can be made in real time.

I'd like Bill Monroe to investigate the demise of fish wheels on the Columbia and offer his editorial thoughts and ideas about the feasability of bringing them back.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">There is a very good book outlining the history of fish wheels...can't remember the exact title or author but it was published by Binfords & Mort in Portland a few years back.

Fish wheels caught about 5% of the total...netters got 95%. So the reason fish wheels were banned was more politically-based than due to any major competition with nets. Fish wheels were portrayed as inhuman, mechanized fish killing machines...but the netters got far more fish. The wheels tended to be owned by just a few individuals and that helped in their political demise...netting seemed more "democratic".

Fish wheels need fast current to operate and nearly all of them were located in the gorge area from around Beacon Rock up to The Dalles. They were very efficient at catching sockeye but they worked well on chinook & other fish, too. Occasionally fish wheels also caught huge spawning sturgeon that would be caught up in the gears and spokes...and ripped to pieces.

I'm not sure fish wheels would qualify as a "non-lethal" method for salmon harvest because in conventional wheels the fish suffered mechanical abrasion, bruising and rough handling.

Stationary fish traps in the lower river might be a more promising answer. :whazzup:

In 1963 I saw a scow-mounted fish wheel operating unattended in the Chena River at Fairbanks, AK.. Don't know if that still happens up there or not.

[ 12-23-2003, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: GutshotApe ]

[Flatfish]

PP,

the springers are one of the last profitable runs left for the freshwater commercials. If the gov said fish wheels are OK( this assumes that the gov would buy said fish wheels), and that allows the commercials to make more money, yes I sure do think they would do it.

So my question to you is this... How many fish are you willing to let the commercials take?

People sure seem to be whining about "Them" taking "Our" fish. So much of this thread seems to be based on greed. For those about to type at me, think about this- On a 50/50 split, we are supposed to kill as many endangered fish as them.And since the quota is the same, no matter the split. Those fish are gonna die. It is just a matter of how.

IMHO if you "give" the commercials an unlimited take season( on clipped fish only) with a fish wheel system, you can kiss your sports season goodbye. Why fish if they have caught just about every one? That is a lot of power to give up. Then we do not have the ecomomic impact arguement. Waddaya gonna do then?

Even if you lat them have say 25% of the total run, hey you just removed 25% of the run. How is that gonna make sports fishing improve? Then the Natives will take another 25% with their new fish wheels. Then the folks in Idaho will be really mad.

I have a friend who used to commercial troll the ocean. In 24 hours he and one other man caught 175 salmon on hook and line. There were less than 10 lines in the water. These were springers headed to California. If they can land 175 on hooks in 24 hours, imagine how efficient they would become with a fish wheel.

So PP, I applaud your wanting to help the endangered fish, but messing with the space time thing has strings attatched.

My 4 cents( 2 posts).

Mark and the dog.

[Pitch Pocket]

The book you're talking about is "Fishwheels on the Columbia" written by Ivan J Donaldson. The WDFW has a blurb about them here:

WDFW Selective fishing methods

It indicates they they do have limitations, but they also say that about 100 years ago they were common in the Columbia and were very effective at harvesting salmon.

100 years ago is quite a while. Surely technology has advanced beyond the early fish wheel/trap devices to where they can eliminate many of the negatives from those days.

Point being, I believe there are alternatives that can be investigated.

[dawhunt]

