Gillnets Kill

Video: Sustainable Salmon Fishing Policy for Oregon Proposed

2011-06-05T21:49:00.000-07:00

Salmon: A history of overfishing

2011-05-10T05:34:00.000-07:00

Published: Tuesday, August 03, 2010, 6:31 AM Oregonian "The Stump"
http://blog.oregonlive.com/myoregon/2010/08/salmon_a_history_of_overfishin.html

In his recent guest column on The Stump, Raymond Collins blames a century of declining salmon runs on dams and habitat degradation. While I agree that these are two of the modern-day culprits, Collins simply cannot ignore the profound impact that 130 years of overfishing has had on Columbia River salmon. The fact is, our runs never recovered from the early days of commercial fishing and we never learned from our history.

In 1880 -- long before dams were built and logging was prevalent -- commercial fishing pressure was so intense in the lower Columbia River that just 20 miles inland from the ocean there were too few salmon to meet the demand of canneries. By 1894, the Oregon Fish and Game Protector declared, "It does not require a study of the statistics to convince one that the salmon industry has suffered a great decline during the past decade, and that it is only a matter of a few years under present conditions when the Chinook of the Columbia will be as scarce as the beaver that once was so plentiful in our streams. For a third of a century Oregon has drawn wealth from her streams, but now, by reason of her wastefulness and lack of intelligent provision for the future, the source of that wealth is disappearing and is threatened with annihilation. ..."

Maybe the next generation will learn from more than a century of mistakes, but by then our precious salmon will be extinct.

BRIAN CANINI
Keizer

Washington Mark Selective Fishing Rule Should Apply to Commercials

2010-05-26T07:27:00.000-07:00

By Bryan Irwin
Sunday, May 16, 2010
http://www.columbian.com/news/2010/may/16/selective-fishing-rule-should-be-extended/

SNIP

The decision also brings into sharp focus the dangers of the nonselective commercial gillnet fishery that continues to target these fish. This nonselective fishery for summer chinook, conducted since 2006, impacts not only wild Columbia summer chinook but five other salmon and steelhead stocks listed as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act also present in the river during fishing season. In light of this alarming mortality to wild and ESA-listed salmon populations, this fishery should not continue unless and until it can become fully mark selective.

While fishery managers have instituted more stringent rules to better protect wild salmon during the ESA-listed spring chinook fishery, commercial fishing for summer chinook is entirely nonselective. Accordingly, gillnetters need not gently handle and release wild chinook but will keep all chinook caught and sell them to the public. Unwittingly, their customers will buy depleted wild Columbia summer chinook with listed Snake River spring chinook and listed Snake River summer chinook. As if this immense bycatch of endangered salmon is not enough to turn the stomach, an unreported number of Snake River sockeye, Snake River summer steelhead and Columbia summer steelhead — all of which are listed under the ESA — will be maimed or killed by these nets to maintain this commercial fishery.

SNIP

The logic supporting nonselective gillnet fishery should trigger citizen alarm. First, managers argue that the wild Columbia summer chinook run, though very fragile, is not (yet) ESA listed, therefore a selective fishery has not been required. Next, due to extensive mortality caused by the nets in the warm water (40 percent or more) as well as the presence of many other nontarget species during the season, the gillnet fishery for summer chinook can’t be made selective.

Because gillnets suffocate fish before they can be selected, they are completely inappropriate for mixed stock, mark-selective salmon fisheries in which target and nontarget fish are virtually identical in size and run timing. In fact, there is no gillnet season more illustrative of the nonselective and wasteful nature of the gillnet than the Columbia summer chinook commercial fishery. A more prudent approach would be to simply close this fishery until selective means of commercial harvest, currently being tested, are required.

Oregon CCA Gillnet Ban Initiative Backers Submit Changes to Gain Sport Support

2010-05-26T07:23:00.000-07:00

http://tnscommunicationswa.books.officelive.com/OregonGillNetBanUpdates.aspx
By Terry W. Sheely, The Reel News

Schamp, the primary motivator behind the ballot drive, acknowledged that, “The main criticism of the Protect Our Salmon Act initiative has been that this isn't the right process for this kind of change. Many feel that the legislature should have another crack at changing the laws to protect the fish and fisheries.

“We don't necessarily disagree,” he said, “but last session's failure to make any meaningful progress is the main reason why we launched the initiative.”

NSIA employs a legislative lobbyists and has for several years been pushing for change through the legislatures in Washington and Oregon. Both NSIA and CCA are targeting non-selective bycatch wastes of non-targeted salmon, steelhead and sturgeon in the existing commercial gillnet fishery.

Where they differ is on how the problem could and should be fixed.

NSIA is taking its fight to the state legislatures, CCA is going straight to the voters.

Wild Salmon Center Advocates For Selective Fishing

2010-05-05T08:53:00.000-07:00

The state of Pacific salmon? Not so wild
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/05/the_state_of_pacific_salmon_no.html
May 04, 2010, 9:00AM
By Pete Rand

A growing number of new policy alternatives potentially are on the table, including: establishing protection for wild salmon to ensure against further loss of local populations; controlling the amount of hatchery fish that stray into streams supporting wild salmon; and encouraging fishing practices that reduce the take of wild salmon while selectively targeting hatchery fish. In certain cases, these approaches might require scaling back hatchery releases in the future or committing to experimental approaches to rigorously test our assumptions.

The challenges facing the region are daunting. In the lower 48 states, Pacific salmon recovery plans need to fully account for the true economic, environmental and social costs of hatchery fish. In Alaska, half of the salmon fishery now consists of hatchery fish, and there's interest within the fishing industry to further expand hatchery production. In Russia, there are federal plans to greatly expand hatchery production in the western Pacific region. Hatchery development in Japan remains a cautionary tale, where hatchery salmon currently dominate and relatively few wild salmon persist.

Without action, the story of wild Pacific salmon will remain the same: Spending on hatcheries is up, wild fish are down and there is no clear end in sight. These are outcomes we can no longer afford.

Pete Rand is a conservation biologist with State of the Salmon, a joint program of Portland-based Ecotrust and the Wild Salmon Center.

Gill-net fishing must be reformed

2010-01-19T07:58:00.000-08:00

Published: Monday, January 18, 2010
http://heraldnet.com/article/20100118/OPINION02/701189993

Excellent Jan. 10 column in The Herald, “Who’s really in charge,” by Jerry Cornfield about the legislative session now under way, and a list of our legislative representatives by district.

One bill that has been introduced, HB 2266, is a ban on non-selective way of fishing by gill nets. The bill replaces it with selective methods, proven over the years to work, but deemed illegal many years back through the legislative process.

The importance to this is a law mandating that the Fish and Wildlife Commission make fishing available for commercial and sport fishers alike. Both groups are trying to catch hatchery fish, designated by a missing adipose fin, clipped at the hatchery before the fish are released as smolts.

The problem is that many wild fish that are listed as threatened or endangered are being caught while fishing for hatchery fish. Gill nets don’t allow you to sort and release the fish unharmed. Killing endangered fish and non-targeted fish like sturgeon, and also birds, is the issue. The law states that only targeted hatchery fish may be kept. All others must be released, but are usually dead.

Common sense would tell us that this wasteful method needs to be reformed.

Sport fishers already use selective methods and it is time that commercials fishers follow suit.

Hopefully, our legislators will want to preserve and protect a Washington state icon that represents us on our state quarter. Please take a few minutes to e-mail your legislators. They want to hear from you.

Lewis Boyd
Everett

CCA Launches Ballot Initiative to Recover Oregon's Iconic Salmon Runs

2009-12-24T06:28:00.000-08:00

COASTAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
Resource-First
Science-Based
Advocates for Marine Resources
BRIEFING DOCUMENT
for
Protect Our Salmon Act

Ensuring the sustainability of a vital natural and economic resource

The Issue...
Oregon’s wild salmon and steelhead runs, a vital natural resource, have dramatically declined, with many runs either extinct or endangered. While billions of dollars have been spent on recovery through habitat, hydro and hatchery improvements, a key issue has often been overlooked: the methods used to harvest salmon. The commercial fishing gear currently used in Columbia River salmon fisheries includes gill nets and tangle nets. Gill nets are designed to snare fish by the gills, leading to injury, suffocation and death. Due to their indiscriminate and destructive nature, gill
nets and tangle nets kill or injure large numbers of Endangered Species Act-listed and wild salmon, steelhead and other species. Ironically, Oregon – which strives to be a global leader in sustainability – is one of the few states in the country to still allow gill nets.

Banning the use of gill nets and tangle nets and using gear that can selectively harvest hatchery fish – while allowing for the release of wild fish – is an effective, achievable way to help recover wild salmon and steelhead and create a sustainable fishery. It provides a greater return on the investment that taxpayers have contributed to salmon recovery, and is consistent with Oregon’s commitment to the responsible and sustainable use of the state’s natural resources.

An initiative to sustain and recover Oregon’s salmon runs. The Protect Our Salmon Act bans the use of non-selective gill nets and tangle nets in Oregon waters -- including the Columbia River -- for catching salmon and other food fish. The Act also calls for the use of selective harvest practices.

Commercial Fishing Jobs Maintained. To minimize any economic impact to commercial fishermen who currently use gill nets or tangle nets, the Act establishes a fund (and appropriate oversight) to compensate commercial fishermen for the transition to alternative, selective gear that can harvest returning hatchery fish while protecting endangered wild salmon and steelhead populations.

Tribal fishing rights remain intact. The Protect Our Salmon Act is not intended to affect any tribal fishing rights, or the right to use any fishing gear allowed under tribal fishing rights in the waters of the state of Oregon established by laws, treaty or otherwise.

Coastal Conservation Association
BACKGROUND ON PROTECT OUR SALMON ACT

The worldwide emphasis on sustainability puts Oregon’s commitment to conservation in the spotlight. The state’s longstanding leadership on issues such as water quality, recycling, transportation and energy has nurtured a growing number of industries, policies and practices aimed at balancing economic health with the sustainability of
Oregon’s natural resources.

Oregon’s failure to protect and enhance the state’s wild salmon runs threatens the state’s credibility as a leader in conservation. Wild salmon, an important natural and economic resource, remain on the brink of extinction in many areas. Each year taxpayers, electric utility rate payers and others collectively contribute about $1 billion to recovery efforts, yet more than half of our region's salmon runs are extinct and others are in decline.

A key issue has been overlooked in efforts to recover the state’s salmon runs: the method of harvest. Currently, the commercial fishing gear used in many areas of the state (gill nets and tangle nets) is non-selective and kills large numbers of ESA-listed and wild salmon and steelhead. Gill nets are designed to “gill” fish snared in the nets,
leading to injury, suffocation and death before unharmed release is possible. Nearly all marine life that gets caught in a gill net dies, from salmon and steelhead to seals and seabirds. Oregon is one of the few places in the country to still allow gill nets, a method clearly at odds with the state’s long-standing commitment to sustainable practices.

Coastal Conservation Association is advancing an initiative to protect wild salmon and create sustainable salmon harvests. The Protect Our Salmon Act bans the use of gill nets and tangle nets in Oregon waters, including the Columbia River, and calls for the use of selective harvest practices.

To minimize any economic impact to commercial fishermen who currently use gill nets or tangle nets, the Act establishes a fund (and appropriate oversight) to compensate commercial fishermen for the transition to alternative, selective gear that can harvest returning hatchery fish while protecting endangered wild salmon and steelhead
populations. This selective gear was commonly used decades ago in Oregon’s waters and is currently being tested by state and tribal officials in Washington State.

The Act does not affect any tribal fishing rights, or the right to use any fishing gear allowed under tribal fishing rights in the waters of the state of Oregon established by laws, treaty or otherwise. Banning the use of gill nets and tangle nets and using selective gear that allows for the release of wild fish is an effective, achievable way to create a sustainable commercial and recreational fishery for the citizens of Oregon. It provides a greater return on the investment that taxpayers have contributed to salmon recovery, and is consistent with Oregon’s commitment to the responsible and sustainable use of the state’s natural resources.

News Release

Coastal Conservation Association
1006 W. 11th St. Vancouver, WA 98660
Email: bryan.irwin@ccapnw.org Web site: www.CCAPNW.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Bryan Irwin, 877-255-8772
CCA Helps Launch Ballot Initiative to Recover Oregon’s Iconic Salmon Runs

PORTLAND – Coastal Conservation Association is launching a ballot initiative to help save the last remnants of Oregon’s iconic wild salmon runs, and to create a sustainable salmon fishery for current and future generations. The Protect Our Salmon Act would ban the use of gill nets and tangle nets in Oregon waters, including the Columbia River.
The Act calls for the use of commercial fishing practices that selectively harvest returning hatchery fish, while protecting endangered wild salmon, steelhead and other species.

“Oregon’s failure to protect and enhance our wild salmon runs threatens the state’s credibility as a leader in sustainability,” said Dave Schamp, Chairman of Coastal Conservation Association’s Oregon Board of directors and a chief petitioner of the initiative. “Each year taxpayers, electric utility rate payers and others collectively contribute about $1 billion to recovery efforts, yet wild salmon, an important natural and economic resource for our state, remain on the brink of extinction.”

While habitat, hydro and hatchery improvements are important to salmon recovery efforts, a key issue has been overlooked: the method of harvest. Currently, the commercial fishing gear used in the Columbia River (gill nets and tangle nets) is nonselective and kills large numbers of ESA-listed and wild salmon and steelhead. Gill nets
are designed to “gill” fish snared in the nets, leading to injury, suffocation and death before unharmed release is possible. Nearly all marine life that gets caught in a gill net dies, from salmon and steelhead to seals and seabirds. Oregon is one of the few places in the country to still allow gill nets, a method clearly at odds with the state’s longstanding commitment to sustainable practices.

To minimize any economic impact to commercial fishermen who currently use gill nets or tangle nets, the Act establishes a fund (and appropriate oversight) to compensate commercial fishermen for the transition to alternative, selective gear. The Act does not affect any tribal fishing rights, or the right to use any fishing gear allowed under tribal fishing rights in the waters of the state of Oregon established by laws, treaty or otherwise. CCA members will immediately begin to gather signatures to place this issue on the ballot in November of 2010.

“Banning the use of gill nets and tangle nets and using selective gear that allows for the release of wild fish is an effective, achievable way to create a sustainable commercial and recreational fishery for the citizens of Oregon,” said Schamp. “It provides a greater return on the investment that taxpayers have contributed to salmon recovery, and is consistent with Oregon’s commitment to the responsible and sustainable use of the state’s natural resources.”

Coastal Conservation Association is a non-profit organization comprised of 200 chapters in 17 coastal states spanning the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic and Pacific coasts. In 2007, CCA expanded into the Pacific Northwest and the organization has quickly grown to more than 9,000 members and continues to launch chapters in both Oregon and
Washington. As the largest marine conservation organization in the country, CCA’s grassroots influence is felt through state capitals, U.S. Congress and, most importantly, in the conservation and restoration of our marine resources.

Colville Tribes, States Test 'Selective' Commercial Fishing Gear To Reduce Wild Fish Mortality

2009-10-22T03:53:00.000-07:00

Posted on Friday, October 16, 2009 (PST)
http://www.cbbulletin.com/361285.aspx

The notion of harvesting fish from the Columbia River basin with "selective" commercial gear is gaining attention, with central Washington's Colville Tribes among those taking the lead. The ultimate goal is to boost the harvest of hatchery fish while aiding in the conservation of imperiled wild salmon and steelhead stocks.

By picking and choosing what's harvested, fishery managers could better control the straying of hatchery fish onto spawning grounds, and also pluck out enough wild fish to enhance gene pools at hatcheries. The latest science indicates that a mingling of hatchery and wild fish on the spawning grounds can reduce the fitness of the natural
population, while an infusion of wild native genes can likely improve the hatchery product.

"I think it's going to take time, but I think it's going to move forward," the Colville Tribes' Joe Peone said of the desire to see selective techniques employed upstream and downstream by sport and commercial fishers. Peone is director of the tribes' fish and wildlife department.

In the mid-Columbia region where the Colvilles fish, the ability to live capture fish would aid in the recovery of stocks that are protected under the Endangered Species Act, such as Upper Columbia wild spring chinook salmon and steelhead. The wild fish could be released to continue their spawning journey and marked hatchery fish harvested to fill tribal members' stores.

The ideal is to identify gear that can be obtained at relatively low cost and can be operated with high catch rates and high fish release survival.

"You can use a whole range of gears in different areas," Keith Kutchins told the Northwest Power and Conservation Council during an August presentation about the gear testing. Kutchins supervised the testing last year and again this year. Considered would be beach and purse seine netting, fishwheels, weirs, hoop nets, tangle nets, dip nets, angling,surface Merwin traps and other alternatives.

Tribal tests using a variety of gear are continuing for the second season with positive results. For five days in late September tribal researchers deployed a purse seine in the reservoir above Wells Dam on the mid-Columbia to test, primarily, its effectiveness at harvesting steelhead without harming protected members of the run.

The score? Some 68 fin-clipped hatchery steelhead "keepers," seven unmarked wild fish that were released, and zero wild steelhead mortalities.

The catch was modest given the enormity of this year's steelhead run, but tribal fishermen proved once again that they could catch and release wild fish relatively unharmed with the purse seine.

"I'd say we've had a real good year," Colville biologist James Ives said of the spring, summer and fall gear testing. One disappointment was the inability to land larger numbers of steelhead from what is a banner 2009 run. Through Oct. 9 a total of 38,709 steelhead had been counted swimming up Priest Rapid Dam's fish ladders. That's the second highest count on record.

The count upriver at Wells Dam through Oct. 13 includes 8,280 wild steelhead and 15,756 hatchery origin steelhead. But, "it was really slim pickings. We though we would catch a lot of steelhead but it just didn't happen," Ives said. "We just didn't find them."

The following week the tribes used a "tangle" net, catching another 44 steelhead, including 33 hatchery fish and 11 "natural origin" steelhead. Unfortunately, six of the wild fish died, leaving that gear with a 55 percent mortality rate for steelhead. Tangle nets had been used in 2008 to catch summer chinook with an 80 percent survival rate. The tangle nets have a smaller mesh than traditional gill-nets so that netted fish are less likely to "gilled" and suffocated.

"Purse seines are the way to go" in most instances for steelhead and performed well on other species as well, tribal biologist Michael Rayton said. The tribes will spend more time this fall using tangle nets to target coho salmon.

Using the purse seine this summer and fall the tribes harvested 2,394 summer chinook, including 1,196 hatchery origin and 1,198 natural origin fish with only four mortalities. That amounts to a 99 percent direct survival rate, according to preliminary data compiled by the researchers. They also caught 62 summer chinook with tangle nets and released 24 of the fish that were of natural origin. The survival rate was nearly 88 percent.

The tribes also caught 14,422 sockeye this summer, about 500 with a tangle net and the rest with the purse seine. The summer-fall chinook or the sockeye are not ESA-listed. But the tribes' want a sufficient number of the wild fish to escape spawn and keep the populations healthy. The 700-foot long purse seine is deployed in a J or U shape, extending down into the water 40 feet. As it fills with fish, the ends are pulled together to entrap salmon and other stocks.

"You can go through and pick those that have an adipose fin and let them swim over the cork line" to continue their journey, Kutchins said. Most of the hatchery fish are marked with a clipped adipose fin.

Tribal officials are promoting the use of selective gear and showcasing their results. They presented this year's preliminary research data to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission as well as to the NPCC. Peone said that about 30 different people, most of them fishery managers, came out during August to watch the tribes' gear testing.

Much of the test fishing took place at the confluence of the Columbia and Okanogan rivers and in the Okanogan and at its confluence with the Similkameen. "We've been up there and people have been out with us," the WDFW's Eric Kinne said of the learning process related to selective fishing. The state agency this year launched its own tests of live capture gear.

The WDFW this late summer-early fall targeted tule fall chinook and early-run coho using the same purse seine boat, Dreamcatcher, used by the Colvilles. The boat was specially outfitted for the tribes and was leased this past season. But, the tribes intend to buy it, Peone said.

The state is testing three selective gear types -- purse and beach seines and a floating Merwin trap. All corral fish while leaving them free-swimming. Once contained, fish can be identified and released by type or species with a minimum amount of handling.

"Instantaneous mortality is next to none," Kinne said of the state's gear tests. And again the purse seine did best, sweeping in about 100 fish per day, including tule and bright fall chinook, coho, steelhead and a few small sturgeon. The beach seine netted about 70 fish per day and the Merwin trap only 16 total, Kinne said.

The one-year pilot study is supported by $200,000 in federal funding. If selective gear is employed it would allow commercial fishers to catch more hatchery fish overall by reducing the mortality rate. Impacts (mortalities) on listed wild fish serve to limit both sport and commercial harvests.

It is estimate that standard mesh gill-nets cause a post release mortality of 30 percent for steelhead and 40 percent for spring chinook salmon. The estimates for smaller mesh tangle nets are 14.7 percent for spring chinook and 18 percent for steelhead. In the fall the estimated steelhead mortality is 66 percent when gill-nets with 8-inch mesh are deployed and 59 percent with 9-inch mesh.

The WDFW says the pilot study is likely just the first step in a multi-year effort to identify -- and likely modify -- commercial fishing gear for possible incorporation into fisheries. The state contracted with commercial fishermen to conduct the tests.

Shifting to more selective gear is consistent with principles developed by the Hatchery Scientific Review Group and with the state's Conservation and Sustainable Fisheries Plan, Kinne said. The HSRG says selective fisheries should be used to control the number of strays on spawning grounds and help fortify hatchery broodstock.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife will be testing more selective gear as well in the coming days, evaluating the effectiveness of using tangle nets on coho salmon.

The Colvilles would like to see some of the returning salmon get through the gauntlet of fisheries that the fish face in the ocean and in the lower Columbia.
"We're at the end of the line," Peone said. Funding for the Colville gear testing was approved as part of the NPCC's 2007-2009 fish and wildlife program budget and guaranteed in May 2008 with the signing of a memorandum of agreement that calls for continued testing through 2010 and deployment of selective gear, if appropriate through 2017.

The MOA was signed by the tribes, the Bonneville Power Administration, the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. BPA provides funding for the Council program and for much of the work called for in the MOA. The selective fish gear evaluation and deployment is earmarked for $2.8 million over the 10-year span.

COMMENTARY: How fishing can help wild salmon recovery

2009-10-01T18:53:00.000-07:00

Wednesday, September 30 | 6:19 p.m.
BY BRYAN IRWIN, CCA Pacific Northwest (http://www.ccapnw.org)

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife recently invited anglers to "contribute to wild-salmon recovery" by catching up to six hatchery coho a day. You might ask, "How will more fishing bring recovery?"

The key is that anglers can fish "mark-selectively." Their gear allows most salmon to be released relatively unharmed, so the anglers can keep the hatchery fish (identifiable by a clipped adipose fin) and safely release wild "unmarked" salmon to spawn.

This is welcome news for wild salmon recovery and sports anglers alike, but also underscores the need for commercial fishing gear with a similar capacity for mark-selective harvest.

WDFW's efforts to target hatchery fish for harvest follow salmon recovery science.

The Hatchery Scientific Review Group, an independent group of scientists, studied wild salmon populations and recommended ways to restore them.

