Englunds no friend to sportsmen

[SlabQuest]

click here

[OceanBlue]

I surely wouldn't want to be in Mr. Englund's shoes.

[kamloops]

I dunno, commercial fishing is what made Mr. Englunds
deal a success. I just believe that the regulators figure the "sportsfisherman" occupy the bottom of the food chain and proly always will. I would like to see it change to elect more sports interests sitting on these regulating boards.
That's why we need to fund, join and support interests like
R.F.A. and others.

Fishermans Marine supply was one of the sole Portland supplier of commercial trolling equipment and gear before
they diversified into sport gear. I bought all my gear from them in the early 70's.

[fish assassin]

I wouldn't want to be in his shoes either. I do NOT support fishing with nets,
however, I WILL continue to support Englund Marine Supply. Mr. Englund (IMHO) is
doing his job by representing his constituents. For that he should be applauded,
not chastised (again, IMHO).

Thank you,
Mark L. Roberts (AKA Fish Assassin)

[corrirod]

As much as I hate to admit it, I've been wondering about Mr. Englund's interests over the last couple months. His lack of support for this website is where it started for me. It takes some large stones to vote on something that seems to be highly disliked and the only reason I can see for this is $$$$$$ . Perhaps someone more informed could tell me the monetary implications the increase in take would be? Those nets cost tens of thousands of dollars. Even if he only sold 5-10 more nets then I would imagine it would be worth 25-50+ thousand dollars? As a business person it seems like that would be a no brainer, as a public official that seems like a conflict of interest to me?

I was one of the people who was willing to give Mr. Englund a chance when his nomination first came up. I gave him the benefit of the doubt but it appears he may actually just be about the money. :depressed: That's too bad because I'd much rather purchase my supplies from someone local who knows the fishery I enjoy. :depressed:

Can't speak for the other locations but Dean Fleck, the manager from the Newport store, is a great guy and I hate to hurt his business because of something Mr. Englund did but .

If Englund wants to sell more nets that's fine but he shouldn't be in an official position to force the sale.

[ron m]

is this an example of something going wild on the internet (net, but that may be an inappropriate pun here)?

One of the posts on that thread says it was a polling of the board to see if they support talks with WA to regulate the fishery on the Columbia. That may not be a bad thing. Often several people can hear and see the same thing in a meeting and come away with completely different impressions. Lets make sure we have the facts before we get too excited.

The folks at Englunds in Astoria and Newport have treated me fairly and I have found them to be helpful.

ron m
Ron Mason, Corvallis

[Troutinator]

I agree with Fish Assasin as far as Englund being put on the board to represent the interests of his constituents. And I have no problem with him doing just that. What I cannot understand or support is decision making that facilitates the decline of the fishery for all.
Maybe someone can explain to me how increasing the allowable by-catch of native steelhead benefits anyone in the long run.
Mark?

[Pilar]

Ok, I'm kinda slow sometimes so let me think out loud here.

1) The Springer gill net take is limited by impacts on Steelhead (in theory anyway). Also it is limited by impact on unclipped Springers.

2) Spring Chinook bring some of the highest dock prices for salmon anywhere, anytime.

3) There is a huge economic interest for a small group of individuals involved in this fishery.

4) The individuals who gillnet springers buy equipment for the fishery from Mr. Englund and his company, Englund's.

5) A longer season may increase sales of equipment to Gillnetters and personally benefit Mr. Englund.

6) Raising the allowed impact on wild Steelhead has the effect of reducing the limitations on Gillnet fishers.

7) Mr. Englund is an ODFW commissioner and has the authority to influence decisions on allowable take of Wild Steelhead.

8) He voiced his opinion during a recent meeting on this subject that the percent impact should be changed from 2% to 6%.

Is there any conceivable reason besides self interest for him to take this position?

Anyone?

Did I miss anything?

[fish assassin]

Pilar wrote:
"Is there any conceivable reason besides self interest for him to take this position?"

How about this one? He was representing one of the MANY fisheries groups that he caters
too? If he had sided with the sport fishermen, would he have *also* been accused of only
taking that stand due to self interest (selling more sport equiptment)?

The issue was (paraphrased) "should the gill netters be allowed to take (not keep, mind you)
6% of the wild steelhead population?". As far as I could tell, the question wasn't about
whether it was fair to the sport fishermen not to get to "take" more steelhead in thier efforts
to capture Chinook.

And lest we forget ... This proposal was first presented by the ODFW and supposedly had some
good science behind it. I don't feel that Mr. Englund is the bad guy here. Besides, doesn't
it take the vote of more than ONE member of the commission to pass something like this? What
about the two avid fly fishers that are *also* part of this group (Donald Denman who is the
Vice Chair and Skip Klarquist)? Is it self serving if they voted *against* the extra allocation?
Is it only self serving if you are making MONEY from one of the users groups?

