harmful and wasteful fishing practices

[Ethical hunter]

Before we demonize one nonselectve fishing method, we must take a close look at our own nonselective fishing methods.

Sport angling by its very nature is nonselective. There is no way to establish, prior to your rod tip going down, wether the salmon you have just hooked is ESA listed or not.

Every fish that is released, no matter how carefully handled, is released in worse condition. The energy that ESA listed salmonid wasted while being reeled in and the hook damage sustained may have expended just enough of that fishes reserves to deny it from completing its spawning journey.

Each one of us as sport anglers have a small, nearly insignifigant impact on endangered runs but, as a user group we have a tremendous impact.

We also have a tremendous impact on other wildlife due to entanglements with lost fishing gear. With the new super lines, some of our lost gear will continue killing for decades.

It is a fact that many sport fishers fillet their catch and throw the carcass away. Twenty to 30% of the useable flesh is contained in that carcass. Filleting and throwing away is analagous to throwing away every 5th fish you catch or worse.

On the Green peace thread, RvW did an excellent job showing how most people have a biased unrealistic view of green peace and what it does. I suggest everyone take the time to research all the nonselective harvest methods on the Columbia river and then make a informed decision on how harmful gillnetting REALY is. Especially when compared to our own impacts as sportfishers fishing nonselectively.

Perhaps, one day we will stand side by side with the commercials at the fish wheel waiting for our fish to come up.

Before we attempt to ban a nonselective user group from the river, we need to take a very close look at our own harmful and wasteful fishing practices.

HB

[Tyeebuster]

This is a joke right!!??

[Gun Rod Bow]

Fishing lisenses, taxes on tackle...

What else pays for fish recovery.

We absolutely make changes and adjustments in order to be selective and minimize impacts to ESA fish. Including when to stop fishing a certain run or river.

We (sportsmen) paid for the studies to analize what is allowable.

We all need to take special care with natives that we are trying to protect. But we do.

The only thing I'll partially agree with is that both we and the commercials have more in common than not. The commercials were the driving force in establishing many of the hatcheries to maintain the runs when the dams went in. We both want more fish.

Aside from that, I disagree.

[SteelheadBum2]

:lurk:

[Fshklr]

Nice troll...looks like you even hooked a couple..

GRB..


:lurk:

[freespool]

Sport angling by its very nature is nonselective. There is no way to establish, prior to your rod tip going down, wether the salmon you have just hooked is ESA listed or not.

By the fact that we sportsfishers are only going to be allowed one fall chinook in out bag limit, will greatly reduce the chances of hooking a ESA listed fish.
Also they have scheduled a once a week gillnet fishery threw the month of Aug. that once a week river cleaning should further reduce our chances of hooking a ESA listed fish.
Futures so bright, I gota wear shades.


salmon hugger

[Chinookjinxd]

APRIL FOOLS..........Oh its not april sorry.

[boater]

I suggest everyone take the time to research all the nonselective harvest methods on the Columbia river and then make a informed decision on how harmful gillnetting REALY is. Especially when compared to our own impacts as sportfishers fishing nonselectively.

just look at the selective spring chinook fishery on the columbia, the 2 percent impact for listed springer is split 1.2 for sports and .80 for gillnets "BUT", the esa impact for listed wild steelhead is split out of the 2 percent, 1.9 for gillnetters and .01 for sports, how much more proof do you want that the gillnetters on the columbia have a bigger negative effect on listed fish than the sportsman do on the columbia ?

[Bait Bucket]

Fish on!

[BCF]

Great points HB
I'm convinced, you are absolutely on to something here.
Excellent reasoning. I think you've nailed this one right on the head. You........(hold on)......honey.......bring me the good stuff and bring me the big pipe.........Ok where was I? OH YEAH YOU ARE DEFINATELY "ON" TO SOMETHING HERE HB.

BCF smoking out

[Ethical hunter]

Great points HB
I'm convinced, you are absolutely on to something here.
Excellent reasoning. I think you've nailed this one right on the head. You........(hold on)......honey.......bring me the good stuff and bring me the big pipe.........Ok where was I? OH YEAH YOU ARE DEFINATELY "ON" TO SOMETHING HERE HB.

BCF smoking out

Perhaps my message was not clear enough.

If sportfishers want ban a certain user group from the river it must be established that their (sportfishers) impact (salmonid/enviorenment) is less that of the group that would be excluded. Is there imperical factual data to show that recreational fisheries on the lower columbia have less enviorenmental impact that commercial fisheries?

