IFish Fishing Forum banner
  • Are you passionate about fishing? Would you like to write about topics that interest you and get paid for it? Read all about it here!
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,038 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
See how the commercials whant to horn in on the sports fishing season. :mad:

Most of you know that ODF&W and WDF&W are attempting to negotiate a new three year agreement between sport and commercials for spring chinook. There were two meetings yesterday, one sport, one commercial where each group worked out their porposed fishery options. Below are the notes from the meetings, as sent to us by Cindy LeFleur of WDF&W.

Please note that in the options from the commercials, they have asked for 1/2 of the fish. This will reduce our fishing time by 30%. The NSIA proposal was for a river wide 7 days per week recreational fishery. We have also asked the Departments to manage commercial fisheries in a manner that does NOT harm the recreational fishery.

If you are interested in becoming involved in these negotiations, do not hesitate to contact the office. 503 631 8859.

Allocation Options - Commercial

1. 50% of impacts.

2. 50% of kept fish - count all tributary sport fisheries downstream of McNary Dam and Select Area fisheries. Include summer chinook.

3. 60% of impacts.

4. Not much support for Matrix.


Management Objectives - Commercial

1. Equitable catch.

2. At least 2 days/week February thru May.

3. Consider nighttime fishing - can overlap with daytime fishing for monitoring needs.

4. All night fishing - reduce sport/commercial conflicts.

5. Concentrate fishery in Feb and March.

6. Maximize ex-vessel value and spread out the catch.

7. Snake/Wanapum to sport and SAFE to commercial.


Regarding summer chinook - include impacts with spring chinook.


Allocation Options - Sport

1. Select with commercial and above McNary with sport.

2. Matrix - based on run sizes versus impacts - as is - no change to
current matrix.

2a. Matrix - objectives and intent of matrix.

3. 1.2% impacts to sport - rest to commercial.

4. Give commercial a share of summer chinook.

5. 1.2% impacts to sport below McNary Dam, 0.2% impacts above McNary Dam, 0.2% impacts to SAFE, 0.4% impacts to commercial.


Management Objectives - Sport

1. Maximize sport fishing opportunity during March, April and into May if possible (old policy).

2. Focus commercial early - no later than April 1.

3. Important to have river wide fisheries upstream to McNary Dam.

4. Important to attempt to have river wide fisheries upstream to McNary Dam.

5. Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission should adopt - "recognize economic benefits of recreational fishery after mid-March". Language from old policy inserted by Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission.

6. Buffer for both fisheries so they don't preclude each other.

7. Manage two fisheries independently under separate quotas prior to mid-April.

8. Start fishery 7days/week.

9. Last two management objectives from old policy ok to keep.


C. LeFleur
September 4, 2003
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,038 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Please note that in the options from the commercials, they have asked for 1/2 of the fish. This will reduce our fishing time by 30%. The NSIA proposal was for a river wide 7 days per week recreational fishery. We have also asked the Departments to manage commercial fisheries in a manner that does NOT harm the recreational fishery.

If you are interested in becoming involved in these negotiations, do not hesitate to contact the office. 503 631 8859.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I'm sure there will be more meetings, like it says, contact the NSIA office above.

The commercials want half the fish-two days per week all season. If they end up going over then it's over for us too.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,959 Posts
Dave,I'am very curious as to know how this industry of no more than 200 gillnetters gets such a large chunk of the pie? They must have some kind of super lobbiest.What are their tactics?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,703 Posts
I have a better plan. No commercail gillnetting. All fish allocated to the sportfishers. :smile:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,993 Posts
Freespool,

They are very organized politically.

Sportsfishers are not, Especially so considering our economic influence.

Once again, the organized minority win out over a majority without a voice.

I doubt that they will give them 50% of the catch. The financial backlash ( not only to the public, but to the ODFW and WDFW also) would be suicide. And our friendly government officials are not likely to cut their own throats.

Before you go out and make enemies with every commercial fisherman this side of the rockies, think about this- Bill Bakke is the Govs fish man here in Oregon. He( and Trout Unlimited, or Oregon Trout or whatever organization he is closely affiliated with) would like nothing more than to see all hatchery funding go elsewhere. He, and his comrades are organized and preparing to strike. The commercials are dependant on hatchery fish to make a living. The commercials have a very savvy lobby to help them get what they want. They could very well be our best friend in this fight. With the sports anglers money and the commercial lobby, we would get pretty much anything we want. Remember this is just politics.

So be careful what bridges you burn. You never know when you will need the contact again.

