Commerial Take of Wild Steelhead to be Increased! - Page 2 - Fly Fishing Forum
Pacific Northwest Sea Run Forum No such thing as rainbow trout, only landlocked steelhead

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
  #16  
Old 01-16-2004, 02:29 PM
Moonlight Moonlight is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: North West
Posts: 884
Just thinking outloud...

Are the affected fish (steelhead) the late winter componet of Lower Columbia Tribs. Specificly the Cowlitz and Lewis?
Could this be another negative impact of Hatchery production, lots of fish (King Salmon) from hatchery production so we must Harvest to get our share so the Treaty fishers won't be burdened with the job of Harvesting our share under "Foregone Oppurtunity?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #17  
Old 01-16-2004, 04:30 PM
Howzer Howzer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 107
win-win or win-lose?

This Columbia River tangle net fishery is even more maddening because it is a situation with what could be a win-win solution with extremely selective fisheries. If the commercials adopted 100% selective techniques (like traps or fish wheels) they could use their full allocation of hatchery fish, advertise like crazy about how selective and sustainable their approach is, and deliver the highest quality fish to market imaginable. They could extend the "fresh fish" season by simply keeping fish in the traps until they were ready to sell 'em. With a good marketing campaign those fish might even command "copper river king" prices, or at least something close. The people taking part in that fishery could surely up their income and buy a lot of support from sportsfishers by giving up the netting and ESA bycatches.
Maybe they simply like the fact that they have the political influence to ram this through. This is a great opportunity to tell the legislature, WDFW, and NOAA that there is a political cost in treating lower Columbia commercials as their sacred cows.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #18  
Old 01-16-2004, 04:56 PM
Jeff Jeff is offline
Active Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: North Umpqua and The Sky
Posts: 110
Howzer now you are thinking outside the box we should have none of that. :hehe:

This could be a win-win situation. But unfortunately a lot of people don't see it that way.

The state knows they can't do this with a 2% limit is my understanding as they know the commercials have a much bigger impact then that. So they just move the bar to make this fit the model. Would it be against everyone's beleif to change the fishery to a non-gillnet fishery or god forbid close it down completely. Which is a better solution?

JJ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #19  
Old 01-16-2004, 07:55 PM
Howzer Howzer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 107
With pre-season predictions calling for a really large return, it seems crazy to just "nudge" up the allowable bycatch in order to get a bit more of the springer harvest when they could really up their take by going to traps and fish wheels.

These guys don't appear to be thinking about maximizing their economic returns. Instead, they are showing great skill at maximizing the anger of sportsfishing and conservation groups. I'm all for a full-utilization of the hatchery spring chinook returns. Who wants those tasty fish stacked up at the hatchery racks turning black? Okay, I'll quit now because I'm sounding a lot like a broken record...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #20  
Old 01-16-2004, 08:10 PM
Todd Ripley Todd Ripley is offline
Token Gear Guy
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 139
Thumbs down

Check this out...this comes straight from the horse's mouth, with his permission to use both his name and his assessments in public.

I just got off the phone with Dan Rawdings, Region 5 Anadromous Fish Biologist. His assessment is as follows:

The combination of impacts from a commercial fishery that takes 5-7% of ESA listed steelhead, combined with the small but measurable sportfishing cnr mortality, will likely put the Toutle River wild winter run steelhead in JEOPARDY.

In this case, "jeopardy" means pushed beyond the point where they could recover.

This assessment was made when he was requested to comment on Oregon's Biological Assessment in regard to the increased commercial ESA impact.

This information was furnished to WDFW on 12/30/03.

Exactly how serious is WDFW about recovering wild steelhead stocks in SW Washington? I think that stuff like this speaks for itself.

WDFW is really serious about it, unless it impacts the ability to have economically viable commercial fisheries without having to make the commercial fishers more selective in their harvest of listed fish.

Maybe I'm being too cynical...am I missing something?

Fish on...

Todd.
__________________
Todd Ripley
VP Political Affairs
Wild Steelhead Coalition
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #21  
Old 01-16-2004, 11:30 PM
Brian Simonseth's Avatar
Brian Simonseth Brian Simonseth is offline
Jolly Buddha
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: CHROME TRIANGLE !
Posts: 589
Thumbs down nets

Amazing!
__________________
Brian

THE NEWER CHIEF of E.P.

Real Steelhead Don't Eat Pellets!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #22  
Old 01-17-2004, 01:01 AM
Smalma Smalma is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 168
Jeff-
I clearly understand the 2% is on the total run. My comments regarding the 2% being unacceptable centers around the outrage when that sort of impact occurs during a commerical fishery but when the same 2% impact on an ESA listed wild run is allowed in a sport fishery (for example the recent steelhead fishery on the Methow which had the same 2% impact cap) the same folks seem welcome the fishery. Am I the only one the sees this as a double standard?

The above comments does not mean that I endorse or even condone the proposed increased commerical spring chinook fishery. It is just I find little creditability in protest if one doesn't apply the same standards to all fishing.