Lighten up guys!!

Its not hard to weed out the complainers from a response like that.

HB

[BCF]

[quote]

Lighten up guys!!

Its not hard to weed out the complainers from a response like that.

HB

How much "lighten up" do I have to do to begin to believe such a lame attempt to equate the impact of gill-netting as that of the sportfishers' impact?

BCF

[fishingls]

As I see it, I will wager that total cost per license (plus excise tax on tackle for sport fishers) divided by the number of fish caught, gil netters pay way less than sportfisherman. Gil netters contribute far less financially and receive more benefits than the sports fisherman. The WDFW treats gil netters like an elitist special interest group.

[Rimshot]

HB,
I think the point is that most sane people aren't saying ban the comercials. What we are saying is that gillnetting is a caveman approach to harvesting fish where endangered stocks are present. Period. As far as your comarisons to both parties harming fish by handling them you are waaay off. Do you honestly believe that a sportfisher gently reviving and releasing a wild steelhead is the same as a gillnetter releasing the same fish? A hook in the mouth and played for 5 min VS. their head caught in mesh with their gills pinned shut for 40min. C'mon man - not even close. And I don't care if we are a much larger group we still don't have near the impact that gillnetting does. Check out the mortality studies done by Toman and others.

I know you are for the comercials rights and you have a right to your opinion. But why don't you put your effort into gettting them to voluntarily switch to a more selective way to fish and release wild fish truely unharmed. If you could accomplish that then we would all be side by side in our fights for salmonids.

Regards

[boater]

Is there imperical factual data to show that recreational fisheries on the lower columbia have less enviorenmental impact that commercial fisheries?

i just showed you an example in my last post, there are 2 difrent esa impacts for the selective spring chinook fishery, one is for listed spingers and one is for listed steelhead, the one that is split is the esa springer impact and the other impact for the steelhead goes almost 100 percent to the gillnetters, do some research or better yet, call the game department and ask them.

[rob allen]

here we are again fighting over who gets to kill the last fish.... :depressed:

we are so stinkling clueless it ain't even funny...

[jetjockey]

Why don't we just use Florida as our model for fishing. I believe they banned commercial fishing altogether since the commercial guys were destroying the fish. Now that that is done, FL is the biggest sport fishing state in the USA, bringing in over 6 billion a year! I don't care who has the highest impact towards releasing a fish. The economic factors towards banning commercial guys speaks for itself. I believe there are somewhere in the vacinity of 340 commercial licenses (i could be way off on this one so correct me if i'm wrong). Yet there are hundreds of thousands of people who buy licenses throughout OR, ID, and WA! The simple fact is that the sports guys shouldn't have to share half the runs with 340 commercial licenses when we have thousands of people with licenses. Where is the fairness in that?

[SHLEPROCK]

I am thinking the sport fisherman need to get out there
and fill our quota as soon as possible to show the
CR Compact that we are not wasting our allotment of fish
or it could be harmful to us next year.

[Lured In]

Is there imperical factual data to show that recreational fisheries on the lower columbia have less enviorenmental impact that commercial fisheries?

From a mortality standpoint (impact to handled fish), yes, if you are willing to take the CRC's data as 'imperical'.

There isn't a sane person on this planet that would argue both sport and commercial fisheries aren't 'non-selective'. There also isn't an informed person that I know of that would argue the degree to which sport fisheries are 'non-selective' is approaching zero when compared to gillnetting. (or tangle netting for that matter).

The real question moving toward 'improved runs' (better than today) is where can we see the biggest impact.

Mortality rates on tangle nets and gillnets range from 20%-40% for released fish, depending on which fish is netted in which size net. As a general managment guideline, sportfisheries are managed with a 8-10% mortality rate. (This also does not take into consideration new regs such as removing unmarked fish from the water.)

Of course this does not even begin to address the issue of 'bycatch' by the nets, such as steelhead.

There is a ton of good info on the CRC website. I would encourage you to grab a cold beverage of your choosing, and sit down for a couple of hours to read up on what is already out there. (I am assuming you haven't given the questtion above).

I have nothing against commercial fishing in general, but the time for gillnetting in the Columbia River is going to come to an end sooner rather than later.

Disclaimer: No slams are intended or implied within this post.

[freespool]

have nothing against commercial fishing in general, but the time for gillnetting in the Columbia River is going to come to an end sooner rather than later.