I know this will be an unpopular statement, but this is exactly what I feel the NW Steelheaders are missing. They are a great potential voice to the politicians for the sports angler. But instead of making darn sure that our fisheries are funded, they want to fight for river access( a fine objective in itself, but what good is river access if there are no fish to fish for?) I have never heard anything but bad words for the commercials from most Steelheaders representatives. Yet they could both work together on points that could benefit both groups, and do so for less money.

But, what do I know?

Save the name calling and flames for another time. If you can argue your differing points with me swell. Tell me why we sporties should not get more done for less money.

Maybe we should get Bakke and his boys to help us on this point and use the netters to help fund hatcheries? It is just business.

Mark and the dog.

[ 09-07-2003, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Flatfish ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,227 Posts
David, or whomever, what do you suggest for an effective response? Where is the pressure point?
This current anchor-up fishing gives us plenty of time to write letter and/or make calls. What's the message? Who's the contact?

[edited]

Recreation and conservation interests agree on about 90% of the whole agenda, let's focus on that 90% and not let the other 10% prevent us from getting anything done. United we stand - divided the fish fall.

[ 09-07-2003, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: garyk ]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,993 Posts
You are right GK. Edited.

I thought he was Teds fish man. If not, then who is? And what position does Bakke hold at this time? I remember him being nominated for a position as a "Top Adviser" to the Gov on fish, and related issues.

I never said Bill did anything bad for the fish. My priority list looks a lot different than his.

In todays paper there is an article about fish processors going broke.In the article,they mention that they are involved in a lawsuit with an environmental group. 2 opposite ends of the spectrum groups both working together to get what they want. A perfect example of what sporties could benefit from. And what I was trying to allude to in my previous post.

Maybe we should get on side with OT and fight the commercials getting 50% of the fish?

Mark and the dog.

[ 09-07-2003, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: Flatfish ]
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
22,262 Posts
Go back and reread Flatfish's statement (although I think ANWS deserves more credit beyond access), especially about not burning bridges...I can't imagine commercials would get 50 percent, so it's not a good idea to simply react to the idea...they're probably hoping something a lot smaller, but typically aim high.
And both their industry and the tribes are players in keeping us all in the hatchery game.

The gov's fish guy is Jim Myron, formerly of Oregon Trout. I'm thinking about a column on him...He's not brought an agenda to the job, but rather has had instrumental involvement behind the scenes that helped anglers...I believe he helped with the fee bill and in getting the experimental hatchery at Fall Creek...

Anyway, think everything through pretty carefully and pay attention to DJ's advice about involvement. The more the better...but be informed.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,959 Posts
Flatfish,this is what I've heard from some of my bio friends. This is only fishing buddy talk,but several are bio 3 and one is a bio 4. They would like to see a naturally spawning fishery with few or no hatcheries. Harvest levels would be achieved in the estuary or river. The emphasis would be for the sportsman,with the commercials pretty much out of the picture. Hey that floats my boat just fine. We are talking about rivers other than the CR.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,227 Posts
Thanks Mark. Edited.

Yes, I think it would be very worthwhile for the various organizations to discuss the situation. Again, I believe there is much common ground.

The other thing needed is for more anglers to join these organizations, surprisingly few do. For all the praise given to ANWS, their membership is around only 3000. I believe OT is slightly more, and I don't know about TU at all. Even if you totally ignore overlapping members, the combined membership of the largest three or four organizations combined, may be barely more than 10,000.

In general, the vast majority of anglers seem to be very apathetic toward lending support to sustain fish and fishing in the NW.

(now go give your dog a pat for me)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,267 Posts
I think there are some misconceptions out there about the mechanism which creates the harvestable fish on the CR. Hatchery fish are the outcome of the obligation to mitigate for their take that belongs mostly to Hydropower/Shipping. The funds flow out of the Feds(who have it because of rate payers) through BPA and produce the fish at various state and federal hatcheries. The commercial industry does not generate the funds to produce the fish. They and sport anglers pay a token fee/tax (like the one you would pay when you ride the bus) for the fish but the real burden is on BPA/Department of Commerce. This is not the case on others rivers where there are no Federal dams. That is why those rivers always have their hatcheries threatened. They only operate out of state general funds and sports liscence revenues.

We are all lucky that the Bio 3's and 4's don't create the policy which include or exclude user groups at their discretion. They seem to have a narrow world view in which to operate. Besides that we don't have any commercial river fishing anywhere in Oregon besides the CR.