So many questions ... so little time!

~assAssin~

[ron m]

The minutes from the ODFW Commission meeting are not yet posted, but below is part of a ODFW press release regarding the issue of incidental take of wild steelhead. It does not tell who voted for what, that should be in the minutes when they come out. But it does give some, albeit only a little, background info on the issue.


"Commission limits harm to wild steelhead in Columbia River during spring fishery"
Date: February 11, 2005

TROUTDALE – The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission Friday directed Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Director Lindsay Ball to manage the incidental loss of wild steelhead to less than 2 percent of the run during the Columbia River commercial spring chinook fishery.

The move comes on the heels of Washington’s decision last Saturday to increase the incidental catch of wild steelhead on the shared waterway up to 4 percent of the total run. Officials from both agencies will meet soon to discuss the direction provided from their respective commissions.

The increased commercial impact rate was proposed in an effort to maximize harvest of Willamette Basin hatchery spring chinook salmon as they travel up the Columbia River. Fresh spring chinook are highly valued for their flavor.

“Increasing rates this year could send the wrong message to the many groups working toward conservation of steelhead and their habitat,” said Commission Chair Marla Rae. “While federal fishery managers said we could raise the limit as high as 6 percent without compromising the steelhead, 2 percent is consistent with the standard that has been in place since 1998.”

Commercial fishers will continue to use their selective harvest techniques, including modified nets and “recovery boxes” to revive steelhead and wild chinook incidentally taken in commercial operations. ODFW biologists will monitor fish impacts throughout the season to minimize steelhead encounters and optimize catch-and-release survival.

The Commission also approved the 2005 Columbia River sport fishing regulations offered last week during the Columbia River Compact and Joint State proceedings. The Compact annually establishes harvest targets and season dates for spring chinook, sturgeon and shad on the shared boundary waters.

[Killertraylor]

Is there any conceivable reason besides self interest for him to take this position?

Reason 1: Representing commercial fishermen and all people and local businesses who buy their catch.

Reason 2: 6% isn't all that bad - see results of same meeting held recently in Washington.

Reason 3: Commercial fishermen have convinced Mr. England that Wild Steelhead are not really as endangered as the Feds will have us believe - I don't follow the issue myself, but based on other fisheries decisions I've seen made, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the commercials were right.

I'm sure there are others, but I think you probably nailed it on the head, Pilar - his decision is what he felt was best for himself and his constituents. I'd probably have done the same thing if I was in his shoes, but then again, I've never been accused of being a "trout-hugger" either. :tongue:

[edsr]

Until we organize and get political we sports fishermen are always going to be sucking hind tit - period.

There is no reason in the world for a gill net season on the Columbia. Follow the money and it will lead to a relatively small group of people who have political clout.

When the stocks are depleted we are always the first group asked to reduce our catch limits so that the commercial guys can make a living. There's something wrong with this equation especailly when a sport caught fish has so much more economic value than a commercially caught fish, called "product" by commercial interests.

I don't know Mr. Englund but I did wonder if he was an appropiate person to represent us "sporties".

Wake up folks!! If we put enough heat on ODFW and legislators, we can change things. Get out your check book this won't be easy or cheap. We can't change things by wishing and hoping.

edsr

[fish assassin]

I don't know Mr. Englund but I did wonder if he was an appropiate person to represent us "sporties".

edsr

Is it possible that Mr. Englund was appointed to represent MORE than just the "sporties"?? Is it possible that it was the governments intention to have somebody on the commission that might represent the (gasp) commercial point of view? Or maybe somebody that had a point of view that was more balanced (?) because he/she was involved in more than just ONE fishery?

BTW, Not all commercial fisheries are created equal. When you condemn the "commercials", is it really your intention to condemn the hook-and-line fishermen as well? As for political clout ... Hah! I know for a fact that the commercial troll industry is just a bunch of guys that happen to fish. No organization (to speak of) there!!

~assAssin~

[fish assassin]

When the stocks are depleted we are always the first group asked to reduce our catch limits so that the commercial guys can make a living. There's something wrong with this equation especailly when a sport caught fish has so much more economic value than a commercially caught fish, called "product" by commercial interests.

edsr

I missed the above quote in my haste to reply.

You posit that somehow the commercial guys get fish and you don't. Let me just say this
about that ... 1) when the Silver Salmon (coho) stocks ran into trouble from overfishing
by both commercial and (gasp) sport interests, as well as other causes, it was the COMMERCIAL
fisherman who was eliminated from that particular food chain. The "sporties" are *still*
catching and conking them. Hmmm, one for the "sporties".