Very well said



salmon hugger

Here we are again fighting over who gets to kill the last fish.... :depressed:
We are so stinkling clueless it ain't even funny...

How true!

[Ethical hunter]

Thanks for the comments!

My main point is NOT to equate recreational fishing and its impacts to those of gillnetting. But, to COMPARE the envioermental impacts of the recreational fishery to those of the gillnetting fishery. Not impact allocations but, the real world enviorenmental impacts, including but not limited to the impacts on ESA listed species. Too compare the totality of the impacts.

To start an effort to ban one user group from the river without knowing the true impacts of all the user groups is a cause that holds little merit. To be taken seriously by the public we need to PROVE that our true impacts are less than the user group we wish to exclude. Allocation allotments are not proof. A totality of the enviorenmental impacts is.

Complete enviorenmental impacts and a good public relations firm just might be a great place to start.

HB

[Concho]

HB,
Some folks seem to think you are pulling our leg but I think you are serious.

You say "To be taken seriously by the public we need to PROVE that our true impacts are less than the user group we wish to exclude."

It looks to me like that's not the kind of standard we use in the real world. If it were, we couldn't exclude triple trailer long haul rigs from highways unless we could show their impact was greater than that of the much more numerous private vehicles.

And how could we justify excluding snaggers from the rivers unless we could show sportsfishing's true impact was less than that of snaggers.

[DAB]

HB,
Do you have a gillnet hid in your garage that you sneek out with at night?
DAB

[5-Cents]

If you dont want to kill fish dont go fishing... If you dont want to have any impact at all on the earth then take a long walk off a short pier

[DAB]

5-Cents
You said it right.
DAB

[AnchorManagement]

BCF.....You crack me up, where's my pipe? I think I'll join you. I totally agree with you 5 cents!

[PATRICK 11-14]

If you look at most of the authors' posts, most of them turn into arguements. Post something useful would you!!! We're here to trade info on fishing, not come and get all po'd in a discussion about blah blah bla!
Thanks!

[Joe Schwab]

Right on Shane! Thank you for saying it.

[AnchorManagement]

I see what you mean Patrick, Balczak seems to only try to stir people up & cause controversy, maybe there's another site that would be better suited for his kind of Banter?

[PATRICK 11-14]

deleted!

[fishboys]

Somebody hit the nail on the head!

[crabbait]

Here is a little more nail hitting while we are pounding each other on the back and having a good yuck: What HB said is exactly right.

This is clearly one of the legal arguments that will be addressed if any change in commercial practices is proposed. The reason all attempts to get gillnets off the Columbia have failed is because the public sees the opposition of gillnets by sporties as a greedy grab for more fish. Pointing a finger at them and assuming that we are bulletproof does not seem to bright to me.

Comments like "If you dont want to kill fish dont go fishing... If you dont want to have any impact at all on the earth then take a long walk off a short pier" are great on the docks with the buds, but how do they make us look to the public who will ultimately make the decision.

I, for one, do want to have an impact on the planet: I want to leave it a little better than I found it instead of a little more used up.

[Pete]

Please note that Ifish encourages debate, but when you don't agree with someone, we will not tolerate disrespectful ad hominem statements.

I know it's difficult to stay on topic with issues as complicated as managing the diverse runs of fish and variety of methods on the Columbia. But HBalczak's statement is not merely silly speculation. There is a point at which pushing the "non-selective" argument too far will impact sportfishing regulations, also.

Let's all stay on topic, learn from what others bring to the discussion, but let's do it without attacking the messenger or making fun of others.

Very good point Pete and you're right! There is no doubt that C&R has an impact on wild fish...it's just bound to happen Until the public gets sufficently educated on proper handling of fish to be released there will be some mortality.
However with gillnets, even the tangle tooth variety, there is a much larger probability that the by-catch fish will die

[Wreckless]

Good call Stew. I don't think anybody in their right mind can argue that the gill nets don't have a higher mortality rate.....(personal experience, not hearsay).

As Pete stated, so well, it's the perception that sport fisherman are greedy that we have to overcome. I don't think most of us are greedy. There are "bad apples" that hog fish by "losing" tags, snag and hide fish (these people are poachers in my book). But , I think most sportsman want more fish for everyone.

Unfortunately, looking at the way this thread has gone. We will be bickering like kids on a playground over who gets to kill the last Salmon. Some very smart people say some pretty unintellegent things when it comes to an emotional issue like this.