The HSRG identified increased mark-selective fishing as a key to both wild salmon recovery and hatchery reform efforts because it allows wild fish returns to increase while simultaneously reducing the proportion of hatchery fish reaching the spawning grounds.

Many scientists believe excessive "straying" of hatchery fish into natural spawning areas negatively impacts the fitness and productivity of wild salmon populations.

In some Washington rivers, excess hatchery strays exceed the HSRG guidelines by more than 200 percent.

Unused returns of hatchery fish can also represent a waste of public resources.

For example, nearly 75,000 surplus hatchery coho returned to the Cowlitz River hatchery last year alone.

If we fail to harvest commercially these fish more efficiently, the likely alternative to address the level of hatchery straying is to cut hatchery production, which would have a profound effect on recreational, commercial and tribal fisheries.

A selective commercial fishery is important to provide salmon to the public and help harvest the large number of hatchery fish that return each year, while enabling endangered wild salmon populations to recover.

Read the rest at: http://columbian.com/article/20090930/SPORTS04/710019956/-1/SPORTS

Colville Tribes' Selective Fishing Gear Tests Show Low Wild Summer Chinook Mortality

2009-10-01T09:35:00.000-07:00

http://www.bluefish.org/gearlows.htm
by Staff
Columbia Basin Bulletin, February 6, 2009

Central Washington's Colville Tribes have seen early successes in tests of selective fishing gear that they say can increase the viability of wild salmon populations by allowing increased spawner escapement and lessening the straying of hatchery fish on to spawning grounds.

The tribe is now encouraging others -- sport and commercial fishers on the lower Columbia River, in particular -- to jump on board.

"We as salmon managers must begin to use our harvesting efforts and methods as a tool to ensure the abundance and security of this precious resource," the tribes' Joe Peone told the Columbia River Compact last week. "The Colville Tribes believe that harvest management must step up now and make a positive contribution to summer chinook viability."

The Compact, which sets Columbia mainstem commercial fishing seasons, is comprised of representatives of the Oregon and Washington department of fish and wildlife directors. The two states also co-manage mainstem recreational fisheries.

The Upper Columbia summer chinook stock is on a bit of a rebound thanks to hatchery supplementation programs and habitat improvements. The 1980s and 1990s were bleak with average returns of only 19,800 and 15,500 adults respectively, according the Jan. 26 ODFW-WDFW joint staff report.

The summer chinook became hemmed in when the completion of Grand Coulee Dam in 1941 blocked access to more than 500 miles of upper Columbia habitat. The summer chinook's range was further reduced with the completion in 1961 of Chief Joseph Dam 50 miles downstream.

No commercial fisheries for summer chinook were allowed between 1964 and 2005; no sport fisheries were allowed between 1974 and 2001. Since completion of the Columbia River hydro system, summer chinook redds are found in the Columbia, Wenatchee, Okanogan, Methow, Similkameen, Chelan and Entiat rivers, according to the joint staff report.

The 2009 preseason forecast is for a return of 70,700 adult Upper Columbia summer chinook to the mouth of the Columbia

Seasons set in recent years have not required live-capture commercial equipment or catch-and-release sport fishing. The Colville Tribes say selective fishing is needed to assure needed wild summer escapement to spawning grounds and provide broodstock for hatchery programs.

"... our modeling assessments indicate that the Colville Tribes' selective fishing alone cannot ensure sufficient escapement of wild summer chinook in the face of high ocean and river exploitation" Peone said of needed wild returns to the upper Columbia and Okanogan rivers. He cited ocean and lower river harvests that target nearly 70 percent of the summer chinook and the travails of passing over nine mainstem dams, which cause 15 percent mortality.

The tribes last year started evaluations of selective fishing gear with the encouragement, and funding, from federal agencies charged with assuring protected salmon and steelhead stocks aren't jeopardized. Those stock listed under the Endangered Species Act include endangered Upper Columbia River steelhead and spring chinook salmon.

The tests were approved as part of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council's 2007-2009 fish and wildlife program budget and were cemented in May with the signing of a memorandum of agreement that calls for continued testing through 2010 and deployment of selective gear if appropriate through 2017.

The MOA was signed by the tribes, the Bonneville Power Administration, the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. BPA provides funding for the Council program and for much of the work called for in the MOA. The selective fish gear evaluation and deployment is earmarked for $2.8 million over the 10-year span.

The MOA project narratives say "live-capture selective fishing gears have the potential to harvest 20 to 60 hatchery fish for every wild fish or non-target fish mortality. These gears allow tribal harvests to therefore occur at much lower mortalities to ESA-listed species. Use of the gears also remove excess numbers of hatchery-origin fish from escapements, thereby increasing the productivity of the natural spawning populations."

"Results should also have wide applicability throughout the Columbia Basin to increase harvest of hatchery stocks while providing increased survival of listed wild populations."

So far the Colville's have only been tested the gear on an unlisted stock -- the Upper Columbia summer chinook. There were 479 hatchery chinook caught during tribal ceremonial and subsistence fisheries last summer using beach and purse seines and small mesh tangle nets. Also swept in were 297 unmarked wild fish that were released. Only 26 wild summer chinook were killed -- 25 of them in the tangle nets.

Peone said that the tangle nets might not be an option in summer when the river water is too warm and the fish become easily stressed while tangled in the small-mesh gill-nets. The fish can't be left in the nets for long. The tangle nets are used on the lower Columbia during spring chinook fisheries and could be appropriate upriver in spring as well, Peone said.

The seines performed with a direct mortality rate of well below 1 percent, according to Steve Smith, a consultant for the tribes. The purse and beach seines basically encircle the fish and allow hatchery fish to be plucked out and fish without a fin clip left in the water. Keith Kutchins supervised the seining operation, which leaves the captured fish, essentially, free swimming.

"He said they're very calm. They're not stressed," Smith said. The purse seine experiment in all netted 544 sockeye salmon and 314 hatchery and 112 wild summer chinook without a wild fatality. The beach seining netted 28 sockeye, 184 hatchery chinook and 99 wild chinook. One wild summer chinook died.

The fishing took place at the confluence of the Columbia and Okanogan rivers and in the Okanogan and at its confluence with the Similkameen.

A summer chinook hatchery supplementation focused in the Similkameen and the Okanogan releases a total of 476,000 yearling fish annually from net pens. And in good years the wild component, which includes adult returns that are the progeny of supplemented fish, can make up 60 to 70 percent of the run. The summer chinook are produced in Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife hatcheries.

"It's about the most successful chinook hatchery program in the entire basin" in the good years, Smith said. He did acknowledge that occasionally, overwarm water conditions and other factors can cause dieoffs.

The Okanogan is in an arid ecosystem and has a relatively flat pitch in comparison to many Northwest rivers.

"But it's tremendous habitat," Smith said, comparing it to southern Idaho where mainstem spawning fall chinook salmon once flourished. One of the problems with the habitat is sedimentation that has settled into spawning gravels.

The sedimentation problem is something the tribe hopes fish will fix themselves. A proposed Chief Joseph Hatchery, also earmarked for funding in the MOA, would allow the production an additional 2 million young summer chinook, of which 1.1 million would go to the Okanogan system and others (600,000) would be released at the base Chief Joseph Dam to feed terminal fisheries and in the Columbia.

It's projected that the increased production will result in an increased adult return above Wells Dam of from 6,000 to 29,000 annually.

"We're going to be using them to clean the gravels," Smith said of eventual increased numbers of wild fish thrashing the river bottom clean before depositing eggs.

The Colville Tribes call the late season salmon summer-fall chinook. The earliest arrivals seem to find their way higher up toward the headwaters and in tributaries.

"The later they get there the lower down they spawn," Peone said. The tribes have in recent years been outplanting some yearling spring chinook in the Okanogan, where that stock had been extirpated.

The summer chinook "harvestable surplus" is split annually between upriver and downriver non-Indian fishers and tribes. In recent years the Colville subsistence and ceremonial fisheries have not been able to harvest their entire allocation so have offered a share back to the states. That allows non-tribal fisheries more fishing opportunity.

"..., what is clear now is that granting harvest allocation from the Colville Tribal selective fishery to non-tribal non-selective fisheries only increases the mortality to wild fish, which is unacceptable to the Colville Tribes," Peone told that Compact.

He urged the states to immediately initiate research on selective fishing gears for commercial fisheries and to plan for selective sport fisheries this summer.

The states "are on the cusp" of having to consider implementing lower Columbia marked-selective summer chinook fisheries every year, according to Heather Bartlett, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Salmon and Steelhead Division manager. The WDFW bases such decisions on such factors as mark rates in each fishery, availability and feasibility of appropriate selective gear and broodstock management needs.

Until last year relatively low mark rates made selective fisheries unfeasible. Bartlett said the mark rate should be at least 50 percent for a selective summer chinook fisheries to be worthwhile. Last year anglers caught about 2,000 chinook in more than 50,000 angler trips or 1 fish per 25 trips. If every other fish caught had to be released, the kept-fish rate per unit of effort would be halved.

The overall mainstem harvest strategy adopted by the states and tribes "hedged our concerns for assuring abundant escapement and providing harvest," Bartlett said. That harvest framework limits all non-treaty fishing to minimal levels when the run size is below escapement.

At levels of low allowable harvest, up to a 50,000 run size, harvest opportunity should be allocated almost exclusively to upstream areas, to meet Colville and Wanapum needs as well as provide recreational fishing in the upstream areas which typically have limited salmon angling opportunities.

Mark rates are now "at the borderline" of justifying marked-selective sport fisheries, Bartlett said.

Columbia River Salmon: Selective Fishing for All

2009-06-16T14:25:00.000-07:00

by Virginia L. Ross, guest opinion
Saturday May 16, 2009, 8:30 AM
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/05/columbia_river_salmon_selectiv.html

Whether we buy, catch or just marvel at salmon, we need to unite now to save 13 stocks of wild Columbia River salmon and steelhead from extinction. The best, most immediate route to recovery is to minimize our deadly harvest impacts on these wild fish.

Regrettably, our view of salmon harvest reform is distorted by the battle for salmon allocation among three user groups -- sport, commercial and tribal fishers ("Salmon standoff," April 26).

Our concern should focus more directly on the fish, not the fishers. What the wild fish need for recovery is selective fishing by all harvest groups.

In 2000, Congress appointed the Hatchery Scientific Review Group, an international, independent group of scientists, to study wild salmon and steelhead populations and recommend ways to conserve and restore them. The group strongly recommended increased selective fishing as a key to both wild salmon recovery and hatchery reform.

Selective fishing reduces damage to wild fish and removes more hatchery salmon from the river. Uncaught hatchery salmon often stray into and overwhelm wild spawning habitats, where they compete with wild fish for spawning territory. By cross-breeding over time, hatchery fish also dilute precious wild fish genetics. Harvesting more hatchery fish makes economic sense, too. Wild fish are more productive spawners, so selective fishing maximizes investments in habitat. A far worse solution looms: Major cuts in hatchery production to help restore wild fish would dramatically reduce harvest opportunities for all.

The Oregonian's editorial board recently made clear that gillnets used by our commercial fishers and most tribal fishers are "the least selective way to fish" ("All tangled up in nets," April 11). By design, gillnets kill and injure wild fish at alarming rates of up to 40 percent or more. Some tout "tanglenets," gillnets with a smaller mesh size, as a viable alternative, but they also kill far too many non-commercial steelhead and wild salmon. Sport gear causes the least damage and is highly selective but is not efficient for commercial harvest.

The answer? Consider the example of the Colville Tribe in the upper Columbia. Using a refitted gillnet boat and a small-mesh seine, the tribe captures all its salmon alive and selects only hatchery fish for harvest, releasing wild fish unharmed. Opportunities are ripe, but the constant fish allocation battle drains our time, energy and money.

It's in everyone's interest to fish selectively if we are going to fish at all. Indiscriminating nets that suffocate and kill wild salmon and steelhead before harvest should step aside in favor of live capture gear. Gillnets gained their monopoly decades ago under a banner of conservation. Now wild fish recovery demands they make way for new fishing methods. Bold political vision and leadership in Salem and Olympia can unite us with a new goal: selective fishing for all. As a society we will harvest more hatchery fish, maximize our hatchery and habitat investments, and most importantly restore and recover our fragile wild salmon and steelhead runs.

Virginia L. Ross is a Portland attorney and wild fish advocate.

CCA Oregon / Stephen H. Smith HSRG Presentation 3/26/09

2009-05-09T07:00:00.000-07:00

CCA Oregon, Tualatin Valley Chapter invites you to hear Stephen H. Smith of the Hatchery Scientific Review Group speak on selective harvest and give his presentation on the scientific method for recovering wild salmon through selective harvest reform. Assisting CCA Oregon at a March 26th hearing in Salem on this topic, Stephen presented some of the findings of the Hatchery Scientific Review Group with an excellent powerpoint that highlighted the new live capture harvest method now being employed by the Colville Tribe in the Upper Columbia River.

Click To Play

Come to the CCA TV Chapter meeting to meet Steve and find out much more about selective harvest gear testing and wild fish recovery.

COASTAL CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
Tualatin Valley Chapter
MAY MEETING NOTICE

DATE: Monday May 18th, 2009 7:00PM

PLACE: Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue Building
20665 SW Blanton Street
Aloha, OR 97007

AGENDA:

6:00 – 6:45 pm Board of Directors Only

6:45 – 7:00pm Social Time

7:00 – 8:00 pm GENERAL MEETING

8:00 – 8:15 pm Question/Answers & Drawing

8:15 – 8:30 pm Adjourn

Gov. Kitzhaber Supports Safe for Salmon

2009-05-06T07:51:00.000-07:00

Here is

To Members of the Legislature:

I am writing in support of House Bill 2734/Senate Bill 554, the SAFE for Salmon Plan. It is time to end the decades-old acrimonious conflict between the sport and commercial fishing industries; and to replace it with a long term vision for the Lower Columbia fishery.

The decline and volatility of Columbia Basin salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon populations has reached unacceptable levels. Thirteen of eighteen salmon and steelhead species that migrate through the Lower Columbia are now federally listed as threatened or endangered. Commercial gill nets in the lower Columbia main stem kill a high proportion of the wild fish that are unintentionally tangled ("by catch"). The subsequent reduction of endangered wild fish moving into the upstream spawning grounds forces federal regulators to constrain sport and commercial fishing which, in turn, harms communities around Oregon whose economies rely in part on those industries. At the same time the tens of thousands of hatchery fish moving upstream spawn with wild fish hampering the recovery of these native stocks.

HB 2734/SB 554 offers a "win-win" solution by prohibiting gill nets in the main stem of the Columbia but allowing them in "SAFE" areas located in bays and sloughs along the edge of the river. A portion of juvenile salmon hatchery releases would be moved ("directed") from tributaries to the SAFE areas to provide a stable source of fish for commercial harvest by the gill netters. At the same time, the unintended yet indiscriminant killing of wild fish by gill nets would be dramatically reduced; more wild fish would move upstream reducing the pressure on federal agencies to curtail sport and commercial fishing; and this, in turn would help relieve the economic burden on Oregon communities which rely in part on these industries. Furthermore, this approach would enhance recovery efforts of endangered fish by reducing the number of hatchery fish straying onto the wild fish spawning grounds.

Directed commercial fisheries have successfully been taking place in SAFE areas for two decades now. They are effective and non-controversial and provide a much needed product for the seafood industry. The concerns of commercial gill netters that the return of hatchery salmon to safe areas might not be sufficient to maintain their industry can be addressed by phasing this program in over a number of years with way points to access the size of the returning runs of hatchery fish and thus ensure the continued viability of this important part of our natural resource industries.

We have reached a crisis point for Columbia River fisheries and the businesses it supports. Our wild fish runs are disappearing as are thousands of jobs that depend on sustainable fishing seasons for survival. We must craft a solution that will protect and grow our wild fish runs while stimulating economic growth and sustainable job creation in communities throughout our state. I have been deeply involved in salmon recovery issues throughout my career in public service; and the SAFE for Salmon framework offers a way to provide enhanced runs of wild fish; more sport fishing opportunity, a stable supply of fish for commercial harvest, and conservation benefits.

John A. Kitzhaber, M.D.
Oregon Governor
1995-2003

End the Gillnet Monopoly: Pass HB 2734 & HB 2579

2009-05-03T19:00:00.000-07:00

(To each member of the House Sustainability and Economic Development Committee)

I'm writing to request that you please pass out of committee two bills Oregon urgently needs: HB 2734 and HB 2579. These bills will combine to help transform the Oregon commercial salmon fishery from a subsidized monopoly employing destructive, indiscriminate gear to a modern, selective commercial salmon fishery of which Oregon can be proud.

You will find further information on the damage caused by these nets in the Pacific Northwest and around the world here: http://www.gillnetskill.com

A history of the establishment of the Columbia River gillnet monopoly and why it should be replaced can be found here.

Please also watch this 1 minute video to understand the nature of gillnetting and why it is so damaging to fish before they can be sorted.

Gillnetting: Is it mark-selective?

I am a native Oregonian who wants to both fish for salmon and buy salmon in stores and restaurants. I am equally interested in both ways to enjoy salmon, but I refuse to buy gillnet caught Columbia salmon or sturgeon because I know of the great damage this gear causes. More and more Oregonians are waking up to the facts. But by voting these bills out of committee, you will be taking a leadership role in modernizing this fishery, and your constituents will notice.

In short, the gillnet fishery is archaic, wasteful, hard to enforce, and highly damaging to our precious wild fish resources. Please make Oregon a pioneer in selective salmon fishing technology by ending Columbia River gillnetting and replacing it with a safe, sustainable, mark-selective commercial fishery such as the one currently practiced by the Colville Tribe in the upper Columbia basin.

Thank you,

Virginia Ross, J.D.
Portland, Oregon

PS Here is my recent letter to the Oregonian editors responding to their outstanding editorial on this subject All Tangled Up In Nets (4/11/09). I urge you to read the editorial.

The editors are right….it stinks! Indiscriminating gillnets, several football fields in length, monopolize commercial salmon and sturgeon fishing on the Columbia River (“All Tangled Up in Nets” 4/11/09). A select few hundred fishers pay about $75 annually to deploy these deadly nets on the Columbia a few weeks a year. By design, gillnets entangle, injure and too often kill the non-target, ESA-listed, wild, and non-commercial species they encounter, before selection and sorting are possible. Sadly, gillnetters focus more on conserving their monopoly than conserving wild fish. They turned down a grant of nearly $500K to adopt live capture gear.

It’s time for change. Urge your representatives in Salem to pass both HB 2734, to permanently remove these dangerous nets from the Columbia River, and HB 2579, to re-authorize gear capable of live capture and sorting of fish. As a pioneering state with a proud heritage of innovation and sustainable natural resource management, Oregon should not wait one more day.

VL Ross

All tangled in the nets on the Columbia

2009-04-15T10:12:00.000-07:00

by The Editorial Board of the Oregonian
Saturday April 11, 2009, 3:44 PM
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/04/all_tangled_in_the_nets_on_the.html

Threatened salmon are dying, sportfishing is crimped and an outdoor retail chain goes belly up

It stinks what passes for salmon harvest policy on the Columbia River. Everyone smells it -- lawmakers, gill-netters, sport fishermen, fish commissioners -- but all the Northwest has done is hold its collective nose.

Here's what's going on: Oregon and Washington still allow gill nets, the least selective way to fish, in the main stem of the Columbia River. The gill-netters can't help but catch and kill threatened species of salmon and steelhead. This incidental take of federally protected fish forces the curtailment of sportfishing, gutting a major Northwest industry. Guides, boat dealers and tackle manufacturers are hurting; just this week one of the region's largest retailers of fishing equipment, Joe's Sports, Outdoor & More, went out of business.

Meanwhile, tens of thousands of hatchery salmon roll upriver, flooding into spawning areas and interfering with the recovery of the threatened wild species of salmon and steelhead.

All of this makes no sense, none, yet it keeps going on. The gill-netters, backed by the seafood processors and restaurants they supply, have spent decades now locked in a fierce dispute with sport fishermen over the relative share of fish that each side is allowed to harvest. This tug of war has so poisoned river policy that both sides cannot recognize that their stubborn stances are hurting them both, and damaging wild salmon.

Snip. Read more here: http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/04/all_tangled_in_the_nets_on_the.html

There is room now, and always will be, for commercial salmon fishing on the Columbia River, if properly managed. Ultimately, though, gill-nets must be moved out of the main stem of the river. If it ever made sense to allow nonselective fishing on threatened salmon and steelhead, then kick everybody off the river while hatchery fish surge upstream, it doesn't any longer. All it does now is stink.

Salmon proposals to restrict Columbia gillnetting

2009-03-28T20:30:00.000-07:00

Other anglers still would be allowed on main river
Statesman Journal
http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009903280327

The brouhaha over Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon has been joined in the Oregon Legislature.

More than 200 people — almost everyone in the lobby overflow area watching on TV monitors sporting orange CCA (Coastal Conservation Association) ballcaps — turned out for an informational session to hear about a half-dozen bills dealing with commercial gillnetting in front of the members of the House Committee on Sustainability and Economic Development.

The two bills that have the broadest support among angling, sportfishing and conservation groups would move commercial gillnetters off the main river and into lower-river Select Area Fisheries Evaluation (SAFE) juvenile salmon release sites in sloughs and side channels.

Here is an overview of what's in the pipeline, beginning with the two that have the broadest support the sports side:

House Bill 2734 and companion Senate Bill 554: The so-called "SAFE for Salmon" legislation is the brainchild of Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association and several conservation biologists. It would require that all non-Native American gillnetting move into SAFE areas.

Companion bills HB 2579 and Senate Bill 527: These are the CCA's babies. Both would require only fixed fishing gear (basically traps) or small-mesh nets known as seines for taking commercial salmon.

The most obvious trap sites would be fish ladders, and because of the volume and flows on the Columbia, seining operations would of necessity move commercial netting into SAFE areas.

Both sets of bills are touted as lessening — some at the hearing said eliminating — the incidental take of federally protected non-hatchery wild salmon by commercial netters.

It's the allowed incidental deaths of listed salmon that caps the sport and commercial catches, proponents of the bills argued at the hearing.

So cutting the losses by the more lethal gillnetting would mean more fish for both sport and commercial anglers.

Gillnetters representatives at the hearing were vehemently opposed to moving off-river, saying that there isn't room in the SAFE areas for the fleet. And, they argued, with the reduced quality of the SAFE-area salmon, they couldn't make enough to make it a viable fishery.

Two other bills go farther.

HB 2781 and SB524: Would prohibit any non-Native American commercial nets in the Columbia for taking salmon, steelhead or sturgeon.

And there's a wild card in the deck that didn't come up during the hearing. HB 3323 would change turn the tables not just on the Columbia, but statewide. It would make guides and charters operators commercial anglers.

So that anyone who takes paying customers to fish for salmon, steelhead or sturgeon would need to be a part of what's known as a "limited-entry" fishery.

In other words a 450 cap on the number of resident licenses accompanied by hefty license ($250) and annual renewal ($50) fees as well as an "endorsement" fee ($250) and annual renewal charge of $125 to fish in each of four regions in the state.