Tight lines
Smalma
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #23  
Old 01-17-2004, 01:53 PM
JDJones's Avatar
JDJones JDJones is offline
JD
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Rogue River So. Oregon
Posts: 641
Dont get me started

I hate to tell you but I think you guys are missing the boat.
The way I see it, the system works like this:[list=1][*]The working fisheries biologists want to help the resorce but they are under pressure from upper management, who is under pressure from the politicians. Pressure meaning loss of funding, jobs, etc.[*]The politiciions will allow passage of any regulation, or law to appease the trouble makers. They just wont approvve funding for enforcement![*]That way, they can claim to have helped one group, while at the same time, they are more or less telling the other side, "don't worry about it, we won't enforce it."[/list=1]
You can make a lot of noise, throw big bunches of money at the problem but the only thing a politician fears is losing the next election. And I seriously doubt that a fisheries issue would determine the outcome of an election. And they (politicians) know it.
Add to that the fact that the head honchos, hi-mucky-mucks of fish and game depts are appointed officials. The only way to oust them is to get the governor to fire them.
It's kind of like the old "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't him drink" thing.
I don't have any answers either. Well, I do but you'll never see this one passed.
NO CAREER POLITICIONS. do you thing for one term, and then go home. And answer to the people for what you did,,,to them!

my .02 worth. off my soap box. sorry guys but that's the way I see it.
JD
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #24  
Old 01-17-2004, 05:45 PM
t_richerzhagen t_richerzhagen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Deschutes, Ronde, Snake, Walla Walla
Posts: 720
You can make the horse drink!!!

JD - I can make the horse drink by putting salt in its feed. We need to do something comparable for the pols and the commercials, or at least, buy the commercials out.

A lot of the fish I have caught on the Deschutes over the last ten years have had net marks. I hav advocated for a no- net fishery on the Columbia for years. The question is what can we do to make the pols and the commercials see it as being in their own best interest (salt in their food)? Some of the ideas here are a step in that direction.

How many of us have already sent letters or emails? I just returned to town and will send mine this evening.
__________________
Ted
Speyclave Contributor

Practice is about increasing your repertoire of ways to recover from your mistakes. Joann C. Gutin

Last edited by t_richerzhagen; 01-17-2004 at 05:47 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #25  
Old 01-17-2004, 06:19 PM
JDJones's Avatar
JDJones JDJones is offline
JD
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Rogue River So. Oregon
Posts: 641
salt in their food

t_richerzhagen all well & good but I would go one step further.
Read my lips,,,,,,,,,No more incumbents!
JD
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #26  
Old 01-18-2004, 10:46 PM
Jeff Jeff is offline
Active Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: North Umpqua and The Sky
Posts: 110
Smalma,

The outrage is coming in asking for the increase from 2% to 5-7% that is where the outrage is being directed. If they were trying to do the same thing on the Methow I would oppose opening that fishery also to sportsmen. And yes I would be in favor of reducing sportsman opportunity to take the impact down to 1% on ESA listed stocks. Some of those upper columbia fisheries have there own issues like why are they still planting hatchery fish in rivers that have no season planned on them. Does that make sense? But I guess that is neither here nor there in this discussion.

So what do you think about what the Region 5 biologist had to say.

At some point as much as I love to fish I am willing to sacrifice my opporutnity to fish today to hopefully have more of an opportunity in the future.

JJ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #27  
Old 01-19-2004, 10:30 AM
OC OC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: I've lost them all but I'm looking for new ones
Posts: 1,368
Question

Smalma, Todd, anyone,

Can anyone fill us in on exactly what the 1st year and second year of the tangle net fishery numbers were like? Was it 2% those years and did the commercials go over that and by how much if they did.

Like Jeff said we here at NW Steelhead and the WSC are not so much against commercials having the 2% number. But how come they can not make that number if these tangle nets work as advertised a few years ago.
__________________
OC
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #28  
Old 01-19-2004, 12:55 PM
Jeff Jeff is offline
Active Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: North Umpqua and The Sky
Posts: 110
I just read on an other board, and Todd can probably correct these numbers, but the commercials in 2002 to catch their 15,000 fish caught 22,000 wild steelhead. Even at an 18.5% mortality that is 4000 fish (not to mention the wild spring chinooks they take). How can a gillnet fishery that has a huge impact on the endangered wild run make sense? This obvisiously isn't a targeted fishery it is a lets sweep the river and who cares what we get fishery.

JJ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #29  
Old 01-19-2004, 02:04 PM
Moonlight Moonlight is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: North West
Posts: 884
Apples + Oranges =

Some rather confusing numbers here for me to ponder. We are refering to an endangered run of Steelheads that are being impacted by a early spring gillnet fishery that has a potential to impact the run of ESA listed Steelheads. Yet the results of a limited and restricted State and NMFS approved Tangle Net fishery have taken 22,000 of these non targeted Steelheads. With numbers like that one is given to ponder the viability of the claims that these fish are endangered or threatened.
Are we talking about the Late run of winter Steelheads that are taken in this fishery or the much more numerous Summer Run stocks that head into the interior of Ore Ida Wa? I am certainly not a proponet of Gillnet Fisheries under any name but I find it hard to be judgemental without more information. Last time I checked I wasn't drawing a paycheck to be a Judge anyway but I am curious on these numbers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #30  
Old 01-19-2004, 02:34 PM
Jeff Jeff is offline
Active Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: North Umpqua and The Sky
Posts: 110
It is my understanding that these are the late winter runs if they net early or the early summer fish if they net late. See Todd's comment on the Late winter run on the Toutle. I believe most SW washington rivers used to have a very healthy run of spring steelhead and now they are depressed and this fishery really hits them. I will have to check to see if that 22,000 fish were all wild or a mix.

JJ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Fly Fishing Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wild steelhead juro Pacific Northwest Sea Run Forum 5 03-09-2011 09:04 PM
Wild Steelhead Need Your Help by 9/27! rich_simms Pacific Northwest Sea Run Forum 4 09-16-2007 11:45 PM
Support Wild Steelhead! rich_simms Pacific Northwest Sea Run Forum 0 07-09-2003 01:34 AM
Please Help Our Wild Steelhead NrthFrk16 Worldwide Flyfishing Discussion 0 12-02-2001 09:19 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:48 AM.



Copyright Flyfishingforum.com (All Rights Reserved)