Bill Monroe 12/28 Oregonian

[Pete]

Last week, the gillnetters got to state their case. This week the sportsfishing industry responds with a very different perspective.

Making a case for sport salmon fishery

[TheRogue]

I read it first thing this morning. I think it was a pretty good rebuttal.

TR

[steelheadslayer]

Strong case, If only the policy makers would realize what the economic impact is from sportfishing in these dismal economic times. It seems like anyone with a bathtub and an oar finds a way to come up with the funds to be on the water to try their luck for springers. What both states need to do is TRY and get a few less commercial fishing advocates on their commissions.

[Straydog]

It makes it more difficult when we have individuals that claim to be part our industry coming on this site and writing that sportfishing economics is "over inlfated".


Orignally posted by Born to be Wild

Economic value on sport caught fish is way over inflated.
It doesn't cost me squat to catch a salmon.
Most of the fishermen I know don't spend much to put salmon in their freezer or their friends BBQ.
I do realize that some folks have money to burn and support the local economy while angling but I believe the value of the sport caught fish is unrealistic.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">As long as we have people that hold the opinion stated by BTBW and have them spreading this opinon, our battles just become more difficult.

It is amazing to me that a person that claims to be part of this industry and claims that major players in this industry are his friends and relatives, can say such things.

[ 12-28-2003, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[GutshotApe]

Maybe he says it because he believes it to be true :whazzup: .

The numbers attributed to the sport-caught value of fish are averages...some people pay a lot more, some pay a lot less. BTBW apparently is one of those who balance out those who are on the other side of the mid-point.

[Straydog]

There have been several studies conducted by more than one group that have come up with overall economic benefits of Sportfishing, not "by the fish" averages, and they are big, very big.

I, like the vast majority of others in the industry tend to believe the formal studies as well as our own hands-on first person experience in the industry.

It would seem that one that so often touts the credibilty of trained forestry people over casual observers would find no confusion in this concept.

[ 12-28-2003, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Reel Fun Fish'n]

Boater, This effort to ban a non native net fishery on the Columbia was tried in the late 80's it made it to a ballot vote. The bill number escapes me now. But it was tried and almost made it.
Most of the credit should go to two organizations S.W. Washingting Anglers and the group headed by a man named Steve Watrous ( I can't remember their name at this time, Pacific something )
The point is the only area of the state that didn't vote in favor for the initive, was the Seattle, Pudget Sound area. Ummm wonder why.

[Salmonator]

You do NOT want my wife on here giving her opinion of what sportfishermen contribute to the economy. I have to hear it every time she sits down to do the bills

[Salty Walty]

Reelfun the only thing wrong with getting fishing and hunting issues on a ballot is that it lets uninvolved and uneducated persons to have a say in something they don't care or know squat about. It also sets the precedent for managing wildlife through the vote and not by "sound biological" guidelines. Ask anyone who used to trap in WA, hound hunt lions in OR, or lion hunt period in CA. I believe writing your representatives and showing up to policy meetings is a better way to try and set or change policy than to leave it to the people at the ballot box.
WC

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by Straydog:
There have been several studies conducted by more than one group that have come up with overall economic benefits of Sportfishing, not "by the fish" averages, and they are big, very big.

I, like the vast majority of others in the industry tend to believe the formal studies as well as our own hands-on first person experience in the industry.

It would seem that one that so often touts the credibilty of trained forestry people over casual observers would find no confusion in this concept.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">If you're done revising & editing , I'll respond.

Sure, there are studies and reports that estimate total value of sport fishing vs. the total value commercial fishing...but unless the catches are equal, these numbers are somewhat misleading. Another way to look at the issue is the average value per fish when caught by sport vs. commercial fishing.

Based on what he posted, BTBW was taking issue with the per-fish estimate of a sport-caught fish...

All those numbers are estimates...and for sport-caught fish they should include the cost of a fish to a bank angler who may spend very little out-of-pocket money, who might catch dozens of salmon or steelhead annually, who fishes close to home, uses the same rod & reel he's had for years, builds his own lures, cures his own roe, etc....with the other extreme....someone with lots of money who spends $40,000 on a boat, buys a new F-350 to pull it, thousands more on fishing tackle, lodging, meals, fuel, guides, etc. and who may catch just one or two fish a year, if that. Weight the assumed pool of sport anglers to reflect estimated numbers of "low budget" vs. "high budget" sport anglers and you can arrive at an average figure per fish...which very well may be much more than someone like BTBW spends on catching a fish.

