boater
Offline
Chromer
Profile Status:
Reged: 05/03/01
Posts: 654
Loc: seattle
|
|
http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080722/OPINION/807220301/1049/OPINION
What if one sockeye caught in a gill net is the sole female bound for Redfish Lake?
well, what if one sockeye caught and kept by a sportfisherman is the sole female bound for redfish lake ?
stuff like this that he wrote is totaly off the wall from some one who ignores reality.
|
Lead_Bouncer
Offline
Chromer
Profile Status:
Reged: 08/09/07
Posts: 976
Loc: king county
|
|
Stop fishing boater. We will bear the burden.
|
boater
Offline
Chromer
Profile Status:
Reged: 05/03/01
Posts: 654
Loc: seattle
|
|
Quote:
Lead_Bouncer said:
Stop fishing boater. We will bear the burden.
facts man, just facts.
|
Lead_Bouncer
Offline
Chromer
Profile Status:
Reged: 08/09/07
Posts: 976
Loc: king county
|
|
No boater, reality. Although it could happen, you know and we all know, the article is about netting the last fish. He is an officer at CCA Oregon and he is not an advocate to stop sportfishing. Sportfishing is not a portion of the problem. Regardless of your personal view of the four H's, John is speaking about them, not us.
If fishing were as large an issue as transportation, the nets would be gone.
|
Todd R
Offline
Chromer
Profile Status:
Reged: 10/29/01
Posts: 831
Loc: Seattle, Washington
|
|
"Sportfishing is not a portion of the problem."
In this case, it sure is.
The sockeye fishery was a non-selective, catch and kill fishery for both the gillnets and the sporties. Any one of the sockeye caught by anyone, including the sporties, could have been one of the handful left bound for Redfish Lake.
For an officer of a "conservation" organization to point out how bad it would be if that last fish were caught in a gillnet, while leaving out the very real possibility that it may have been caught by a sport angler, is about as anti-conservation as it gets...besides ignoring reality.
If saving the fish were his actual concern, he would have badmouthed everyone from the top down who allowed any fishery whatsoever for sockeye on the Columbia downstream from the mouth of the Snake River.
Fish on...
Todd
--------------------
http://www.rvrfshr.com
For all your fishing hardware needs!
"Correct in Design"
|
Gooose
Offline
Ancient Mod
Profile Status:
Reged: 09/14/01
Posts: 10834
Loc: Area 12
|
|
I have to agree with Boater and Todd on this one.
--------------------
Independent Advocate For The Fish
Not Represented By Any Organization
Simple Solutions to Simple Problems
Simple Solutions to Complex Problems
There's lies, damned lies and then there are statistics......Mark Twain
|
fishdoc
Offline
Thick Tail
Profile Status:
Reged: 01/30/02
Posts: 3092
Loc: SWWA
|
|
Why harvest them at all...to me thats the problem. Either a gillnet or a hook could catch any of the Redfish bound fish. Leave those alone!! Neither party needs them.
We have dreamed and hoped and overharvested for years! It is simply time to error on the resource side.
Doc
--------------------
If we always do what we've always done, we'll always get what we've always gotten.
|
Gooose
Offline
Ancient Mod
Profile Status:
Reged: 09/14/01
Posts: 10834
Loc: Area 12
|
|
+2 doc 
--------------------
Independent Advocate For The Fish
Not Represented By Any Organization
Simple Solutions to Simple Problems
Simple Solutions to Complex Problems
There's lies, damned lies and then there are statistics......Mark Twain
|
Quillback
Offline
South of the Mason/Dixon line
Profile Status:
Reged: 02/08/02
Posts: 2562
Loc: Arkansas
|
|
Those Redfish lake Sockeye are the offspring of a "captive broodstock" program, cost of $230,000/year for that program, so that last female (if it's the only one returning) is a $230,000 hatchery fish. Is it worth it?
--------------------
Can we get a new WDFW Director?
|
AuntyM
Offline
Jill of all trades
Profile Status:
Reged: 05/07/01
Posts: 9987
Loc: Harstine Island
|
|
By cherry picking comments from an article, it's easy to take the topic "out of context" like some here are doing for their loud and obvious agenda. In fact, they are making a CAREER out of doing so.