There aren't too many of us on this board that don't mind sharing the resource like good little children. Hydropower/Shipping interests love it when fishery users have their eye off the ball and are fighting each other.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,268 Posts
It has been surprising with all of last years Ifish groups that were going to start and make their voice heard on spring chinook issues that there haven't been more Ifishers at the two meetings that have taken place so far. BUT--- It is a long process and there is still plenty of opportunity to get involved.

The third meeting, which is both sport and commercial interests is at 1 pm tomorrow, Wednesday, afternoon. It is in Vancouver at a WDFW Regional Office (I-5 north to 4th Plain, East to Grand, take a right on Grand and go a couple of blocks-WDFW on right)

These meetings will set the stage for the next THREE YEARS. With that in mind, it is a good investment of time (is for me anyway). Some are intimidated by the shorthand language that gets thrown around at the meeting---DON'T BE! Ask questions where you need to. Give your thoughts. Your presence there holds people accountable for their actions and comments.

The commercials are asking for so much more because the tangle net has been shown to be a poor tool for harvesting hatchery fish without killing wild chinook and wild steelhead. Their mortality level has been placed at 25% of released fish (tangle net) 50% when they release wild fish from a gill net. In contrast, sport mortalityis currently at 10% (but coming under review at the request of the commercial industry and some conservations groups--unnamed at meeting) So--where the commercial fleet is proving to be a harvester with high impact to wild fish----meaning they harvest less hatchery fish per impact point than the sport community, one might say maximize sport fishing and offer the commercial fleet a small fishery, but instead there seems to be thought to punish the cleaner harvester (sport) with a smaller fishery to make room for the more damaging one (commercial). The logic, in my opinion, is criminal.

I've been going to these meetings for seven years now. After every meeting, I feel like it is my last, like I've wasted my time, but refreshed I go back------mainly because most people think there are hundreds of people out there working on this stuff and they can't make a difference---NOT SO---on average there are less than two dozen people in attendance. Every body there counts---and one less is too many gone. If you cannot make the meeting tomorrow,try to make another---it does matter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,323 Posts
My uncle ( Dud Nelson ) as I understand it was the first to pick up the torch and attend all the compact meeting as a proponant of Sportsfisherman and opponent of the Gillnetters. In all those times I Only went to one Compact meeting that was
being held for the spring Gillnet season. There were a lot of fisherman there including Larry Shorburn (spelling ?) and other interests. I don't know what had happened since Dud passed away. I am glad to see someone is still carrying the torch. I would still attend meetings and do all I could to support the sportsfisherman
but the meetings are usually held during business hours (but not always). There needs to be some leadership and a drive to get the attention of the sportsman and then I think there would be a following. There are a lot more fisherman around that vote than there are Gillnetters. Of course the Commercial guys run the fisheries or at least they used to .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,227 Posts
Cosmo, that's a great, informative post. For folks who can't attend that meeting, where can they send comments - how can they make their voices heard?

Again, while fishing anchored-up there's plenty of time to write a short letter. Who should we send them to?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,904 Posts
Larry Schoenborn is the correct spelling Abalone.

I have a better plan. No commercial gillnetting. All fish allocated to the sportfishers.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I think that is a good one but not up for grabs during these meetings.

Before you go out and make enemies with every commercial fisherman this side of the rockies, think about this- Bill Bakke is the Govs fish man here in Oregon. He( and Trout Unlimited, or Oregon Trout or whatever organization he is closely affiliated with) would like nothing more than to see all hatchery funding go elsewhere. He, and his comrades are organized and preparing to strike. The commercials are dependant on hatchery fish to make a living. The commercials have a very savvy lobby to help them get what they want. They could very well be our best friend in this fight. With the sports anglers money and the commercial lobby, we would get pretty much anything we want. Remember this is just politics.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">” The commercials are dependant on hatchery fish to make a living”.

There you go. If that is true then get rid of the massive hatcheries on the Columbia and you will get rid of the commercial gill netters. That would also create more wild fish and lessen the restrictions on hatchery fish harvesting and hopefully the harvesting of wild fish again in the CR. Seriously though massive hatchery programs promote commercial harvest and that promotes conflict.

Mark, you said; “They could very well be our best friend in this fight”. I disagree with that. I think if we continue on the same path on the Columbia River and its trib’s it will continue to go down hill. Both hatchery fish and gill netters are harming the already threatened wild fish in the Columbia. It appears you are being critical of the pioneer of the hatchery vs. wild fish problems Bill Bakke that all modern science is proving to be right and at the same time promoting friendly alliances with Columbia River gill netters that have no business fishing in the CR and promote massive hatchery programs that hamper the recovery of wild fish.