If you disagree, please enlighten me as to what I'm missing. :whazzup:

[Chris White]

It always surprizes me to see the division between sport and commercial fishermen. There are many user groups of the salmon resource, trollers, indians, gill-netters, sports, and all are entitled to a SHARE. Bill Monroe has been with the Oregonian for years and always slants articles to bash commercials. You are barking up the wrong tree. ODFW are the caretakers of the salmon, bottom line is they are not doing their job. They cite budget problems and raise license fees. That money goes into the general fund. Raising the sport license fees to pay the PERs is silly. That money should go to enhance the fisheries. Closing, or threatening to close hatcheries isn't helping either.
Commercial fishermen have a cash investment too, probably greater than the sports in most cases. They support local fish plants by selling product (don't try to counter fresh troll caught chinook with farm fish), creating jobs, getting salmon on the market to people who don't fish. They live in towns with businesses that depend on them year-round, and so on.
Commercials have also attempted to increase the numbers of fish with programs like Young's bay, and donating time money and property for the S.T.E.P.S program, which worked unbelievably well, until the state workers began to worry their jobs were in jeopardy and cut the supply of eggs. Tillamook bay is a prime example. When S.T.E.P.S. was in full swing there, 40, 50, even 60 pound salmon were not uncommon. Then the state stopped the program stating it was a pilot project, and it's over. When asked why they wouldn't continue such a good thing, they wouldn't give an answer.
Statistically you can say anything. "75% of the people make up 3/4 of the population." Never trust a statistic until you know who did the study (motive), and what baseline they used (accuracy).
Squabbling among user groups is a wasted effort. The user groups need to, if not band together, not fight among themselves. Go after the people who have control of the fish and ARE EXCERCISING THAT CONTROL in an irresponsible fashion.

[Straydog]

BTBW bases his opinion on observations from outside the profession of the anadromous sportfishing industry and outside the world of economic study of same. Therefore, just as one could argue those outside the realm of timber industry expertise are not as likely to be accurate in their opinions of forestry economics, it would seem reasonable to place more value on the actual studies and the opinions in the industry that indicate a different economic value than what BTBW feels is so.

If you are still confused, I guess I don't have the knowledge or communication ability to help you.

[ 12-30-2003, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: Jennie@ifish ]

[GutshotApe]

As former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger once said "Everyone is entitled to his own view, but everyone is not entitled to his own facts".

[ 12-28-2003, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: GutshotApe ]

[boater]

Originally posted by Chris White:
Commercials have also attempted to increase the numbers of fish with programs like Young's bay

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">PART 2. Narrative
Project ID: 199306000

Title: Select Area Fishery Evaluation Project
Section 9 of 10. Project description

a. Abstract

In it’s 1993 Strategy for Salmon, the Northwest Power Planning Council recommended that terminal fishing sites be identified and developed to harvest abundant fish stocks while minimizing the incidental harvest of weak stocks. The NPPC called on BPA to “Fund a study to evaluate terminal fishery sites and opportunities”. In response, BPA initiated the Columbia River Terminal Fisheries Project, with the goal of determining the feasibility of creating and expanding known stock fisheries in the Columbia River Basin to allow harvest of strong anadromous salmon stocks while providing greater protection to depressed stocks. Development of fisheries in terminal areas is also required in the recent Biological Opinion concerning hydrosystem operations in the Columbia River (Measure 9.6.3.3 - Measures to provide alternative fishing locations).

The Project, now named the Select Area Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) project, is authorized under a Section 7 Consultation conducted by NMFS (Nov. 18, 1998) with a finding of “No Jeopardy” to listed stocks (NMFS, 1998), and under the Final Environmental Assessment of Lower Columbia River Terminal Fisheries Research Project (BPA, 1995), and the resultant Find of No Significant Impact. Additionally, in June 2001 the SAFE Project provided additional data regarding 1) SAFE Project smolt releases, 2) straying of adult returns from SAFE Project smolt releases, and 3) harvest on listed species while conducting Select Area fisheries. These data were summarized and distributed as per "Directive 6" of the Biological Opinion concerning the SAFE Project.

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) activities associated with this project include: water quality and benthic analysis at net-pen rearing sites to ensure no detrimental damage to critical habitat occurs; use coded-wire tag (CWT) recoveries to track escapement returns of Project fish, and assess straying of project fish; fishery evaluation to assess effectiveness of fishers to capture Project fish with minimal impact to non-target weak stocks using CWT recoveries; and evaluation of rearing and release techniques to optimize smolt to adult survival rates, using CWT analysis. Extensive M&E activities will be required to assure compliance with the terms and conditions in the Project Biological Opinion.

The move from the feasibility testing phase to the full production phase is supported by information concerning rearing and release strategies collected by this project, accumulated environmental data, and harvest management. This phase of the Project will see more emphasis on a full capacity production, especially for spring chinook. Youngs Bay and Blind Slough will be targeted for quick build-up of rearing and release of spring chinook.

As returns on production fish are harvested, commercial fishers and processors each pay a voluntary 5% assessment on these landings. Revenue from the increased releases of 3.8 million spring chinook alone will generate over $450,000 annually. This will reduce future funding requests by over 50%.