However...Stec emphasized in the first three paragraphs, anglers/sportfishermen.
The topic is fisheries managers having a season AT ALL on those Snake River sockeye. History has shown, fisheries managers don't hold fisheries for sport benefit. We are the "enablers" of the CR gillnets and WE were used as the reason for this fishery.
I do believe maybe Lead Bouncer got a different take on the article than I did.
ALL sport fishers need to stand up and say NO THANKS!
--------------------
http://www.ccapnw.org
The Monster Breathes!
|
boater
Offline
Chromer
Profile Status:
Reged: 05/03/01
Posts: 654
Loc: seattle
|
|
Quote:
AuntyM said:
By cherry picking comments from an article, it's easy to take the topic "out of context" like some here are doing for their loud and obvious agenda. In fact, they are making a CAREER out of doing so.
just reporting facts.
|
DownTownBrowns
Offline
Fishin' Musician
Profile Status:
Reged: 01/31/05
Posts: 2252
Loc: Boise
|
|
Quote:
AuntyM said:
By cherry picking comments from an article, it's easy to take the topic "out of context" like some here are doing for their loud and obvious agenda. In fact, they are making a CAREER out of doing so.
However...Stec emphasized in the first three paragraphs, anglers/sportfishermen.
The topic is fisheries managers having a season AT ALL on those Snake River sockeye. History has shown, fisheries managers don't hold fisheries for sport benefit. We are the "enablers" of the CR gillnets and WE were used as the reason for this fishery.
I do believe maybe Lead Bouncer got a different take on the article than I did.
ALL sport fishers need to stand up and say NO THANKS!
I agree that's what Stec is saying. He states at the beginning of the article "commercial as well as recreational fishermen"...
...he simply emphasises the commercial netting later in the article because that's the more likely culprit were it to happen.
--------------------
Front row of the balcony 
|
Todd R
Offline
Chromer
Profile Status:
Reged: 10/29/01
Posts: 831
Loc: Seattle, Washington
|
|
More fish were retained by the sport fleet in this fishery than the gillnet fleet...about 40% more. There was very low participation by the gillnet fleet.
How does that make it more likely that the "one Redfish Lake hen" was caught in a net, rather than by a sport angler?
Fish on...
Todd
--------------------
http://www.rvrfshr.com
For all your fishing hardware needs!
"Correct in Design"
|
Todd R
Offline
Chromer
Profile Status:
Reged: 10/29/01
Posts: 831
Loc: Seattle, Washington
|
|
This should be obvious, but perhaps it's not...
Who is the Op-Ed written to? Who is Stec trying to reach?
Clearly not the CCA faithful, or there would have been no need to write it...they already buy it.
If he's trying to reach others who are not on the bandwagon, then what was his message?
Was it that the gillnet fleet fishing in this fishery was worse than the sportfishery?
That's sure what it sounds like, since there's not one mention about that "one hen" being caught by the sport fleet...just about it being caught in a net.
Besides being one sided, it's incorrect to boot, since sporties retained nearly twice as many sockeye as did the gillnetters, which makes it much more likely that the sport fleet caught that "last hen"...
If the message was to say that the entire fishery should not have been conducted due to the non-selective nature of the fishery and that the Redfish Lake sockeye were around, well, that's easy.
Just say it.
If the faithful want to somehow read this as a balanced Op-Ed charging that no one should have been fishing, they can knock themselves out...but this is NOT who the Op-Ed was written for, so it should have clearly stated its intent, if it was indeed intended to bag on the entire fishery, sport and gillnet.
Fish on...
Todd
--------------------
http://www.rvrfshr.com
For all your fishing hardware needs!
"Correct in Design"
|
fishdoc
Offline
Thick Tail
Profile Status:
Reged: 01/30/02
Posts: 3092
Loc: SWWA
|
|
Todd,
Though I know we stand on different sides of the fence regarding CCA I do agree with you on this one. My belief is that CCA is not us vs them but for the fish. It seems that Stec started out that way and then went south with some anti gill net rhetoric, put the balance back in there and its a good article.