You want a selective fishery lets go back to fish wheels where the native fish will be released unharmed and the hatchery fish kept.The spoils divided among the now no longer gillnetters,or how about a terminal fishery ex.-Youngs Bay were the fish (springers) are raised and released for gillnetters or deep river and there's one other I can't remember the name of it. With a gillnet fishery like this there would be no gillnetting in the columbia river period.Indians there's not much can be done about that.Maybe we should say if you want CASINO'S you quit netting the river
because your makeing millions for your tribe with gambling. Simple you want to build a casino you stop netting period or no casino.I don't believe in buying them out (gillnetters) simply because no ones going to buy out the motels,sporting good stores and so on that depend on sport fishing industry there just going to be SOL !!.They've done away with gillnetting in Flordia,Texas,and I belive California and the sport fishing industry has grown and grown worth millions and millions of dollars.Look at whats happened in the New England states where they've netted themselves out of business and are loseing their boats and homes.If nothing else limit the amount of boats that are allowed to net in the Columbia instead of a few hundred only 20-30 and only those who depend on gillnetting for their lively hood not as a part time job.I understand that the columbia is the only river in the lower 48 that allows gillnetting anyway.I've seen at the Washougal-Camas launch as many as twenty five gillnet boats
tied up during the spring and esp. fall gillnet seasons thats a lot of nets for twenty something miles of river.It has been proven time after time that the sport fishery brings in more DOLLARS to the economy then the netters ever do a ton more.
The idea of a terminal fishery or fish wheels
is a good one but getting that passed is going to be a big fight for sure.
Bob

[Pitch Pocket]

Commercial harvest should be taken after the sport fisheries have had their 'shot' at them. Selective harvest at terminal points like Bonneville and at tributaries would allow mainstem sport fisherman their chance.

Because the selective methods don't harm the fish, commercials can release a percentage of the non-natives too to allow upriver fishing to continue for the entire season run.

The idea of the commercial nets eliminating huge chunks of fish for a selective period of time adversely impacts recreational opportunities and in turn revenue flows for the supporting community business'.

There is no perfect method, but there have to be better ways than the nets.

[cosmo]

After thinking about this overnight the only problem I have is with this vast majority of the public that is clamoring for Columbia RIver Spring Chinook.
In short, it doesn't exist. Why, because the "Vast majority" cannot afford to eat it.

I think the vast majority of the public wants their tax dollars invested wisely to produce solid returns, not squandered.

Commercial fisheries were at one time the undisputed path to making the waters of our world pay. Now times are changing, worldwide. In the December 2003 issue of Tackle Trade World, a European sport fishing trade publication, there is a feature article entitled, "Angling Outclasses Commercial Fishing." The subhead reads, "Governments worldwide are starting to accept that recreational fishing-in all its forms-makes more of an economic contribution than the commercial sector."
Since were talking about American taxpayers, here is what they are already supporting the commercial industry with, "Both in theory and in practice, anglers return for more to the resource than they take out. For example, only three percent of all fish landed along our coasts [U.S.] are taken by sport anglers. Commercial operations are responsible for the remaining 97 percent of saltwater landings."

I beleive the commercial fishing industry is getting a fair shake.

[Mojo]

Mark,
The hatcheries in Idaho were put in place to mitigate the effects the dams had on SPORT fisheries (habitat loss, siltation and submersion of spawning grounds, blocked passage). Idaho never has had a commercial salmon fishery to speak of. The tribes get theirs with dip nets, gigs, and by rod and reel.

[ 12-23-2003, 09:18 AM: Message edited by: Mojo ]

[Pete]

The question that I have with fish traps or fish wheels as an alternative to netting is How would the quota be determined and allocated? Would there be any limit on the commercial take if they had no ESA impact? Would that itself create a new battleground without addressing the root problem Cosmo identified; that there is a limited resource with high demand?

[Mojo]

Pitch Pocket,
I take exception to your use of Bonneville as a "terminal point". Around 50% of the springers that go over Bonneville are destined for Idaho Waters.

[fish assassin]

Not ignorant questions at all ... but why should the government do the buy-back?
How about a buy-back system like the draggers got this year (draggers are ocean net
boats also known as Trawlers). The Feds fronted the money for the buy-back, but the
money is actually comming from a "tax" or "user fee" on each pound of fish caught by
the trawlers left in the fleet (known in the industry as a "poundage fee").

Since a "tax" or "user fee" couldn't realistically be applied as a poundage fee on
sport caught fish (who would collect the fee, how would reporting of poundage for
each fisherman be determined), maybe a fee or tax associated with sport fishing
licenses could be used to do a re-pay of Federal Guaranteed Loans to buy out
the gill net boats? Something of a small fee on your sport salmon tag ... say,
40-50 bucks a year to pay back the loan?

Just some more food for thought for those that want the gill net boats off the water ...
I believe that BrokeItOff is on the right track here. Buy-backs are a good and
equitable way to remove boats from *any* fishery (IMHO).