The expected outcome of this project is the demonstration that significant, and sustainable, known stock fisheries can be implemented while allowing for rebuilding of weak and listed stocks. Additionally, it is expected that the project will culminate with Select Area fisheries being established in all sites that have proven to be acceptable with regards to water quality and impacts to listed species. Project will also continue to evaluate possibility of expansion into additional sites.

b. Technical and/or scientific background

Responsive to the goal of Measure 8.3c of the Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPC) Fish and Wildlife Program, which calls for identification and development of Select Area fisheries opportunities to harvest abundant stocks while minimizing the incidental harvest of weak stocks, this project addresses the problem of meeting the needs of society for sustainable populations of fish that support harvest while minimizing impacts on protected weak stocks (NPPC, 1992). This project evaluates the alteration of artificial production to fit into the Columbia River ecosystem, and applies actions designed to increase understanding through fishery enhancement experimentation that will provide useful information for future management decisions and actions. Through the monitoring and evaluation aspects of this project, valuable information is continuously being learned that provides direction and application of the adaptive management approach of the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program.

Beginning in 1987, CEDC initiated a small scale net-pen acclimation project in Youngs Bay under the leadership of Duncan Law and Jim Hill. As a result of early net pen successes, meetings with BPA, WDFW, CEDC, SFA and local fishing industry representatives prompted further fishery development. In response to amendment measure IV (B)(9)(b) and 5.3c in the NPPC amended Fish and Wildlife Program, which call for the creation of Select Area fishing opportunities to reduce main-stem Columbia River harvest pressure on depressed Columbia River basin stocks (NPPC 1991, 1993), BPA funded Project No. 92-77: Evaluation of 1991-1992 Brood Overwinter-Reared Coho Released from Net Pens in Youngs Bay, Oregon, which was conducted by Paul Hirose (ODFW), Jim Hill (CEDC) and Rick Westerhof (BPA). Results included 1) successful estuarine net-pen rearing, 2) adult survivals were at least double those of traditional hatchery programs, 3) high homing instincts were realized with less than 1% stray rates, and 4) nearly all (99%) of the adult production resulting from Youngs Bay coho net-pen releases were accountable in fishery harvests.

The current project, initiated in 1994, is an outgrowth of that successful pilot study. The current SAFE Project is designed in a three-phase approach for each site and each species released at each site. Phase one focuses on determining sites that have the potential to support net-pen rearing and release sites and fisheries to harvest returning adults. Phase two determines the feasibility of establishing net-pen rearing and release sites and adopting fisheries to harvest returning adults. Sites receiving positive results in phase two are moved into phase three which included establishing additional net pens, increasing releases to full production, and expanding fisheries as necessary to harvest returning adults.

As this project has continued, it has achieved the goal of introducing fisheries into select areas that minimize impact on protected weak stocks but allowed for full harvest of surplus hatchery-produced salmon returning to that select area. Select Area fisheries have consistently remained well below ESA-related impact limits while maintaining fisheries harvesting nearly 100% of the target species released in each Select Area fishing site. To date the majority of the project has focused on tasks associated with phases one and two and little effort has been invested into moving on to phase three. Based on the results of this project to date several sites and species are deemed suitable for expansion under phase three of this project. As this project reaches culmination project managers expect to move additional sites and species into phase three or eliminate them from this program.

Monitoring activities associated with the project have not been limited to catch but also include monitoring of straying to escapement areas in the Columbia River basin. Stray rates have been extremely low, with the exception of SAB fall chinook reared and released from Big Creek Hatchery as broodstock for the Youngs Bay program and spring chinook released at Tongue Point. The project has modified release strategies to eliminate these situations. For SAB fall chinook bloodstock, releases have been moved to Klaskanine Hatchery located on the North Fork of the Klaskanine River, a tributary to Youngs Bay. Initial returns indicate that moving the broodstock from Big Creek Hatchery to Klaskanine Hatchery has eliminated the straying problem while increasing harvest of returning adults. For spring chinook at Tongue Point, large scale releases have been discontinued at this time; however, CEDC is proposing plans to continue to evaluate straying of spring chinook at this site. CEDC's plans include 1) moving the net pen site away from the main channel of the Columbia River, 2) using a homing enhancing chemical (morpholine) to improve homing to net pen site, and 3) reducing the number of smolts released for study purposes.

c. Rationale and significance to Regional Programs

BPA is responsible for funding measures consistent with the NPPC's (Council) 1994 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (Program), as amended. The goal of the Program is to increase the average annual returns of adult anadromous fish (salmon and steelhead) to the Columbia River Basin by approximately 2.5 million fish. The Council recently amended its Program, and two amendment measures request the investigation of terminal fishing opportunities to reduce potential mainstem harvest pressure on depressed salmon stocks. The need for this proposed action is based upon the Council's language recommending a study of "terminal fishing opportunities to harvest abundant stocks while minimizing the incidental harvest of weak stocks" (BPA, 1995).

