Tribal netting

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by MasterAnglerTaylor, Jan 23, 2009.

  1. Salmo, I totally agree with the points you've made on this thread. Selective fisheries is a big one and was a great place to start and it appears there is tremendous momentom right now. Slowing the political machine down is a big one.Its had its way for so long that its become the norm and common sense was thrown out the window.Thanks for the perspectives that come from years of thought and experience. We are all learning from you.
    If CCA continues to focus on selective fisheries and succeeds, they will establish themselves as an organzation to contend with and will be taken seriously on other issues as well. They will also gain support from more and more sportsman which gives them more strength both politically and finanacially. They already have a track record on the east coast and know how to succeed so they had a head start. They avoid the learning curve which is what usually makes it difficult for smaller groups to get anywhere. I am by no means saying they're the only game in town. Other groups are an absolute necessity and they all should be supported financially. Then put your personal effort where your heart is. If everyone does something, someday we will all be proud for the efforts we made and the things we've accomplished.
  2. I spent a while on the HSRG website yesterday, and have a lot more reading to do- but I was Impressed. And they have a lot of info on there, but haven't posted a progress report recently. Last I heard, about 20% of the 1000 recommendations made have already been put into motion, and increasing pressure from conservation-minded groups will help accelerate the needed changes.

    like my new avatar? kind of a Matrix joke.
  3. Well, actually I liked the joke about time, Salmo:thumb: I hope CCA can make a difference. They certainly seem energized and passionate about bringing salmon/steelhead into the future... And I have to say that I really appreciate these threads, I learn a lot and its good to see so many folks out there that care about (and work for) these fish and their habitat.
    For my part, over here on the East side of the mountains, I will continue to work hard on the hydro issues... if others are working on getting the fishing industry to cut down on the ESA listed wild fish mortality, that is great.
    I'm leaving town tomorrow and won't have internet for a while so this is probably my last post on this thread, (unless its still cooking next week) but I look forward to more of these spirited discussion. Thanks!

    PS remember, if you think of any good books or resources on the subject of overfishing, let me know... SpeySpaz, I will check out the HSRG site.
    Also, you folks should read the book River of Life, Channel of Death by keith Peterson. A great history of the lower Snake RIver salmon/steelhead hydro disaster.
  4. Interesting reading the HSRG info... I wonder if folks realize that one of the goals of this is to reduce the number of releases to be adjusted to marine carrying capacity.... That would mean fewer smolt with the potential for higher return.....
  5. there seems to be some common sense at work, but still, not perfect.
    for instance, the HSRG seems to be solely concerned with salmon, and their third party facilitator is LLTK, Long Live The Kings...all well and good, but HSRG seems to have ignored wild steelhead, at least in the South Sound which was the part I reviewed yesterday.

    Looking at the status of the Nisqually, near and dear to me, the steelhead run is listed as critical, and they are part of an ESA-listed ESU, yet HSRG makes no recommended changes to hatchery or harvest that might help resuscitate this run of fish. In fact, no mention of steelhead in their management recommendations. That strikes me as strange and I've already emailed Long Live The Kings for some answers.

    At the time of Boldt the Nisqually was the #15 rated steelhead river in the State, now...:(
  6. I can bring very little informed opinion to this discussion as I have only been in the Northwest for about 4 1/2 years and I am still trying to get my head around all of the players in this issue. However, at the December SW Wa. CCA chapter meeting the VP of Conservation issues for BPA (sorry I can't remember his name) gave a presentation that included a segment on the mitigation efforts for the dams. His comments regarding barging indicated that even BPA sees that component of their program as questionable especially for Steelhead. It seemed to me, by the data he presented, that BPA is making real progress with some of these issues and that they are interested in doing what is proven to be effective. I am no apologist for BPA but it may be they recognize it is in their own best interest to deal effectively with these problems.

    He spoke about dam removals that they have the ability to influence and how that was a real prospect, some of which are already in permit. (Smaller dams on tributaries, I believe.) We probably all realize that the Columbia dams are here to stay but I left with the impression that the Snake River dams may, in fact, be in play.

    There seemed to be a great deal of frustration on the part of BPA and CCA's legislative committee that one of the controlling agencies have subverted an effort to do a study of alternative selective harvest gear (sorry but there are so many acronyms for these bureaucracies that I am either confused or gave up trying to remember which one and therefore don't want to inadvertently call out the wrong one). The rub of it was that BPA had proffered a grant which was rather substantial to completely fund the study. In the end it became clear that a government "conservation agency" is more heavily influenced by the commercial fishing industry than by their own mandate.

    I admittedly have a loose grasp of some of the facts in this discussion but if there are many fewer adult fish to try to get past the dams because of non-selective harvest(gill netting) then no matter what BPA does to get the juvenile fish out to the ocean it is all academic. My impression is that CCA is limiting their focus to the apple which they believe is ripe to pick.
  7. The nisqually hasn't been netted for steelhead in quite some time. In addition there hasn't been hatchery releases for the same amount of time. The Nasty appears to be the hardest hit by the south sound productivity maliase that also afflicts the Puyallup and the Green....
  8. true, hasn't been netted for steelhead since the numbers went in the toilet in the mid-eighties, if I remember correctly.
    but nonselective nets are in the river during significant migratory times for those steelhead, which often have major overlap with salmon returns and bycatch still occurs. I've seen them go in the boat.