-assAssin-

Originally posted by BrokeItOff:
Could there be a buyout for the the netters? Could the government buy them out and then not issue any more concessions, or rather than the government, could any orgainization(ie. a salmon conservation organization) go out and buy the netters concessions and not use them?

Sorry if these questions are ignorant, it just seems that rather than fighting them, compensate them and then get rid of the problem.

Shane

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

[ 12-23-2003, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: fish assassin ]

[cosmo]

I'm not sure why a buyout of the gillnet boats would be on the table. There are terminal area spring chinook fisheries capable of producing 12,000-20,0000 springers (they got cut short last year because they overshot impacts in the main stem), sturgeon fisheries, fall chinook and silver salmon in the mainstem and terminal areas.

Nets are a poor decision on main stem spring fish because you have to cut-off a much more valuable fishery in order to conduct commercial harvest (in effect holding a fire sale on the product with willing buyers waiting to pay full price--tell me in what model that works), but there are fisheries where a full-blown sport effort cannot harvest enough fish and those fish should be put to use (have the sale after you've gotten full price)

I don't think a buyout is called for. The fishery needs to accept its value and position and work where it ADDS to the value of overall harvest instead of detracting from it.

[Mojo]

Good point Cosmo. I agree that nets can be effectively managed in TERMINAL areas like Youngs Bay. Not on any rivers that have any wild fish.

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by Mojo:
Good point Cosmo. I agree that nets can be effectively managed in TERMINAL areas like Youngs Bay. Not on any rivers that have any wild fish.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">What happens to the wild fish that run up the Klaskanine, Lewis & Clark, Walluski and Young's rivers? They have to get past the Young's Bay gillnets, don't they? :whazzup:

[monoman]

We keep thinking the gillnetters are the only commercial take of spring salmon.

These fish are taken by trollers as far north as AK and just out in front of the nets in WA and OR. They are also taken by treaty netters and sold on the market. The public can buy these fish from many sellers, they do not need the lower river netters to have Sping Salmon for dinner. We split these fish up with many!

[Pitch Pocket]

Ok, maybe 'terminal' is not the correct word, but Bonneville and every other ladder on the Columbia are focal points where all the up river fish must pass.

Because the fish wheels or fish traps deposit the fish into a holding pen, they can be released unharmed on a percentage basis so upriver fisherman can have their opportunities. This might eliminate the absence or at least the severe reduction of fish for the week following the netters season.

[Laserman]

I just got this in. The Technical Advisory Committee is going to recommend a mortality of only 18.5% for the tangle net fishery this spring. I believe we are getting shaffted by the deccision makers again.

I sure would like to know how many retail markets sell spring salmon around here? If everyone gave just one salmon out of 10, they caught to people who could not catch or buy their own; their argument goes out the window..

[cosmo]

Originally posted by monoman:
We keep thinking the gillnetters are the only commercial take of spring salmon.

These fish are taken by trollers as far north as AK and just out in front of the nets in WA and OR. They are also taken by treaty netters and sold on the market. The public can buy these fish from many sellers, they do not need the lower river netters to have Sping Salmon for dinner. We split these fish up with many!

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Let's bring that one up again just in case anyone missed it. [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

18.5% mortality has already been brought up and accepted, hence Bill's comments to "less than one in five". From what I have heard, the science behind it is good.

[Mojo]

Pitch Pocket,
Focal points might be a better way of saying that.

GSA,
You are correct about the rivers that dump into "Termainal Areas". Looks like there ought to be more work done on where the Terminal Area Fisheries are held, nad more hatcheries built. Is it feasable to suggest some rivers that have no springers get hatcheries, and then establish those waters as "commercial only terminal area fisheries"? I am not a fisheries biologist, and certainly do not know the lower Columbia like you guys and gals. What are the numbers on the Klaskanine, Lewis & Clark, Walluski and Young's rivers? Do they have wild runs that coincide with the net fisheries? Maybe an earlier strain of hatchery fish (or later) should be raised in the hatcheries, to lessen the impact on the wild fish? Help me understand this one...