[SHLEPROCK]

I have no problem with the commercial fishermen taking their share of fish. What I do have a problem with is the managers making them throwing back fish that have little chance of surviving.
The managers also require the sportsmen to release some of these same fish but allow us to keep some that the commercials must release. There is the WASTE!!
With the research being developed to study the hatchery policies for simulating natural habitat in the future
I suspect one day soon the managers will say that a fish is a fish and it does not matter whether it was hatchery or not. That would solve all their problems with the inriver fisheries and put an end to the waste.
Then it will be all about greed.

[RvW]

Theres room for improvement to curb the mortality rate of non-target species that sportfishers catch and return to the water. Some with modifications to technique And of course some via debatable reg changes.
However, I dont see one thing that can possibly reduce gilnettings mortal by-catch. It is what it is and though I could be wrong, Ive yet to see any way at all to reduce the by-catch mortality nets cause, other than tossing those nets into a land-fill, which isnt a bad idea if you ask me.

But to say sportfishers cuase any significant mortality of fish by nonselective practices compared to gilnetting is in my opinion similar to guessing how many oranges there are in a box of apples.

Pete, I have to believe theres creative effective ways to address the gilnetter issue without causing a negative impact to sportfishing.
Why would a sportfisher adressing the gilnetter issues be seen as biased or self-serving when the goal is to reduce the mortality of by-catch that is as clear as day in the nets of commercial fishing vessels, yet merely speculative when suggesting sportfishermen kill anything other than what theyre legally permitted to kill.

"If you dont want to kill fish dont go fishing... If you dont want to have any impact at all on the earth then take a long walk off a short pier"

Hey WD-40cents Wouldnt it have been easier to say:

"your not supposed to care...kill kill kill....get that IFish picture!"?

[Pete]

Pete, I have to believe theres creative effective ways to address the gilnetter issue without causing a negative impact to sportfishing.
Why would a sportfisher adressing the gilnetter issues be seen as biased or self-serving when the goal is to reduce the mortality of by-catch that is as clear as day in the nets of commercial fishing vessels, yet merely speculative when suggesting sportfishermen kill anything other than what theyre legally permitted to kill.

The suggestion that futher reducing gillnetting because of the bycatch and mortality issue comes back to haunt sportfishers as we have no way to select whether we catch a wild or hatchery origin fish. When sports release fish, the mortality, based on studies done on spring chinook in cold water by trained personnel, is 10%. In fact, it may be much higher in warmer waters or with techniques like backbouncing eggs. Certainly, there are ways both sport and commercial can improve, but the combined political horsepower of all groups may be necessary to protect the runs, as we did with the spill issue when confronting the power of the federal government.

[5-Cents]

Hey Crab Cakes I just dont like people passing their morality off on me... I totally agree with you that we should each do our part and try to leave the place better than when we came. I just dont like the general "tone" of people that tell me I am evil for lighting my BBQ and eating a slab of cow!

Plain and simple: If you fish you are going to kill fish weather you mean to or not. If you dont want to kill fish dont go fishing! That goes down as a duh in my department... I guess I didnt make it flowery enough!

[Joe Schwab]

I've kept my mouth shut on this issue as long as I could but, Oh well ! I can safely say over a period of twenty five years in the enforcement field,I spent about as much time on board gillnet boats on the Columbia above and below Bonneville as anyone here.

I kept my mouth shut while I was employed due to the fact that ODFW people did not want to listen to our concerns. We were often told to do our jobs and quit trying to change things. Biologists knew better.

When the gillnetters were first prohibited from selling steelhead we found dozens on the boats and in little piles on the docks out of sight. "Oh, we were going to turn those over to charity like the law said." Yeh right! A good many gillnet marked steehead ended up in custom processors to be smoked or canned as "sport caught fish." And a good many citations were written for that offense.

Then the rules were changed to prohibit them from possesing steelhead period. The dead ones went back into the river, at least when there were enforcement people around.

Other silly rules required sports to use barbless hooks at Buoy 10 in the daytime while indicriminate gillnets were in all night, same time periods. How would you like to enforce that rule? Quite honestly some of us refused to.

Now we have indiscriminate gillnets fishing on a summer run of fish that no one realy knows the strength of, but we can guess can't we? If we are wrong well, the gillnetters got too many again, but the sports? They are just not efficient enough, according to those who set the seasons,at harvesting the fish and besides the giilnetters make their old tired argument that sports are just out there "playing with food." Oddly enough I heard that same argument at the allocation meeting in Alaska.

I am tired of having to sort through Coho at Buoy 10 and tossing back "wild fish" while the gillnetters (salmonchokers) sell the same fish in downtown Longview for a buck a pound.

I say let's make it a level playing field. Burn the nets. And no let's not bring back the fishwheels. They did enough damage.

Offer a troll season in the Columbia. Do away with "Grandfather" rights to commercially fish in the river.
How did we ever get to the point where a select few can harvest a public resource, pay a piddling poundage fee and then whine about the price they get for "their" fish?

If that amounts to "fighting" over the fish in the river then so be it. The markets on the east coast are not entitled to purchase our fish, as some believe, so the non fishers can have something to eat.

I agreed with 5 cents statement because no one, unless he lives in a cave, eats roots, makes his own clothes and rides a bicycle does not leave an impact on the earth. Like I said when I retired, "I spent a good part of my life defending these critters, now I'm going to do my best to kill some." If that offends anyone, you are on the wrong site.

[boater]

I've kept my mouth shut on this issue as long as I could but, Oh well ! I can safely say over a period of twenty five years in the enforcement field,I spent about as much time on board gillnet boats on the Columbia above and below Bonneville as anyone here.

I kept my mouth shut while I was employed due to the fact that ODFW people did not want to listen to our concerns. We were often told to do our jobs and quit trying to change things. Biologists knew better.

When the gillnetters were first prohibited from selling steelhead we found dozens on the boats and in little piles on the docks out of sight. "Oh, we were going to turn those over to charity like the law said." Yeh right! A good many gillnet marked steehead ended up in custom processors to be smoked or canned as "sport caught fish." And a good many citations were written for that offense.

Then the rules were changed to prohibit them from possesing steelhead period. The dead ones went back into the river, at least when there were enforcement people around.

Other silly rules required sports to use barbless hooks at Buoy 10 in the daytime while indicriminate gillnets were in all night, same time periods. How would you like to enforce that rule? Quite honestly some of us refused to.

Now we have indiscriminate gillnets fishing on a summer run of fish that no one realy knows the strength of, but we can guess can't we? If we are wrong well, the gillnetters got too many again, but the sports? They are just not efficient enough, according to those who set the seasons,at harvesting the fish and besides the giilnetters make their old tired argument that sports are just out there "playing with food." Oddly enough I heard that same argument at the allocation meeting in Alaska.

I am tired of having to sort through Coho at Buoy 10 and tossing back "wild fish" while the gillnetters (salmonchokers) sell the same fish in downtown Longview for a buck a pound.

I say let's make it a level playing field. Burn the nets. And no let's not bring back the fishwheels. They did enough damage.

Offer a troll season in the Columbia. Do away with "Grandfather" rights to commercially fish in the river.
How did we ever get to the point where a select few can harvest a public resource, pay a piddling poundage fee and then whine about the price they get for "their" fish?

If that amounts to "fighting" over the fish in the river then so be it. The markets on the east coast are not entitled to purchase our fish, as some believe, so the non fishers can have something to eat.

I agreed with 5 cents statement because no one, unless he lives in a cave, eats roots, makes his own clothes and rides a bicycle does not leave an impact on the earth. Like I said when I retired, "I spent a good part of my life defending these critters, now I'm going to do my best to kill some." If that offends anyone, you are on the wrong site.

[Wreckless]

Capt.!!

Obviously you've seen what gill nets do. People who have (and don't own a gillnet boat) don't see a use for them in our great river.

As far as killing, fishing is a blood sport plain & simple, but we can (& should) do our best to protect the fish that need to be protected.

Disclaimer: The "blood sport" comment was in no way meant to offend our salty friends that have taken the term to a whole new level!!!!!! Now I know why they invented the selfbailing hull!!

Sushi anyone

[SHLEPROCK]

I think it would be hard to win a battle on kicking the nets out of river because the managers say that they have guidelines in place that safeguard acceptable levels incidental catch.
You would have to prove that management was wrong and if their plan stood through the ESA I find it hard to see how anyone could do any thing short of buying them out.

[5-Cents]

Finally a post from someone that has played the game and knows the score!

[eyeFISH]

It is a fact that many sport fishers fillet their catch and throw the carcass away. Twenty to 30% of the useable flesh is contained in that carcass. Filleting and throwing away is analagous to throwing away every 5th fish you catch or worse.

I guess that all depends on who's doing the filleting!

I for one appreciate your insight Capt.Hook Any way we can bring out of retirement?
For those who don't know Capt.Hook he is one of the good guys :grin:

[Concho]

Right on Capt Hook!

[Thumper]

Capt. Hook ---

[DucterJim]

Has there ever been an attempt to buy out the Gill netters?

Seems like they would be happy to sell the fish to sports if we had a way to pay for them. How about another stamp or check box on the lic? I don't know enough history but I know Canada has bought an retired many commercial lic. What is the value of the commerical gill net catch? Seem like a simple and fair settlement. But I know goverment negotiater and politicans can make it complecated.

DucterJim

[bluefishes]

One thing that may be helpful to keep in perspective here is that we are talking about .1%-4% impact from sports and commercials.

According to the government’s own recent data between 78-92% of juvenile salmon migrating in the fall are killed by operation of the dams even with use of mitigating measures, with a mean estimated kill of 86% of the migrating salmon.

Let's not fight over the crumbs here.

[freespool]

According to the government’s own recent data between 78-92% of juvenile salmon migrating in the fall are killed by operation of the dams even with use of mitigating measures, with a mean estimated kill of 86% of the migrating salmon.

Bluefishes, any idea how many Snake River juveniles are killed by the four lower Snake River dams?




salmon hugger

[AnchorManagement]

Hey Eyefish, Apparntly he is not familiar with your famous fillet skills oh great Jedi Master.

[PISCES]

Very good point Pete and you're right! There is no doubt that C&R has an impact on wild fish...it's just bound to happen Until the public gets sufficently educated on proper handling of fish to be released there will be some mortality.
However with gillnets, even the tangle tooth variety, there is a much larger probability that the by-catch fish will die

Can someone tell me if the commercials target oversize sturgeon like sportfishermen do. Can they sell them? I've seen WDFW doing projects by Bonneville and talked to one of the bios and he was mentioning all the hooks and scars that are found on and in them. I've also seen them look at the dead ones and they count lots of hooks ranging in sizes in their bellies. I know it's a "fun" fishery but why catch a fish that's trying to spawn? Steelhead fishermen change to hardware and use bigger hooks when nates are more common.

[Pete]

Has there ever been an attempt to buy out the Gill netters?

Survey of Gillnetters in Oregon and Washington: Summary of Results

[PISCES]

Interesting info!

[AnchorManagement]

Wow Pete, that is some very real data that I wasn't privy to before, thanks for putting that out there.

[Joe Schwab]

I have read the data before and I read it again. It is so one sided as to be laughable. If you want to study anything and get a broad perspective you contact people other than those affected. Of course they think they are hurting! And some probably are. We had some long talks on the river years ago when the runs were really bad. There they were netting fall fish for 35 cents a pound and complaining they could not make gas money! Is there something that needs to be explained here? The buffalo hunters went out of existence when the buffalo were all killed. I told one of the gillnetters then that he was in essence a "buffalo hunter". He did not get it.

How many business people out there could hang onto a business for that many years generating that kind of income without help from the gov.?

The same comments were received at a joint meeting in Soldotna, Ak. in 1998. Gillnetters from the inlet brought their kids to the meeting holding up empty plates to signify their hunger. A year later a well known setnetter just west of the Kenai River offered to sell some of those "worthless" chinook to me under the table for a buck a pound

One of the statements in the report said that sport boats should all be searched completely. Right on, if the same thing applies to gillnet boats.

If there is any aid to be given for loss of income due to poor fish runs it should be distributed to all the citizens, not just the harvesters or better yet put it into habitat improvement . After all their own argument is that the fish belong to the people.

What about guides suffering through tough times? they don't get a dime if their business suffers. And that's the way it should be. I guess if you haven't been in the business for several generations then you don't qualify.

That study would make a good Hollywood movie.

[boater]

Can someone tell me if the commercials target oversize sturgeon like sportfishermen do.

how can they not target them when the nets are in the river, its the same thing for esa listed fish, they dont target them but they catch them

maybe someone can explain to me why the gillnetters didnt get a ticket for not allowing observers on board ?, they clearly broke the law and had there hand slapped.

[Ethical hunter]

I really do appreciate that this has come to a intelligent debate at last. I do not like being the target of ridecule nor do I post to be contraversial. My top priority is salmonid recovery, that is what my concern is and that is why I started this post

Thank you :smile: