my idea for a columbia commercial fishery

rob allen · 07-03-2005, 01:57 PM

there should be no commercial fishery in the Columbia at all HOWEVER in the interest of looking at other needs here is what i'd propose if given the opportunity.

first the guys sell their boats...

Second the use the money to build a few fish wheel traps along the river pretty much anywhere they want that allows for safe navigation and away from tributary river mouths

the season would be open year around and they can keep any species as many as they want but they HAVE to be clipped all unclipped fish are released IMMEDIATLY..

as a cost of doing business the fisherman must reimburse the state for an odfw or wdfw for having an inspector there every time a trap is emptied. the inspector will judge the condition of the fish released and moniter the condition of the fish.. this would be great for radio tagging studies of all kinds.

anyway that's my idea

Amerman · 07-03-2005, 03:06 PM

Rob

Heres my idea too.

Since the BPA spends all this money to do things like the pikeminnow project and the tangle tooth net program why don't we just Pay the Gil netters not to fish. The year the BPA did the tangle tooth nets they spent 3 million so the netters could catch 2.3 million worth of fish.

So lets stop the Lower river Gil netting by paying them there quota of fish in dollars they would have made. If the BPA won't pay for this we could have a special Columbia ( and it tribs) fishing lic that would pay them off. The netters would make more money because they would have no expenses and make the same amount of money. Of coarse they wouldn't go for this because they could right it all off as a lose that way.

Then for the up river netters we could do your fish trap thing or we could just let them build old style scaffolding with dip nets over the every fish ladder and around the dams of the Columbia and maybe Willammette falls. Like they used to do, back to the tradition methods. Let them take what fish they want as long as they are fin clipped. This would make the tribal ran hatcheries clip their fish so we could more accuratly asses wild runs and would remove the impact on the wild runs.

Or we could just let them back up to the hatcherys and take the overflow fish that come back and make it even easier for everyone.

Just going a little farther for ya Rob

jcarufo · 07-03-2005, 11:06 PM

Just one addition to your plan: the fishery doesn't start until there is a baseline minimum escapement over each dam.
Jean

flywrapper · 07-04-2005, 06:12 AM

Commercial and rec. fishermen and anglers should pay for the hatchery expense of each fish they catch through the purchase of tags. First 5 tags come with the license. That way those benefitting from the public trough have to put back on an even basis. I'd be willing.

SHLEPROCK · 07-04-2005, 07:11 AM

"Or we could just let them back up to the hatcherys and take the overflow fish that come back and make it even easier for everyone."

I think that has happened in the past for the Tribes.

skybuster · 07-04-2005, 08:22 AM

We already pay enough through our license fees. There are several other government programs that my tax dollars go to that I don't utilize, so those that don't fish can help with this one. After all, a lot of those people that don't fish still benefit from the power created by the dams and the freight that is barged up and down the river.

Oregon alone was up to almost $60.00 a year for tags for residents last time I bought them. I think we should first try to find ways of fixing the runs without going after sportsmen's wallets anymore.

BCF · 07-04-2005, 09:51 AM

Great Idea. A few years back I started a thread with the same Idea." How much to buy a gill-net permit." My behind has still not cooled off yet. :tongue:

I think it would be a good idea. And since most of these guys would say that they are against "Welfare" we can call it a "Government subsidy in and Economic Zone."

Here is some more food for thought. One argument will be that it is not just the cost of the permits or the value of the fish they sell. It is what the secondary markets are valuing the fish . This could be highly inflated.

It is these secondary markets which drives the push to gill-net. They are the ones who need to be boycotted or pressured to realize the damage they are causing by selling fish harvested in this manner.

Big issue, big problem, calls for a big solution.

BCF out

NorthRiverS · 07-07-2005, 12:40 PM

Those are great ideas! It'll never happen because it makes too much sense.
NS

Two Fister · 07-07-2005, 03:13 PM

It happened back East a couple of decades ago when the Stipped Bass fishermen were bought out by the government. I think the same thing has happened in Florida, but I don't know what the target species was. Now the Strippers have made enough of a comeback that they have allowed some limited commercial seasons in some areas.

And the fishing is out of this world compared to a relatively short time ago.

Pirate · 07-08-2005, 10:42 AM

Quote:

The year the BPA did the tangle tooth nets they spent 3 million so the netters could catch 2.3 million worth of fish.

Take the 3 million, split it amoung the gil netters and make them go away with no choice.

corkline · 07-08-2005, 08:19 PM

So were do the people who dont fish buy theres? By the sounds of it the majority of guys cant sport catch enough to put away for a few meals let alone give some away to someone who cant fish. If there wasnt a market they wouldnt be fishing. Remember not everyone can pay for a truck, boat, gear, and the time. Most can pay for a nice piece of fish. If all the hatred for commercial caught fish is because it leaves less for sportfishing then thats just wrong. By the way go to Ilwaco and count the fish in pictures on one charter office wall . Add them up and it will be at or more than the gillnet total for the season.And no I dont gillnet the columbia.

Riverteeth · 07-12-2005, 10:33 AM

More food for thought: be careful about advocating "buying the commerical fishermen out". Others may want to do the same to you! If successful, there are many other powers that be that would like to "buy the recreational fishers out", so that would allow them to have a higher impact on the fish. Granted, buying recreational fishers out would be difficult, so it wouldn't be done on an individual basis, instead they would likely buy out parts of a season.
We have no "right to fish". Only the tribes do. And we have benefitted a lot from their advocacy of the fish. And many people have tried to buy the tribes out in the past. We should be happy they have always said no.