I just don't understand why we had a fishery at all, to me that should be the real issue.
doc
--------------------
If we always do what we've always done, we'll always get what we've always gotten.
|
Todd R
Offline
Chromer
Profile Status:
Reged: 10/29/01
Posts: 831
Loc: Seattle, Washington
|
|
I think there was a gillnet fishery because the gillnetters wanted access to the tens of thousands of Osooyos and Wenatchee bound sockeye, and wanted a shot at 'em in the lower river while they were still prime...and the States have a habit of bending over backwards to give them what they want.
We had a sportfishery for them because that's how you generally shut up the sporties...give 'em a bone so they won't complain about the obvious problem...which is that no one should have been fishing below the Snake River mouth for sockeye.
The strangest part is that there was very low gillnetter turnout or effort, and the sporties far outfished the commercials during the sockeye fisheries, making the anti-gillnet rhetoric especially misplaced in this happenstance...
Fish on...
Todd
--------------------
http://www.rvrfshr.com
For all your fishing hardware needs!
"Correct in Design"
|
DownTownBrowns
Offline
Fishin' Musician
Profile Status:
Reged: 01/31/05
Posts: 2252
Loc: Boise
|
|
Quote:
Todd R said:
More fish were retained by the sport fleet in this fishery than the gillnet fleet...about 40% more. There was very low participation by the gillnet fleet.
How does that make it more likely that the "one Redfish Lake hen" was caught in a net, rather than by a sport angler?
Fish on...
Todd
Being an Idahoan, I just automatically assumed all wild fish would have to be released. I often forget that over on the wetside this is too often not the case.
The Redfish sockeye are not fin clipped, and therefore would have had to be released if the regs allowed only hatchery fish retention.
--------------------
Front row of the balcony
|
Todd R
Offline
Chromer
Profile Status:
Reged: 10/29/01
Posts: 831
Loc: Seattle, Washington
|
|
I see what you mean...
You can compare the relative mortality rates, i.e, just how "selective" a fishing technique is, if both are releasing the wild fish, and one has a much higher release mortality than the other...or if one is releasing wild fish and the other isn't.
In this case, the sporties and the commercials have the same release mortality...namely, "100%", since it is a non-selective fishery. Yeah, I'm sure a lot of fish were released because not everyone kills all they catch, but when we're both fishing under non-selective rules, it's hard to rag on the other one for being non-selective.
Fish on...
Todd
--------------------
http://www.rvrfshr.com
For all your fishing hardware needs!
"Correct in Design"
|
Todd R
Offline
Chromer
Profile Status:
Reged: 10/29/01
Posts: 831
Loc: Seattle, Washington
|
|
...which is why I keep bringing up the fact that saying "selective fishing" doesn't mean anything at all if it is not put into a context.
No one fishes 100% selectively...there is a release mortality associated with every method of fishing, whether it be barbless flies or gillnets with barbed wire attached.
Since no one fishes 100% selectively, and apparently many think sporties fish "selectively enough" and gillnets "don't fish selectively enough", then you'd think that those same people would have an actual number...but that doesn't seem to be case.
That's my concern about the CCA's stated goal of "selective fishing"...what the hell does it mean? So far, nothing...not until they say that "10% mortality" is acceptable, or "12%" or "5%"...either way, if the CCA is really serious about being a "conservation" organization rather than just an "anti-gillnet" group, they're going to have to come up with some standards and hold all user groups to them...including the hydropower industry.
Until then, it's just anti-gillnet talk with no numbers behind it...
Fish on...
Todd
--------------------
http://www.rvrfshr.com
For all your fishing hardware needs!