2) Last summer there was a quota on black rock fish. Actually there were a couple of
different quotas. One was for the sport fishermen. One was for the commercial interests.
The sport guys caught more than their quota last season. Because the sport guys were sooo
adament about the commercial guys not being allowed to fish when the sport guys were not,
they first curtailed the commercial harvest of the product to rediculously low levels and
then cut the commercial boys off all together. The split at the beginning of the season
was 86% vs 14%. That's 86% of the entire quota for SPORT interests and 14% for commercial
interests. Hmmm, that's TWO for the "sporties".

Just a little food for thought ...

~assAssin~

[Mark Mc]

Mark ol' buddy....sometimes you have to know when to quit arguing your point.

Surely you must be aware of all the coho....sometimes hundreds a day...that get hooked and "tossed back" (with high mortality) from the typical production troller. Now maybe you didn't experience this yourself due to geography, or whatever....but there were plenty of trollers doing exactly that this last year, and the year before.

[bait boy]

Mark, (FA) this really pertains to the Columbia fishery only, as there are no other rivers on the west coast that still allow gillnetting.

I do seem to recall in the very recent past when gillnetters have gone over their allowable catch or their impact rates resulting in premature closures of the columbia river spring salmon runs.

I do think that the hook and line trollers and such have a very targetable resource. There are techs to catch varied species that work best. Granted, with the implementation of the "tangle nets" it shows an apparent regard for the Wild steelhed mortality but it was only after fisheries managers made it mandatory. and the Resucitation boxes are a step in the right direction, but only if they are used.

So, do I think that raising the allowable impacts would have let the gillnetters catch more springers? Yes, but is that good for a recovering steelhead.
NO

Would it have made more money for a commercial gear seller, maybe yes and maybe no. I dont think that there are any more netters allowed into this fishery and they do a good job of not losing thier gear (due to high cost). so other than upkeep it would be no more than most other seasons.



Thats way more than my .02 and I dont usually join in on these bash fests.

[corrirod]

FishAssassin,

NOBODY IS ARGUING THAT ENGLUND IS REPRESENTING THE GILLNETTERS! THAT'S ALREADY PRETTY OBVIOUS!

So, the fact that the SPORTFISHERMEN or not happy shouldn't be such a surprise.

He put himself in this position, that's his fault. If you have 2 sets of customers and you ignore the needs of one then you should expect them to go elsewhere. It's nothing personal, just business.

If he didn't want to be put on the spot then he never should've applied for the position.

The point here is that he (Englund) has made his choice to support the netters, and in my opinion the last thing we need is more nets. More trollers, sure, but not more nets.

[Pete]

It's not so much that Mr. E is supporting the netters as it is that he's opposed to protecting threatened stocks of steelhead. The Federal ESA classification creates an Environmentally Significant Unit designation. In this case, the ESU groups all the steelhead in the Columbia into one group. The individual populations included in this group include some rivers with runs without sufficient escapement. The North Fork Toutle averaged under 200 fish a year until 2001 and has only reached a maximum of 410 in the last couple years. The Green averaged 111 fish a year until 2001 and has a maximum of 438 fish in the last 3 years. Stocks like this cannot tolerate a tripling of their take.

The limiting factor in the commercial net fishery is the ESA listed Snake River wild chinook stock. In 3 of the last 4 years, netting impacts on that run have been what closed the commercial seasons. In fact, last year, when the run size forecast was much higher than actual returns, the nets took more than their impact allocation of SRW chinook. The change in steelhead impact would not, in all probability, have made any difference in the number of fish the commercial netters would take.

Failing to protect the stocks that are struggling to survive, in spite of the artificial assertion by NOAA that they can sustain a 200% increase in incidental mortality is the real issue here. Fortunately, 4 of the Oregon Commissioners understood this. The remaining challenge is for ODFW Director Ball to carry the ball in negotiations with WDFW Director Koenigs.

[Beefcake]

Okay, so the commercials gave up the coho, but the gillnetters continue to net the hell out of sturgeon, and we lost 50% of our allowed catch and over 60% of our fishing time. We all make concessions. What's your point?

I have never spoken out against commercial fishing other than gillnetting. Nearly every day I wake up wishing that I had bought a set-net permit that I was offered near Bethel, AK in the early 90's. This isn't about bashing you for trolling, it's about increasing the indiscriminant killing of an endangered species for no reason. The netters got more than their allotment of salmon last year while only supposedly having a .08% impact on wild steelhead. Based on this, they could kill 2 1/2 times as many wild steelhead as they have proven is necessary and still be within the current limit. I asked the question at 3 different ODFW / Columbia Compact meetings of why the increase was necessary, and the only answer they had was "flexibility".

