fishdoc
Offline
Thick Tail
Profile Status:
Reged: 01/30/02
Posts: 3171
Loc: SWWA
|
|
correct so why is that I see the number 2 as a quota and you don't.
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: 693
Loc: seattle
|
|
Quote:
fishdoc said:
correct so why is that I see the number 2 as a quota and you don't.
doc
because its not a quota, its the number of esa listed fish that are allowed to be killed under a esa take permit
|
fishdoc
Offline
Thick Tail
Profile Status:
Reged: 01/30/02
Posts: 3171
Loc: SWWA
|
|
yes but when that number is reached the fishery is shut down.
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: 693
Loc: seattle
|
|
Quote:
fishdoc said:
yes but when that number is reached the fishery is shut down.
doc
the fishery is shut down when we reach our allowable esa take, thats whats so stupid about this whole thing, even if the gillnetters go to a more selective method meaning a lower release mortality rate the same number of esa listed fish will be killed but it will take them longer to do it and they will be allowed to keep more of the same fish that sportsman keep, sportfishing sucks now after the nets are in and i cant figure out why you guys want it to suck worse, i wish someone high up in the cca could write me a letter and tell me what the hell they are thinking.
|
fishdoc
Offline
Thick Tail
Profile Status:
Reged: 01/30/02
Posts: 3171
Loc: SWWA
|
|
Now we got somewhere!! I understand exactly what you are saying and completely respect that. I will begin the process tomorrow of trying to find the answer for you. Is it ok with you that I copy and use this last paragraph of yours??
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: 11071
Loc: Area 12
|
|
boater your stuck focusing on the gill net fishery as it is today. Changes to methods, locations and timing can increase escapement of certain fish. Think about it a bit.
--------------------
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
|
Todd R
Offline
Chromer
Profile Status:
Reged: 10/29/01
Posts: 892
Loc: Seattle, Washington
|
|
Quote:
Lead_Bouncer said:
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."
Doesn't require two degrees...as a matter of fact, it doesn't require any.
All it requires is having gone to at least one meeting in the past 10 years where they have discussed Columbia River harvest regimes, or a few minutes looking up how they work on the Inter-Netz...they're not secrets, and they're not hard to understand.
What is hard to understand is someone who is so deadset against Columbia River harvest regimes, but doesn't even know what they are, or how the work...not a good starting point for vociferous contributions.
I actually work with people I dislike, or disagree with, all the time regarding fisheries...mostly just disagree with and get along fine with, though.
You can call it belittling if you want, but you know that's not what it is...it's wondering why you haven't availed yourself to the thousands of free and easy resources that are available so that you can at least have clue one about what is happening now on the ground...and I guess you are entitled to all the opinions you want, but there's a difference between an opinion, and just plain being wrong...
Different opinions are based on different policies or beliefs formed around accepted facts...made up, incomplete, or ignored facts do not constitute different opinions...they constitute not knowing what you are talking about.
Fish on...
Todd
--------------------
http://www.rvrfshr.com
For all your fishing hardware needs!
"Correct in Design"
|
AuntyM
Offline
Looking for a few good fish!
Profile Status:
Reged: 05/07/01
Posts: 10194
Loc: Harstine Island
|
|
Quote:
All it requires is having gone to at least one meeting in the past 10 years where they have discussed Columbia River harvest regimes,
Been there, done that. I've actually made it to the last 3 CR springer allocation meetings. What do I win? 
I get it just fine and always have, in spite of lies to the contrary.
John Q. Public is, at the very least, "morally" entitled to a share of those hatchery fish they helped pay to raise via commercial harvest. FACT!
Sportfishers can (by virtue of changes in regulations) fish using methods that inflict less damage to fish that must be released. (leaving fish in the water, barbless, whatever.) It's not unreasonable for us or the soon to be informed public to expect commercial fishers take the steps necessary to reduce THEIR impacts. FACT.
Now, some here will argue that the impact allocation for the states share won't change, therefore the same amount of listed species will die. It doesn't have to be that way. NOAA F may tell us what we can not exceed, but they can not tell us we must USE that impact allocation. FACT.
The CR tribal fishers also may try to dictate to us that we must use our impact allocation or they'll take it but I don't think they want to "go there" since our conservation benefits them and they give up nothing. It could be a PR nightmare for them.
It's conceivable that commercial fishers could safely harvest twice the hatchery salmon with half the impact. If they do that and we sportfishers don't get greedy and insist on taking the remaining percentage, the fish win.
Once the ball is in our (sport fishers) court, I will fight those greedy "allocation minded" groups tooth and nail to keep those fish in the river, alive and heading to their spawning grounds.
I can easily find several hundred CCA members that will insist on the same.
--------------------
Landslide: Stevie Nicks greatest song!
http://www.ccapnw.org
The Monster Breathes!