In March 1995, the NMFS produced the "Proposed Recovery Plan for Snake River Salmon" which called for protection of listed species through expansion of fisheries in terminal areas in section 3.4. Specifically section 3.4.b. calls for a greater emphasis on terminal area fisheries as a method to reduce impacts on depressed or listed stocks.

In the SAFE project Biological Opinion (NMFS, 1998), NMFS has determined that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin listed under the ESA, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat. Some adverse impacts to substrate and water quality may occur as a result of net-pen operation, but these effects are very localized. This determination is based on a number of proposed activities intended to reduce the adverse impacts on listed species of disease occurrence, genetic introgression, and resource competition resulting from the release and adult return of SAFE Project fish, and on steps taken to minimize the impacts of net-pen operation on habitat conditions in the area of the net pens.

NMFS has also determined that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of salmonids in the Columbia River Basin listed under ESA. In addition, potential risk to chum salmon from predation by SAFE project coho salmon is expected to be adequately reduced. Most recently, in response to concerns expressed by the NMFS, modifications to releases have been incorporated to reduce stray rates for spring and fall chinook, and results of these modifications were provided to the NMFS in June, 2001.

Select Area fisheries are also supported in the 2000 NMFS draft Biological Opinion. Measure 9.6.3.2 requires additional harvest reform and specifically calls for expansion of fishing opportunity in known-stock terminal areas. Measure 9.6.3.2.1 addresses effects of selective fishing on the fishery management system. The SAFE Project fisheries are intensively monitored to recover CWT's and collect biological data. These recovery efforts provide the ability to provide stock-specific and fishery-specific data that is called for in this measure. Measure 9.6.3.3 requires the action agencies to identify, develop, and create alternative terminal fishing opportunities; as has occurred and is currently occurring with the SAFE Project. This measure requires that fisheries occur in known-stock terminal areas where abundant fish can be harvested with minimal impacts to listed species. Several such fisheries now exist as a result of the ongoing SAFE Project. Measure 9.6.3.4 also calls for enhancing fishery value while reducing impacts to listed fish. The proposal to expand spring chinook production for Select Area fisheries is a direct response to this measure.

The project goal of evaluating the potential of SAFE project sites was in direct response to the NPPC Fish and Wildlife Program Measure 8.3c, which calls for identification and development of Select Area fishing opportunities to harvest abundant stocks while minimizing the incidental harvest of weak stocks. The goal of identifying suitable locations and developing fisheries in these sites has been achieved; however, additional work is required. Most recently the 2000 Draft Biological Opinion, and the associated all-H Paper, have called for expansion of these terminal area fisheries and enhancement of value for these fisheries. Results to date provide project managers with the information necessary to move in that direction and the proposal for 2003-2005 is a direct reflection of the project’s ability to keep pace with changing fishery management needs. The SAFE Project is now moving from the feasibility study phase to the full capacity production phase at several sites, as originally planned, as is called for in the 2000 Draft Biological Opinion.

d. Relationships to other projects

In collaboration with Walt Dickhoff (NMFS), Project No. 9202200: Wild Smolt Behavior/Physiology (ESA), naturalized rearing strategies are being researched in estuarine net pens to validate laboratory findings. Information gained will provide direction to apply rearing strategies to optimize smolt-to-adult survival. A bi-monthly sampling schedule to determine various physiological characteristics is in place.

Through information gained from Project No. 9702400: Juvenile Salmonids in the Columbia River Basin, release strategies from estuarine net pens are being employed to avoid excessive avian predation.

Through the three CWT programs [Project No. 8201300: Coded-Wire Tag Recovery; Project No. 8906900: Annual Coded-Wire Tag Program - Missing Production OR HTC (ODFW); and Project No. 8906600: Annual Coded-Wire Tag Program - Missing production WA HTCH (WDFW)], recovery information is essential for this project to evaluate fishery contributions, escapement levels, total survival rates, and comparison of study fish to production fish. Project No. 8201300: Coded-Wire Tag Recovery, provides personnel that assist in sampling fisheries to recover coded-wire-tags. Recovery data from Select Area fisheries is included in the CWT delivery database supported by the Coded-Wire Tag Recovery Project.

Coordination and approval for reprogramming of fish stocking programs is essential at all levels; internal within WDFW and ODFW, in forums or individually with other agencies, and within requirements and guidelines of the ESA and Production Advisory Committee (PAC). NEPA requirements have been met. Permits with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) are necessary along with local city, county and other state agencies. Lease agreements with private landowners are necessary.

Commercial harvest regulations require Columbia River Compact action in concurrent jurisdiction waters and states' action in state waters. Coordination with the appropriate enforcement agencies is essential. Sport harvest proposals must be reviewed by enforcement and coordinated between states (OR & WA) for consistency.

All harvest must be addressed in the ESA process involving the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of the Columbia River Fish Management Plan. Final approval of fisheries and harvest are then the responsibility of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and all fisheries must remain within ESA-related impact limits set forth by the NMFS.

e. Project history (for ongoing projects)

The Project is an extension of the existing hatchery system that evaluates the feasibility of utilizing lower Columbia River off-channel sites for net-pen rearing and acclimation of coho, spring chinook, and fall chinook salmon.

An initial research phase to investigate potential sites resulted in selection of four sites in Oregon (Tongue Point, Blind Slough, Clifton Slough, Wallace Slough) and three in Washington (Deep River, Steamboat Slough, Cathlamet Channel). In addition to the seven new sites, the established Youngs Bay site was included for further expansion and Coal Creek Slough (WA) is being given future consideration. Water quality and benthic biomonitoring programs were initiated. Stock selection was based on homing potential, quality, availability, and value to the economy. Test fishing programs were initiated to determine area, time, and gear parameters to maximize harvest of targeted stocks while minimizing impacts on ESA listed species.

The second phase to expand into Youngs Bay and introduce fish to other select areas is nearing completion. Stocks selected for rearing programs are early stock coho, select area bright (SAB) fall chinook (Rogue stock), and lower river spring chinook. Various rearing and release strategies include time and size of release, rearing density, and seasonal feeding regimes. Water quality and bio-monitoring programs are concentrated in the selected fish rearing sites to determine levels of deviation from baseline data by newly established select area fish rearing sites. Test gillnetting was conducted to determine potential of the study sites to harvest targeted species while avoiding non-target species. Using test fishing results, initial SAFE commercial seasons were established in Tongue Point Basin, Blind Slough, and Deep River; and later followed in Steamboat Slough. Harvest goals were met with minimal impacts on listed stocks. Homing and straying rates are being documented through coded-wire tag (CWT) recovery efforts for early stock coho, SAB fall chinook, and spring chinook.

The third and final phase will establish Select Area fisheries at full capacity at all acceptable sites through adaptive management strategies. The project in now moving into this final stage in some locations. For Youngs Bay the coho and spring chinook programs are moving into full capacity production plans that maximize economic value of the landed catch. Fall chinook in Youngs Bay remain in the feasibility testing phase. Expansion plans for spring chinook in Blind Slough also move that fishery into the full capacity implementation phase.

f. Proposal objectives, tasks and methods

OBJECTIVE 1. Maximize production in appropriate select area sites.
Task 1a. Maximize spring chinook production in Youngs Bay and Blind Slough.
Task 1b. Maximize coho production in Youngs Bay, Tongue Point, Blind Slough, and Deep River.
OBJECTIVE 2. Continue development of SAFE fisheries in other areas.
Task 2a. Develop spring chinook fishery in Deep River and Steamboat Slough.
Task 2b. Continue development of SAB fall chinook in Youngs Bay.
Task 2c. Investigate appropriateness of releasing spring chinook at Tongue Point at new location using homing enhancement.
Task 2d. Develop coho fishery in Steamboat Slough.
Task 2e. Continue to evaluate other potential sites for select area fisheries including Coal Creek Slough.
OBJECTIVE 3. Determine suitability of the Deep River, Steamboat Slough, Tongue Point Turning basin, Blind Slough, and Coal Creek Slough sites for rearing and release of salmon.
Task 3a. Conduct water quality monitoring program for rearing areas in selected sites for the entire year. Water column parameters, benthic sediment and organisms, and planktonic characteristics to be measured at rearing sites using established schedule.
Task 3b. Continue to collect and analyze homing and straying information from current net-pen and lower Columbia River hatchery programs.
OBJECTIVE 4. Coordinate activities with WDFW, ODFW, CEDC, BPA, NMFS, and SFA.
Task 4a. Coordinate all objectives, tasks, and activities undertaken jointly to ensure complementary products and minimal overlap of actions.
Task 4b. Co-host bimonthly coordination meetings of involved or interested parties to further develop work plans and report on progress.
Task 4c. Promote dialogue and participation in all projects that are affected by select area fisheries development.
Task 4d. Respond to NMFS requirements as per SAFE biological opinion.
Task 4e. Continue practice of cost sharing of project expenses via fisherman/processor contributions.
OBJECTIVE 5. Compile and report SAFE project results.
Task 5a. Complete current annual report.
Task 5b. Begin next annual report.

g. Facilities and equipment

The Project supports two state hatcheries completely, Gnat Creek (OR) and Grays River (WA), as well as having multiple net pen sites on shores rented from local landowners. In Oregon these sites are in Youngs Bay, Tongue Point Turning basin, and Blind Slough. The Washington sites are in Deep River and Steamboat Slough. Equipment includes two rented vehicles, four desktop computers, and two Hydrolab water chemistry probes. Office facilities for each agency located in Vancouver, WA, Clackamas, OR, and Astoria, OR.