    My opinion is that the South Sound "malaise" is nets and absence of conservation measures. The Nisqually has over 40 river miles of relatively well conserved habitat and should be a steelhead factory as it once was; but the run will never rebuild itself if most of the few returning fish end up in nets along with Kings, Silvers, and Dogs.
  9. It works like this:

    People to commercial netters, "Do you catch many wild steelhead in your nets because if you do we can't have you fishing anymore where you make your money."

    Commercial fisherman to people, "Nope, no wild steelhead caught here."
  10. Kings == fall returns which historically where there isn't a large population of summer runs.

    Silvers == fall to early winter.

    Chums == winter

    I wouldn't say the *majority* of the run is covered by the nets, but some of it is, at least an appreciable portion of it (based on info from Bios I know).

    I wished the Sound Sound issue were so cut and dry, but in extensive talks with bios, there really isn't a strong consensus as to the cause. It does appear to be worse the further south you go, with the Nisqually being the most affected.

    The deal is, using specific river systems that are know to have *very* specific problems that are localized isn't a good thing to bring up as evidence of netting impacts. There are *plenty* of nets that have impacts far worse (like the Hoh) that are far better examples.
  11. seems as though, if we boiled all of these posts down to the nub, we would all agree ALL nets need to come out. selective fishing is the alternative and would not challenge the indians 50%. with ESA listings, it would also seem to be a management tool that has the most immediate impact and perhaps merit.

    anyone at CCA paying attention or are they too busy standing around 'lobbying'???
  12. I'd say that this is true about netting, especially the LCR gillneting. I think the only thing we don't agree on is whether we clean ship first on our side, or if we try to tackle both parties...
  13. I agree selective fishing is the one way to effectively protect ESA listed fish. However, i think only through a combination of things e.g. selective fishing (non-gillnetting), habitat restoration, hatchery reform and better hatchery management will improve native fish returns.

    Having said that, it takes time and I believe a new attitude is being spread through the PNW regarding some of these issues. You have to remember that the tribes are just one piece of the puzzle. They do have treaty rights to the fishing, but I think if we make other changes, make sacrifices, then the tribes as co-managers will also make concessions.
  14. Re; the Heukers--
    as a former commercial myself, I can say it won't take but a few hours hanging out in a fishermen's bar to convince you the practice of overcatch/underreport is widespread, even common. If you knew your season would be done if you reported your bycatch, would you report it? And some sportsmen are no better, not punching fish cuz they're too cheap to pay for a new punchcard. Same principle.

    The two most important and basic management metrics- actual return and actual take, are both mere guesses.
    Setting harvest limits against projected returns that always somehow seem to run short most of the time...the cart is pushing the horse here.
  15. As a former commercial fisherman myself I am happy to completely agree.

    All your points are exactly what I have been trying to get across with very little notice from anyone.

    What we need is actual evidence. The evidence we are using now to manage fisheries is provided by the fisheries.

    This is a game, we need to make it a science.
  16. I believe a lot of this is determined in the North of Falcon process, so we need to change leadership and a change of attitude in that process which essentially divides up the "projected" catch.

    So, if selective harvest reforms aren't made, how would you encourage or make commercial fisherman to better comply and report bi-catch?
  17. Jason, I always knew you were my soul brother. Not to get all squishy or anything:D

    to your question, Leopardbow-
    probably can't; the conservation is going to have to come from the front end.

    example: third party scientific-only return projections, with a conservative rate-of-return window that triggers a closure in the EARLY stage of a poor run.

    mandatory jail time and revocation of fishing license on first offense. Period. Commercial or sport or tribal.

    citizens with binoculars and digital cameras monitoring harvest activities.

    for God's sake, the least they could do is ACT like it's important. DFW took it in the hiney this year, with an enormous budget cut.:beathead::beathead:
  18. Conservation in this state means supporting the tribes at all costs and beating the hell out of the sports.:rofl::beathead:
  19. The state can't really do anything about the tribes. It can do a lot about other commercial fishing quotas (non-tribal).

    Also, why aren't all you anti-tribal net zealots raising money to help tribes aquire fish traps? If one went about it the right way (not angry or patronizing), I bet some tribes would be happy to switch to trapping v. netting, especially if someone else were footing the bill. The tribes have a RIGHT to these fish. Going after tribal fishing quotas is an expensive proposition because of the 5th Ammendment right to just compensation (Value of annual salmon quotas X Forever = Not cost effective). And for all of you who will undoubtedly say, "the value is diminishing with the runs". Well, if it diminishing, who ever is at fault (culverts, the state for rampant development, etc.) will pay for the diminished value. I digress, but my point is, anything that happens on the tribal side will most likley have to be collaborative. Commercial fishing on the other hand--we owe them nothing. That's the low hanging fruit on the harvest side.

Share This Page