"Don't fall in!" Doug Richert Sr. 10/18/2008 
|
Lead_Bouncer
Offline
Native Slab
Profile Status:
Reged: 08/09/07
Posts: 1205
Loc: king county
|
|
I do agree that sportfishing could contribute to the decline of this years redfish lake run. Unfortunately, 700 fish are enough to persuade the fisheries managers to allow more systematic destruction of the sockeye run. If their estimate is accurate as other predictions, perhaps less than 350 will show up. As long as the current fisheries managers are working for the respective states, the emphasis on harvest will continue. They wont bother to get a base count. They would rather list another run.
I would not have opened the run to harvest for anyone. It doesnt sound like anyone was expecting the 250K projection. 250k is not that many fish.
Edited by Lead_Bouncer (07/25/08 09:04 AM)
|
boater
Offline
Chromer
Profile Status:
Reged: 05/03/01
Posts: 693
Loc: seattle
|
|
Quote:
AuntyM said:
John Q. Public is, at the very least, "morally" entitled to a share of those hatchery fish they helped pay to raise via commercial harvest. FACT!
you sound like kent martin now, take alook around this state at the bodys of water that have 2 commercial fisherys, why do people like you continue to ignore commercialy caught tribal fish ?, if the treatys were written in a way that said that tribal caught fish belonged to the tribes and no-body else could have any i would agree with you but none of them say that, the treatys say that the tribes have a right to catch 50 percent of the available harvest, in other words it gave them part of the commercial market, the non-fishing public will always get fish from the tribes, alot of the non-tribal waste of money commercial fisheries need to be eliminated, look at the crab fishery, since your on the board whats the total commercial harvest in puget sound including the tribal catch compaired to the sport catch ?, i`d have to guess that its pretty lop sided, look at the PFMC website for ocean salmon57.000 chinook commercial, 20.000 sports, go read the compact fact sheets from the columbia, the list goes on and on
|
AuntyM
Offline
Looking for a few good fish!
Profile Status:
Reged: 05/07/01
Posts: 10194
Loc: Harstine Island
|
|
It's very simple. WA and OR State law requires we have the non-tribal commercial fishery and I don't see that changing any time soon. The fish don't have that much time! Odds are much higher that we can change the method of commercial harvest rather than get rid of it.
Try telling the public that they have to pay for the fish through higher utility rates and taxes, but they can only purchase tribal caught. I think they'll tell you to "F" off!
--------------------
Landslide: Stevie Nicks greatest song!
http://www.ccapnw.org
The Monster Breathes!
"Don't fall in!" Doug Richert Sr. 10/18/2008
|
boater
Offline
Chromer
Profile Status:
Reged: 05/03/01
Posts: 693
Loc: seattle
|
|
Quote:
AuntyM said:
It's very simple. WA and OR State law requires we have the non-tribal commercial fishery and I don't see that changing any time soon.
then shouldnt we have a non-tribal lake washington sockeye fishery ?, last time i checked the only way the non-fishing public could buy these fish was thru the tribes, and being there is a mitigation hatchery involved maybe we should split the non-tribal share 50-50 sports and commercials so the public wont get cheated 
|
AuntyM
Offline
Looking for a few good fish!
Profile Status:
Reged: 05/07/01
Posts: 10194
Loc: Harstine Island
|
|
If the returns were good enough, we probably would and it'd be fine by me. However, the sport season is never a guaranteed fishery. It's closed to us more often than open.
I may not have time to address whatever your next lame arguement is. I have to get ready for the Cowtilla. 
--------------------
Landslide: Stevie Nicks greatest song!
http://www.ccapnw.org
The Monster Breathes!
"Don't fall in!" Doug Richert Sr. 10/18/2008
|
boater
Offline
Chromer
Profile Status:
Reged: 05/03/01
Posts: 693
Loc: seattle
|
|
Quote:
AuntyM said:
If the returns were good enough, we probably would and it'd be fine by me.
so you dont think the tribes 50 percent of the catch that they sell to the public is not enough ?, interesting.
|
Gooose
Offline
Ancient Mod
Profile Status:
Reged: 09/14/01
Posts: 11071
Loc: Area 12
|
|
boater you are confusing allocation with conservation.
--------------------
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
|
boater
Offline
Chromer
Profile Status:
Reged: 05/03/01
Posts: 693
Loc: seattle
|
|
Quote:
boater said:
Quote:
Lead_Bouncer said:
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.
how would you change it ?, here is a link to the commision policy that shows how the esa take is split up for non-tribal fisherman for spring chinook on the columbia, it clearly shows that sport fisherman are allowed to kill more esa listed fish than the non-tribal netters, how would you change this policy if you dont think this type of management works ?
http://wdfw.wa.gov/com/policies/c3617_mar08.htm
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