[boater]

[ 12-28-2003, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: boater ]

[boater]

i have a question for DAN GROGAN President, Fisherman's Marine & Outdoors and president, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association ,
just wondering if you had any idea how many more members the NSIA would have if you started an inititive to ban non-treaty commercial fishing from the mainstem of the columbia ? my rough uneducated guess is that NSIA membership would go thru the roof and you would also have alot of other sportfishing and conservation groups joining in to help get it done , what is your opinion as to why or why not you would want to try to get this done, thanks.

[Born to be Wild]

[ 12-31-2003, 04:40 AM: Message edited by: Born to be Wild ]

[Pete]

Uh, Gentlemen? What's wrong with this picture? Are we having a discussion of general interest or are we having a private discussion in public?

[Mrdorkfish]

"Whatever" :tongue: All i know is that i usually catch more fish in the Columbia when the nets are " IN " Hey...only let these guys drag nets if they work at hatcheries in the off season..earn their keep. People thunk too much or add "politics" Makes things too difficult.

MrDorkfish [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img]

Louis

[Straydog]

My magic fingers failed me!!
Posted before it's time.......

[ 12-29-2003, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Straydog]

The issue is the economics of sportfishing. The poll on this board shows it to be higher than many realize. And, as Dave Vedder pointed out, this is not a broad representation of the whole, since most of us are fairly local and blessed with great fishing in our back yards compared to those that travel great distances to seek the mighty Salmon.

Also, after many years in the business, I can tell you that the Salmon is King, in more ways than one!

[Silver One]

Personal deleted

[ 12-30-2003, 08:37 AM: Message edited by: Jennie@ifish ]

[Jennie@ifish]

Dear Gentlemen and Gentle ladies,

Anything that even remotely looks like a post meant to irritate another member will be deleted, upon notice, or upon whistle alert.

Don't care who you are, how long you've been a member, or how much you have contributed.

If it's not educational, or a contribution of decent thought, it'll be gone.

Please edit anything in your post that is meant to inflame another party immediately, so that I can go fishing.

Thank you.

Jen

[Uglygreen]

Im posting this on a couple different threads so everybody sees it:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three or more Northwest fish hatcheries could be closed soon unless there's an increase in federal money for Columbia River Mitchell Act hatcheries in 2003. This year's funding for Mitchell Act hatcheries amounted to $16.7 million, said R.Z Smith of NOAA Fisheries.

Discussions are underway to determine which hatcheries should be closed if funding is not increased. The preliminary list calls for closing Elochoman River Hatchery, Skamania Hatchery and Carson Hatchery, all in Washington.

Private groups such as the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association are lobbying Congress to increase the 2003 budget to nearly $21 million. Smith said a funding level of $40 to $50 million is justified, but out of reach. However, a grass roots effort is underway to develop regional consensus for a "bottom-up" budget plan by the state, federal, and tribal fish agencies for the 2005 budget.

The Senate didn't support the budget boost for federal hatcheries, so lobbying efforts are now aimed at the House. Mary Gautreaux, spokesperson for Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), said her boss tried to get more funding, but there simply isn't any money available. Back in April, fourteen members of the House and six members of the Senate requested an increase for next year's Mitchell Act hatchery funding.

Since the 1930s, when the Mitchell Act was passed to fund hatcheries as a form of compensation for dam construction on the Columbia River, the budget has been based on information provided by lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Since federal agencies are not allowed to lobby for a specific funding amount, they must be invited by Congress to provide a budget proposal. Fish agencies and tribes hope for a consensus this fall on a budget built from the "bottom-up" by the agencies and the public. With this regional consensus, it's then possible to request an invitation from Congress for NOAA Fisheries to provide a budget request that meets the needs of the hatchery program. The plan is to begin discussions in September for this new budget.

Fish supporters have had to remind the federal government of its obligation. In an April letter to Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA) , the Pacific Fisheries Management Council didn't beat around the bush.

"Continuous level funding for Mitchell Act hatcheries represents a broken federal promise to mitigate for salmon losses due to federally sanctioned development projects not otherwise covered in mitigation agreements," said the council. "Nearly a decade of level funding has caused the closure of seven hatchery facilities, and together with reductions in others, a 40-percent reduction in the number of juvenile salmon released."

Level funding cannot support all existing programs under the Mitchell Act umbrella, said Smith.

The bottom-up budget under development would provide adequate funding for hatchery operations and maintenance, fish marking, hatchery improvements and rehabilitation, research, and new initiatives, but some fish advocates support only part of that menu.

Oregon Trout's Jim Myron and Tom Wolf of Trout Unlimited said their organizations support increased funding for fish marking and research, but don't advocate increased hatchery production. "We don't need to increase hatchery production, we need to decrease conflicts between wild and hatchery fish in the Columbia River and the ocean," Myron said.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Due to uncertain Mitchell Act funding, 500,000 coho yearlings will be transferred four months early from the Eagle Creek National Fish Hatchery to net pens in Young’s Bay near the mouth of the Columbia River. The net pens, operated by the Clatsop Economic Development Council, provide fish for the valuable Young’s Bay commercial gill net fishery, which generates as much as $500,000 in economic benefits each year to local fishermen.
Staff from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife began transferring the fish by truck on Monday, December 15, 2003, and are scheduled to continue through Thursday, December 18, 2003. Transferring the yearlings early is not expected to reduce their chances of survival. They will be reared in the net pens until their normal release time in Spring 2004.