[Megabites]

My take on this is simple. Mr. E is a business man and a good one. His business is more than 80% supported by commercial fishing. I've asked this before while in the store. So like any good business man he has found a way to boost his business and stay directly involved and in favor of his customers. So you can get as mad as you want about it but like it or not it was a smart move from a business stand point. That leaves only two choices that I can see. Figure out a way to get him out of the position he holds or forget about it. Shopping or not shopping at his store will only hurt your pocket book. I doubt he'll miss your business or care much for losing it. Not saying I agree with him just saying I understand it. I do find it a bit strange that he is allowed to hold the position he does being he has such a strong bias. What we really need to be mad about is how that happened IMO.

[Uglygreen]

Wow, must be nice to see the world in black and white.

Not arguing anything anyone said, and im glad the decision was to hold at 2%, but the NOAA, NMFS, WDFW Commission staff, and ODFW staff all supported some level of increased impact on the steelhead stocks in question. Surely they are not all just interested in increasing their personal wealth by selling more gillnets? Surely they havent all been bought off by the gillneters? Maybe he just listened to the evidence presented and voted his concience. Maybe he found the NOAA presentation more compelling than the sportfisher testimony. Perhaps he just has a different view of the situation. I know we are all arm chair experts here - maybe he listened to the people with degrees that said "this is OK, we need this". I am against the increase, but at least I know my own opinion is biased.

Sorry, but im not going to join on your little witch hunt.

Brad

[Gundog]

Mark, (FA) this really pertains to the Columbia fishery only, as there are no other rivers on the west coast that still allow gillnetting.

Just a point of interest I don't think the Columbia is the only river on the west coast were they gill net. I think there are others. I could be wrong but I think the Yurok Indians Gill net the mouth of the Klamath River in Klamath Ca. a point of interest is there is a Englunds in Crescent City 15 miles down the road for the supplys.
Mike

[Chum King]

I believe that Mr. Englund supports the resources and the people of Oregon. Having met Mr. Englund and enjoyed his company during a sportfishing trip, I have a great deal of respect for him, and trust that his opinions and decisions on the Commission will not be based on his bottomline.

As we have a number of commercial fisheries in Oregon, I feel it is very important to have someone on the Commission that has an intimate knowledge of commercial fisheries, and if you want to take a look at who have been Commission members in the past you will find that there have been at least two prior commissioners who were commercial fishermen: Bob Jacobson and Jeff Feldner. They both provided years of selfless service to the Commission, the resources, and the people of Oregon. Commissioners are not appointed by, nor do they support, a group of constituents.

Mr. Englund and all of our Commissioners, put out an extraordinary amount of time and effort to understand the issues, and to make the best decisions. They deserve our thanks and support. They certainly don't deserve to be villified when they voice opinions that are different from your's or mine.

My observations and experience indicate that Englund Marine as a business support the communities and the fisheries in their areas (both sport and commercial). Englund Marine came to the Salty Dog Convention, provided a special discount to the dogs, and has added a variety of new sport angling tackle to accomodate the growing craze for albacore by sport anglers in Oregon.

I will continue to shop at Englund Marine, and be happy to do so.

[Nofish]

I know this is getting away from the point of discussion, but Gundog is correct about gill netting in the Klamath system. The Yurok net from the mouth of the Klamath to the confluence of the Trinity River (about 20 miles) and the Hoopa net the lower section of the Trinity. I have seen tribal folks buying gillnets and supplies at Englunds in Crescent City on many occasions.

[fish assassin]

Brad,

Well said. Thank you.

MarkMc: Yep, you're right!! I DON'T know when to shut up!!

~assAssin~

[wak'm&stak'm]

Right On ...Chum King.

I like the store, they have always been good to me, and I have no intention of taking my dollar elsewhere. In fact we spent another 250 there yesterday.

Lets say we don't shop at Englunds and support another good American business.....hmmmmm...like !!!WALMART!!.....

[Pilar]

Good points, Eric.

I get the same general impressions about Mr. Englund that you do. I've only seen him at a couple of meetings and he seemed to be engaged and quick to point out any conflict of interest on his part.

The thing I wonder about is the appearance of a conflict of interest. It may be important to have a comm - fish oriented and experienced individual on the commission - granted.

Why is it not equally important to have a sport fishing oriented and experienced individual on that commission also?

Second question(s) ... why is it just automatically assumed that Gill netters have a right or entitlement to use their non-selective methods to fish in the Columbia river? Why is the collateral damage caused by these non-selective methods just accepted? Why do we not find another less destructive method to harvest these fish instead of wasting a bunch of time and effort on better gillnets?

Who made gillnets a sacred cow and why? Why do we ignore the elephant in the room? Why is Oregon, arguably the most progressive, forward thinking place in the US, the last place to ban gillnets?>

[OceanBlue]

Who made gillnets a sacred cow and why? Why do we ignore the elephant in the room? Why is Oregon, arguably the most progressive, forward thinking place in the US, the last place to ban gillnets?>

I think this is a better question than whether Mr. Englund should be serving on the commission.

As Chum King pointed out, there needs to be diverse representation on the commission - and there does seem to be. There have been commercial fishermen on the commission in the past... and if you think about it, if there weren't, the commission would likely be more inclined to make decisions for "preservation" rather than utilization of the resource for all.

As FA pointed out (and I pointed out in the thread on the main board) - Mr. Englund doesn't make decisions by himself. I applaud the commission for their work (often thankless, difficult work)

As I said, I wouldn't want to be in Mr. Englund's shoes. His opinion and position are unwelcome by the masses of sportfishers. :depressed: I can't even imagine the hate mail he must be receiving.

Hats off to Marla Rae for being a voice of reason.

[Mark Mc]

Thank goodness for some voices of reason over here on the Salty Dogs. There's not much I can add regarding Mr Englund. What I will say, is rather than looking only at Mr Englund....I like to consider his employees who may be affected by this "boycott" attitude. The folks at the Newport Englund store....Stephanie, Vince, Dean, and the others, have only been nice to me & our friends, in every way. They manage to get parts to us after hours. They have an honor system with us ("I won't charge you for the battery core...just leave the old one at the door"). They REALLY know how to help with boat & gear problems. Try finding all that ANYWHERE else. Go ahead and go to GI Joes and have them screw up putting spectra on your reel, or see if they can tell you whether you should buy the linear polyurethane or the enamel paint.

If someone has issues with MR Englund, perhaps they should communicate them to him directly...have a dialogue.....and see how he responds first? Instead of doing something that will only hurt the good people working in his store. And don't say "well they shouldn't work for a guy like that." If that's the attitude, then...as Wak alluded....you ought to be boycotting Walmart for all their well known, documented, horrible business practices. And while you're at it, stop buying anything aluminum, since it's made by the smelters who get the cheap power from the damns that block the salmon on the Columbia. Capiche???

[SlabQuest]

I know this has been touched-on in earlier posts, but here is my take on this:

I am not the least surprised that Englund would take the side of the commercials and fight for the maximum allocation of non-endangered fish for "his" group. The conflict of interest issue is not a big deal to me if it's out in the open.

But, it is just plain wrong to push for increased profits at the expense of an endangered species. To do so is immoral and unethical. He should be ashamed. I will be avoiding his store in Westport.

[5-Cents]

[CATCH AND EAT]

I may not agree with Mr Englunds position on this issue but I will continue to purchase tuna gear from him in Astoria because he does have the best selection available. He alone has to live with his beliefs and convictions regarding steelhead. We can counter his efforts by keeping the fishing brotherhood involved in making sure these mortality quota issues remain at 2%.

At any rate, being mad at him accomplishes nothing except devisivness. Of course he will side with the folks that butter his bread. Be mad at the idiots that started this whole mess (NOAA) and be mad at WAshington for going along and approving the higher mortality rates. Shame on these folks.

It wont hurt to write Mr Englund and express your displeasure on his stance but you better be consistant and write the other memebers of the commission that supported this thing too.

Believe it or not "that's all I have to say about that"

Forest Gump

[corrirod]

I'm with Pilar on this.

Let me start over. I don't have any personal grudge against Englund. He's a good business man who protects his largest clients.

I guess I would rather see someone from the commercial industry who doesn't stand to receive such a huge payout for his opinion.

Mr. Englund has the right to vote however he pleases and I have the same right to disagree with him, and for the same reason I can choose not to support his business, which is what I believe is driving his opinions. I'm sure I share the same philosophy as he does, "it's not personal, just business".

Fill his position with a commercial "fisherman", not a commercial "retailer".

[lingslayer]

The nets themselves are the problem, as John stated so well.

It seems to me there are many "holier than thou" types on the other side of this issue tripping over their own self serving interests in their zeal to slam a business person that has made a living helping fishers,... Commercial and sport alike.

The upriver crowd likes to hide behind the "it's for the fish" banner. Of course anything in the lower river that is "for the fish," is also for the upriver (sport) fishers too,...

Ask yourself if you would be hollering so loud if you didn't spend so much of your time upriver chasing them.

Furthermore if you have a financial interest, Ie. you happen to be a river guide, boat builder, sporting goods sales etc, that makes your voice as self serving as Mr Englund's.

My $.02,
Jamie

[fish assassin]

Fill his position with a commercial "fisherman", not a commercial "retailer".

The problems with filling the spot with a commercial fisherman are many and have
been demonstrated over the years on many of the different fish commissions. First
and formost is that commercial fishermen have to fish when the opportunity is there ...
kind of like striking while the iron is hot. They either miss meetings or miss
valuable fishing time.

Also, what would happen if you put a commercial fisherman that just happened to be
a gill netter on the commission? Would the outcome have been different? Would the
arguments FOR larger bi-catch been less?

Now, not all commercial fishermen are born equal. If'n *I* had that job I would
consistantly vote AGAINST the net fishermen. Both gill nets and draggers ... but that
is MY personal agenda and one that would help MY profits (obviously).

This has been a very interesting thread and while I agree with many of those that
are posting to it, I still think that boycotting Englund Marine Supply might be
the wrong answer for many reasons ... but do what you will!!

~assAssin~

[fish assassin]

~Lingslayer:



~assAssin~

[Bluefinn]

My thoughts on this for what it is worth.I worked down in Astoria this last year and learned a little while I was there.I was staying in a trailer on the John DAY RIVER just up river from TOUNGE point.It just happens to be where a few gillnetters keep there boats.I talked to them and heard there story.( Iam not siding with them so do not bite my head off)During the spring chinook season they had limited days only to fish with large diamter nets to allow escapement of steelhead. They told me if one chinook got trapped in the net it was a race to get the net pulled in before the sealions got the fish.Some of the boats would get maybe 3 fish a day.The rest of the fish would be heads only.I think this fishery will self destory.The net regulation and cost of the nets with The damage to the nets from the Sealions etc.The gill netting on the columbia is a highly controverisal subject.I feel just from my experience with the locals that it is not a big money maker most people with a lic.have full time jobs and fish when they can and the season permits.The sealions in that area are a menace and have learned to take fish out of nets or off fishermens lines.the gillnetters are just providing a easy way to feed the seals.The more nets that are destroied the more money for Mr.E.I will continue to shop at Mr.E store The majority of there sales used to be commercial. I think this is changing and they will have to change with the times.Mr E is holding on as long as he can to somthing he knows is doomed.Rick

[edsr]

FA - My concern is for the fish. We are just now seeing some recovery. If there were enough fish to satisfy commercial and sport fishermen we wouldn't be having this discussion. Should we allow every catchable fish to be taken and tempt the drastic declines of the recent past or is it more prudent to let the runs build a cushion for the inevitable cyclic down turn when conditions get bad?

Regarding Mr. Englund, my regret is that sport fishermen don't have a strong advocate for our position and I hoped he might be. Usually, your exceptions noted, we seem to come last in any allocation scheme, but, sport license fees finance a lot of the budget. Commercial fishermen are much better organized and represented.

The observation and comment was addressed to gill netting in the Columbia. You are able to choose which fish you take, whereas, a gill net is indiscrimate.


edsr

[Cloud-Nine]

I think it's quite a stretch to say Mr Englund voted to increase the impact on Steelhead just to increase HIS profits. Is it possible that he weighed all facts and then voted what he thought best for Oregon? We all tend to see things only through our own set of bi-focals, then judge without all the facts. I am with Mark, I am not going to boycott on such flimsy information and punish innocent people who have helped me many many times.
Dick on Cloud-Nine

[Rubber Robin]

One issue? One opinion? Some people are going to boycott Englund Marine based on this?

Is he a democrat or a republican?
Does he believe in abortion?
What about racial quotas?
Does he support the war in Iraq?
Changes in our Social Security?
Sales tax for Oregon?
Genetic cloning?
Prayer in schools?

What if his beliefs and opinions mirror yours on everything that you value except the incidental take on native steelhead? Would you still be against him?

Hey, it's Friday and we are looking at the weekend!

GO FISH!!!!!!!!!!

[fish assassin]

ALMOST as good of a rant as the one from DriftR!!!

~assAssin~

[corrirod]

There seems to be one thing we can assume for sure:

This position can't be filled by anyone that doesn't have the possibility of gaining a monetary benefit from their vote.

[Mr. Fisherman]

Englunds is one of the very few places that has what I need, when I need it. I'll still shop there.
Heck, last year Les Schwad didn't have a replacement battery for my boat. Englunds had one and I was back after Tuna again. Before I EVER initiated a buycot of a business I would AT LEAST ask to hear the other side of the story.
How about this nice weather?

[fishinlady97140]

Pilar wrote:
"Is there any conceivable reason besides self interest for him to take this position?"

How about this one? He was representing one of the MANY fisheries groups that he caters
too? If he had sided with the sport fishermen, would he have *also* been accused of only
taking that stand due to self interest (selling more sport equiptment)?


Is it only self serving if you are making MONEY from one of the users groups?

~assAssin~

Lemme see..weighing the price of a commercial net against the occasional rod or reel or hoochie I might have bought (but won't any longer) at Englund Marine....which is more in Englund Marine's pocket? Am I missing something too?

[Aqua-Holic]

United we stand...divided we...well we shop whereever..

CONVENTION UPDATE <DATES<AGENDA<VOLUNTEERS
#1038705 - 12/20/05 11:43 PM

Vendors to date:

Englunds... :shocked:

[OceanBlue]

I think I'll consider John Englund's latest vote against sportfishermen (last Friday, I believe) strongly before deciding where I purchase my gear. There are LOTS of options available and many suppliers who don't advocate taking privileges away from sportsmen. Mr. Englund is in a position of power and should recuse himself from voting in matters where he has a conflict of interest IMHO.

[Salty Walty]

Please read through the whole thread and see the variety of opinions and different points that are brought up.
We also need to ask ourselves why we don't have very much sport representaion. We give the appearance that most of us don't care. How many Sportfishermen were at meetings 10-15 years ago? I don't know because I wasn't there. Sound familiar? How many are at the meetings now? How many know just wait for an update on ifish and call it good? The Commercial fishermen were at most or all of them. They talked to their elected officials, wrote letters and made sure their voices were heard. Whereas most Sportsmen just shook it off as a slow year and figured it will be better next year. Now we are finding out the cost of not being involved and letting a dedicated few to speak and fight for our piece of the pie. Sportsfishermen have the # to make a difference but what we need now is to focus on the issues at hand and how to make a difference.
I will continue to patronize Mr. Englunds Store. They suppport and donate to many local causes and are a part of my Community.

[OceanBlue]

Walt, this thread is a year old and yes, there's been a lot of water under the bridge since then and I've had occassion to observe Mr. Englund in action. I've been to and participated in meetings.

Mr. Englund sits on the Fish and Wildlife Commission and last friday cast a vote in favor of Commercial fisherman - against sportfishermen. and while there may have been no direct financial gain in doing so, keep in mind not voting in favor of the commercial interest would most certainly have hurt his business.

We need to keep in mind that this is where his bread is buttered.

I'm not suggesting anyone boycot his stores. I'm merely saying that we should be careful to understand that Mr. Englund bears no loyalty to sportfishermen.

You may be reminded of this when the matter before the commission concerns halibut allocation or TUNA! limits.... Which way do you think he'll go on those matters? In favor of sportfishermen? Or with the commercial contingent?

Food for thought.

[tracker]

I do not live in Oregon and thus do not have the occasion very often to be near an Englunds when it is open. I have very few items on my boat that were bought there. They were bought for me at my request by someone else. Thus Englunds does not have any real reason to support me. So it seems to me that He has a reason to support which side his toast is buttered on. There are a lot of guys fighting in others countries to give him that right. Those same guys are fighting for my right to not go to Englunds store and support him if I do not want to. With votes that he has given, he has said he is not concerned in the least with the sportfisherman. So it would behoove the sprotfisherman and fisherwomen to reflect on this when considering where to buy that next sportfishing related item. I have had his stores numbers on my cell phone since I found this website and have now removed them. Boycott? I am not saying that! Rather I suggest that it would be safer for me to stick my hand in the mouth of a shark than to spend money in Englunds store. At least I know where I am getting bit and wont be suprised by a stab in the back!

[freespool]

You can take your business anywhere you like, and I think a lot of the reasons for staying away from Englunds are valid.
However, is this really going to do any good for the fishery? Or is will this just make us feel better?
I think Crabbait said it best.

I strongly disagree. This was not a "done deal" we just got out played. I have copies of every email and letter sent to the commission prior to Dec 20. Believe me, their are very few and the majority are not from sport fishermen. I also attended the meetings in Vancouver, Cathlamet and Salem. The 175 gillnetters were able to have a larger attendance than the 70,000+ sport fishermen at two of the three meetings and a much more organized presence.

I find it ironic that there are more threads right at the top of ifish now that the decision for Oregon has been announced. For the two months preceding the decision, the only way we could keep the topic on the front page was to pin it to the top of the board!

This is the heart of the issue, if you do not participate in the process, how on earth can you expect anything but failure?
Sportfisher did not write emils or letters to the commission, they did not attend the meeting. Yet they seem shocked and amazed that the decission went the other way.
First to blame was NSIA, they didn't do enough, they let us down.
Now John Englund is in the barrel, did anyone here actually think he'd vote for the sportfishers?
Sportfishers will take a day off work at the very hint of a hot bite, but a day off fighting for the fish is out of the question.
Sportfishers have made their nest, yet they seem to be complaing about the accommadations.
I think it's time to look in the mirror, that's where the real problem is located.



salmon hugger

[fishinlady97140]

This is the heart of the issue, if you do not participate in the process, how on earth can you expect anything but failure?
Sportfisher did not write emils or letters to the commission, they did not attend the meeting. Yet they seem shocked and amazed that the decission went the other way.
First to blame was NSIA, they didn't do enough, they let us down.
Now John Englund is in the barrel, did anyone here actually think he'd vote for the sportfishers?
Sportfishers will take a day off work at the very hint of a hot bite, but a day off fighting for the fish is out of the question.
Sportfishers have made their nest, yet they seem to be complaing about the accommadations.
I think it's time to look in the mirror, that's where the real problem is located.



salmon hugger

freespool, I don't think anyone's saying they believed Englund would have voted for the sportfisher; ethically, Englund should have recused his vote for the obvious reason of conflict of interest (more money in his and family's pocket supporting gillnetters). Many of us DID write letters and emails BUT were unable to attend the meetings AND can't go to Washington for WDFW meetings; however, one way to let everyone know WE KNOW where our support lies as sportfishers is to purchase our gear and tackle from those who support our views. If your view lies somewhere else, you have every right to do the same.