I just don’t see anything going on to improve the big mess created up there on the Columbia with its massive hatchery programs and you are going to have the same old conflict and frustration year after year.

You stated your priority list looks a lot different than his. Well I don’t know that much about Bill yet but accidentally discovered his website recently and have read nothing but good accurate science on there and unfortunately for the big hatchery buffs it has a lot of negative hatchery facts. If we had had more folks with Bill’s priorities in the past we wouldn’t be in the mess we are now.

I’m not for shutting down all hatcheries but where there is adequate habitat for example the Kalama River, hatcheries are not needed and are causing more long term harm than they are good. Downsize the hatchery program and eliminate commercial fishing from the CR and I think the sports could live with that. For now fight them tooth and nail to get what you can. Work on getting the river rapers out of the CR. Time has passed them by.

Keep a watchful eye here on the coast and see what is taking place. Sure we don’t have gill netters or any major dams but neither do you on some of the lower trib’s. We have sustainable Chinook fisheries without hatchery Chinook and it won’t be long before we are fishing on sustainable wild coho also. Maybe if we’d get rid of those hatchery steelhead we would have healthy populations of wild steelhead again.

Now only if the north coast would follow our lead and give up those hatchery fish maybe they would experience wild runs as healthy as ours. There is no reason why there should be any Chinook or coho planted in the Nestucca, Tillamook Rivers and the Nehalem. They would undoubtedly produce more overall fish without them. And yet many unknowing fishermen are promoting the monster.

Check out the new report on DNA and Clackamas steelhead when I post it this evening and see what the beloved Clackamas hatchery summer steelhead did to the wild native winter run on that river after they started the program in 1971. Beeg mistake.

Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
I understand the situation at hand. However I am unsure as to what action that should be taken. I have called NSIA and left a message for a return call since I got there answering service. Can we contact ODF of WDFW and lobby them with our views or do we just stand by and wait for there rulings. Which in my opinion would be to late.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,268 Posts
Gary,
There are a lot of places input can go, but there are three places that seem best. First is the Oregon or Washington Fish & Wildlife Comission members, they are the rulemaking body. Second and third are Jim Myron in the Governors office and the Governor himself. Websites can get you addresses for all of the above.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
845 Posts
For all the praise given to ANWS, their membership is around only 3000. I believe OT is slightly more, and I don't know about TU at all. Even if you totally ignore overlapping members, the combined membership of the largest three or four organizations combined, may be barely more than 10,000.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">It seems to me that if these numbers are even close to being accurate we may have one of the larger groups here on Ifish. Maybe we should do some lobbying as a group. Theoretically we should have as much influence as any of the other groups mentioned. If Jennie was right in another post and we are soon headed for 10,000 members we could potentially be the largest group of sportfishers around. That would give a lot of clout to whoever speaks on behalf of Ifish.

MM
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,993 Posts
Depoe Bay Dan,

You want to eliminate commercial fisherman from the Columbia river.

Unless I am missing something, there are many( a guess would be 15) commercial fisheries from Oregon to Alaska that depend on the Columbia river stocks for part of their living. If you think eliminating the gill/tangle nets that are in the Columbia river will eliminate all commercial fishing on the stocks you are mistaken.

Lets say there are 15 commercial interests working the Columbia fish. You remove 1 of them. What about the rest? Out of sight out of mind? That leaves 14 more interests to fight for what they percieve as their right to make a living. And if any of the fisheries were to be revoked from the commercials, it would only add fuel to their collective fires.

Native Cohos on the coast are rebounding because of lower plant numbers?? Do you want to give improved ocean conditions a bit of credit for the rebound?

Now in freshwater, Mr. Bakke has done a fine job of restoring habitat. And in freshwater, trees, clean water, and feed are what is gonna help boost numbers. The nice part of freshwater is that it is predictable( relatively speaking) and we can semi accurately calculate what our returns will be given the effort expended.

The estuary is the middle ground, man has some influence and so does God. But we can do everything possible and still have poor returns.

If you want to stop stocking, or lower plant numbers, be prepared for closures on sports fishers in the affected areas. I for one am not willing to give up my fishing for the dream that everything can go back to how it was before the white man got here. It will never return. Our impact on nature is too profound to reverse. Something we all have to live with.

We do agree on many points. And there are some points that we will not vote the same on. But that is great. That is the great part of the U.S.A.

What would be nice is to have someone be able to post here( email??) when these meetings will happen. If I had some advanced notice, I could make it. I doubt I am alone.

What we have here is opinions of how an affair should be handled. I feel that a majority of sporties have little or no voice in the matter.

Will go email now.

Mark and the dog.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top