Another 500,000 coho yearlings being raised for the Young’s Bay fishery will remain at Eagle Creek hatchery until March 2004, when they will be transferred on schedule to the net pens for acclimation to the bay. In April 2004, both groups of fish will be released so they can head to sea to mature.

The early transfer of coho to the net pens is the first of several actions the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may need to take to address a projected Mitchell Act shortfall that could reach $350,000 in Fiscal Year 2004. Eagle Creek NFH is one of five FWS hatcheries operated with Mitchell Act funds. Thirteen other Mitchell Act hatcheries, operated by the states of Oregon and Washington, also may be impacted by a lack of money allocated under the Act.

“These hatcheries already are underfunded so the prospect of flat funding or an actual decrease is forcing us to make some pretty tough decisions,” said Dan Diggs, the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Assistant Regional Director for Fishery Resources. “After careful consideration we determined that transferring these coho ahead of schedule would have the least impact on fisheries in the region.”

Mitchell Act money for the 2004 fiscal year, which began October 1, 2003, is uncertain because the U.S. Senate recessed for the Holidays without acting on Mitchell Act funding. The budget version approved by the U.S. House of Representatives before the recess held Mitchell Act funding for hatchery operations at its 2003 level of $11.3 million.

With the 2004 fiscal year already nearly three months old, Diggs said he had no choice but to start taking action. Federal budget rules do not allow him to use other fishery money to pay for Mitchell Act programs. The early transfer of coho yearlings to Young’s Bay allows him to reassign one full-time position funded under the Mitchell Act.

Later this month, Diggs also may authorize the early release of 1 million coho yearlings from Willard National Fish Hatchery in Washington. The release of these fish four months early will reduce their ability to survive to adulthood, Diggs said, but it will enable him to preserve important mitigation and restoration programs in the mid-Columbia River and meet treaty trust responsibilities to the tribes. It will also allow him to transfer a full-time position from Willard NFH to another program not funded under the Mitchell Act.

The Willard fish, which are tagged, will be monitored to determine their survival rate.

The National Marine Fisheries Service administers the Mitchell Act, which was passed by Congress to mitigate for salmon losses attributed to Federal dams in the Columbia River Basin. The amount of money allocated for Mitchell Act hatchery operations has remained flat since 1995, despite increasing hatchery responsibilities and operations costs.

Representatives of Oregon, Washington, local tribes and fishing communities are working to secure adequate funding for Mitchell Act hatcheries, which are important sources of salmon for fisheries. Budget shortfalls have prompted the Fish and Wildlife Service to give notice to the Clatsop Economic Development Council that it is phasing out its production of coho for the Young’s Bay fishery. Diggs said that legal obligations to produce salmon for Indian treaty fisheries supercede the Service’s obligation to produce fish for the Young’s Bay fishery.

“There’s just not enough money to keep doing both,” Diggs said, “although that’s what we want to do.”

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting and enhancing fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service manages the 95-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System which encompasses 542 National Wildlife Refuges, thousands of small wetlands and other special management areas. It also operates 70 National Fish Hatcheries, 64 Fishery Resource Offices and 81 Ecological Services field stations. The agency enforces Federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LINK

LINK

Just a couple of recent articles - and just because a law like the Mitchell Act authorizes something, doesnt mean congress is going to appropriate the funds to make it happen. The commercials and tribes are working hard to save and increase Mitchell Act funding, what are sports groups doing? Here on Ifish most are just complaining about how the commercials and tribes are taking their fish. What a crock - if it wasnt for the commercials and the tribes there wouldn't be any sort of meaningful sport fishery on the Columbia. Short memory? - 2001 was the FIRST year in over twenty that there was even a sport springer fishery on the Columbia, and now most everybody here is whining about "me, me, me!". You like to fish bouy 10 and the estuary for coho? Well looks like thats going to be the first to take a hit. All those unconcerned with hatchery funding should probably go join Oregon Trout - the rest of us SHOULD be working with the tribes (who are commercials) and the LCR netters and the ocean trollers to 1) maintain and 2) increase Mitchell Act funding.

UG

Pop Quiz - What was the combined economic impact of both sport and commercial fishing for spring chinook on the lower Columbia river in the year 2000? 1999? 1998? 1997? 1996?.......1973?

[LazerFisher]

I just love to fish for the sake of fishing with my family and friends. Politics seem to pollute this purity I find so attractive. I know many of you would feel I am being naive or turning a blind eye to the issue, but isn’t fishing meant to be this way in the first place?