The vote would have been tied if he'd recused his vote and they'd have gone back to the drawing board and heard more of what everyone was saying -- who knows how the vote would have turned out -- stalemate and allocations remain the same? -- the fact remains Englund voted when he should not have done so. I've seen comments that there were overflow crowds. I was there Thursday and an IT person was telling reception where to send testifiers to wait to be called -- that room was equipped with no sound, so they couldn't hear anything that was going on in the committee room. More people standing in the hallways, talking and interrupting -- that what you wanted to see? Organization is the key -- if we cannot organize, we'll never make our points heard.

All other points have validity as well...it's not the commercials -- it IS the gillnets -- that's what we in America are about -- debating issues, agreeing or disagreeing. I saw on a thread an idea about selecting an ifish committee to organize support -- we certainly have a full gamut of thinkers and ideators on this board -- any member of any committee cannot please all of the people all of the time though, so skin must be thick and mind must be open.

I'm no expert and have no degree in law, but I cannot believe there isn't legal recourse to be taken after the vote in Salem. I've never gotten more than a form letter back from anyone...governor, ODFW, etc. We need to learn how to play THEIR game.

[garyk]

Isn't it ironic how on this board just the mention of PETA or Marine Reserves or Sierra Club can get folks fired up and onto a long thread about "future of sport fishing threatened".

Then when somebody who is charged with upholding the public trust, (Mr.Englund), continues a long pattern of voting against sports angling by now voting to reduce our spring salmon catch by 9% overall, folks want to make excuses for him?

Shop where you want...but I'll spend my dollars with folks who support my fishing values and aren't clobbering my fishing opportunity.

[kamloops]

I buy my stuff at Walmart.

[tracker]

Me Too!

[freespool]

I buy my stuff at Walmart.

Anytime we run low on cheap plastic crap, that's made in China, we head to Walmart.



salmon hugger

[edsr]

I did attend the meeting on Friday and testified.

The gillnet fishermen have been fighting for their existence for years, they are experienced and came well prepared. They have gained multiple layers of indebtedness to their position from political allies, friendly organizations and businesses, individuals, and their community. They mounted a united view point.

As a group we were woefully unprepared to deal with this, yes, there were some noteable presentaions from the sport fishing industry but not enough. We have to point out the damage being done by the nets.

Commercial fishermen are not bad people they are caught in a changing world with fewer fish and more fishermen. They don't want to change if the hearings on Friday are any indication of their position. The analogy to buggwhip factories or people who are afraid of computers comes immediately to mind. Remember when people paid in cash and credit cards were rare?

Nothing will happen to get rid of gill nets until people organize and force a change.

We need some new and creative ideas, anyone?

edsr

[Mark Mc]

EdSr for ODFW Commission.

:grin:

There, how's that for an idea?

[roadsend]

"I buy my stuff at Walmart."

A fine American company.
What a great way to support the American worker and our sporting values.

[crabbait]

The gillnet fishermen have been fighting for their existence for years, they are experienced and came well prepared. They have gained multiple layers of indebtedness to their position from political allies, friendly organizations and businesses, individuals, and their community.

I agree completely, Ed. Well said.

Commissioner Englund is indebted and intertwined so deeply with the commercial fleet that he could not vote opposing their interest and maintain a business relationship with them. Even if he recused himself, he would have a lot of explaining to do, since he has never recused himself on these votes that I am aware of.

How we deal with Commissioner Englund may be the key to future inroads. Boycotting his stores is futile for several reasons but the only one that matters is that we don't make up enough of his business base to effect his bottom line, even is we were well organized.

We stand a better chance of succeeding by attacking his vote on the grounds of conflict of interest. I suggest a writing campaign questioning the validity of his vote immediately.

Any future public testimony regarding springers should include a protest of Commissioner Englunds participation. Letters to the editor of the Columbian and Oregonian would be timely.

One more thing: there is no reason not to treat the Englund's employees with respect. They have been nothing but good to us. We may not agree with the way the owner participates but they don't need to take the brunt for it. I'm not accusing, I'm just saying........

[HOGGEMIN]

Hey on the bright side you can get anything U want from Chark Bait and probably at a better price. I will now work on my presentations so that I can attend meetings if I can get time off work. My new job has no paid days off as in no sick time or no paid vacations so I can't get just any day off. Not even for fishing.