Oregon Non-Tribal Gill-Net Ban is One Step Closer!

[Smalma]

Rob/Nelly -
Forgive me as I get older my mental processes seem to be slowing down and am more easily confused.

I think I now understand where you are saying about using selective fishing as a conservation tool rather than a fisheries management tool to provide more fishing access to abundant non-ESA listed sstocks (other species, hatchery fish). Further that any wild fish savings from going to more selective fishing should be passed on to the spawning grounds. I can see the wisdom of that approach for the ESA listed fish. Unfortunately it is my observation that selective fishing has been a tool to provide increased fishing opportunities rather than a conservtion tool.

Did I capture your position correctly?

If so can I expect you both in particular and CCA in general at the next years NOF process putting forth a proposal that in Puget Sound we see a return to the salmon seasons from a decade ago? Clearly the wild fish savings from moving recreational fisheries to selective fishing in recent years has been used to support greatly expanded recreation seasons and bag limits rather than putting those listed fish saved on the spawning grounds. Should make for some interesting discussions.

Tight lines
Curt

[Todd]

Read every press release from WDFW and you will see that the number one motivation behind this...in every release...is "increased access to abundant hatchery fish"...period.

You get "increased access" by catching more of them, usually by reducing your mortality.

This is a fishing tool, not a conservation tool, at least when used on the LCR.

I am a big fan of selective fisheries, and have been advocating for them for well nigh on 20 years now, but only where they are appropriate, and will do good first for the fish, and second for the fishing...in the Lower Columbia River, a more selective commercial fishery will be, at best, negligible for the fish, and will seriously and negatively affect the sportfishery. It is not an appropriate place for it.

I could put on my wild steelhead advocate hat, since that's the one I wear most often, and just go with the flow on this one since I personally participate rarely in the LCR salmon fisheries, and there is no doubt that this will help Columbia River wild steelhead stocks, but the amount of willingness to accept "this will be great for ESA salmon" on the part of sportfishers when all evidence points directly to the contrary dismays me enough to point it out, continually.

There is no such thing as any fishery, by anyone, that is "no mortality"...and the fisheries are constrained by the 2% allowable impact rate. We, collectively meaning the commericals and us, will fish until our 2% is dead. While doing so, the commercials will greatly increase their hatchery fish take, and they will take them downstream of, and before...us.

The tribes will get their share. The commercials will get their "increased access". The pie will be the same size.

Where does that "increased access" come from?

Many seem to think it will come from thin air, or that somehow a purse seine will actually create a larger run of hatchery fish, or that harvesting many more thousands of hatchery fish harvested in front of and before us will not only not affect our fishing, but will somehow improve it (that bit of logic is dumbfounding).

When the "hatchery fish pie" is constant, the tribal catch is constant, and the non-tribal commercial share increases...who's the odd man out here?

Fish on...

Todd