[Straydog]

Lazer,

Yes, fishing should to be carefree and relaxing.

I hope you remember to thank those that are doing the neccesary hard, ugly work to help insure that you, me and our kids get those wonderful opportunities in the years to come. I also hope you realize that without the hard, ugly work that has been done in the past, our opportunities today would be way less than they are.

UG,

Great info. Thanks for sharing!

[Fishbulb]

Careful what you wish for! If the commissions allocated harvest opportunities based on economics alone both commercial and sport fleets would be ended. Period. End of discussion. No fishing method on the Columbia river can hold a candle to the economic powerhouses that are shipping and hydropower. Want to get the best bang for you buck and kindle our beleaguered regional economy? Transfer all impacts to produce cheap electricity and allow the ports to do anything they want to the river in order to stimulate that kind of economic activity. That is where you generate real money. Big money.

Fortunately the commissions don't base their decisions solely on economics. They use a broad range of factors to allocate harvest.

[finclipped]

Fishbulb, what about the tribes? I think they may have something to say about managing the river for maximum economic benefit. The commission would get squashed if they even suggested such a move. They don't have that kind of power,(no pun intended.)

Sounds like a commercial fisherman scare tactic.

[Killertraylor]

Originally posted by Chris White:
Bill Monroe has been with the Oregonian for years and always slants articles to bash commercials.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That's not true, Chris. I've personally discussed this topic with Bill and he is very open minded regarding commercial (and sport) fishing. His articles reflect that fact. You must have missed the well written article he put in last week's paper from the commercial fisherman that today's article was attempting to rebut. I think you owe Bill an apology.

Straydog - why are you so upset that one guy would say it doesn't cost him much to catch a salmon? That doesn't hurt us at all - I'm sure that for him, it's true. Guys like you and I bring that $ per fish average up for him and three of his bankfishing buddies in one trip. :shocked:

[Fishbulb]

Treaty fisheries operate on impacts separate from non-treaty. The commissions are making decisions for non-treaty impact allocations only. The Federal government has already appropriated fishing impacts to the tribes. You are right in thinking the tribes want to maximize the rivers economic benefit. This is so because it is to their benefit. Hydropower and shipping do not benefit treaty entities. The largest economic benefit to be realized by non-treaty entities would be to shift all fishery impacts to those entities I described above. These entities would then in turn generate an amount of monetary activity that would completely outweigh all fishing interests.

Simply put, the largest dollar amount generation for the non-treaty public would result from all impacts being used by hydropower and shipping. No one with any regional economic knowledge would dispute this. But again, the commissions and the feds don't take total dollars generated as the only factor into consideration when disbursing impacts to user groups.

[GutshotApe]

Originally posted by Fishbulb:
Treaty fisheries operate on impacts separate from non-treaty. The commissions are making decisions for non-treaty impact allocations only.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I'm not sure that's quite accurate...seems like a few years ago the feds established a total impact on a listed upriver stock...NMFS decided the mortality rate could be something on the order of 17%. The Indian net fishery took around 13% (or 3/4 of the mortality allowance) "off the top" leaving 4% impact for others i.e. sport & lower river commercial netters...the OR & WA commissions then divided the 4% between the two groups.

[ 12-30-2003, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: GutshotApe ]

[cosmo]

Impacts for treaty and non-traty anglers are handled in US vs. Oregon. Fishbulb is correct in that the commission is working on splitting the 2% (not 4) impact that will serve the non-treaty fishing community.
Both sport and commercial fisheries must operate to harvest hatchery fish while killing less than 2% of the upriver wild run (not 2% of the total run)

[Jerry Dove]

Hello Uglygreen. I will be going to Wash. DC in March to lobby for the Port of Tillamook Bay. You can bet I will also lobby for the Mitchell Act funding. We need those $$ in Oregon.

[cosmo]

UG,
NSIA, as referenced in your article, is on DC every year for Mitchell Act funding. That is a sport group that's getting it done.

As for the spring chinook fishery being opened, NSIA got the first dollars to mark spring chinook. That opener had nothing to do with tribes and commercials. In fact, clipping dollars (which are a line item in the Mitchell Act monies) were in danger of being cut a couple of years back. I was on the phone with a past president of Salmon For All trying to rally support amongst groups. They had no comment on the issue and wouldn't help. For them no clips meant traditional gill nets and none of this tangle net stuff. NSIA got the money back in. Our fishey would have been cut to 1/10 of size. So as far as the commercials (nets) providing some grace of a quality sport fishery and needing them, that's just not the case. The sky is not falling.

[Chris White]

Killertraylor, I'll be the first to apologize if I'm wrong. "Bill, if I've misread you, then I AM sorry. As I said before, it benefits none of the user groups of the salmon resource when they expend money and energy battling each other. We need to put the pressure where it belongs, on the caretakers."

[Laserman]

Good going Cosmo. I'm glad somebody is getting it right. Keep up the good posts.