"Correct in Design"
|
boater
Offline
Chromer
Profile Status:
Reged: 05/03/01
Posts: 654
Loc: seattle
|
|
i hope that the CCA can get the non-tribal gillnetters into a method of fishing that has 1/2 the mortality rate as sports fishers do, that would mean they could keep twice as many fish as the sportsman do if the esa split was 50-50 between the 2 groups, that would greatly improve sport fishing and the amount of esa listed fish being killed would be the same as before the CCA`s new method, this is a win - win situation 
|
fishdoc
Offline
Thick Tail
Profile Status:
Reged: 01/30/02
Posts: 3092
Loc: SWWA
|
|
boater...the columbia is managed by quota. By using say a trap or wheel numbers will be easily counted and fin clipped fish easily identified. The goal of CCA is more fish back to the gravel not allocation that is at least how I understand it.
doc
--------------------
If we always do what we've always done, we'll always get what we've always gotten.
|
boater
Offline
Chromer
Profile Status:
Reged: 05/03/01
Posts: 654
Loc: seattle
|
|
Quote:
fishdoc said:
boater...the columbia is managed by quota.
its not ethier, its managed around how much esa take each user group gets
|
Todd R
Offline
Chromer
Profile Status:
Reged: 10/29/01
Posts: 831
Loc: Seattle, Washington
|
|
The Columbia River is managed by "weak stock management", meaning that how many of the ESA listed fish you kill while prosecuting your fishery is how the seasons are set.
It's why "selective fishing" won't save one wild fish...we will fish right up to the allowable ESA impacts..."more selective" may mean that more hatchery fish get harvested, but does not confer much, if any conservation benefit.
Fish on...
Todd
--------------------
http://www.rvrfshr.com
For all your fishing hardware needs!
"Correct in Design"
|
Lead_Bouncer
Offline
Chromer
Profile Status:
Reged: 08/09/07
Posts: 976
Loc: king county
|
|
Quote:
boater said:
Quote:
fishdoc said:
boater...the columbia is managed by quota.
its not ethier, its managed around how much esa take each user group gets
Well the method hasnt worked and it should be changed. Do you ever stop whining?
|
Todd R
Offline
Chromer
Profile Status:
Reged: 10/29/01
Posts: 831
Loc: Seattle, Washington
|
|
I hope this knowledge base and attitude is not the prevailing one amongst the rest of the CCA membership, but especially not of its leadership.
To not know this, or how it comes about, or why it isn't going anywhere, pretty much disqualifies one from participating in even the most rudimentiary discussions regarding Columbia River harvest regimes.
Whining? I don't think boater is whining, he's pointing out...and rightfully so...that you don't know what the hell you are talking about, yet are continuing to talk about it, and vehemently, too, I might add.
"Weak Stock Management" is managing by using the status of the most depressed stock in the area at the time as the baromter...it is the absolute bare minimum that needs to be done in order to not violate the ESA...any changes in that would be changes in the direction of "not fishing at all"...for anyone.
It's the next step from weak stock management...
Fish on...
Todd
--------------------
http://www.rvrfshr.com
For all your fishing hardware needs!
"Correct in Design"
Edited by Todd R (07/24/08 07:34 PM)
|
Lead_Bouncer
Offline
Chromer
Profile Status:
Reged: 08/09/07
Posts: 976
Loc: king county
|
|
Right or wrong, Im allowed the opinion, regardless of its association to any group that I belong to. You know very well, I dont speak for cca or any other organization in policy. No matter how much I learn on these site and in life, one thing won't change. Your attitude toward cca and its leadership and members. You will continue to belittle people and members of orgs that you dislike and disagree with. What a burden to be the great educator and the man above the fray. You should add to your signature, "I have two degrees, you dont."
|
AuntyM
Offline
Jill of all trades
Profile Status:
Reged: 05/07/01
Posts: 9987
Loc: Harstine Island
|
|
+1
--------------------
http://www.ccapnw.org
The Monster Breathes!
|
fishdoc
Offline
Thick Tail
Profile Status:
Reged: 01/30/02
Posts: 3092
Loc: SWWA
|
|
OK...not being a smart a** here. Educate me here, I will use simple numbers. There is an anticipated run of 100 fish, 10% of those are ESA of those there is an allowable harvest of 20% which means two fish.....does not two=a quota?
If not, tell me what I'm missing, I am willing to learn.
doc
--------------------
If we always do what we've always done, we'll always get what we've always gotten.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: