increase in wild steelhead impact WDFW/ODFW

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Link Word.doc

From the recent request by ODFW and WDFW to increase Wild Steelhead impacts on the Columbia River:

"The issue regarding the increased impact rate for wild winter steelhead is biologically justified. An increased rate provides for a viable commercial fishery in the lower Columbia River that is selective for spring chinook. With the fishery scheduled to begin in late February, this is obviously a time sensitive issue."


Kill one to harvest the other


All documents submitted to NOAA fisheries regarding this increase are now available on the internet...


[ 01-21-2004, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: *** Clerk ]

[garyk]

WOW! Thanks for posting that.

Short, sweet and WRONG!

[David Johnson]

[img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

I'd rather they kill unclipped springers than all our wild steelhead.

[rob allen]

I keep telling you guys they do not listen because they do not care!!!!

[Full Freezer]

All they would have to do is change the method of harvest from nets to traps etc. and keep the current 2% impact number.

Really plain & simple.

Why do they WANT to kill more endangered fish just to continue or increase what has been incredibly damaging to these listed fish?

[Dragfreedrift]

This is pretty outrageous...Let me ask why then do we all work so hard to improve habitat so the fish can make it back to spawn? I cant believe the state would put money into the STEP plan only to allow a bigger commercial harvest of these fish we've all worked so hard to protect!!!

Its as if the states dont care. This whole thing really smells of politics. Isnt it time the directors of WDFW and ODFW were elected by the public so we ALL could get a say?


HC

[Dragfreedrift]

I think its time the state forced an alternate method of fishing which would eliminate by-catch.


HC

[Full Freezer]

How DO we force a change in law that would require the Director of Fish & Wildlife to become an elected official???

Maybe thats the key to continue to protect the wild stocks & open up opportunity?

[Lured In]

This is just absurd. All of the info I have read indicates that IF the netters use the recommended 4.25" mesh for the 'tangle net' fishery, the steelhead will not be overly impacted above the previously agreed 2%. Additionally, if they use the 9" mesh, this also minimizes the impacts on steelhead, while increasing impacts on Springers.

I am wondering what the recommendation will be in February when the decide what nets the commercial folks will get to use. If I had to guess, it ain't going to be 4.25"

Here is another thought. With the increase in the commercial impact on springers, the nets will be in longer. The longer they have the nets in, the more the impact on steelhead. In 2002, the went WAY over the impact guideline for wild steelhead. In 2003, they hit almost all of their impact guideline (85-95% in addition to going over the springer guideline by 13%)). Sooo....that would lead me to believe that they are not going to be able to do one without doing the other.

Is there anything we can do to stop this. :whazzup:

[garyk]

Lured In,

In Oregon, it's Steve King's (Salmon Fishery (Harvest) Manager I believe) name on the request to NMFS to kill more wild steelhead.

Mr. King's phone number at ODFW's Clackamas Lab is 503. 657 2000 x246. Since it's his proposal, perhaps he would like to share with the interested public why increasing the kill on wild steelhead from 2% to an upper limit of 7% is such a dandy idea.

Afterwards, IF you still disagree with King's proposal, his boss is Lindsay Ball. You might drop a line to Mr. Ball asking just what the H*** is his staff doing? Be sure to cc. the ODFW Commissioners (Mr.Ball's bosses) as they like to be kept in the loop on such matters.

Both Ball and the Commissioners might especially appreciate being informed of this because the word is neither Ball or the Commissioners were consulted before this letter was sent to NMFS.

It's possible that NMFS might open the matter to public comment, but such a process will annoy the gillnetters as it would likely delay them in getting their nets wet.

An even greater annoyance to them, but best for the resource would be if Mr. King realized the Columbia shouldn't be ruled by gillnetters and withdrew the proposal from NMFS.

[ 01-22-2004, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: garyk ]

[garyk]

Bump

[ssteelheadsteve]

You cats just don't get it. YET.
The FEDS run the show.No fish for commercial fishermen/tribes then the state does not get money for hatcheries and research.Steve King is following the directions he gets from the gov and the feds. His input is just a formality. Don't bother him.Bother Oregon Trout.The real enemy of anglers.Get on Wyden and Smith.Blumeneuer and Wu are useless.
You are so worried about the wld fish you have lost sight of the Broodstock Clack and Sandy Fish that are bycatch and discarded to the bottom.You know the " keepers " When do you think the peak run time is for them ? Another reason to oppose the broodstock program as it is now configured.

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

ssteelheadsteve

I respectively disagree with your assertion that this is a federal show with respect to the requested rise in the impact of wild steelhead. :smile:

It is in my opinion a gillnet interest / state of Or. and Wa. Show. [img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img]


Lets just see what happens in the days leading up to the allocation hearing.


***

[AuntyM]

My recollection is that WDFW is responsible for this fiasco. Ms. Lefleur and Mr. Tweit presented this to the WDFW Commission AFTER submitting the request to NOAA Fisheries. I got the impression ODFW was an afterthought?

They (Lefleur and Tweit) don't expect a decision in time for this years springer season.

They do plan to utilize both sizes of mesh to maximize the commercial catch and to lesson the chance of shortening the sport season. Call it breathing room or flexibility.

Just my take on what I heard. Thanks for the link ***.

[ctflyfish]

Aunty, I think you are 100% correct. This WDF&W proposal is especially disgusting given the many years of cooperation that local sports groups have developed with region 5. My club, Clark-Skamania Flyfishers, always consults with the region staff prior to proposing anything significant. Obviously, this courtesy was not reciprocated in this case.

[ssteelheadsteve]

*** Clerk
IF the "wild " Steelhead are a threatened,endangered or listed species then the outcome is truly decided by the ESA or US vs. OR.
IMHO both are controlled by the FEDS.Do you need the history that got us to this point ? I was under the impression that Willamette Stock W Steelhead and certain Stocks of Idaho Chinook fell under these provisions.Perhaps I have been misinformed.It has happened more than once. I must admit my intel gathering machine is not what it was 4 years ago.I am getting a little tired of debating these minor issues.My point was and still is that Steve King's orders come from Salem.From the governor to the ODF&W. The reason the deptment was moved to Salem was so that the legislature could hold a knife to the throat of those radicals that think clean air,clean water and healthy forests are in the best interests of all Orgonians.So I admit to being a radical. I sure hope I don't have to base my future fishing on the well being of the Steelhead in 15 Mile Creek.It may come to that.Seems no one is talking about the populations that are really in trouble and will be affected by more gillnet activity. Get rid of the NGMFSOB* Gillnetters 30 years ago and we would not be in this situation.Perhaps then the fish will be managed by Bio's insted of NGMFSOB* attorneys. I have it from a GOOD source that the Governor has told ODF&W to make plans that include a " strong " pfeference towards commercial fishing when managing the States resources.AS far as the commission not being informed as to what King was doing ? So what they are nothing more than puppets of industry and usually follow the governor's lead.Go read the commissions bio's and then tell me they are really concerned with Oregon's fish and wildlifes's future.I return to my fly vise.........have a fairly nice day Damn Rain !

[fish_on]

As I understand the indian hatcheries pump out unclipped fish that we as sportsmen and the gill killers can not harvest. That said, why can't a large group of sportsmen, say all the salmon anglers in Oregon, invest in a lower Columbia hatchery and start a run of fish not funded my state or federal $ that would have a mark/clip that would differentiate them from state/federal fish and this run could not be harvested by nets? The hatchery could be in the Willamette system or just above Bonneville dam. Seems that the money spent on ineffective lobbyists could be put toward something that would actually increase the length of our season and the amount of fish we can keep.