IFish Fishing Forum banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

6,634 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
As if we didnn't know they wouldn't be

Conservationists question use of innovative nets

BYLINE: By DAN GALLAGHER, Associated Press Writer

In early spring, chinook salmon enter the Columbia River estuary, many of the
shiny giants headed on their 900-mile journey to the headwaters of Idaho's
Salmon River.

In an effort to catch the hatchery-raised spring chinook and safely release
the protected wild ones, commercial fishermen at the mouth of the Columbia are
using tangle nets which snare them by the teeth, rather than damaging their

The Northwest Power Planning Council meeting in Boise last month pulled
continued funding for testing the tangle nets. The council called them effective,
but noted they caught excessive amounts of other fish.

Salmon and trout advocates view them as a danger to some of the region's
troubled runs.
"You would only say it's a success if you used questionable parameters for
success," said Jason Miner, conservation director for Oregon Trout.

The tangle net fishery is intended to catch lucrative hatchery chinook
without harming the wild ones protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Conventional 8-inch gill nets capture salmon by damaging their gills or
clamping them down, essentially drowning the fish.

The premise behind the live-capture tangle nets is that a smaller mesh size
traps the chinook in a non-lethal manner, snagging them by their teeth. The
commercial fishers examine the fish for a snipped rear adipose fin. If the fin is
gone, they are hatchery-bred and can be kept.

With a wild fish, the fishermen put them in a revival box - a tank with a
pump that supplies oxygen-rich river water. Euphemisms for the device are the
"Jesus box" or "Lazarus box" for reviving fish which appear long gone. The
invigorated wild salmon is then released.

The Columbia River Compact, the agency charged with running the commercial
fishery, in 2001 authorized tangle net use for spring chinook. A limited number
of fishing boats were picked to test them. Generally pleased with the
experiment, the compact expanded the net use to the full fleet in 2002.

But the 5 1/2-inch mesh net used in 2002 acted as a gill net on the smaller
winter steelhead which were headed to tributaries off the lower Columbia.

The compact allows the fishers to "take," or kill, no more than 2 percent of
those wild steelhead, to sustain the run.

Last year, of the 20,900 caught, 12,400 were wild, Oregon Trout said. Taking
in estimates of mortality during the capture or post-release, 2,400-6,100 wild
steelhead were killed, or 5 to 15 percent of the entire run.

The mesh size was changed to 4 1/4 inches and this year, the take of
steelhead was very close to the allowed limits. But fishermen claimed 113 percent of
the allowed amount of wild spring chinook, or 1,289 fish, Oregon Trout said.

"The mouth of the Columbia is an intersection of many listed species," Miner
said. "The fishery, if we could micromanage it accurately, would be beneficial
for fish recovery. But they have tried to manage it by changing net sizes,
which is incredibly problematic."

Mark Fritsch, Planning Council fish production coordinator, said his agency
is concerned about the incidental take.

"Selective gear has a lot of potential. Fishermen stay on top of their nets
and work them quickly to determine if they're wild," he said. "But these tangle
net projects had a history of issues. Every year, they've had a huge
incidental catch."

The council last month concluded fixing the problem is a matter for Oregon
and Washington fish managers, not Bonneville Power Administration ratepayers.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife officials said about $633,000 in
federal dollars were allocated to the states last year in testing the nets. They
indicated they may resubmit an application for the funding, saying they are
perfecting what is a new system.

The federal government spends tens of millions of dollars annually on
projects to improve fish habitat and passage in the Northwest, such as the tangle net

Idaho conservation groups contend the only way to save those Idaho chinook is
the strong medicine of breaching four lower Snake River dams.

Miner of Oregon Trout questions the sense of the myriad experiments that fall
short of saving the disappearing runs.

"The thing that bothers us the most is we invest millions in habitat
restoration, all in the hope that a few fish will return and spawn," he said. "Then
you have an operation at the mouth of the Columbia which is killing thousands of
precious fish."

16,779 Posts
"Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife officials said about $633,000 [was] allocated to the states last year in testing the nets. They indicated they may resubmit an application for the funding, saying they are perfecting what is a new system."

Every mainstem dam, has a fish ladder and yet we're spending this kind money to somehow prove they can still be netted? :mad:

I can hardly wait for ODFW to unveil the 'new and perfected system'

2,737 Posts
What happens to the fish when the protective slime is rubbed off by the nets ?????.I never net a wild fish to release unless, I absoluty have to to get the hook out even then I don't take it out of the water and before that I'll try and cut the hook to release it.NETS ARE DEATH TO FISH !!!

3,374 Posts
Originally posted by garyk:

Every mainstem dam, has a fish ladder and yet we're spending this kind money to somehow prove they can still be netted? :mad:

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">They gotta start harvesting at the dams, the commercial guys could do it and so could the indians. It could end netting in the columbia forever.

13,403 Posts
I agree, the commercials could (and should) just take fish out at the dams. Unfortunately, the tribes have a guaranteed "Right to Fish and Harvest" one half of the run....no way it would ever get through the courts; I doubt that you'd ever get any of the fish agencies to even reccomend it.


2,182 Posts
I agree it would be hard to do but if these type of nets were deemed illegal then they would just have to find other ways to harvest the fish. I dont think anything states they have to use gillnets to catch the fish. I also dont think very many people would have such a problem with them keeping "their" percentage of fish if it didnt harm wild fish in the process. A fish trap or something like it at the dams is exactly what is needed IMHO. VERY little harm to wild fish and very little cost in the long run for the "fishermen" taking the fish be it commercially or Indian.

I say spend this money they spend trying to find a "safer" way of harvesting the fish and put it into a way to take them at the ladders.


Jon :smile: :grin: :smile:

1,063 Posts
I really don't get it, I've asked several times, here it is again !!
Why do we have a commercial fishery? Ok, Fisheries says, we must provide fish for commercial, sport and Tribal fisheries. What is the history behind the commercials? I get the Tribal take, it's written over and over but why is there a commercial fishery?
Here's my question-
I really would like an honest answer, I hope my question could be answered.
Sometime back I was speaking with a fishin buddy about gill netting on the Columbia and asked him the question. 'Why do we have gill netters on the
river, the only place in America that we allow the killing of endangered species' He explained,' the licenses were bought years back and the license is good for 100 years.' There has been talk of buying them back over the years but this has never taken hold.
I would really like to understand this issue, I have not heard an open, honest answer from the WDFW.
I understand the Indian treaties, I understand we must produce fish to meet this need, I really don't understand the netters issue. $600K would do it, don't you think. Why, I keep asking myself.
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.