SAFE for Salmon Lobby Day and Bill Hearing on March 26th

2009-03-16T10:29:00.001-07:00

Speak out for Salmon in Salem!
SAFE for Salmon Lobby Day and Bill Hearing on March 26th
8 AM-3 PM

The SAFE for Salmon bill, HB-2734, will be heard by the House Committee on Sustainability and Economic Development on March 26th. This is a key point in the campaign for better conservation and better fishing. We are within reach of achieving historic progress for fish and fishing -- ALL fishing.

The time has come for your voice and presence to be felt in Salem!

The campaign has gotten this far and the backs of friends and colleagues who have sacrificed time and treasure to push our cause in the Capitol. Now, on the horizon of this historic hearing, we need to launch our most aggressive lobbying effort yet and we need your help to do it.

SAFE for Salmon invites you to participate in the SAFE for Salmon Lobby Day in Salem to achieve better fishing and better fish management on the Columbia River.

Think only professional lobbyists can lobby? Think again! Legislators are most influenced by constituents who take the time to visit the Capitol to support an issue. In short, the most effective lobbyist is you! USE YOUR VOICE!

Lobby Day is an exciting opportunity to join hundreds of other concerned anglers and activists in direct meetings with your elected officials to promote SAFE for Salmon. To date, the campaign has made significant gains in Salem and legislators are aware of the problems plaguing the Columbia River fisheries. Now, they need to hear from their constituents. They need to hear from you!

Lobby day will show our elected representatives the massive levels of support for our proposal on the date of its hearing and will stress the need for immediate action.

Festivities will begin at 8 AM in the Chinook Room of the Capitol. There will be a morning briefing on tips for successful lobbying and an overview of SAFE for Salmon, delivered by Jim Martin, which will prepare you to meet your elected officials and advocate for SAFE for Salmon. Coffee and refreshments will be served.

Lunch will be provided before moving en masse to the hearing room at 1 PM. Your presence at Lobby Day and our bill hearing can help us achieve a new and better day for fish and fishermen in the Northwest. Please donate a day for better fishing for a lifetime.

R.S.V.P. by March 23rd to:

Colin Cochran

safeforsalmon@gmail.com

503.631.4747

Include in your reservation:

· Your name and phone number

· The names of your State Representative and State Senator

· Or your residential address so we can identify your elected officials. This information will help us in making appointments.

For more information on SAFE for Salmon, please visit our website at www.safeforsalmon.com

See you in Salem!

Kind Regards,

Colin Cochran

Campaign Director
SAFE for Salmon

Washington Senate Committee Considers SB 5127

2009-03-08T16:46:00.000-07:00

Bill Proposes Moving Gillnets Off Fragile CR Runs

2009-02-20T07:43:00.000-08:00

Contact: Colin Cochran, 503.631.4747, safeforsalmon@gmail.com

The SAFE for Salmon proposal, SB 554/HB 2734, proposed by the SAFE for Salmon coalition, resolves a long-standing dispute between sport and commercial fishing interests

SALEM – SB 554 and its House companion, HB 2734, co-sponsored by a bi-partisan core of legislators in both houses, offers the 2009 Legislature a chance to end forever divisive and often bitter feuding over harvests of the Columbia River's non-treaty, non-endangered hatchery salmon.

In a nutshell, the bill:

a) – Moves all non-tribal commercial fishing into well-established (and perhaps some new) selected SAFE zones off the mainstem Columbia River below Bonneville Dam.

b) – Increases the number of hatchery smolts released in those zones.

c) – Prioritizes the lower Columbia mainstem for sport fishing.

d) – Ends wasteful gill-net bycatch of federally protected salmon and small sturgeon.

e) – Reduces stray hatchery salmon on spawning grounds.

f) – Increases smolts (especially coho and fall chinook) entering the Pacific Ocean.

SB 554/HB 2734, is proposed by a broad coalition of sport and conservation groups known as “SAFE for Salmon.” It provides a permanent separation of sport and commercial fishing while enhancing fisheries for each group.

Commercial and sport-fishing industries are locked in annual arguments over catch allocations of hatchery salmon in the Columbia. The impasse currently embroils fish and wildlife commissions in Oregon and Washington in an untimely debate over who gets how many fish, leaving user groups reeling from unpredictable, abbreviated seasons.

SAFE for Salmon proposes to use the SAFE (Select Area Fisheries Enhancement) zones as intended when they were created in the 1990s.

“Millions of Bonneville Power Administration rate-payer dollars have been spent to provide safe areas where the gill-net fleet can fish with minimum effect on ESA listed stocks,” said Bill Shake, a co-author of the proposal. Shake is a retired northwest regional assistant director for fisheries and Columbia River senior policy adviser for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. His timely testimony was made in January 2008 to the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission.

"SAFE for Salmon is one of those rare creatures that benefits everybody at little to no cost," said Jim Martin, principal author of the SAFE for Salmon proposal and retired chief of fisheries for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. "Wild fish avoid capture in gill nets, thus aiding their recovery; commercial fishing fleets capture the same amount or more fish, anglers get full and regular fishing seasons, and the Oregon economy reaps the benefits from two rejuvenated and healthy industries that create jobs, drive our local communities and pump millions into the state."

Senator Alan Bates (D-Ashland), SAFE for Salmon's chief sponsor in the Senate, praised SAFE for Salmon as a new way forward. "For too long the competing interests on the Columbia River have been locked in conflict as one side's gains often came at the expense of the others,” he said. “SAFE for Salmon is unique in its balance and offers a fair compromise that will help all sides, including the fish, prosper beyond their current state."

SAFE for Salmon, has been introduced in the Oregon House of Representative by Representative Scott Brunn (R-West Linn). Brunn called gill-netting on the lower Columbia “antiquated and indiscriminate.” “The evidence that gill-netting causes ecologic and economic damage is clear,” he said. “It's time to bring Oregon's Salmon fisheries into the 21st century."

###

For more information on the SAFE for Salmon Campaign go to www.safeforsalmon.com or call 503.631.4747

CCA calls for end to night gillnetting

2009-02-05T06:57:00.000-08:00

Wednesday, February 4 | 6:12 p.m.
BY ALLEN THOMAS, COLUMBIAN STAFF WRITER
http://www.columbian.com/article/20090204/SPORTS04/702059955/-1/SPORTS

The Coastal Conservation Association is calling for an end to night-hours gillnetting in the lower Columbia River.

Ed Wickersham, chairman of the Government Relations Committee of CCA-Washington, told the Columbia River Compact last week that the old arguments for commercial fishing at night are no longer valid.

For decades, night gillnetting was considered necessary to avoid conflicts with sport fishermen during the day, Wickersham said.

But in 2008, spring chinook fishing was closed on Tuesdays in the Columbia River to accommodate the commercial fleet, he said.

Sturgeon angling between the Wauna power lines near Cathlamet and Bonneville Dam is open for retention only on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays during January through July and October through December, with no retention in August and September.

"You can model sturgeon and salmon fisheries around the closed recreational days,'' Wickersham said.

The other argument for night fishing was that commercial gear is not effective during the day.

Yet in a 12-hour daylight sturgeon fishery from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Sept. 18, the commercial fleet landed 1,021 fish, he said.

"The commercials are mostly honest fishermen,'' Wickersham said. "But under the cover of darkness a few will take advantage of the rules.''

Sport fishing for salmon and sturgeon has been limited to the daylight hours for two decades, he added.

Bob Fehlen, a CCA member from Washougal, said that commercial fishing for spring chinook in March comes during the peak of wild winter steelhead movement through the lower Columbia.

Fehlen said there is little enforcement or monitoring of the gillnet fleet, no reporting of winter steelhead bycatch in the salmon gillnets and no reporting of sublegal sturgeon released.

State statistics do not support the belief gillnets fish better at night, he added.

"Since the gillnet fleet plays a key role in the harvesting process, it should also play a key role in the process of ensuring a healthy sturgeon population,'' Fehlen said. "This can be accomplished through better enforcement and monitoring. A daylight gillnet fishery would be a big step towards accomplishing this goal.''

Steve Williams, an assistant fisheries division administrator for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, said he disagreed with several of Fehlen's contentions.

Les Clark of the Northwest Gillnetters Association said the commercials welcome on-board monitors, fish only half days at times, and use tangle nets and recovery boxes to reduce spring chinook salmon handling mortality.

The heavier nets fished in the fall need to be used at night, otherwise the fish can see the net and do not push into it, Clark said.

"A lot of people don't see what's goes on,'' he said. "They only listen to rumors.''

Brothers to pay $150,000 in Columbia River fishing fines

2009-01-26T06:46:00.000-08:00

by The Associated Press
Thursday January 22, 2009
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/01/brothers_to_pay_150000_in_colu.html

Four brothers have agreed through a plea bargain to pay $150,000 in fines for commercial fishing offenses on the Columbia River.

The investigation by Oregon State Police wildlife officers extended from October 2005 to January 2007.

Police say 45-year-old Michael Heuker of Bellevue, Wash., and his three brothers from Cascade Locks pleaded guilty on Jan. 14 to falsifying business records. The three brothers are 43-year-old Timothy Heuker, 39-year-old Thomas Heuker and 38-year-old Daniel Heuker.

The four use gillnets to catch salmon and sturgeon on the Columbia.

Police said they documented more than 50 violations centered on falsifying fish tickets, which are required by the state and must be completed by the wholesale dealer to document fish caught.

-- The Associated Press

Washington offers small compromises in spring chinook standoff

2009-01-10T06:10:00.000-08:00

Friday, January 9 | 6:42 p.m.
BY ALLEN THOMAS, COLUMBIAN STAFF WRITER
http://www.columbian.com/article/20090109/SPORTS04/701109981/-1/SPORTS

Washington and Oregon officials will dicker next week to try to resolve their month-old standoff over sport and commercial allocations of Columbia River spring chinook salmon.

On Friday, the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission identified two areas of potential compromise to meet Oregon’s desired level of gillnet catch in March and April.

Columbia spring chinook are, arguably, the finest salmon in the world. Catch-sharing agreements between sportsmen and commercial fishermen have sparked bitter fights three of the past four years.

A majority of the Washington commissioners appear to favor sport interests, while a majority of the Oregon panel tend to back the commercials.

To quell the feud, a committee of three Washington and three Oregon commissioners met three times this fall and negotiated a recommendation for a five-year allocation plan to take back to their respective commissions.

The four principals for spring chinook allocation, were, in this order:

— The highest priority is a 45-day sport fishery in March and April.

— Next priority is protecting the off-channel commercial fishery in places like Youngs Bay and Blind Slough in Oregon and Deep River in Washington.

— Allowing at least a little gillnetting in March or April in the lower Columbia is desirable if the run is large enough.

— The split among sports fishing is 75 percent downstream of Bonneville Dam and 25 percent upstream.

The principles are paired with an allocation matrix that factors the strength of the upper Columbia and Willamette spring chinook runs when determining percentages.

The sports share can range from 55 percent to 85 percent, depending on the forecasts for the two watersheds. But in most years, the matrix would fall in the 65 percent sport-35 percent commercial category.

In mid-December, the full Oregon commission changed the base to 55 percent sport and 45 percent commercial, and added 10 percent to the commercial share in the other cells of the matrix.

Upon hearing that news, the full Washington commission balked, and still has not adopted an allocation policy.

A huge return of 298,900 spring chinook headed for upstream of Bonneville Dam is forecast to enter the Columbia beginning next month.

Washington’s preferred position results in an early commercial catch of 4,400 spring chinook and 13,200 overall, if the forecast is accurate. Oregon’s policy would result in a gillnet catch of 6,100 in early spring and 15,500 overall.

Washington commissioners agreed Friday they will negotiate over the allocation given to the off-channel areas (mostly in Oregon) and the buffer placed on commercial fisheries early in the season to assure conservation guidelines are not exceeded.

Phil Anderson, interim director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, suggested shifting the catch guaranteed in the off-channel areas in order to give the netters a bit more early time in the main Columbia.

The other negotiating point would be to lessen the early-season buffer on the commercial catch from 50 percent to 40 percent.

Reducing the commercial buffer could boost the early commercial catch to 5,800 in 2009, said Guy Norman, regional director for the Washington agency. It could result in fewer fish for the commercials in May, although spring chinook caught in March and April fetch a much higher price.

Commission member Gary Douvia of Kettle Falls said Oregon has moved from setting spring salmon seasons based on objectives to “arguing over the numbers.’’

Washington commission chairman Jerry Gutzwiler of Wenatchee, said at each allocation meeting in the fall Oregon came with “a new, unilateral proposal.

“That got kind of old for us,’’ he added.

“I think any time you suggest you want to allow any more time for the commercials out on the Columbia River — even though this will be pretty small — that will not be very appealing to the recreational side,’’ Gutzwiler said.

Washington hopes to have a response by mid-week from Oregon. A teleconference is scheduled on Friday tentatively to adopt a final Washington spring chinook allocation policy.

Specific details of the sport and commercial seasons are scheduled to be set Jan. 29 in Oregon City.

Inside Olympia Interview with Phil Anderson

2008-12-05T13:02:00.000-08:00

Nov 14th Commission Hearing Public Testimony

2008-11-21T21:56:00.000-08:00

Fishery managers wrestle with allocations between sport and commercial interests

2008-11-21T21:01:00.000-08:00

Meetings planned in December but both groups likely to growl if complex formula is approved
By CASSANDRA PROFITA
The Daily Astorian, 11/21/08
http://www.dailyastorian.info/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=398&ArticleID=56198&TM=79515.16

A new proposal for splitting lower Columbia River chinook between sport and commercial boats will leave both sides dissatisfied if it is approved by the Oregon and Washington fish and wildlife commissions next month.

This week, the Columbia River Fish Working Group - a committee that includes three fish and wildlife commissioners from Oregon and Washington - agreed on a recommendation for balancing the sport and commercial salmon fisheries, which have to share a two percent allowance of impacts to threatened and endangered species.

The plan, which could last up to five years, edges commercial gillnetters out of any hope of a 50-50 catch share with sportfishers while introducing the possibility of a severe reduction to a 15-85 percent spit when salmon are scarce.

And, depending on the annual salmon run sizes, the recreational fleet could also see reduced fishing opportunity from recent years.

The amount of wild fish impacts allocated to each group determines how much hatchery fish they can access during the season, and the perennial allocation decision never fails to spark heated battles between the two groups.

Under the working group's recommendation, exactly what percentage of the allowable wild fish impacts each fishery gets would be managed by a matrix based on the size of the fish runs in the Columbia and Willamette rivers.

"As the Columbia River run size increases and the Willamette run size gets larger or smaller, it falls into different boxes on the matrix and different catch-sharing amounts," said Steve Williams, fish division administrator for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The bigger the runs, he said, the closer the catch-share gets to an even split between sport and commercial fisheries. When the runs are smaller, however, the matrix favors the recreational fishery because sport boats are deemed to have lower impacts on wild fish.

The plan sets a top priority of having a 45-day sportfishing season for spring chinook below Bonneville Dam. The next highest priorities are maintaining harvest levels in off-channel select-area commercial fisheries such as the one in Youngs Bay and providing some spring chinook opportunity on the mainstem for gillnetters.

Bruce Buckmaster, a commercial fishing advocate from Astoria, said the plan might violate laws that require an equitable division of the resource between sport and commercial fisheries.

If the proposed matrix were applied to last year's fishery, he said it would have given 70 percent of the impacts to the recreational fishery and just 30 percent to commercial gillnetters.

"It was very disappointing from our perspective," said Hobe Kytr, administrator of the commercial fishing group Salmon for All. "The decision will come at the expense of the core rural economy of the lower river for the benefit of the Portland metro area, if it holds."

But urban sportfishing industry advocates weren't happy with the plan either.

Dan Grogan, a board member for the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association and president of Fishermen's Marine and Outdoor, said it looks like the matrix will result in sport boats getting less fish while having to pay a 20 percent increase in permit fees to the state.

"It's not good," he said. "If it is less opportunity, the fish and wildlife department is going to have a hard time getting a 20 percent fee increase from sportsmen. It's kind of getting old to pay more for less. "

The plan could result in a stronger effort to eliminate gillnets altogether, though he said that's not what his association wants. The gillnetters face the possibility of an outright ban through a bill to be proposed during the next session of the state Legislature.

"Unfortunately I think it will egg on sportsmen to get rid of gillnetters completely," said Grogan. "As an industry that's not what we're about, but for sportsmen in general I think it burns the fire hotter."

Grogan said he wanted the working group to move toward a proposal made by three former fishery managers allied with the sportfishing industry, who suggested moving gillnetters off the mainstem Columbia River and boosting off-channel net pen fisheries to supply the commercial catch. At the very least, he is hoping the state commissions will shorten the length of the new plan to just one year.

Protecting and Reforming Washington’s Fisheries

2008-10-11T07:51:00.000-07:00

Governor Chris Gregoire understands the importance of fisheries to Washington’s economy and cultural heritage. Recreational fishing, hunting and wildlife-viewing contribute approximately $2.7 billion to our economy each year – revenue that’s vital in coastal and rural communities. She understands that we must keep our fisheries open, accessible and strong, both now and for generations to come.

Since 2005, she has worked with the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) and Fish and Wildlife Commission, fishing interests, and leaders across the state to implement a reform agenda to enhance harvests on hatchery stocks while conserving weak stocks.

Republican Dino Rossi has endorsed key elements of her existing agenda for fisheries. Gov. Gregoire has put into place and achieved significant progress on numerous initiatives, including:

• Placing conservation first as a state policy to protect and recover wild fish.
• Supporting hatchery reforms.
• Protecting and restoring fish habitat, and removing derelict fishing gear from our marine waters.
• Converting state-managed fisheries to selective fisheries to increase the utilization of hatchery fish and promote conservation of wild fish.
• Supporting harvest allocations for recreational and commercial fisheries that promote conservation, recognize the economic importance of fishing to rural communities and small businesses, and seek to expand harvest opportunities.

A sharp contrast can be found in Governor Gregoire and Rossi’s environmental records. Dino Rossi claims to be a proven supporter of fisheries. Yet, his record only shows him to be a proven opponent of fish protection efforts. As a state senator, Dino Rossi was not a leader on natural resource issues. After the Department of Ecology found high
levels of mercury in fish, Rossi even opposed a law that would outlaw mercury dumping in our state.

The anti-environmental lobbyists of the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW) are Dino Rossi’s largest backers. The BIAW opposes cleaning up Puget Sound, safeguarding shorelines and wetlands, and protecting pristine land from development.

As a state senator, Dino Rossi voted to support the BIAW’s anti-environmental agenda 99 percent of the time. In exchange, the BIAW has spent millions to support his campaigns, including $2.5 million in this election.

Governor Gregoire is the only candidate with a proven record of leadership to promote aggressive conservation efforts, expand fisheries on hatchery stocks, and support the role of fisheries in our state’s economy.

Hatchery Reform
Governor Gregoire is moving forward with hatchery reforms. With good reason, the independent Hatchery Scientific Review Group, along with citizens’ groups like Coastal Conservation Association and Puget Sound Anglers, have all noted the need for hatchery reforms. Supporting hatcheries and hatchery reforms are vital to conserving wild stocks, promoting tourism, strengthening economic development, and creating jobs
in our state.

Since 2005, nearly 800 hatchery reforms have been implemented, including:
• Modifying broodstock at 28 hatcheries associated with Coho, Chinook and steelhead programs in Puget Sound and on the coast.
• Incorporating natural-origin salmon into 42 genetically-integrated hatchery programs as part of a larger effort to reduce the differences between hatchery and wild salmon.
• Keeping overall fish production at more than 92 percent of past levels on the lower Columbia River despite closing one hatchery, building new weirs, and changing levels of fish production.

While much has been accomplished on hatchery reform, much remains to be done. During Governor Gregoire’s second term, hatchery reform will continue under the direction of the Fish and Wildlife Commission with close involvement of the public and affected communities. By 2009, the Commission will have a plan for full implementation of hatchery reforms that align with regional and local fish recovery plans.

Expansion of Selective Fisheries
Governor Gregoire has urged the Commission to do more to achieve selective fisheries to protect wild fish and allow the harvest of healthy hatchery runs. The governor will receive a report on the Commission’s progress in January. In addition, under the Gregoire Administration, the state has also:

• Provided funding to expand selective sport fisheries in Puget Sound.
• Mass-marked nearly all of the 30 million Coho and 100 million Chinook salmon raised in state and tribal hatcheries for selective harvests.
• Established new marine selective fisheries for Chinook and freshwater selective fisheries for Chinook and Coho salmon, which spurred $63 million of economic activity in the state.

Initiatives to Protect Washington’s Fisheries
Governor Gregoire has demonstrated her strong support for a long-term,
comprehensive approach to protect and restore Washington’s fisheries.

Most significantly, the Gregoire Administration:
• Promoted locally developed fish recovery plans across the state and supported agreements to protect fish habitat on state and private forest lands. Washington has been and continues to be a leader in the region and nation in promoting watershedbased solutions to benefit fish habitat and the health of our watersheds.
• Worked with businesses and communities to clean up our environment. Governor Gregoire understands that our environment is our state’s greatest asset and a legacy for our children and grandchildren. She started the Puget Sound Partnership to clean up the Puget Sound by 2020 and has allocated millions to remove derelict fishing gear and creosote pilings from waterways.
• Led the U.S. team in the recent agreement between the U.S. and Canada that will result in an estimated one million more fish returning to Washington waters over the next ten years.
• Supports the Fish and Wildlife Commission and the WDFW 21st Century Salmon and Steelhead Initiative. This plots the course for sustainable fisheries and the recovery of salmon and steelhead fisheries over the next 50 years.

Maximizing Tourism and Economic Impact
Governor Gregoire has asked the WDFW to report on the economic benefits of fisheries by January 2009. Once Governor Gregoire receives this report, she will work with the WDFW promote fishing and wildlife tourism opportunities that will benefit Washington’s rural communities and fishing-related businesses. Governor Gregoire also fought for and obtained millions of dollars in federal disaster relief funds to support rural communities and fishing-related businesses in response to Washington’s 2008 coastal fishery restrictions

Illegal net kills fish and platypus

2008-10-09T14:58:00.000-07:00

12:00a.m. 9th October 2008
By Mark Bode
http://www.thedaily.com.au/news/2008/oct/09/illegal-net-kills-fish-and-platypus/

Right: One of the disturbing photos showing the platypus entangled in a gillnet at Obi Obi Creek.

A sickening act of illegal netting at Obi Obi Creek, near Kenilworth, has killed a platypus and scores of fish. Disturbing photos supplied to the Daily show the platypus entangled in the gillnet, which had been strung across the river 200 metres from the mouth. “It killed just about everything that came across it,” said John, who stumbled upon the ghastly scene at the platypus habitat while kayaking last Friday afternoon. John, who wants his identity protected for fear of retaliation, was so outraged that he contacted the Environmental Protection Agency.

However, both he and the EPA hold little hope of finding the culprits. John estimates the net had been there two or three days before he found it. “I think whoever did it saw the platypus and thought, ‘I’m in trouble’, and just left it,” he said. With half the net still in the water, John said his main concern was untangling the live fish. He said 12 of 20 catfish caught in the net were dead while four Australian bass and two freshwater mullet were also killed. A lungfish had been scaled on the bank.

“It’s illegal to use a gillnet in a freshwater river in Queensland,” John said. “I’m totally disgusted. I was so upset when I found the platypus I was shaking.” John fears endangered Mary River cod were also caught. He said a sign letting people know the cod were in the area was missing. “One of them could have been in there,” he said. “Who knows what was in there?” John has being kayaking on the river for years and often sees platypus, turtles and lungfish.
“I’ve never seen a net like that on the river before,” he said.

WA Sen. Joe Zarelli: "Columbia River salmon fisheries are in chaos"

2008-10-02T07:45:00.000-07:00

Columbia River salmon fisheries are in chaos. Selective harvest reforms are urgently needed. “We must remove commercial gillnets from the Columbia River. I’ll work to support selective fishing in the State Senate.” Let’s put an end to over harvesting and support our sportfishing industry. Joe Zarelli (18th Sen. Dist. Washington)

Dear Sportfishing Enthusiast,

I share your concern about the management of our salmon populations. Our region is spending almost $1 billion annually to protect and maintain this resource, yet many wild runs remain endangered. Meanwhile, we are missing a tremendous opportunity to increase fishing opportunities through the selective harvest of surplus hatchery fish.

I believe there is a better way: we must use common sense reforms to ensure we are fishing selectively. Sport fishers have committed to this important principle through mark-selective fishing of hatchery fish . Unfortunately, commercial gillnet fisheries often capture and kill protected fish, which sets back recovery efforts and reduces fishing opportunities when Endangered Species Act restraints for salmon and steelhead are triggered.

Several harvest reforms are being discussed to reduce these impacts by removing commercial gillnets from the Columbia and transitioning them to less destructive methods. I believe we must find solutions that contribute to salmon recovery while increasing our sportfishing opportunities.

NC: The Gill Net Quandry: Part 1(The Issue) - Debatable Catch

2008-09-22T14:01:00.000-07:00

Area recreational, commercial fishing gill nets causing havoc along North Carolina's shore?
By Kent King, correspondent
Rocky Mount Telegram
Saturday, September 20, 2008
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/sports/recreation/the-gill-net-quandry-part-one-the-issue---debatable-catch-142625.html

The summer day was typical for late June on the sound. The morning started fair and quite warm. The seagulls were busy in the shallows, picking off wayward minnows for an easy breakfast.

Puffy clouds lazily floated by as the fishermen worked the Haystacks near Morehead City for speckled trout, flounder and puppy drum. As the tide began to rise, the minnows formed tighter schools. Larger fish were present in deeper channels, chasing them into the flats. It was fun to watch.

As the morning wore on, those harmless clouds began to gather. A classic Carteret County thunderstorm was building on the western horizon; it was time to pull the anchor. In just a few short minutes the storm formed an anvil head, and rotation was visible. The sound turned a mean shade of green. The fishermen left the Haystacks in a hurry, barely loading all the gear into the truck before the bottom fell out.

Sometimes these storms last for minutes, other times they last for days. Little did the fishermen know at the time, a storm of a different kind was building on these same waters.

Conflicts of Interest

For many years the commercial and recreational fishermen have stormed at each other. Even though the waters are vast and the targeted species seem plentiful, there are still differences of opinion based on economic and lifestyle issues.

Some of these conflicts produce brief squalls and pass very quickly. Others are more deep-rooted, and much like the storm that ran the fishermen out of the sound, may rain for generations. As long as two distinct user groups fish the same water for very different reasons, there will always be the likelihood of disagreements.

Commercial fishermen toil the waters of the sound to make a living off what they are able to catch in their nets. The catch feeds the family and pays the bills. They are at the mercy of the elements. The tides, moon phases, scorching summer sun and bone-chilling winter winds all play a part in what they can put in the bank.

Recreational fishermen have every right to fish these same sounds, bays and creeks. This larger group of fishermen enjoys being on the water, catching whatever they can with a rod and reel. They fish because their grandfathers taught them how much fun a day on the water can be even if the fish don’t bite. For some it is also a vocation, guiding eager fishermen willing to pay the price for an experienced captain who can put them on fish.

The Latest Storm

For the past several years, guides and recreational fishermen have become increasingly angry at the tactics of some commercial fishermen who they say set gill nets in prime red drum habitat to get even with the growing number of guides and weekend anglers who want to ban gill nets.

The recreational guides say the commercial fishermen see their clients “hooked up” fighting red drum on certain areas of the sound. The next day or even later that same day, flounder nets are stretched out to cover the entire area wiping out the drum. And it’s totally legal.

Swansboro guide Rick Patterson said, “I’ve had guys look me in the eye and say they’re going to kill every drum they can. I have no idea what they want to accomplish, but it’s a twisted mentality.”

Read the rest at http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/sports/recreation/the-gill-net-quandry-part-one-the-issue---debatable-catch-142625.html

==================================== Additional background on NC Gillnetting

Net catch results in net waste
Mike Zlotnicki, Staff Writer Comment on this story
When Gordon Churchill went drum fishing two weeks ago, he expected to catch something in the Bogue Sound.

"I was just going out to catch some fish," he said from his home in Newport. "I didn't catch anything."

In a way, though, he did.

He "caught" about 28 drum and bluefish and two undersized flounder.

He caught them on video, rotting in an unattended gill net set for flounder near Morehead City.

"I was in the Haystacks, poling around and went down a narrow creek, and this mud flat barricaded the creek I was trying to get to," he said. "I looked up and saw the net. My first thought was revulsion. Then I thought I better do something about it."

That's when he dropped his push pole, grabbed his video camera and recorded the waste.

He and other anglers are saying that this is one of the worst years they've seen for gill netting in their area, and they fear the nets are taking a heavy toll on game fish, particularly red drum.

Churchill, 42, a physical education teacher and coach at Morehead City Middle School, has long been an opponent of entanglement (gill) nets in sound waters.

The issue of netting in the sound pits a minority of commercial gill netfisherman against a majority of recreational hook-and-line fishermen, each with a stake in the fish. Commercial fishermen, many of whom are part-timers, are trying to make money. Recreational fishermen, who fish for fun, decry the "bycatch" (non-targeted species caught) that sometimes results from the use of gill nets. Throw in the fact that recreational anglers also can be licensed to use gill nets, and you have trouble in the sound.

The problem with gill nets is that they catch indiscriminately, and what netters can't legally keep is returned to the water -- alive or dead. The dead bycatch is the bane of recreational anglers and guides. Churchill and other anglers say they fear the impact on coastal fish stocks. Professional guides -- also commercial anglers of a sort -- need sport fish for revenue.

Using Churchill's video to identify the net owner, Marine Patrol officer Mitch Stone, with the Division of Marine Fisheries, cited Virginia Dare Fulcher Oglesby of Morehead City for using a gill net without proper buoys or identification. The buoys were not the right color, and they were marked by outdated registration numbers, according to a DMF news release.

Oglesby also was cited with "leaving a gill net in coastal fishing waters when such devices contained edible species of fish unfit for human consumption."

Efforts to contact Olglesby for comment were unsuccessful.

The citation carried a fine of $35 and court costs of $110.

Churchill isn't the only angler fed up with nets. Rick Patterson, 36, a part-time guide from Cape Carteret, says he thinks they're hurting the red drum.

" 'Problem' ain't the word for it," he said. "Last year was a banner year for redfish in the Newport River. Last year, I could go out with a client for four hours and average 15 or 20 redfish. This year, it's four to six."

Patterson said he doesn't see many recreational nets, almost all commercial nets. He also cited three factors for the increased netting in Bogue Sound and surrounding areas: poor blue crab catches, higher flounder prices and a regulation that requires recreational fishermen to tend gill nets at all times south of Carteret County to the South Carolina line.

Although red drum are incidental bycatch, flounder netters are allowed to keep seven drum per trip if the amount doesn't exceed 50 percent of the trip poundage. The rest go back dead or alive. The recreational limit on drum is one fish per day 18 to 27 inches long.

"Our backwaters are not big enough to sustain this kind of netting," Patterson said.

On June 29, Patterson took Chris Batsavage, lead fisheries biologist for southern flounder from the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries, out on a scouting trip.

"It appears this year there's a little more effort to net southern flounder than in recent years," Batsavage said after his cruise with Patterson and fellow guide Jeff Cronk. "We basically went from Stella to Swansboro, Queens Creek, Hammocks Beach Channel, Bogue Inlet and western Bogue Sound. We counted a total of 40 nets from 50 to 100 yards long."

Patterson has seen even more.

"If [Batsavage] had ridden with us last month, we would have seen 40 in the White Oak River alone," Patterson said the Monday after the biologist's trip. "I took some clients out for a six-hour trip on Sunday. We caught one red."

Assessing the magnitude of the nets is very difficult, but "with the smaller bodies of water, there is a possibility of red drum bycatch," said Batsavage, who added that none of the nets seen Thursday evening was a recreational net.

Glen Montgomery, a commercial flounder netter from Straits, near Beaufort, said there are lot of nets this year for a variety of reasons.

"I'm amazed at the number of them this year," Montgomery, 60, said from his home. "There are too many nets in the water this year. Prices are higher for flounder, and the shrimp and hard crab [catches] have been off.

"I have nothing against a recreational netter. They have as much right to catch fish as I do. I hate to see a few violators ruin it for everyone. Gill nets can be very dangerous in the wrong hands. I'm glad [Churchill] did what he did."

Montgomery said different types of netters are on the water, some serious, others not so serious.

"A part-timer is someone who fishes when the fishing is good," he said. "You also have weekenders -- dingbatters -- who come down and stay in their cottages. They will cough up $2,000 for a commercial license and catch a cooler full of fish. I'm seeing a lot more of that than the rec nets."

He said bycatch is a concern but that not all of it is bad.

"Even rod-and-reel fishermen have bycatch," he said. "I target flounder, but I make extra money selling conch and stone crab in season. The red drum is the 'meat fish' for the recreational guides. I guess they see us as competition. As they [red drum] rebound, there will be be more drum caught in the nets."

Churchill, who guides occasionally, makes no bones about his anti-net stance.

"The first step is CCA [Coastal Conservation Association] or some other large organization needs to jump on it," he said. "Every time I brought this up at meetings, they talked around it; they were afraid of it. If you fish in a state with no gill nets, it's amazing how many more fish they have."

Gill nets are efficient and indiscriminate fish-catching devices. Why not take them out of the hands of amateurs -- recreational anglers and part-timers -- while looking to lessen the bycatch of full-time commercial netters? Perhaps state-wide mandatory attendance would reduce the number of part-timers and save drum and other bycatch. Maybe gigs and hook-and-line -- more selective and less efficient methods -- are the answer. One result would be higher-priced flounder at the market.

The issue doesn't have to be commercial versus recreational. The fish are what matter to each side. Let's quit throwing them away.

Staff writer Mike Zlotnicki can be reached at 829-4518 or mike.zlotnicki@newsobserver.com.

Get $150+ in coupons in every Sunday N&O. Click here for convenient home delivery.
NET BASICS

Gill netting in North Carolina for commercial and recreational netters is tightly regulated.

RECREATIONAL NETS: Recreational nets have two yellow buoys and one pink buoy at each end and a maximum length of 100 yards. The user must be in a vessel, in the water or on shore and immediately available to work the net and no more than 100 yards from the net at all times (not in a building or structure.)

ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENT: North and east of the Emerald Isle (N.C. 58) bridge in Carteret County, attendance of gill nets less than 5 1/2 inches stretched mesh (small mesh) is required at all times. Attendance of gill nets 5 1/2 inches stretched mesh or greater is required from one hour after sunrise to one hour before sunset. South and west of the N.C. 58 bridge to the South Carolina line, attendance of recreational gill nets is required at all times. Commercial nets do not have to be attended.

DAY OR NIGHT: Commercial netters north of N.C. 58 can set flounder nets left unattended day or night. Small mesh commercial nets must be attended unless they are 200 yards from shore. Recreational gill nets may be unattended at night but must be attended during the day. Small-mesh nets must be attended at all times. Various locales have different regulations.

REASONS FOR RULES: "It's based on the different species present, the way the gear is used, and the time of the year," said Mike Marshall, an N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries biologist. "There's a whole suite of reasons that go into it. You kind of segregate your rules by the mesh size, species, depth and time of the year."

WHY FULL-TIME RECREATIONAL ATTENDANCE SOUTH OF 58?: "The majority of the fishing is in smaller bodies of water like the Intracoastal Waterway and rivers," Sgt. Tim L. Mitchell of the N.C. Marine Patrol said.

REPORT VIOLATIONS: Marine Patrol (800) 682-2632

New coalition offers gill-net solution

2008-09-20T13:51:00.001-07:00

by Bill Monroe, special to The Oregonian
Friday September 19, 2008, 4:20 PM
http://www.oregonlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2008/09/gill_nets_may_be_le...

After decades of debate, agitation and bitter feelings between those who hook and those who net salmon, gill-netters' days may finally be numbered on the lower mainstem Columbia River. But if that happens as a new coalition hopes, the nets' harvest of prime Pacific Northwest salmon stands to increase, perhaps significantly.

The resulting ripple effect from additional salmon could be felt along the entire Oregon Coast as more hatchery salmon become available in the Pacific Ocean. In short, change is in the air that may alter the face of salmon sportfishing in Oregon and southwest Washington - forever for the better.

A broad-based coalition of fish scientists, angling conservation groups and sportfishing industry representatives launched a formal campaign this weekend to move commercial non-tribal nets off the river and out of the path of returning wild salmon. "SAFE for Salmon" proposes to instead expand commercial fishing in off-mainstem sloughs and bays, such as currently practiced in Youngs Bay, Grays River and other locations along the lower Columbia. Gill-netters themselves have suggested a new Youngs Bay-type SAFE zone in Willapa Bay north of Ilwaco. Other bays and sloughs along the Oregon and Washington sides of the Columbia could also be opened.

SAFE is an acronym for Select Area Fisheries Enhancement, an existing program supplementing the commercial net fishery with hatchery fish released from net pens and caught for the market when they return as adults. SAFE for Salmon proposes more net pens be filled with hatchery salmon to be released close to the ocean as smolts, imprinted on the SAFE areas. That vastly improves their survival rates, since they don't have to swim a gauntlet of predators and bad water to get to the ocean.

In exchange, the mainstem Columbia would then be managed for sportfishing, currently the safest harvest method because anglers practice catch-and-release on wild salmon with much smaller incidental killing of wild fish. Tribal net fisheries above Bonneville Dam would not be affected since all hatchery salmon for the restructured net fisheries would come from below the dam.

"It's a win-win for everyone," said Jim Martin, retired fisheries chief for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Martin is the lead of four authors of SAFE for Salmon's white paper, "Columbia River Fisheries, a new vision." Others are Rod Sando, former director of fish and wildlife agencies in Idaho and Minnesota, Bill Shake, retired assistant regional director for fisheries in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regional office in Portland, and Don Swartz, retired fish biologist and Columbia River management team member for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The SAFE for Salmon coalition includes sportfishing conservation groups such as the Association of Northwest Steelheaders, fish preservation groups such as Trout Unlimited, industry officials from sporting goods companies, the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association and the Northwest Guides and Anglers Association. I also am on the coalition's steering committee.

The coalition and it's proposal are not connected in any way with the new Coastal Conservation Association Pacific Northwest (CCAPNW), which has grown quickly to nearly 9,000 members since it arrived in the northwest two years ago with an eye to ending all gill-netting on the Columbia. The CCAPNW leadership is working on policies, but has maintained silence on pending strategies for improving Northwest fisheries.

It's probably preparing its debut for the coming Oregon legislative session. At least one legislator is drafting a bill to end all non-tribal gill-netting in the lower Columbia River, including the current SAFE areas. "We wholeheartedly support that bill as it pertains to the mainstem Columbia," Martin said. "But we believe our proposal offers a better alternative."

The 2009 legislature could be the perfect storm for moving gill-nets off the Columbia River.

Angler agitation is growing, fueled in part by Quixotic, sometimes overnight season openings and closures. Legislators are almost certain to get an earful of both sides of the debate next spring. At the same time, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife needs a license fee increase. But asking for more money to fish is a tough sell to anglers watching their seasons shrink.

SAFE for Salmon offers a perfect fit for all sides.

The proposal: Expands commercial fisheries (and probably adds jobs to fishing communities), eliminates harvest management debates on the mainstem Columbia, allows more wild salmon to escape for spawning, results in major reductions in competition between stray and wild coho on spawning grounds, eliminates most of the wasted uncaught coho returning to hatcheries, potentially expands offshore coho seasons coastwide, ensures continued support for hatchery funding (likely to fade or die with a total ban on nets) and gives salmon managers much-needed breathing room on the threshold of global warming and unknown problems on the horizon.

Downsides? Very few.

Funding for additional hatchery logistics could be a challenge and fewer salmon - coho and chinook - will be released in lower Columbia tributaries in both states. Those are small sacrifices for such great returns.

Fish and wildlife department leaderships in both states have been briefed as well as key legislators and others. Fish and Wildlife commissions in each state could pre-empt their legislatures and make the proposed changes themselves, but have balked in the past at taking the lead on harvest reform.

Oregon, however, dropped a minor bombshell this past Monday by suggesting a change similar to the SAFE for Salmon proposal during a joint-state session called to discuss spring chinook allocations. The Oregon pitch covers only spring chinook while the SAFE for Salmon idea applies to all of the lower river's salmon runs.

It's almost certain the gill-net community will circle its wagons and oppose both proposals. But the ultimate alternative, as Martin and SAFE for Salmon point out, is an outright ban on nets like those in other states over the past century. That could come from the legislature as early as next year or after continued protracted debate over the next several years.

Why waste precious time, sacrifice wild salmon and forgo what could become major improvements in the way we all fish together?

SAFE for Salmon's proposal is posted on several Web sites and pending on others. They include www.ifish.net, www.theguidesforecast.com, www.berkley-fishing.com, and www.nsiafishing.org. The coalition is raising money for a legislative campaign and has more than $35,000 committed already.

Until an office is opened, questions for the coalition and/or the proposal's authors are being handled through the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, either on its Web site or by calling 503-631-8859.

In more than three decades of covering sport fisheries and concern over gill-netting on the Columbia, I've remained a steadfast supporter of both sport and commercial fishing on the river.

This proposal is the first in all those years to offer a clear and improved vision for the future of the Columbia's beleaguered salmon.

Sen. Fred Girod To Submit Bill Banning Gillnets in the Columbia River

2008-09-17T14:58:00.004-07:00

Chinese, Canadian, U.S., High-Seas Law Enforcement Operations Continue with Seizure of Chinese Fishing Vessel Suspected of Illegal Drift Net Fishing

2008-09-17T14:58:00.002-07:00

Date: Sept. 12, 2008 /Contact: Lt. Eric Eggen / Phone: 907-463-2065 / 907-321-4516
http://www.uscgalaska.com/go/doc/780/225855/

JUNEAU, Alaska - A People's Republic of China Fisheries Law Enforcement Command (FLEC) officer, in cooperation with the U.S. Coast Guard, seized a Chinese fishing vessel suspected of illegal large-scale high-seas drift net fishing 460 miles east of Hokkaido, Japan.

Vectored in by a Canadian maritime patrol aircraft, the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Munro, with a Chinese fisheries officer on board, intercepted the Chinese-flagged fishing vessel Lu Rong Yu 2879. A joint China FLEC/U.S. Coast Guard boarding team from the Munro determined Lu Rong Yu 2879 had seven miles of driftnet, approximately 45 tons of squid and about 110 pounds of skipjack tuna on board, was rigged for large-scale high-seas driftnet fishing, and was registered in the People's Republic of China. Munro will assist with accompanying the Lu Rong Yu 2879 until the fishing vessel can be transferred to a Republic of China Fisheries Law Enforcement Command patrol vessel for escorting back to China where further investigation and final legal disposition for suspected violations of PRC fisheries law will occur.

"Last year we were able to seize six vessels engaged in similar activities," said Capt. Michael Inman, chief of response of the 17th Coast Guard District. "Not only are these fishing practices illegal in both the U.S. and China, they are indiscriminately destroying marine life and negatively impacting global food stocks."

A driftnet is a fishing net that has the ability to indiscriminately catch massive amounts of fish and other marine life by means of suspension in open water. The U.S. Coast Guard participates in the international cooperative efforts against large-scale high-seas drift net fishing as encouraged by the United Nations.

"China is very satisfied with the cooperation between the United States and China and looks forward to continuing this productive partnership." said Peng Xiaohua, Deputy Director, Fisheries Law Enforcement Command Center. "This was the outcome of long-standing U.S.-China fisheries law enforcement cooperation on the high seas."

The term Illegal Unregulated and Unreported (IUU) fishing describes a wide range of destructive fishing activities, which includes use of large-scale high-seas driftnets. Many maritime nations, including the U.S., have undertaken to monitor and deter IUU fishing, and protect shared living marine resources and their environments.

The United States, Japan, Canada, Russia, South Korea and China are part of the North Pacific Coast Guard Forum. This Forum, which is at present meeting in San Francisco, California, was in part stood up and developed to combat IUU fishing and increase cooperation on international maritime safety and security issues in the Northern Pacific Region.

Additionally, The United States, Japan, Canada, Russian and South Korea are part of the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Convention (NPAFC), a regional fisheries management organization which meets annually to discuss issues related to marine science and high seas fisheries enforcement. Enforcement meetings under the NPAFC achieve coordinated efforts.

"This seizure is directly attributable to the work done through organizations like the North Pacific Coast Guard Forum and North Pacific Anadromous Fish Convention (NPAFC)," said Vice Adm. David Pekoske, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Pacific Area. "The results of our efforts speak to our home countries of the relationships we've formed in the past several years."

The U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Munro is a 378-foot high endurance cutter based in Kodiak, Alaska.

Restaurant Awarded for Serving Wild Fish

2008-09-17T14:58:00.001-07:00

The Editor
Seattle Post Intelligence
101 Elliott Ave. W.
Seattle, WA 98119

Dear Editor:

The P.I. recently reported that the Pacific Northwest Salmon Center, dedicated to recovering wild salmon, had inducted the owner and chef of the “Flying Fish Restaurant” into its Wild Salmon Hall of Fame because only wild salmon were on the menu.

This seems more than strange to me. First of all, it is more than likely that any local Chinook or coho served in that establishment, would have originated in a hatchery and therefore be anything but wild. Secondly, if the fish served were indeed wild they well could be from over-fished stocks or even from those listed under the Endangered Species Act. High end restaurants proudly advertise wild salmon from Alaska, but 95% of these troll-caught Chinook salmon originate in southern rivers where fish are struggling to survive despite “protection” under the Endangered Species Act.

It would seem far more appropriate if the award had been given to an establishment serving only fish specifically targeted for harvest, e.g. marked hatchery salmon or farmed fish.

Frank Haw
Olympia, WA

Cc: Pacific Northwest Salmon Center

Accomplishments of Coastal Conservation Association (1978-2007)

2008-09-16T07:34:00.000-07:00

PROHIBITED TRAWLING FOR TROUT (Texas 1978). Defined major-minor bait-producing bays, nursery areas (Texas 1979). Outlawed single-strand monofilament nets (Texas 1980). Protected billfish, except swordfish, from commercial harvest (Texas 1980). Outlawed gill, trammel nets (Texas 1990). Obtained game fish status for redfish, speckled trout (Texas 1981). John Wilson Hatchery completed (Texas 1982). Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (Maine) given authority to set limits on fish (Texas 1983). Obtained game fish status for redfish, speckled trout (Alabama 1984). Established saltwater stamp for anglers (Texas 1985). Halted commercial harvest of adult redfish in Gulf of Mexico (National 1986). Won game fish status for redfish, speckled trout (South Carolina 1986). Closed Apalachee, Blakeley rivers to shrimping; placed restrictions on gill nets (Alabama 1987). Obtained game fish status for marlin, sailfish (National 1988). Banned gill netting of flounder during spawning run (Alabama 1988). Won game fish status for redfish (Florida 1988). Banned possession of illegal fishing devices on or near Texas waters (Texas 1989). Prohibited sale of naturally raised, wild redfish (Texas 1989). Banned drift gill nets in South Atlantic (National 1990). Federal District Court upholds game fish status for billfish (National 1990). Intervened in lawsuit to uphold bans on fish traps, drift gill nets in South Atlantic (National 1991). Won approval of saltwater fishing license (Alabama 1991). Amendment to Louisiana Constitution approved, guaranteeing funds to preserve wetlands (Louisiana 1991). Won management of speckled trout (Louisiana 1991). Obtained permanent game fish status for redfish (Louisiana 1991). Won approval of saltwater fishing stamp (South Carolina 1991). Adopted no-harvest regulation for tarpon (Texas 1991). Minimum size, bag limits placed on cobia, amberjack, Spanish mackerel, king mackerel, for commercial and recreational fishermen (Virginia 1991). Federal District Court upholds ban on drift nets in South Atlantic (National 1992). Formed Save Our Sealife Committee to get state constitutional amendment to limit marine net fishing in Florida waters (Florida 1992). Obtained game fish status for tarpon (Alabama 1993). Broke ground for SeaCenter Texas fish hatchery (Texas 1993). Established saltwater license (Virginia 1993). Created limited-entry plan for commercial fishing of black drum (Virginia 1993). Florida constitutional amendment limiting marine net fishing (Florida 1994). Stopped proposal to open sounds to shrimp trawling (Georgia 1994). Banned use of gill nets, purse seines in Presumpscot River (Maine 1994). Protected eel grass beds by prohibiting near-beach squid and scup dragging in Vineyard and Nantucket Sounds (Massachusetts 1994). Federal District Court approves ban on flynets in North Carolina (National 1995). Restricted use of gill nets (Alabama 1995). Outlawed most gill nets (Louisiana 1995). Intervened in Louisiana lawsuit challenging new gill net law (Louisiana 1995). Restricted use of gill nets in Kennebec River (Maine 1995). Placed minimum size, bag limit, commercial quota on speckled trout (Virginia 1995). Approved regulations requiring all commercial shrimpers operating in EEZ to use bycatch reduction devices (National 1996). Banned commercial gill nets in Old River (Alabama 1996). Banned use of tarp nets statewide (Florida 1996). Mandated bycatch reduction devices on all shrimp boats in northeast region (Florida 1996). Intervened in federal, state lawsuits to uphold Louisiana gill net ban (Louisiana 1996). Banned all non-biodegradable gill nets (Mississippi 1996). SeaCenter Texas opened, establishing world’s largest redfish hatchery (Texas 1996). Won commercial quota for bluefish (Virginia 1996). Mandated use of bycatch reduction devices on shrimp vessels (National 1997). Won adoption of bycatch reduction devices on shrimp boats (Georgia 1997). Obtained game fish status for cobia (Mississippi 1997). Secured $2.5 million from Bath Iron Works to remove Edwards Dam on Kennebec River (Maine 1997). Banned commercial fishing within one mile of barrier islands (Mississippi 1997). Restricted purse seining of menhaden in state waters (New York 1997). Outlawed use of gill, trammel nets for black fish (New York 1997). Won passage of Fisheries Reform Act, first comprehensive state fishery reform (North Carolina 1997). Passed first comprehensive state water plan (Texas 1997). Limited number of commercial crab licenses (Texas 1997). Won seat for recreational fishermen on Marine Resources Commission (Virginia 1997). Granted petition by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) establishing blue, white marlin as overfished; 10-year recovery plan mandated (National 1998). Eliminated striped bass fishing in EEZ through striped Bass Act reauthorization (National 1998). Helped establish new state Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (Florida 1998). Mandated use of bycatch reduction devices on shrimp trawls in all state waters (Florida 1998). Created "Universal Fishing License," which includes saltwater as well as freshwater fishing (Georgia 1998). Obtained game fish status for shad (Maine 1998). Won no-sale regulation on black drum (Maryland 1998). Helped establish pro-conservation state Marine Fisheries Commission (North Carolina 1998). Intervened in federal lawsuit challenging NMFS requirement that shrimp trawlers pull bycatch reduction devices in Gulf of Mexico (Texas 1998). Won federal, state lawsuits upholding Louisiana’s gill net law (Louisiana 1999). Reduced number of commercial licenses sold to elver fishermen by 70 percent; shortened eel season by three weeks, removed 3,000 nets from Maine waters (Maine 1999). Created Marine Recreational Fishing Advisory Committee to advise state Department of Marine Resources (Maine 1999). Established limited-entry license management program for all finfish not under a management plan (Texas 1999). Eliminated kill citations for black, red drum (Virginia 1999). Stopped attempts to allow gill netting of striped bass along Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel (Virginia 1999). Federal Court upholds requirement that Gulf shrimp trawlers pull bycatch reduction devices (National 1999). Helped draft and introduce the first comprehensive longline management bill in the 106th Congress (National 2000). Helped draft legislation that tightened regulations on the possession of illegal fishing gear (Mississippi 2000). Helped initiate the Freedom to Fish campaign to stop the arbitrary implementation of no-fishing zones (National 2000). Bycatch reduction devices become mandatory on shrimp trawls in Texas bays (Texas 2000). Sued NMFS to stop an arbitrary no-fishing zone off the Florida coast (National 2000). Played a critical role in the development and adoption of the first federal fishery management plan for mahi-mahi and wahoo (Florida 2000). Won federal court battle to maintain bycatch reduction devices in Gulf waters (National 2000). Sued NMFS in federal court to reduce excessive billfish, shark and turtle bycatch in Gulf and Atlantic longline operations (National 2000). Provided LDWF enforcement agents with navigation, global positioning and sonar equipment (Louisiana 2000). Raised grassroots funds to protect angler access along the New Hampshire coast (New Hampshire 2000). Successfully worked in establishing regulations to protect spawning groundfish (Maine 2000). Helped fund the creation of near-shore reefs along the Georgia coast (Georgia 2000). Successfully led opposition to closing Gray’s Reef to recreational fishing (Georgia 2000). U. S. Supreme Court issues final ruling upholding Louisiana’s 1995 gill-net ban (Louisiana 2001). Led efforts to set recreational size, creel limits for flounder; new licensing requirements for commercial gigging, commercial size limit, and annual commercial quota for flounder (Mississippi 2001). Reached favorable settlement in NMFS no-fishing zone suit, allowing recreational trolling in previously restricted area (National 2001). Successfully raised $450,000 in cash and in-kind donations to purchase and remove the Smelt Hill Dam (Maine 2001). Reorganization of Menhaden Management Board ends commercial-fishing industry control (National 2001). Texas’ most comprehensive water bill passes Texas legislature (Texas 2001). Helped retool a bill that would have allowed destructive hydraulic dredging of clams in Virginia waters (Virginia 2001). Launched Gulf-wide phone number – 866-WE ENFORCE – to report coastal game violations (Louisiana 2001). Worked through state legislature and private foundations to continue critical funding for Florida’s state saltwater hatchery, resulting in the 1,000,000th redfish fingerling released in Florida waters (Florida 2001). Opposed Texas Shrimp Association petition to close recreation red snapper season (National 2001). Successfully worked for passage of new redfish conservation regulations (South Carolina 2001). Launched first ever Texas crab trap removal (Texas 2002). Helped ensure areas around Mississippi’s barrier islands are included in Department of Marine Resources’ definition of areas closed to commercial fishing (Mississippi (2002). Mobilized to oppose expansion of commercial shrimp trawling in St. Johns River; commercial request was withdrawn (Florida 2002). Provided TPWD game wardens with night vision equipment (Texas 2002). Constructed Bird Island Artificial Reef (Louisiana 2002). Helped pass first major amendments to state manatee legislation in last 10 years, establishing measurable biological goals for manatees (Florida 2002). Convinced Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to begin rule-making process on use of multiple seine nets tied together and "toy boats" used to circumvent net restrictions (Florida 2002). Defeated initiative by commercial interests to allow commercial harvest of Cobia in Mississippi waters (Mississippi 2003). Funded an expanded TAMU study on spotted seatrout catch-and-release mortality (Texas 2003). Launched first-ever derelict crab trap removal program in the state (Louisiana 2004). Broke the $2 million mark in college and graduate scholarships awarded (Texas 2004). Won passage of the Coastal Recreational Fishing License (North Carolina 2004). Banned trawling in the Upper Mobile Bay shallows (Alabama 2004). Funded more than $530,000 in enforcement equipment and research needs for TPWD over past four years (Texas 2004). Secured grant money for oyster reefs in the Bay of St. Louis & Biloxi Bay (Mississippi 2004). Championed efforts to restore southern flounder stocks through harvest reductions, size and bag limits, license requirements and seasonal closures (North Carolina 2004). Bay Debris Clean-up Project surpasses the 1,150 tons of harmful debris removed from Texas bay systems (Texas 2004). Worked through its representative on the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas to implement measures outlawing the practice of shark finning in the Atlantic (CCA National 2004). Instrumental in the effort to secure tideland funds for speckled trout hatchery (Mississippi 2004). One of four members of a cooperative effort called Menhaden Matter formed to investigate the status of menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay to ensure adequate populations for its role as forage base and filter feeder. (CCA National 2004). Intervened successfully in a case before the First District Court of Appeals attempting to circumvent the net ban and bring back gill nets (Florida 2005). Helped establish the first-ever hatchery for southern flounder (North Carolina 2005). Achieved stronger protection for large permit (Florida 2005). Defeated legislative initiative to reduce minimum size of speckled trout (Mississippi 2005). Successful passage of legislation to increase criminal penalties to a third degree felony for flagrant illegal gillnetting (Florida 2005). Worked with the Biscayne National Park Fishery Working Group to curtail and modify proposed no-entry and no-fishing zones (Florida 2005). Sued in U.S. District Court to end overfishing of red snapper by the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fleet (National 2005). Constructed an inshore reef in Perdido Bay with tons of clean concrete rubble (Alabama 2006). Won lawsuit in federal district court to block federal attempt to close all recreational fishing for all species of grouper for three months (Florida 2006). Donated enforcement equipment to Law Enforcement Division of the Department of Environmental Conservation (New York 2007). Integrally involved in the Oyster Shell Recycling Program to improve water quality and create habitat for fish (North Carolina 2007). Led successful national effort to keep open-loop LNG terminals out of Gulf of Mexico (National 2006). Won first-ever harvest cap on the industrial harvest of menhaden in Chesapeake Bay (Virginia & Maryland 2006). Constructed Redfish Point Artificial Reef (Louisiana 2006). Funded $700,000 for construction of a state-of-the-art marine larviculture research lab (Texas 2007). Won a moratorium on river herring, allowing near-collapsed stocks chance to recover (North Carolina 2007). Launched chapters in Washington and Oregon to address marine conservation issues (National 2007). Partnered with Texas Parks & Wildlife Department to retire $200,000 worth of commercial shrimping licenses (Texas 2007). Announced creation of the Building Conservation / Habitat Program (National 2007). Served integral role in the Maryland Artificial Reef Initiative to develop marine habitat enhancement projects (Maryland 2007). Won lawsuit in federal district court forcing NMFS to address shrimp trawl bycatch in the management of Gulf red snapper (National 2007).

OSP investigating waste of fish found in net

2008-09-12T13:22:00.000-07:00

This is a press release courtesy of the Oregon State Police

The Oregon State Police (OSP) Fish & Wildlife Division in The Dalles is seeking the public's assistance in locating the person or persons responsible for the unlawful waste of salmon, steelhead and other fish found Sunday in a hoop net in the Columbia River below the John Day Dam.

On September 7, 2008, OSP Senior Trooper Craig Gunderson located another net in the Columbia River containing fish that had gone to waste. This hoop net was found off a tribal scaffold near Giles French State Park just below the John Day Dam.

Senior Trooper Gunderson, with the assistance of Columbia River Intertribal Fisheries Enforcement Officer Mendoza, removed one catfish, one walleye, one Chinook salmon, one Coho salmon, one steelhead and four suckers. The fish appeared to have been in the net for approximately one week and were beyond salvage. The owner of the hoop net is unknown and there was no identification on it.

Although hoop nets are legal to use during tribal fisheries, subsistence fishing gear must be tended at all times and the waste of game fish is unlawful.

Anyone has information regarding this case is asked to contact Senior Trooper Gunderson at (541) 296-9646 or the OSP Northern Command Center dispatch at (800) 452-7888. Information may be kept anonymous.

Commercial Netting "Salmon Unsafe"

2008-09-12T08:34:00.000-07:00

Here's a recent letter I sent to the Oregonian that I guess didn't make the cut, but I thought I'd share it here for you:

It's exciting to see a new Portland housing development given the area's first 'salmon safe' label (Salmon could feel at home in South Waterfront, Sept.6). What a shame we can not rightly give such a label to the salmon caught in Oregon's own commercial salmon gill net industry. This gill net fishery isn't merely 'salmon unsafe' it is lethal to 40% of the precious non-target wild salmon that attempt to migrate upstream past these indiscriminating nets. The nets are also "steelhead, bird, seal, and sturgeon unsafe" as the deadly curtains sweep through the Columbia River at night hoping to catch the hatchery salmon that are the legitimate targets of this fishery.

Oregonians should work toward the day when our low-value gill net industry, one that directly injures and kills adult wild salmon listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, can be converted to a high-value, live capture, selective fishery for target hatchery salmon. Buyers of Columbia River salmon in stores and restaurants could then see not only a 'salmon safe' label on their fish, but could also be assured that 'no steelhead, birds, sturgeon or seals were killed in the harvesting of this salmon.' That is the high standard we should be working for here in the Pacific Northwest.

CCA Florida Announces 2008 Legislative Conservation Awards

2008-09-10T11:18:00.000-07:00

Sen. Ken Pruitt among the recipients
CCA-Florida, Tuesday, September 9, 2008
http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/sep/09/cca-florida-announces-2008-legislative-conservatio/

“We are very pleased to recognize these individuals,” said Mark Carter, CCA Florida Chairman. “Their ongoing involvement and support for fisheries conservation has been a great benefit for marine resources and recreational anglers.”

Legislators chosen to receive CCA Florida 2008 Legislative Conservation Awards are:

Senator Paula Dockery (R – Lakeland)
Senator Dennis Jones (R – Seminole)
Senator Ken Pruitt (R – Port St. Lucie)
Representative Andy Gardiner (R – Orlando)
Representative Jack Seiler (D – Pompano Beach)

During the 2008 Legislative session, CCA Florida worked with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) to remove the shoreline exemption from the saltwater fishing license.=2 0The exemption allows Florida residents to fish from the shoreline without having a fishing license. The FWC and CCA Florida have urged removal of the exemption and addition of a provision for a free license or waiver for subsistence anglers such as individuals who receive benefits from Medicaid and Food Stamp programs. All other exemptions such as under 16 and over 65 would not be changed. Senators Dockery and Jones have supported these efforts.

While the removal was not successful, CCA Florida will push again in 2009 because removing the shoreline exemption is necessary to qualify the Florida license to meet the upcoming federal angler registration law. If Florida does not modify the exemption then the federal agency will step in and charge an additional fee to “register” Florida’s saltwater anglers and the funds will not be used to manage Florida fisheries.

CCA Florida successfully promoted the legislative establishment of a saltwater recreational fishing license in 1989. The license has provided more than 200 million dollars i n revenue dedicated to marine research, management, and law enforcement. The FWC has estimated that removal of the shoreline exemption would generate an additional 1.7 to 2.5 million dollars annually. Also, every certified fishing license holder helps Florida obtain approximately seven dollars in Federal Aid funds for sport fish restoration funds.

Earlier this year FWC Commissioners once again dealt with the mesh size issue in seine nets. Commercial netters were pushing for a larger mesh size which would convert a seine net into a gill net. Representative Gardiner and Representative Seiler stood in opposition to the attempt to circumvent the clear intent of 72% of Florida citizens who voted to ban gill nets in all State waters. The FWC maintained the regulations banning gill.

“These legislators have always been there to help us on fisheries conservation issues. Their continued leadership and support during the 2008 legislative session and beyond has been outstanding,” said Ted Forsgren, CCA Florida Executive Director.

16 hammerhead shark pups found dead in gill net

2008-08-29T09:19:00.000-07:00

VIDEO: http://www.kitv.com/video/17331420/index.html
August 28, 2008

Nature Conservancy officials said they recovered the bodies of 16 dead hammerhead shark pups today in Kane'ohe Bay near the Waikalua Fish Pond.

“They were all dead,” Eric Conklin, marine science adviser for the Nature Conservancy said.
Lay gill nets have been banned entirely on Maui, in West Hawai'i and select areas on O'ahu, including Portlock Point to Keahi Point, Kailua Bay and Kane'ohe Bay.

It is illegal to leave a gill net in the water for more than four hours and it is also illegal to leave them unattended for more than 30 minutes, a Nature Conservancy official said. It is not known yet if the pups were found in one net or several that were strung together or if the nets were registered and set up properly. Violators can face fines of up to $3,000.

More information will be released shortly. Earlier this month, The Advertiser reported that 75 percent of Hawai'i's reef fish are depleted or in critical condition, and unregulated lay gill net fishing could be the primary culprit, local fishing enthusiasts said. The Department of Land and Natural Resources said it has114 enforcement officers statewide — 43 on O'ahu — who are in charge of protecting Hawai'i's natural area reserves, public lands, waters, forests and other resources.

There are 2,200 registered lay nets in the state, 550 of which are on O'ahu. To date, eight stolen lay nets have been recorded, DLNR public information officer Deborah Ward said earlier this month. People can report illegal use of gill nets to the DLNR's Division of Conservation and Resource Enforcement. Callers can leave their name and phone number with an enforcement officer to receive a follow-up report.

Bycatch reduction, marine debris addressed by MCA at American Fisheries Society Meeting in Ottawa

2008-08-15T08:38:00.000-07:00

Contact: Tom Gemmell
tomgemmellmca@ak.net
907-523-0731
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-08/mca-brm081408.php

Marine Conservation Alliance
http://www.marineconservationalliance.org/

Bycatch reduction, marine debris addressed by MCA at American Fisheries Society Meeting in Ottawa
The fishing industry is creating a cod trawl net design for use off Kodiak, Alaska, that reduces Halibut bycatch by 50-60 percent.

Progress toward addressing the issues of bycatch and marine debris reduction will be featured at the MCA's booth at the upcoming annual meeting of the American Fisheries Society (AFS) in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

The 138th Annual Meeting of the AFS takes place at the Ottawa Congress Centre and Westin Hotel August 17-21, 2008. The theme of the meeting is "Fisheries in Flux: How Do We Ensure Our Sustainable Future."

"Two key issues affecting fisheries sustainability are the reduction of bycatch, the incidental harvest of non-target species, and the problem of plastic pollution in our marine environment," said Dave Benton, executive director of MCA and MCA Foundation. "Our booth will document work toward the design of halibut and salmon excluder devices for trawl nets as well as our nationally-recognized efforts at marine debris cleanup."

One excluder device incorporates slots in the side of codfish trawls that allow halibut to escape. The other has escapement portals on the top of pollock nets that allow salmon to escape during slowdowns and haul backs. Underwater video of the excluder designs in action will be presented.

The MCA Foundation's marine debris cleanup work, with support from NOAA, removed over 175 metric tons of mostly plastic debris from the Alaska shoreline last year and is on a pace to equal that in 2008. The cleanup work was the recipient of NOAA's Sustainable Fisheries Leadership Award for coastal habitat restoration earlier this year.

MCAF's presentations will be at Booth 322 throughout the annual meeting. Staffing the booth will be MCA board member Lori Swanson of the Groundfish Forum, assisted by Diane Scoboria.

###

The Marine Conservation Alliance is a Juneau, Alaska-based trade association whose members include fishermen, vessel owners, processors and fishing communities involved in the Groundfish and crab fisheries in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska. The MCA Foundation is the non profit arm of the MCA that focuses on cooperative research and marine debris education and cleanup.

For more information on MCA, visit www.marineconservationalliance.org, www.mcafoundation.org or call Dave Benton at 907-523-0731. For more information on the AFS's annual meeting visit http://www.fisheries.org/afs08/index.html.

Hanford, WA: Nation's Most Polluted Nuke Site

2008-08-13T15:02:00.001-07:00

Historical pro-gillnet arguments (1926)

2008-08-09T11:36:00.000-07:00

RE: Ballot Measure to Ban the use of Traps, Wheels and Seines in Oregon waters

“No matter where you live or what your business may be, if you are a citizen of Oregon you must of necessity be interested in this bill, the object of which is to conserve and perpetuate the public’s fish – your fish – and to restore to the people the legal right to share the benefits of the fishing industry.”

“Under the laws of this state the fish in the public streams belong to the people, who, as proprietors thereof, have the absolute right to say when, where and by what method and by whom their fish shall be taken. But a few wealthy and powerful individuals have succeeded through enactment of special privilege laws, in virtually appropriating the right of the public fishery to themselves, to the exclusion of the rest of the citizens of this state.”

“These few men have now a practical monopoly of the fishing industry on the Columbia river, and they control it almost as effectively as though the state had deeded to them the river itself”

“The appliances used by these monopolists are known as fish wheels, the most deadly and effective fishing gear ever devised – and which is prohibited on every stream in the civilized world except the Columbia river.”

“Its passage will allow the escapement to their natural spawning grounds and to the hatcheries of the Columbia of between two and three million pounds of royal spring chinook salmon per year – an escapement which will treble or perhaps even quadruple the annual salmon run on this river.”

“This will mean employment to thousands more of individual fishermen and will add millions more annually to the wealth of the state.”

“The fact can not be successfully contradicted, that, under the present fishing regulations on the Columbia river, there is not enough seed fish escaping to build up or even maintain the run. This being true, it is essential, in order to protect the interests of the state, that changes be made to the salmon fishing regulations.”

“The operation of a fish wheel is an exclusive privilege. It is a license to take fish from a particular place in a public stream to the exclusion of every other citizen of the state.”

“There is neither excuse nor necessity for the operation of a fish wheel. Immediately below the fish wheel is a stretch of water 150 miles long and from one to ten miles wide, on which there is enough room for all the citizens of the state, who wish to engage in fishing, to participate”

“There are 59 fish wheels on the Columbia river… (which) are permitted by special privilege laws of the state to take fully 85 per cent of all the fish taken above tidewater, and employ not to exceed 25 men in their operation on the average.”

“While the fish wheels are a destructive factor from the fact that they prey upon the early run of royal chinook salmon, the drag seines are also a serious menace to the fishing industry for the reason that they take of tons of silverside salmon and steelhead trout.”

“The elimination of drag seines, which operate above the Cascade locks during the low water season, would be of especial interest and value to the sportsmen of the state, in that it would permit hundreds of thousands of pounds of the gamey steelhead trout to ascend the stream to spawn and afford wholesome and profitable sport to the hook and line enthusiasts, as well as to the man or woman who goes out to catch a luscious fish for the table.“

“As to the argument that the elimination of fish wheels will give gill-netters a monopoly of the industry, it is only necessary to repeat that the gill-netters operate in a stretch of river 150 miles long and from one to ten miles wide, and that every citizen of the state is privileged to engage in this kind of fishing. A monopoly under these conditions is an absurdity.”
...from 1926. I thought I would share something I ran across researching something else relating to CR fisheries at the Oregon Historical Society the other day.

The above quotes are excerpts from the voters pamphlet for the November 2nd, 1926 statewide Oregon election. It was in this election that every other means of commercial fishing on the Columbia river and elsewhere in fresh water in the Oregon were banned. The ballot measure was #17 and known as the "Fish Wheel, Trap, Seine and Gill Net Bill".

These direct quotes are from the argument FOR passage of the measure for banning all other means of commercial fishing (fish wheels, traps, and seines) from the Columbia river EXCEPT gill nets.

These arguments (and the ballot measure) were submitted by the gill netters and the pro gill net lobby in 1926, and their then friends including the Oregon State Grange, the president of the Oregon State Federation of Labor, and interestingly enough... the chairman of the Fish Commission of the State of Oregon.

Interesting bit of Oregon history, huh?

Brad (UglyGreen), a commenter on http://www.ifish.net

Hawaii: Gill nets decimate reef fish

2008-08-03T07:57:00.000-07:00

Fishers complain lack of enforcement responsible for depletion of 75% of stocks
By Leanne Ta, Staff Writer
The Honolulu Advertiser

Seventy-five percent of Hawai'i's reef fish are depleted or in critical condition, and unregulated lay gill net fishing could be the primary culprit, local fishing enthusiasts say.

The state Department of Land and Natural Resources implemented rules regarding lay nets last year, but some who say they have witnessed frequent violations complain the rules are not being properly enforced.

Colin Takashima, who said he has been fishing on O'ahu's southern shores for more than 25 years, believes that illegal lay net fishing is responsible for Hawai'i's depleting reef fish stocks.

"Some guys go and lay a couple hundred yards of nets across the reefs — whole schools of fish can get caught in that before they have the chance to reproduce," said Takashima, a medical representative for an insurance company. "If an entire school of mature, reproducing fish are harvested by one setting of a lay net, how is it supposed to recover?"

The steep decline of reef fish populations in recent years has called attention to the damaging effects of lay-netting.

A recent National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report showed that of 55 reef fish species studied in the main Hawaiian Islands, 42 percent were in critical condition and 33 percent were depleted.

The study compared fish populations around the main Hawaiian Islands with those around the relatively unfished Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, which was used as a baseline.

Populations of important native food fishes in the main Hawaiian Islands, such as moi, kumu, ulua and 'o'io, have declined 75 percent or more over the past century, according to the International Coral Reef Initiative, organizers of the International Year of the Reef.

Overfishing is one of the main causes behind the declining fish populations, said Alan Friedlander, one of the NOAA study's lead authors. Other factors contributing to a decline are growing human populations and coastal development, which have disrupted reef habitats, he said.

Friedlander said that irresponsible use of gill nets is an especially destructive fishing practice because the nets are "indiscriminate," meaning that all types of fish could get caught in them.

"Illegal gill-netting activity certainly contributes to overfishing," Friedlander said. "There probably are some sustainable uses of lay nets but there is a lot of abuse of the system."

The NOAA report calls for "additional restrictions on overly efficient gear types such as gill nets and SCUBA fishing, bag limits and larger area closures" in order to preserve fish populations.

John Randall, a Bishop Museum senior ichthyologist, said that unregulated lay net fishing is "definitely a problem."

"The existing rules are clearly not being effectively enforced," said Randall, who co-authored a 2006 study, "The Case Against Lay Gill Nets," which argued for a complete ban on gill nets in Hawai'i.

The nets not only contribute to overfishing, but also create marine debris and damage fish habitat, the report states.

114 officers employed

DLNR officials say they are doing everything they can to stop illegal lay-netting.

The department employs 114 enforcement officers statewide — 43 on O'ahu — who are in charge of protecting Hawai'i's natural area reserves, public lands, waters, forests and other resources. In addition to daily field patrols, enforcement officers are in charge of responding to 50 to 100 calls per day from people reporting violations of conservation rules, according to Guy Chang, supervisor for the Department of Conservation and Resource Enforcement.

Efforts have been made to increase the number of enforcement officers in recent months, Chang said. Five additional enforcement officers are undergoing training and will soon join the O'ahu staff.

"We're doing our best to handle every case," Chang said. "There are no calls that go unanswered. There might be a little time lapse, but all cases need to be answered," he said.

There are 2,200 registered lay nets in the state, 550 of which are on O'ahu. To date, eight stolen lay nets have been recorded, according to DLNR public information officer Deborah Ward.

Chang said that enforcement officers have retrieved a few abandoned lay gill nets in the past few months. However, because the nets are unregistered, there is no way to track them back to the people who laid them, he said.

In recent years, Takashima has reported five to seven incidents of illegal lay net fishing. Gill nets must have at least two surface buoys — each with registration numbers and reflective tape — placed at both ends of the float line.

People can report illegal use of gill nets to the DLNR's Division of Conservation and Resource Enforcement. Callers can leave their name and phone number with an enforcement officer to receive a follow-up report.

Although the division documents all complaints, the number of complaints regarding gill net violations was not readily available, Ward said.

Takashima is disappointed with the responses he has gotten after reporting violations.

"There is a 50-50 chance that an officer will come" to take care of the problem, he said. "I've waited for easily two, three or four hours. They did show up a couple times, but most of the time no one shows up," he said.

"It's frustrating to try to do something good and get it under control when there's no response," he added.

Mesh nets with floats

Lay gill net fishing is a method of capture using rectangular monofilament mesh nets with floats on the top and weights on the bottom. Gill nets are often set in one location and left unattended as fish get caught in them.

The effectiveness of lay gill net fishing has prompted strict rules regarding their use, which were signed into law last year. Nets must be registered with the DLNR, and cannot exceed 125 feet in length and 7 feet in height. They must not be set for more than four hours at a time or left unattended for more than 30 minutes, according to state law.

Lay gill nets have been banned entirely on Maui, in West Hawai'i, and selected areas on O'ahu, including Portlock Point to Keahi Point, Kailua Bay and Kane'ohe Bay.

Violators can face fines of up to $3,000.

Still, commercial and recreational fishermen are laying unregistered nets in areas where lay-netting is banned after the sun goes down, witnesses say.

"They do it on off hours, normally during the night. I came across one of the guys who lays nets, and he told me that he goes when it's really stormy," said Robert Balala, an O'ahu programmer who has been fishing twice a week for more than four years.

"These guys are laying nets where theyre not supposed to be. On top of that they leave it in for more than the allotted amount of time."

Takashima is most concerned about popular game species such as 'o'io and papio, but notes that lay nets affect all species because there is no way of targeting what gets caught.

Balala and Takashima's experiences highlight the challenges that the state's conservation enforcement division faces, especially in tough economic times when resources are limited.

Mark Fox, director of external affairs for the Nature Conservancy and a supporter of gill net restrictions, understands that "there can't be an enforcement officer on every mile, every point throughout the day."

"We'd all like to see more and better enforcement.," he said. "As with any resource rule, there seems to be pretty universal agreement that conservation regulation needs to be coupled with strong enforcement."

Fox is involved with Fair Catch, a campaign by the Nature Conservancy, Malama Hawai'i and SeaWeb to restore Hawai'i's reefs.

While campaign supporters agree that the state has made great strides in implementing "good rules," more needs to be done to stop illegal lay net fishing, Fox said.

Mediteranean Gillnet Fishers Threaten Monitoring Vessel

2008-08-01T09:29:00.000-07:00

Gillnets kill thousands of steelhead in Skeena opener

2008-07-29T09:13:00.000-07:00

(Update on Steelhead mortalities in Skeena River opener from North Coast Steelhead Alliance (Canada)
http://skeenafisheriesblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/steelhead-impacts-for-season.html

This post may be too much for some to read without seriously affecting their blood pressure.......but it needs to be done.

Today we'll try to figure out roughly how many steelhead have been killed or impacted by the commercial fishery so far this year. These numbers are just for the gillnet fleet in Area 4. Dont forget, steelhead would be impacted by seine openings also and by openings in Area 3.

Steelhead Tally for the season:
..................................Approx. Stld Encountered/
Date.......Boat #'s..........Boat/Day................Total Stld Enct.
July 07: 91..........................2..............................182
July 11: 96..........................2..............................192
July 15: 282.........................3...............................846
July 17: 300.........................3...............................900
July 18: 300.........................4..............................1200
July 21: 296.........................5..............................1480
July 22: 314.........................8..............................2512
July 24: stats not n yet
July 27: stats not in yet
Just doing this rough exercise comes up with a possible impact on 7312 steelhead up to July 22.

From our investigations it appears alot of steelhead were impacted in these openings. The average catch per boat of steelhead appears to be around 3 per day.Now this doesnt sound like alot...but multiplied by 300 boats this equals 900 stld. per day.....times 3 days of openings of July 11,15,17= 2700 steelhead encountered and likely a high percentage of these succumbed to the experience of meeting a gillnet up close and personal.
Now weve heard that steelhead catch/encounter rates have increased over the last few openings with boats encountering up to and above 10 steelhead for this last opening on July 24th. If the same 300 or so boats took part and each average 5 stld or more we are looking at 1500 steelhead encountered....If you use a higher average such as the 10 one gillnetter had then the number of steelhead encountered jumps to 3000 for just this one opening!
We use the term encountered because to be fair to gillnetters not every steelhead will be dead on arrival and some are released alive. However, we do know gillnets inflict huge immediate mortality rates on steelhead and presume at least 5-7 out of 10 fish will be dead after encountering a gillnet. ** (see study results listed below). More will presumably die after being 'released' also.

So, as the season progresses and we tally up the potential steelhead impact we are looking at rough estimates of;

-9 gillnet openings so far up to July 27
-early season stld encounters of approx 3 per boat per day
-mid season encounters of approx 7-10 per boat per day
-being rough estimates there would be a range of impacts both lower and higher than our estimates...so from our 7300 estimate the range could be from a low of 5000... to the 7312 of our estimate....to a high of 10,000+
-and they are not finished yet...we still have more openings to come

Bottom line is: for every gillnet and seine opening they have hundreds of steelhead will die...and in peak run timing openings possibly thousands of steelhead will die. What an absolute criminal waste of a valuable resource.

**Studies done in 1992 on the Observer Program noted steelhead mortalities of 73% (45/62) in gillnet caught fish
-weedline studies done in 1991 found 67% 162/243
-weedline studies in 1992 found 74% 233/315

Gillnetters fear extinction

2008-07-26T11:34:00.000-07:00

...and rightfully so.

Lawmaker plans to introduce ‘a proposal to bring back the fish’
http://www.dailyastorian.info/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=398&ArticleID=53096&TM=66595.24
By CASSANDRA PROFITA
The Daily Astorian
Friday, July 25, 2008

A Willamette Valley lawmaker is drafting a bill Columbia River gillnetters have been anxiously anticipating for the past year. "A proposal to bring back the fish," is how state Sen. Fred Girod, R-Stayton, described the legislation he plans to float next session.

The four-part plan takes aim at sea lions and cormorants, two predators with voracious appetites for salmon, and outlines hatchery reforms to bolster salmon production and survival. Girod's fourth and final strategy for saving the salmon is to eliminate commercial gillnets from the Columbia River mainstem. "The fish runs have gotten so low, and gillnets are pretty indiscriminate, as far as what gets in the net," Girod said in an interview last week. "I think we have to make a tough decision."

The proposal surfaced amid a mass exodus of sport-fishing representatives from a bistate negotiation process designed to find common ground between recreational and commercial fishing interests on the Columbia River. Every two years, Oregon and Washington fish and wildlife commissions must decide how the two groups will split a meager allowance of impacts to wild salmon. The allocation decision determines how much hatchery fish each group will be allowed to catch.

Many suspected legislation was in the works last month when six of the eight sport-fishing groups in state-sponsored negotiations refused to discuss a long-term allocation agreement. Girod said his bill won't outlaw commercial fishing on the river, but it would force gillnetters to switch to hook-and-line fishing methods, which he favors because they would allow fishermen to quickly release wild salmon caught in the process of targeting hatchery stocks.

"The nice thing about hook-and-line is you can release (fish) real easily," he said. "The kill rate is not so high." His plans will include some sort of buy out offer for around 150 existing commercial gillnet license holders along with reimbursements for fishermen who switch to hook-and-line gear.

Hobe Kytr, administrator of the Astoria-based gillnetting group Salmon for All, said his group has been expecting a move to ban gillnets ever since the Coastal Conservation Association set up its Pacific Northwest chapter last year. "The sad fact of the matter is this is a move that starts with the gillnetters in the Columbia River," he said, "and then the same people who are trying to eliminate in-river fishery will then go after the troll fishery, and then they're going to go after the crabbers."

Kytr took issue with Girod's assumption that hook-and-line fishing is better for fish than gillnetting. "The thing Fred Girod doesn't seem to understand is the mortality rates that are associated with the Columbia River commercial fishery are based on expensive test study data," he said. "There is no data to back up the numbers attributed to the sport fishery, which is the hook-and-line fishery."

He said the hooking mortality in the Columbia River fishery was set at 10 percent based on a review of comparable rivers. But the rate in British Columbia is 15 percent and other studies have produced numbers from 20 to 36 percent mortality of some species. Gill-netters are concerned about the new legislation, he said, but they've done their homework, and they're ready to fight for their fishery.

"Let's take an honest look at this stuff," he said. The gillnet ban won't be the only controversial part of Girod's bill. He's also proposing hunting seasons for sea lions and cormorants, both currently protected under federal laws. "I want to at least put the proposal on the table," Girod said. "We need to at least have the conversation and figure out what we need to do to save our fish runs."

And here are the comments...

Reader Comments

Posted: Sunday, August 03, 2008
Article comment by: Curt Welch

Debbie Ferguson. you really need to check you're facts. You know NOT what you speskGo check All of your fasts as you don't have a clue. T have seen whats the nets do,,,you need to open you re eyes

Posted: Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Article comment by: Joe Schwab

Mis Ferguson's letter is so loaded with inaccuracies, it is hard to know where to start.

Commercial fish ahve always been available and will continue to be available to the non fishing public with or without the gillnets. I have lived in Oregon all my life and fished in most coastal streams in cluding the mainstem Columbia. Most of the "old people" I know got their fish from sports fishermen for free becuase they could not afford to buy springers for 15.00 a pound. Oh there were those who often said they got their fish free from gillnetting buddies but let's not go there!

The fact is gillnetting is an outmoded wasteful practice that is by the gillnetters own admissions "hardly capable of paying expenses" So why do they continue? My grandfather homesteaded land in the vally. There are numerous offspring who had to find "other" lines of work because the family farm could not possible support all of us. So why is gillnetting any different? I'm proud of the fact that my two sons educated themselves and found good jobs on their own. They are truly independent.

I can't even rmeber all the ex gillnetters who have told me that gillnetting is a wateful process that injures and kills many of the fish that get caught in the net. I have witnessed enough of it myself to confirm that.

Just the enforcement of the rules is nearly impossible. The more complicated the fishery becomes, the more enforcment is required and we all know that is not going to happen. the fact is gillnetters do not pay their way when it comes to monetary returns to ODFW.

I asked a manger the other day if ODFW could survive without gillnets. He replied "of course they could" I then asked if they could survive without sport anglers. He replied, "NO". There is the answer

Ms Ferguson better check the facts. "20%" of the harvest? Try 50%!

Posted: Monday, July 28, 2008
Article comment by: Andrew Marks

There are some facts that, in spite of emotional protestations to the contrary, are not in dispute. Salmon harvest is limited not by the number of fish available - SALMON HARVEST IS LIMITED BY THE NUMBER OF PROTECTED FISH KILLED, MOST OF THEM IN GILLNETS. The recovery of the protected wild stocks are enhanced by removing hatchery fish and preventing them from spawning with native wild fish. Selective methods allow for more hatchery fish to be harvested by both recreational and commercial fishermen. The simple fact of the matter is that gillnets kill indiscriminately. Selective methods make more fish available for harvest.

Gillnetting is an archaic and wasteful method. The potential of much greater harvest and profit is available for the commercial fisherman who figures out how to harvest salmon without killing endangered salmon and steelhead stocks. It isn't the commercial fisherman who is endangered, it is the methods that are, and need to go away. If current methods are continued, and wild and protected stocks continue to decline, there won't be any fishing for anyone. We've already experienced that.

Mr. Kytr is a vocal advocate for his industry, but for that industry to survive, it has to evolve - it has to recognize that the continued indiscriminate harvest of endangered wild stocks cannot continue. You can argue all day long about who gets to kill the last fish, but when they are gone, they are gone for everyone.

Conservation works for everyone, not just a few.

The recovery of Snook in Florida and the Gulf Coast of the US is directly attributed to the removal of commercial nets. And, yes, I have spent hundreds of hours on the Columbia, from The Dalles to the mouth. I have spent time on both commercial and sport boats. I hope Mr. Kytr can steward his leadership position and lead his industry to greater prosperity, not less. In order to do that, the status quo has to be changed.

You can't have healthy fish runs for just some. Healthy and sustainable runs benefit all fishing interests. In that regard, commercial fishermen, Coastal Conservation Association members, and sport fishing interest all share a common interest.

Posted: Sunday, July 27, 2008
Article comment by: Debbie Ferguson

RE: Gillnetting Extenction in Fridays 6/ 25 /2008 Daily Astorian. I urge EVERYONE will all points of view to write to or email this State Senator. And all the Law makers for this state. sen.fredgirod@state.or.us
This is MY opinion and my letter to him:

Mr. Girod,
My name is Debbie Ferguson , I am a 5th generation Astoria, Oregon native. I own and operate a small business - Uniontown Fish Market here in Astoria Oregon. I employ between 10 and 20 people, depending on the season here. I am also the daughter of a GILLNETTER here in Astoria as well as Alaska. I also Sport fish, whenever time allows.
On the front page of The Daily Astorian Friday it says you are introducing a bill to stop all Gillnetting in our area. I observe the lower Columbia River here everyday of my life. Have you ever spent anytime here? Talked with the people from SALMON FOR ALL ? Or even talked with a gillnetter? Or do you just speak with the EXTREAMIST NW Sport Fishing Club? ( I used to cater their Salmon Derby - until they found out my dad was a gillnetter). Its all about who has the most money.
My question to you is - where are the elderly people, people who do not own boats because they cannot afford them, have physical handicaps or people who do not want to eat Farmed Fish loaded with drugs, supposed to get their fish? If not from Gillnetters and Fresh seafood markets such as mine? ( It is against the LAW for me to purchase FRESH fish from Sportsfishermen for resale. It is against the law for me to sport fish and sell it in my market. I never have and never will.) Where do the sportsfishermen get their BAIT From? Yep..that would be a gillnetter!
What is the ratio of gillnetters to sportsfishermen? What is the catch ratio? I don't think you know. The Gillnetters are now down to about 20% of the catch. How is this fair to all the people who like to eat Salmon as well as Sturgeon but cannot afford $100,000 boats and $500 pole and reel combos, or even the gas to go fishing? I guarantee you there are more of them, than people who own sport boats. (I see it as more special interest groups being favored. They have the money to buy boats as well as legislators.)
In our local paper this week it states that a RECORD NUMBER of Sockeye Salmon went over the dams. It also states that that during a fly over 640 SPORT BOATS were fishing here last weekend, during the sturgeon opener. How many Gillnetters? ZERO! Then the last day to sport fish sturgeon here was yesterday. ( And all the reports were there were MANY MANY OVERSIZE sturgeon were caught and released!) But it will remain OPEN up in the upper river from the Wauna Mill to the Bonneville Dam? When they are already over their QUOTA? Where is the Logic in this thinking? If the river is to be shut down to ALL gillnetting ....it ALSO needs to be shut down to ALL sportfishing! Fair is Fair.
Earlier this year they closed down the lower river due the Endangered Willamate Run. BUT left the Willamate River OPEN for Salmon Fishing? Where is the Logic in this? ITS JUST NUTS!!!!
I agree with you that something needs to be done about the Sea Lions here. They are out of control! Has anyone considered the mortality rate of native salmon eaten by these huge animals? ( The Daily Astorian publishes news of 75 years ago.......75 years ago there was a $5 bounty on their heads...quite a sum of money for that period of time. Do you think MAYBE our ancestors knew what was going on LONG BEFORE the EXTREME ANIMAL RIGHTS PEOPLE DID?)
I beleive also believe part of the problem is with the management of the ODFW in our fisheries. They need to take some lessons from the WDFW. Not only with the Salmon and Sturgeon management, but the Razor Clam management as well.
The Guide boats in this area have exploded. They are guides from many other states. NOT OREGON! In Washington I am told they have to be a resident for at least a year, before they can be a guide. Why does Oregon not have these rules in place as well? ITS REDICLIOUS! Anyone can go pay a fee, paint on the side of thier boat and BAM they are a guide?
Razor Clam Digging is wide open here, most of the year. I dig clams also for sport, ( and I love to eat them!) Washington sets seasons of 1 or 2 sets of 2 or 3 day digs per month, ( but never in the summer!) And there are actually Clams of some decent size on their beaches. We dug here in Oregon the last set of tides and our average clam was under 2 inches. Oregon NEEDS to set some restrictions on the times Clams can be dug. We get tourists here and in my market, that Do not know how to clean them, so they dig them and then Throw them away. I have frineds that work at Fort Stevens State Park and the KOA out in Warrneton. They say after a clam tide......It STINKS out there due to people just digging them and throwing them away! Also Oregon allows Commercial Clam diggers to Dig Razor Clams for BAIT on our beaches, Washington does not!
Razor Clams are a source of food and do not need to be used as BAIT. Some regualtions need to be put into place.
Now the ODFW is going to shut down the LOCAL BIG CREEK HATCHERY for Salmon and leave the one on the SANDY RIVER OPEN? When the Big Creek hatchery is WAY closer to the ocean, and the hatchlings have less chance of predators eating them? WHERE IS THE LOGIC IN THIS??????????? ITS CRAZY!!!!
I believe before you go balls to the wall, trying to shut down Gillnetting in this State...You ought to START with the REFORM and REGULATIONS of the ODFW. And then go from there. THERE IS NO LOGIC in the way seasons are set and managed in this state.
And what about the joint commisssion between the sportfishermen and the gillnetters? Liz Hamilton and some of her extemmist cronies did not get their way, so they QUIT? What the hell?????? They don't get everything their way so they quit????? We do not need these kinds of people in civil negoations. THERE IS A MIDDLE GROUND! And acting like a bunch of teenages is NOT the way to go about it!!!! They need to be replaced with people with open minds that can see BOTH sides of the issues.
Also please realize, that many of us are LONGTIME Oregon residents, and we are SICK of these people moving in from other states , and the small interest groups telling us how to manage our resourses, to benefit themselves, without any thought or consideration to a way of life here that has been in effect for over 100 years!
Please think about what you are doing before you enter this bill to the legislature...if you haven't already!
You need to start with the reform of the ODFW rules and regulations. Thank you for you time........Debbie Ferguson Uniotnwo Fish Market, catering & Deli
229 W. Marine Drive # B
Astoria, Oregon

Posted: Sunday, July 27, 2008
Article comment by: Bruce Polley

Hobe Kytr of "Salmon for All" needs to get some facts straight. His claim that "There is no data to back up the numbers attributed to the sport fishery" is totally false and could be checked quickly with a call to ODFW. There was a scientific 3 year study to set those numbers. His desperate attempt to say that "trollers and crabbers are next" is also laughable. If a gillnet could be as selective and free of bycatch as a crab pot, no one could dispute them, but they are not.

Gillnets should not be used in the mainstem when ESA listed stocks are present.

We hear from all quarters about "sustainable" resource management. Gillnets in the mainstem of the Columbia River are a harvest method who's time has passed.

Posted: Saturday, July 26, 2008
Article comment by: Ronnie Day

Yall can look to Fla to see the affects of a net ban, absolutly not a single extra fish in the state after 13 year of no nets,they did the same thing here telling us we can hook n line them,I did get one winter trout fishing,done well so they changed my season the next year to the summertime.Fishery's managers are finally figuring out why fish stock don't recover after extrem measures are put in place,it's the catch and release mortality of hook n line only fisherys

Man credits drift-net ban for huge salmon

2008-07-17T07:13:00.000-07:00

The Irish Times
LAURA KEYS
Thursday, July 17, 2008
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0717/1216073186212.html

A KILKENNY man has landed one of the largest salmon ever caught in Irish waters. Bill Canning, Barracore, Goresbridge, hauled in the 12.79kg (28lb 3oz) monster in the river Bandon in west Cork last Tuesday.

The catch has been confirmed by the Central Fisheries Board as the largest salmon caught on a rod and line in Ireland since 1991.

Mr Canning credits last year's legislation banning drift-net fishing for rejuvenating the salmon stocks in Irish rivers. "Ever since drift-net fishing was banned, we've heard rumours of huge salmon running the rivers around here," Mr Canning said.

"It's made a huge difference and this season has been completely different to any other season. You would never normally see salmon of this size before the legislation came in."

The record for the largest salmon ever caught has stood for more than 130 years. In 1874, a Mr M Maher caught a 25.9kg (57lb) salmon in the river Suir.

Mr Canning said it took him about 15 minutes to overpower the salmon, which he caught using a small Mepps-brand spinner.

"We went down to a local shop straight away and bought some scales to measure it," he said. "By then, quite a group had gathered and they watched us weigh it in the car park.

"When we realised just how big it was, we took it down to a local butcher and they used their registered scales to weigh it officially."

Mr Canning is having his prize catch stuffed and cased by a taxidermist and plans to hang it on his wall, or donate it to a local hotel in Bandon.

© 2008 The Irish Times

Letter to Oregon Sen. Girod

2008-07-10T08:11:00.000-07:00

Dear Senator Girod,

I was glad to have met you at the Willamette Falls Chapter CCA banquet in May. I just signed up for your newsletter and I am very much looking forward to learning more about your legislative effort to eliminate Columbia River gillnetting. The success of such an effort is LONG past due and you will have my whole-hearted support, along with the support of hundreds of thousands of conservation and angling voters, in passing such a law. Thank you for your bold initiative.

Also, I've collected references on gillnetting you may find useful at a free educational site called http://www.gillnetskill.blogspot.com. There you will find articles and other resources concerning the uphill battle here and in other states to reform wasteful commercial fishing practices and reign in destructive gillnetting. I wrote a thesis paper in law school 20 years ago calling for the elimination of the lower Columbia gillnet fishery that might also be of some use in your efforts:

http://www.trustplannow.com/sites/default/files/CuttingOregonsNetLosses.pdf

As I return to salmon activism, I find that virtually all of the serious problems I wrote about in 1989 remain problems today and seem to have worsened over time. As we accrue more ESA listings and see more fragile wild salmon, steelhead and sturgeon stocks mixing with target fish, we see they continue to be maimed, killed and overharvested by these indiscriminating, outmoded nets. Attempts to reform the fishery with recovery boxes and mark, area, timing and mesh size restrictions are as lipstick to a pig. Gillnets have been a horrible, inappropriate choice for Oregon right from the start, as the history described in my paper clearly shows, but never more so than now as our many precious salmon and steelhead resources face unprecedented declines.

Another resource you may find of interest is an overview article written 10 years ago now by Linda Mapes of the Seattle Times:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980907&slug=2770677

Just as with my call for a gillnet ban, this article shows how gillnetting is probably the most inappropriate choice of fishing gear possible for our complicated mixed stock fisheries in the Northwest.

Please let me know if I can be of any assistance and thank you for your efforts.

Sincerely,

Virginia Ross, J.D.
Portland, Oregon

If you want to support Senator Fred Girod's effort to ban Oregon gillnetting, please go to http://www.leg.state.or.us/girod/ and write to him.

Wild Columbia Salmon: Bycatch Barbeque?

2008-07-08T09:26:00.000-07:00

[Submitted to commentary@news.oregonian.com on 6/22/2008]

News that up to 11,000 Chinook will be killed as “bycatch” in the ocean whiting fishery was salt in the wounds inflicted by the salmon collapse this year (“Whiting boats cleared to catch salmon” June 5, 2008). These salmon will be killed in the whiting fishery despite the near total shutdown of west coast ocean fisheries targeting salmon. “Bycatch” is the million metric tons of non-target marine life discarded from non-selective commercial fishing operations every year. Non-retention rules requiring fishers to discard non-target species take the profit out of this incidental bycatch. But the laws don’t prevent destructive fishing gear from killing or injuring the bycatch first.

Thousands of non-target salmon will die in ocean fisheries, but have you ever considered what fish are killed or harmed in fisheries targeting salmon? You should ask this about the Columbia River summer Chinook you may soon buy at the store. Under Oregon law, Columbia gillnet fishers must discard steelhead from their nets, dead or alive. Some of these fish are listed as endangered under the ESA. Some sturgeon and sockeye must also be discarded.

And though that wild summer salmon from the market will barbeque nicely, did you know it is only one non-retention rule away from being poached? That’s right. Over the protests of anglers and conservationists, the non-retention rule will NOT apply to wild (non-hatchery) summer Chinook. As a result, wild “June Hogs” – priceless trophy fish weighing 40 pounds or more – can be caught and sold commercially for pennies on the dollar relative to their economic value as sportfish. Even if the adipose fin-clipped hatchery portion of this run might support a modest harvest, the wild portion is so fragile that conservation groups have battled for ESA protection and pleaded with managers to stop the wild harvest.

Commercial fishers welcome the lack of non-retention rules for wild summer Chinook. Gillnets cut, scrape and suffocate fish by design. The mortality rate for Chinook discarded from gillnets is forty percent or more. Managers avoid that unpleasant statistic by simply discarding the non-retention rule itself. Result, a wild summer Chinook on the verge of arriving at its native upstream spawning bed could instead arrive on a bed of rice in New York or Tokyo. The menu could even say “Special: Blackened & Threatened Snake River Chinook.”

ESA listed and fragile salmon runs invariably mix with harvestable ones during long and vast migration cycles. Accurate, selective, terminal salmon harvest methods must be adopted now to prevent extinctions. Columbia River gillnetting can never meet this modern standard. Cosmetic fixes such as using tangle nets, recovery boxes, and applying mesh size restrictions serve only to delay the inevitable demise of this outmoded, dangerous practice.

All other states have banned freshwater gillnetting except Oregon and Washington. It is time for us to do the same. Selective, live salmon harvest gear used in terminal areas will finally let non-retention rules serve their higher purpose: urgently needed conservation of our precious wild fish resources.

Advocacy group sets sights on regional fishing policy

2008-07-08T09:17:00.000-07:00

Sunday, June 29, 2008
Bill Monroe, The Oregonian
Go to original.

As salmon issues in Oregon and Washington veer toward a possible legislative meltdown next spring, there's a new player in the game. In the year since it has emerged across communities in the two states, the Coastal Conservation Association has become a force to be reckoned with. Gary Loomis of Woodland, Wash., the charismatic fishing rod giant and a prominent salmon and steelhead advocate, attracted the national fishing organization to the Northwest and continues to attract members to its ranks as its Oregon and Washington chairman. With 7,000 new members in 16 chapters (eight in each state), the Pacific Northwest division (its Web site is ccapnw.org) has taken on a life of its own, and legislators are hearing the rumbles.

"We're like a 15-year-old to the national organization," said Angela Hult of Portland. "Growing like crazy." The CCA has been a significant player in coastal fisheries issues along the eastern seaboard and especially the Gulf Coast. Expansion to the West Coast was expected, and the time was ripe, Loomis being frustrated by what he believes are inadequate fish management policies and salmon fortunes in a nosedive regionwide. (Several jack counts have been good this year, by the way. Anyone whose glass is half full has reason to hope for better seasons to come.)

No small reason for CCA's mushrooming growth has been the continuing conflict between sport and commercial non-tribal gill-netters in the lower Columbia River. Although changing the way salmon are taken commercially in the Columbia remains near the top of CCA's list, the organization's goal goes far beyond simply ending gill-nets. "It was kind of the perfect storm," said Hult, the regional government relations committee chairwoman and the Northwest's representative on CCA's national committee. Government relations committees are near the heart of CCA efforts to change fisheries management. "The time is right here in the Northwest."

But, cautions Bruce Polley of Sherwood, "You won't see a big smart bomb. It's going to take time." Polley, a member of the government relations committee for Oregon chapters, is one of the thoughtful CCA members who are picking up telephones, shaking the right hands and quietly bringing CCA into the game. "I'm just a poster boy for Joe Six-pack, but maybe there's a way for Joe Six-pack to finally move the issues forward," he said. "The history of salmon has been all about commercial fishing -- we set rules for how to get maximum harvest. So the question becomes, how do we change the rules? If we were up to our eyeballs in salmon, it wouldn't be an issue."

Hult and Polley insist CCA isn't focused on ending commercial fishing, just the way it is executed. "We're all (sport and netters) about the same thing," Polley said. Like many other fledgling organizations, CCA erupted with a groundswell of support from sport anglers irritated by what they view as indiscriminate gill-nets. Unlike other organizations that have come and gone, though, CCA in both states is taking its steps carefully, building its own bureaucracy and getting ready for what will almost certainly be showdowns in Salem and Olympia next year.

Protected Or Plentiful, All Fish Look Alike To A Gill Net -- Millions Spent To Save Salmon Caught In Columbia Fisheries

2008-06-24T12:39:00.001-07:00

Monday, September 7, 1998
By Lynda V. Mapes
Seattle Times Staff Reporter
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980907&slug=2770677

ON THE COLUMBIA RIVER - Lee Clark lifts his catch high, and the chinook, a silver prize as long as his thigh, streams blood from its gills. He works quickly in the dark to pluck more fat chinook from the net that winds onto a spool on his gill-netter, the Blackheart. Clark hacks at the fish with a gaff, giving them a quick bash to kill any that still writhe. They hit the deck with a thud. Clark's 1,500-foot-long net does its job well, snaring more than 30 fish on his first set of the night on the Columbia River. Yet Clark wonders if this night on the river might be his last.

As fish runs crash throughout the region, fishermen and fish managers alike are bedeviled by the problem of mixed-stock fisheries, in which big, healthy fish like Clark's catch mingle with fragile runs protected under the Endangered Species Act. To protect those fragile runs, commercial-fishing seasons for gill-netters have been scaled back, and back some more, until fishermen such as Clark say it's not worth taking their boats out. The problem of by-catch - snaring protected fish while angling for healthy fish - is especially acute on the Columbia River, where taxpayers and utility ratepayers have spent more than $3 billion since 1985 to recover salmon runs.

And gill nets compound the problem because they kill almost every fish they catch. "The public simply does not and will not understand spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on weak stocks to rebuild them while we kill them fishing for healthy runs," said Curt Smitch, who advises Gov. Gary Locke on salmon issues. "As we push for land-use restrictions and irrigation restrictions and more, they are connecting the dots."

The issue has grown so sensitive that a federal judge last week shut down all fishing - commercial and sport - in the Columbia River. Limited fishing was reopened only after a hasty meeting Friday night, in which state and federal fish managers agreed that the effect on protected fish were not as dire as expected. But controversy over fishing in troubled waters with fragile fish runs will only increase as more fish are listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act.

One river, many runs

Salmon and steelhead hatch in rivers, swim to sea, then return to their hatching grounds to spawn and die. Each run is genetically distinct and returns only to its spawning place, for which the fish run is named. But several runs of fish migrate through the Columbia or other waters at the same time, like travelers in an airport headed for different destinations. So endangered Snake River chinook, for example, can easily become tangled in gill nets set for healthy Columbia River stock.

Salmon managers from Canada to the Columbia say the ticket to a future, both for wild salmon and for fishermen, is selective fishing that targets abundant runs but doesn't hurt fragile runs that share the river. The alternative: Close the fisheries to honor the Endangered Species Act. That puts gill-netters squarely in the conservation bull's-eye because their gear is the least able to release fish alive and unharmed. "This rust-bucket harvest machine is not in tune with the 1990s," said Tony Floor, of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. "We are wiping out fish to get to another fish. We have to start thinking about chinook salmon the way India does about cattle."

But the pressure to limit gillnetting also puts fish managers in an uncomfortable conflict with tribal treaty rights that give area Native Americans the right to fish in "usual and accustomed places" by whatever means they choose. Four tribes are in the middle of their annual commercial gill-net season on the Columbia below Bonneville Dam. They sell their catch, including any threatened or endangered fish they net, to commercial buyers or directly to the public.

During the tribal fishery, from mid-August to mid-September, tribal fishermen will string about 400 gill nets in the river, each up to 400 feet long. Both banks of the Columbia take on a festive tone between Bonneville and McNary Dam, as tribes set up roadside stands with hand-lettered "FISH 4 SALE" signs and sell fresh salmon for the bargain price of $2 a pound. At some kiosks, credit cards are welcome.

During last year's commercial season, the tribes sold $477,400 worth of fish to commercial dealers and $570,000 worth to the general public. The wild steelhead and fall chinook they take from the Columbia are the only endangered and threatened species you can legally buy for dinner. The shutdown averted last week would not have closed the tribal fishery, which is protected by treaty rights. But it would have banned the commercial sale of those fish; tribes could keep their catch only for personal use.

Protected species for dinner

The spectacle of endangered and threatened fish mingled and sold with thousands of hatchery fish is unique to the Columbia River. But the problem of mixed-stock fisheries is regionwide. And now, despite the controversy over the by-catch of protected fish, the National Marine Fisheries Service wants to expand tribal fishing on listed fish. A rule change in the works would allow tribes a so-called direct take of fish listened as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, as long as that harvest didn't jeopardize regional recovery efforts. Endangered fish would still be off-limits. The rule is intended to acknowledge treaty rights and protect fish runs at the same time, an increasingly difficult challenge.

The rule change could go into effect within a year. In the Northwest, it would initially affect the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe at Fort Hall, Idaho. Later it could allow fishing for wild chinooks in Puget Sound, after they were listed for Endangered Species Act protection, as expected next year. Directors of the departments of fish and wildlife in Washington, Oregon and Idaho have sent a stern letter to the National Marine Fisheries Service opposing the rule.

"How do you say for the first time in history that is OK?" asked Smitch. "And to think you could wall that off and keep it from covering more species is not realistic."

The season: one night a year

For generations, gill-net fishing was the mainstay of Columbia River commercial fleets. Nontribal gill-netters trail 1,500-foot-long nets in the current and catch anything big enough to snare in the mesh. The mesh is sized to fit over the head of the fish intended to be caught and snag on the gills. Smaller fish slip through. Because nets can fence off hundreds of feet of the river at a time, they are much more efficient than hook-and-line fishing.

The Columbia used to be open to commercial gillnetting nearly nine months of the year. Those seasons have been drastically reduced over the past 30 years as wild fish runs have plummeted. This year the nontribal commercial chinook season has been limited to 10 hours on a single night in August and restricted to a 20-mile run of the Columbia below Bonneville Dam.

Commercial fishermen are waiting to learn if they will be allowed one more night of fishing this fall.

During the one-night fishery, only 18 boats dropped their nets. Washington and Oregon fish managers and Oregon State Police patrolled the river to monitor catches and gear.

The gill nets are closely regulated because fish managers assume every fish caught is going to die. Fish breathe by absorbing oxygen from water fanned over their moving gills. If the gills are torn or strangled, the fish dies. Fish also can be badly abraded by the net, losing their protective covering of scales.

In a troubled river like the Columbia, it is hard to avoid a fragile fish run. Of 16 fall runs of chinook and steelhead, 10 are declining; projected to show the second lowest return ever; notching the worst return rate in 10 years, or at record low levels. The healthiest fall run consists of chinook romantically named upriver brights. These noble, silvery fish are headed to their spawning ground in the Hanford Reach, the last free-flowing stretch of the Columbia.

That run, forecast at 141,700 fish, is what most commercial and tribal fishers are after. But in the process, sport, tribal and commercial fishermen also catch Snake River wild fall chinook and steelhead, which are listed or considered for federal protection.

Measures save few fish

Washington fish managers try to protect fragile runs several ways:

-- In Puget Sound, state fish managers clip the fins off millions of hatchery chinook, so sportsmen can distinguish them from wild fish which, if caught by hook and line, must be thrown back.
-- In the commercial gill-net fishery, larger mesh size snares healthy, 30-pound chinook while allowing smaller fish, including wild steelhead, to escape.
-- Managers try to avoid fragile fish runs by scheduling and site fishing seasons around migration times

Canada is ahead of its U.S. neighbors in the development of selective gill-net gear. Prompted by drastic declines in Canadian coho, federal policy was changed this year to make all fishing conservation-based. Canadian fisherman are experimenting with several new gill-net techniques:

-- The soak time, or time the net can remain in the water, has been cut to 30 minutes, to give fish picked out of the net a better chance to live if released.
-- Gill-netters are restricted to daylight fishing, so fish can see the net.
-- Revival tanks are kept on board to stash fish until they can be released back into the water. How much good the revival boxes do is disputed, said Don Lawseth, coordinator for the Canadian government's selective fisheries efforts.
-- More observers are riding boats to watch the catch.
-- Larger net mesh is being used, and the nets are being hung loosely, instead of strung tight from end to end. Baggier nets may allow fish a better chance of survival - the theory is that fish will tangle their teeth in the net, instead of their gills.
-- The hook fishermen put at the end of the net to snare fish that try to swim around it is being replaced with a trap. That will allow fish to be picked out and released.

Even with all that, Canadian fish managers assume a mortality rate of at least 60 percent for any fish released from a gill net, Lawseth said. "They can swim away looking just fine and still die," Lawseth said. "This is all very experimental." In both countries, purse seines are assumed to be safer for non-targeted fish. The seine is laid in the water, then drawn together in a circle, like a corral. The mesh is small, so fish bounce off it rather than become entangled. Fish that aren't supposed to be caught can be scooped out and returned to the water.

But if a full net isn't handled properly, fish on the bottom can be crushed into cat food. In Washington, state biologists estimate that 25 percent to 30 percent of fish released from purse seines die. In Puget Sound last summer, that meant the death of thousands of chinook caught in purse seines set for sockeye. "The chinook by-catch was obscene," lamented Floor, of the state Fish and Wildlife Department. Ed Owens, lobbyist for the fishing industry in Olympia, said a viable commercial fishery is essential to honor the state's heritage and to satisfy consumer demand.

A threatened way of life

Despite the tension between tribal and commercial fishermen, both groups say gill nets are unfairly blamed for the salmon's demise. "The public confuses us with high-seas drift nets that run for 10 miles and catch everything that hits them," said Lanny Pillatos, executive director of the Puget Sound Gillnetters Association. If managers are careful with mesh size and with the timing and placement of gill-net fisheries, by-catch can be small. The state Department of Fish and Wildlife forecast in its fishing plan for 1998 that sport fishing would kill more wild Puget Sound chinook this year than gillnetting. But every threatened or endangered fish killed is a political problem when the public is spending millions of dollars to save them.

In 1915 there were 2,865 licensed gill-netters on the Columbia. Today there are 689 gill-net boats licensed to fish the river in Washington and Oregon combined. "Every day I fish may be my last," said Clark, 42, of Naselle, Pacific County, during his one night of fishing on the Blackheart. Clark has been fishing since he was 16.

"I love it, and I'm good at it," he said. "But it's all over. If a guy was single, maybe he could keep this up for a while. But there is no future in it. There's not even any present." He has put his first resume together and is looking for work as a ferryboat pilot. Tribes also cling to fishing as tradition and industry. And many favor gillnetting because it works well in a river stilled and warmed by the eight dams that march up the Columbia and Snake rivers.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife biologists estimate that dams kill 80 percent of migrating juvenile Snake River wild fall chinook before they ever hit the sea. Fishing, with any gear, takes a smaller toll on migrating fish than the combined impact of dams, agriculture, logging and development, the department says. As their catches decline, some tribal members say they throw their net in the river as much to maintain their treaty rights as to catch fish.

"They will have to kill us to get us out of here," said LiaDonna Whitefoot of Tacoma, a Yakama Indian who grew up fishing for salmon with a hoopnet from a scaffold upstream of Bonneville Dam. "I just do it because if you don't do it, they (whites) think we are going to give up," she said.

At her encampment by the highway on the Washington side of the river, Whitefoot gives a lively sales pitch, whipping the top off a cooler to display a fat chinook. She is good enough with a dipnet to catch enough fish to feed her whole family, Whitefoot said. She and her husband also join their tribe's commercial gill-net fishery, hauling the wet, heavy net by hand into their battered skiff.

Spattered with weeds that flip off the net and winded from hauling up anchors tied to the bottom, she was disgusted when her work was rewarded with a single hatchery salmon, called a tule. "Dogfish," she muttered as her husband, Ralph, untangled the fish, which won't bring much when sold. Nathan Dick and his brother, Tom Rodriguez, both Umatilla Indians, were luckier. They worked in blood to their wrists to clean the 40 fish they netted off the dock at the Cascade Locks. Rodriguez has been a phone installer for US West for 27 years. But fishing keeps him close to his people and culture. "It gets you out on the river, away from everyday work," he said. "I've done this forever. I started off fishing on a scaffold as a teenager."

Upriver on the Oregon side, Scherri Sotomish and her sister Barbara Greene, Nez Perce tribal members, pulled an empty net from their fishing spot above The Dalles. In 1956, before the Dalles Dam flooded Celilo Falls, dip-netters landed 910,000 pounds of salmon and steelhead from that spot. Before the dams, the annual catch routinely totaled more than 1 million pounds, and it topped 3 million pounds in 1941. But now dip nets are rare in the slow, slack river. Gill nets, pegged across the river with anchors on both sides and left in place around the clock, are more efficient, tribal fishermen say.

As the sisters loaded their gear into the family's battered skiff, their father, Ipsusnute, or No Hands, watched them from the car. At 72, he walks with two canes, but still comes to watch his family carry on the tradition. He remembers catching his first fish at Celilo. He was 19, standing on a rock with a rope tied around his waist to keep from falling into the roaring water. A salmon flashed into his dipnet.

"Ahh," he says. "I couldn't believe it. . . . To me fishing was a way of life."

Lynda Mapes' phone message number is 206-464-2736. Her e-mail is lmapes@seattletimes.com

Sports Anglers Urged Voluntary Release of Wild Summer Chinook in Joint State Waters

2008-06-22T08:47:00.001-07:00

[Note: This fish on the right is a sport caught hatchery summer chinook salmon]
For more information contact:
Liz Hamilton 866.315.NSIA or 503.704.1772
Anglers Asked to Step up Wild Salmon Protections

6/20/08 Oregon City, OR –Columbia River sports anglers are called on to voluntarily release wild summer Chinook, in spite of an ill-conceived and angler opposed regulation allowing the harvest of wild Summer Chinook salmon scheduled to being Saturday, June 21. A handful of these wild Summer Chinook will enter the Columbia and fight their way to spawn in Canada, remnants of the once renowned “June Hogs”.

Directed sport fishing on Summer Chinook was closed from 1964 through 2001 and the regulations originally required that all wild summer Chinook released back into the river unharmed, west of Bonneville Dam. Primarily at the insistence of the Washington Department of Fish &Wildlife, fishery managers now encourage anglers to catch and kill wild Summer Chinook.

Responding to the catch and kill regulations, sport fishing interests in both states have been nearly unanimous in their opposition to the weakening of wild salmon protections and want to increase spawning escapement. Focusing on hatchery fish in the fishery also decreases the co-mingling of hatchery fish on the spawning beds, adding increased protections for the wild fish spawning hundreds of miles from the Ocean.

Killing wild Summer Chinook in a fishery where over one half of the available fish are adipose marked hatchery fish is contrary to our region’s effort to implement selective fisheries and runs counter to the selective fishery ethic that sport fishers are known to support.

The summer Chinook run begins in June and continues through July and includes both wild and hatchery fish. This could allow for a selective fishery in which anglers may catch-and-keep hatchery fish, and catch-and-release wild fish. According to ODF&W, sports anglers could nearly double their fishing days—preseason estimates indicated that a selective fishery would extend the season from 8 days to 14 days. Not only are we shorting sports anglers and their family time on the water, we are impacting our tourism economy with catch and kill regulations.

Another reason to release wild fish unharmed in the current Summer Chinook sport fishery is the fact that recent pit tag data indicates that a substantial number of Spring Chinook are still crossing over Bonneville Dam. Spring Chinook federally protected, and sport fishers are required to release all wild Spring Chinook unharmed.

Our region is fortunate to have wild Summer Chinook given the severe habitat limitations and high ocean harvest rates of their stocks. Between hydropower and excessive water temperatures, the summer Chinook already have enough obstacles before they reach their spawning beds. Below Bonneville dam, NSIA encourages sports anglers to do our part by releasing all unmarked summer Chinook and provide added protection for the last salmon to enter the Columbia and spawn in Canada.

Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association Vacates Bi-State “Visioning” Process

2008-06-22T08:45:00.001-07:00

June 20, 2008

Oregon City, OR – Citing a shift from the original intent of the process among a long list of other concerns, the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association has elected to leave the bi-state “visioning process” that was developed by the Oregon and Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife.

The “visioning process” as it’s been dubbed, originally sought to bring historically adversarial sport fishing and commercial fishing communities together to mend long-standing conflicts between the groups. Rod Sando, past director of Minnesota’s Department of Natural Resources as well as past director of Idaho Fish and Game commented, “Unfortunately, although the Visioning Process started as a project to develop a long range vision for managing the lower Columbia fisheries has now morphed into a process that will install a ten year fishery management plan or status quo with a ten year commitment—It’s the no-change alternative.”

Dan Parnell, President of the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association said, “We were the ones who originally pushed for a process that brought these two communities to the table to discuss their differences as well as issues of mutual benefit. The idea was to open a line of communication and begin talking. Early in this process we became concerned that the make-up of the group and intent of the process was deviating sharply from its’ original vision…that is, to start building bridges and finding ways we can begin working together. The Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, along with 12 other organizations, signed onto a letter with recommendations for an enhanced process, and forwarded it to both Washington and Oregon’s fish and wildlife commissions. To date, neither commission has answered our concerns or discussed their thoughts with us. It’s clear to us, and others in this process, that we’re being guided towards some predetermined outcome which is unfortunate given our willingness and desire to overcome these decades-old issues.”

Jim Martin, retired Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Chief of Fisheries and current Conservation Director for Pure Fishing, the world’s largest tackle company added, “Now is the time for some bold leadership to shape fisheries for the future. Working on a ten year fishery management plan for continued main stem gillnetting by non-Indian commercial fishermen is not the change that is needed. Conservation is always job one, but economics is next. The current financial situation of the department is partially a result of wasting license sales and wasting economic value to Oregon by managing main stem Columbia River gillnetting at the expense of our tourist economy, when a successful commercial and sport fishery can occur by moving the gillnets to the select areas. The departments seem unable to embrace and lead real change…there is no point in continuing a process that is committed to continuing the status quo and avoiding real change. It is time to move to the Legislatures and to the people for solutions.”

The Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association represents more than 300 sport fishing-related businesses across the region. Sport fishing in the northwest provides direct employment to more than 36,000 people in the northwest and generates an economic benefit in excess of $3 billion a year. Abbreviated salmon seasons, continuing concerns with the Bonneville Power Administration’s hydro practices, debilitating federal policies that have escalated recent declines in salmon and continuing conservation issues at the state level have combined to deal the industry its’ most significant challenges ever.

Northwest Sportfishing Industry Executive Director Liz Hamilton finished by saying, “The resource has to win for us to win. Thankfully, we have a good many partners in the conservation, business, outdoor communities and other industries but the ‘vision’ should rest in restoring the region’s salmon resources that are in decline. Too much emphasis is given to allocating a declining resource and not nearly enough to recovering it. We pray Oregon and Washington’s Fish and Wildlife Commissions have the leadership and courage to embrace a vision that restores northwest salmon. Ultimately, that’s the legacy we can all be proud of. The benefits of this legacy will be incalculable with restored tourism to the region’s coastal and rural communities and a vibrant Sportfishing industry that benefits and touches hundreds of other industries across this great region.”

Gill Nets Redux: Die-Hards Focus On Mesh Size Limit

2008-06-04T19:09:00.000-07:00

By FRANK SARGEANT | The Tampa Tribune
Published: June 4, 2008
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jun/04/sp-gill-nets-redux-die-hards-focus-on-mesh-size-li/

Give credit to the folks who loved gill nets in 1994. They never gave up. Today, 14 years after a majority of Florida's citizens passed a constitutional amendment to get rid of entangling nets, the die-hard netters are still trying to find a way around the ruling.

The latest effort is aimed at removing the mesh size limitation on nets legally permitted. The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission will hear the proposal as part of its meeting June 12 in Dania Beach.

The use of seines, which trap fish within small mesh nets, is still permitted with net sizes of up to 500 square feet; the net can be 100 feet long and five feet deep, or any configuration that does not equal more than 500 square feet. But state regulations say the mesh size must not be larger than two inches. The reason is that larger meshes gill many fish; the head fits through the mesh, but the broader neck and gill plate area do not. The net mesh snaps over the gill cover and chokes down on the body, holding the fish securely until the net is hoisted aboard and the fish is extracted.

Netters say that if they used bigger mesh, the baby fish would escape and only the big ones would be trapped. But in fact, the nets would then become entangling nets; they would capture fish by gilling them.

The reason netters want this gear is that they can catch more fish faster and with less work than if they have to run the seine around them, then toss a cast net into the enclosure to harvest the fish. It is highly efficient and makes good business sense.

But regulators and conservationists, via the net ban, called for an end to this method for that reason. It works too well, allowing a few commercial anglers to kill thousands of fish each night. It was damaging to fish populations in 1994, and it would be damaging to them today.

Mullet in particular suffered under the gill nets, with millions of pounds killed each year, mostly for their eggs, which were shipped to Asia. Mullet are one species at the base of the food chain, which is key to the health of most gamefish. But netters also caught plenty of trout, redfish, pompano and other species when mullet were scarce. No question, recreational fishing has become much better as a result of the gill net ban; the nets allowed a few individuals to harvest a hugely disproportionate amount of a relatively scarce resource that most would agree belongs to all of state's residents.

"You can't pass a rule that says nets with mesh sizes designed to gill fish are not gill nets," says Ted Forsgren, executive director of the Florida Coastal Conservation Association, the leading conservation group in shepherding the net ban amendment through the vote in 1994. "A constitutional amendment cannot be changed by a state rule or legislation; it's the will of the people of Florida specifically expressed."

Forsgren says those who want to express an opinion on the issue but can't attend the meeting can e-mail the conservation commission at commissioners@myfwc.com. For details on the meeting time and location, visit www.myfwc.com.

International Scientists Speak Out

2008-05-27T14:42:00.000-07:00

Tuesday, 27 May 2008, 2:17 pm
Press Release: Care For The Wild
27 May 2008
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0805/S00063.htm

International Scientists Speak Out - Hector’s And Maui’s Dolphins Need Full Protection

Conservation group Care for the Wild International (CWI) today drew attention to the international scientific community’s statements supporting the urgent improvements required to ensure the survival of the Hector’s and Maui’s dolphins. Both the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s Species Survival Commission Cetacean Specialist Group (IUCN SSC CSG) and the Society of Marine Mammalogy (SMM) have called on the Government to take the strongest possible measures to ensure the survival of these endangered New Zealand’s dolphins.

CWI’s Chief Executive Dr Barbara Maas says, “With the Government’s decision on its Threat Management Plan for Hector’s and Maui’s dolphins (TMP) imminent, the world’s leading marine mammal scientists have told the Government that current measures to protect Hector’s and Maui’s dolphins against fishing impact are inadequate and that nets need to be removed from the animals’ habitat to address their extinction threat. This means at least the adoption of Option 3 in the Government’s TMP.”

In a letter to Helen Clark, SMM President Dr John Reynolds urges the Government to consider that Hector's dolphins are amongst the best-studied species of marine mammals, that current measures are inadequate and that ‘management action does not need to wait for further research’.

The Society for Marine Mammology (SMM) is the world’s largest professional group of marine mammal experts and consists of some 2,000 scientists from 60 countries, dedicated to the understanding and conservation of marine mammals and their ecosystems.

“The scientific evidence is very clear. The primary threat to both sub-species is bycatch in commercial and recreational gill net fisheries and trawl fisheries,” says Dr Reynolds.

The IUCN’s Cetacean Specialist Group is an international network of some 85 professional marine mammal scientists with expertise in the conservation of cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises). It too recommends the ‘adoption of Option three (for both gillnetting and trawling) throughout the range of Hector’s and Maui’s dolphins’, but points out that even Option 3 has considerable shortcomings.

While Option 3 offers the more protection for the dolphins than the alternatives, the IUCN CSG notes that it does not include the entire current range of South Island Hector’s dolphins, nor does it include the entire historic range of Hector’s and Maui’s dolphins. This is crucial for population recovery, which requires habitat for populations to recover into.

Canada: Skeena Independent Science Panel Reports Gillnets Not Selective

2008-05-24T18:44:00.000-07:00

Read the report at: http://www.psf.ca/sisrp.pdf

The whole notion that traditional gillnet fisheries can be made selective, and more broadly that captured fish can be released with high survival rates from any commercial fishing operation (seine, gillnet, or even large beach seines), must be viewed with great suspicion. We have a long history in fisheries biology of capturing fish for tagging programs to estimate movement and exploitation rates, yet we can seldom estimate release mortality rates accurately even for carefully conducted research captures, and low recapture rates for many tagging programs warn us that mortality rates are liable to be quite high (10-40%). In the end, the only really reliable “selective fishing practices” are those that avoid capture of non-target species in the first place.

Alabama: Gill net buyout reached after long negotiations

2008-05-16T23:00:00.000-07:00

http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/1210410921166660.xml&coll=3
Saturday, May 10, 2008
By BRIAN LYMAN
Capital Bureau

MONTGOMERY The negotiations continued until an hour before the vote was taken, but in the end, both sides in the gill net controversy say they got what they wanted.

Fishermen who use gill nets off Alabama waters got guarantees that they could hold onto their gill net licenses for life. Conservationists got a buyout package that will not allow those licenses to be transferred once they're surrendered, a move they say will gradually reduce the number of gill nets in use off the Alabama shore.

Those agreements, along with a mutual weariness over the issue and a desire to settle it this year, led to a compromise bill clearing the Legislature on Thursday, after weeks of discussions and some nine drafts of the compromise effort.

"There was a desire to settle this issue that's just been very emotional, very controversial," said Beth Marietta Lyons, a lobbyist and former state representative who represented the Alabama Seafood Association during the debates. "There was a desire to have a resolution. Once the buyout was voluntary, we could start seriously talking."

Alabama's gill nets have been blamed by local scientists for causing a "localized depletion" of species such as Spanish mackerel and mullet, and conservationists have called the nets destructive because they kill many species that encounter them, including birds and sea turtles. Commercial gill net fishermen have insisted the stocks are healthy and that their work supports the local seafood industry and related businesses.

The legislation that finally emerged from the negotiations allows commercial gill net fishermen to retire their nets starting March 1, 2009, in exchange for a one-time payment.

Those who caught less than $5,000 worth of fish in calendar years 2005, 2006 and 2007 would receive a payout of $6,000. Those whose catch in those calendar years totaled $5,000 to $20,000 would receive 200 percent of the highest annual income during that period. Those who caught $20,000 or more in those calendar years would receive 125 percent of the highest annual income during that period.

Once surrendered, the licenses would be retired.

The bill has been sent to Gov. Bob Riley for his signature. A spokesman for Riley said Friday the governor would review the bill before deciding whether to sign it.

Legislation that would ban commercial gill nets was introduced last year by state Rep. Jamie Ison, R-Mobile. It ran into opposition from state Rep. Spencer Collier, R-Bayou La Batre, who represents many fishermen and said it would drive them out of business. A compromise agreement that would have made the buyouts voluntary passed the House of Representatives last year but did not come to a vote in the Senate.

Ison brought the legislation back this year. At a House Agriculture and Forestry Committee meeting last month, Collier restated his concerns. Supporters of the ban insisted the mandatory ban would keep the fish stocks off the coast healthy, but Edwin Lamberth, director of government relations for the Coastal Conservation Association of Alabama, said a voluntary buyout would be effective through the gradual decline in commercial gill net permits.

"No more transfers of permits can be issued," he said. "The end of this destructive practice is in sight."

The Senate passed a bill sponsored by state Sen. Pat Lindsey, D-Butler, on May 1 that would have made the retirement of the nets mandatory and would have given fishermen the option of taking a one-time buyout equal to 125 percent of the value of their best annual catch for the years 2004, 2005 or 2006, or five payments, each equal to 35 percent of their best catch in those years. But Collier, who could not be reached for comment Friday, made it clear he would filibuster any bill with a mandatory buyout provision.

"I will not stand by and let them put (the fishermen) out of business," Collier said during a House debate Thursday.

The bill that eventually emerged was the result of negotiations between Collier, Ison and the associated parties.

Several commercial gill net fishermen traveled to Montgomery during the legislative debates, and some expressed fear that the debate wasn't over. David Buchanan, a fisherman from Gulf Shores, said Thursday the bill "was the best we could get."

"We're hoping to keep Coastal Conservation off us for a few years," he said. "We're hoping to get relief."

Gill Nets A Dying Breed

2008-05-11T15:48:00.000-07:00

WKRG.com Video

By Diana Lucio Reporter
May 10 2008

For the Collier family, gill netting is a way of life. "I've done it, my Daddy done it,his Daddy and them done it," Said Ricky Collier. Collier says his son Mark is now a part of this generation of gill netters. "He started us out when we was little, like 10 or 12 years old take us on the boats and stuff, out on in the bay. Just worked it all of our life," Said Mark Collier. But those memories have turned bittersweet for the Colliers. Just last week legislators passed a bill to ban commerical gill net fishing statewide. "There ain't no way to explain it cause that would be like telling a brick mason he can't lay bricks no more," Said Collier's son Mark. Collier says gill netters have to pay $800 a year to renew their license. But since they're becoming a dying breed, the state plans to make up for that loss by adding $8 to the price for a recreational license."They just phased us out..that's all they did,"Said Collier. The bill does allow current gill netters to continue fishing for the rest of their lives. But the Colliers say that won't help their tradition. "Both of my sons have a gill net license...they can't pass it on to their children 'cause once they die the license is dead,"Said Collier.

There are almost 120 gill net fisherman along the Gulf Coast. Gillnet fishing has already been banned by most coastal states.

Original: http://www.wkrg.com/news/article/fishermen_gill_nets_a_dying_breed/13785/

Group Claims They Freed Seal Tangled In Net

2008-05-07T18:12:00.000-07:00

May 6, 2008

SAN DIEGO -- A group of people have claimed responsibility for freeing a baby harbor seal on Tuesday night from a gill net that was wrapped around its neck and entangled it, 10News is reporting.

It is unclear if the members of the group knew each other before the rescue, which violated federal law because seals are federally protected mammals and people are mandated to keep a distance from them.

Wildlife rescuers were worried the baby seal that showed up on the beach tightly ensnared in the fish net Sunday might die.

SeaWorld does have permission to save marine creatures but could not go onto the beach without interfering with the other seals, making them unable to help the baby seal.

PLEASE SEE VIDEO AT: http://www.10news.com/news/16173723/detail.html?rss=sand&psp=news

A man who called 10News said that after sundown Tuesday he crawled close to the baby seal then grabbed it and pulled the net from around its neck. There is no word on whether he was part of the group claiming responsibility.

The seal was born recently at the children's pool in La Jolla, which was one reason people were reluctant to try to help.

The children's pool is a small beach partially protected by a seawall. The original intention was to create a fully protected swimming area, but sand has filled in much of the area inside the wall and a colony of harbor seals now lives there.

Alabama Gillnet violators nabbed

2008-05-07T07:58:00.000-07:00

Incident comes at bad time for the industry, now fighting for its life in Legislature
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
By BEN RAINES
Staff Reporter
http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/1210065356224490.xml&coll=3

Two commercial gillnetters were caught red-handed Saturday night while using a 1,200-foot net in the closed waters of Daphne's D'Olive Creek, according to state officials.

A tip phoned in to the state's Operation Gamewatch hot line led an officer from the Marine Resources Division to the creek. Once there, he cut his motor and used a push pole to ease his boat through the shallow creek mouth and silently approach the netters.

"They went in and made a set starting at the mouth (of the creek) and going up to the turn," said Officer Trey Pose, explaining that the net was placed in the stretch of D'Olive Creek adjacent to the Daphne exit ramp off the Bayway. "I watched them while they picked the net up, boated it and headed back out."

Pose intercepted the net boat where the creek known for its popular "Alligator Alley" public park area drains into Mobile Bay. The netters had little to show for their fishing effort, catching about 40 mullet worth perhaps six or seven dollars, according to state officials.

The incident comes at an inopportune time for the state's gillnet industry. A bill to outlaw the commercial nets permanently was approved by the state Senate last week and is pending in the House. A final vote by the House could come as early as Thursday, according to officials with the Coastal Conservation Association, which has pushed for a net ban for the last two years.

"We support legal fishing, not illegal fishing. They ought to be prosecuted," said Beth Marietta Lyons, a lobbyist representing the gillnetters in their political fight for survival. "There are plenty of fish out there, so they don't need to get them illegally."

Lyons described the netters in D'Olive Creek as "bad apples" and said they make "the good guys appear as villains as well."

Marine Resources officers said the netters stopped Saturday were issued court appearance tickets and will be identified after their hearings.

An unattended recreational gillnet was confiscated in the Bon Secour River in late April, and contained speckled trout, mullet and gar. Three commercial nets were confiscated earlier in the month after they were discovered unattended in Grand Bay. Each year, miles of gill nets are confiscated in Alabama for various violations.

Alabama is the last state on the Gulf Coast that allows the year-round use of gillnets. There are no harvest limits for a number of species including mullet, Spanish mackerel, sheepshead, croaker, flounder and black drum. State officials limited the amount of time gillnetters were allowed to fish last year and this year after it was discovered that net boats caught about 85 percent of all Spanish mackerel caught off Alabama.

In the D'Olive Creek case, the netters were fishing and running around in Mobile Bay without the required navigation lights, something the tipster reported to the Operation Gamewatch hot line.

"They never had their lights on, so obviously he did that to avoid detection," Pose said of the net boat. "They were surprised to see me. It was a gentleman I'd dealt with plenty before. I think it may have been $6's worth of fish."

Pose said the tip came in to the Operation Gamewatch hotline at 8:15 p.m. The call was relayed to him by a dispatcher in Montgomery. Pose spoke with the tipster by phone and apprehended the netters at about 9 p.m.

R's in Alabama Work to Stop Gill Net Ban

2008-05-01T21:15:00.000-07:00

Legislation to ban fishing nets remains alive in House
Thursday, May 1, 2008
By BRIAN LYMAN, Alabama Press-Register
http://www.al.com/news/press-register/index.ssf?/base/news/1209633358145440.xml&coll=3

MONTGOMERY -- Legislation to ban commercial gill nets and provide compensation for fishermen currently using them came to vote but stalled after Senate Republicans attempted to replace it with a version passed by the House in 2007. The Senate adjourned Wednesday without taking the bill up again.

The gill net ban, sponsored by state Sen. Pat Lindsey, D-Butler, would require gill nets to be retired starting in October. Fishermen using the nets would receive five payments each equivalent to 35 percent of the value of their best catch in either 2004, 2005 or 2006, or a single payout equal to 125 percent of their best catch for one of those years.

A House version sponsored by state Rep. Jamie Ison, R-Mobile, passed out of committee last month and is awaiting action by the lower chamber. A House Agriculture and Forestry committee hearing on the bill last month drew both sides out. Conservationists who supported the legislation said the long reach of the nets was destroying fish and wildlife in the bay; fishermen said the ban would end their way of life.

The 2007 version was similar to Lindsey's bill but would have made the buyouts voluntary and paid for a five-year study on whether the nets were destroying fish stocks off the coast. Alabama is the only Gulf Coast state that currently allows the use of commercial gill nets, and scientists who wrote to the Agriculture and Forestry committee said the effects had already been proven.

Opponents said the vote would throw people out of work and attempted to attach the 2007 provisions to the bill.

"It really touches something when fixing to end a way of life for group of families," said state Sen. Charles Bishop, R-Jasper.

State Sen. Trip Pittman, R-Montrose, said the bill would not affect other ways of fishing, like shrimping.

"I certainly think it's a good bill," he said.

The House Agriculture and Forestry committee defeated similar efforts to revert the bill to its 2007 form last month. The House version is still awaiting a vote and would need to be voted out by Tuesday to have a chance of passing the Senate.

"I think we can stop it in the House," said state Rep. Spencer Collier, R-Bayou La Batre, who represents many commercial gillnetters.

Managers Reopen a Season to Make Bycatch Numbers Tolerable

2008-04-26T12:37:00.000-07:00

Red Drum Season To Reopen
http://www.ncangler.com/forums/f29/red-drum-season-reopen-7443.html
MOREHEAD CITY – To reduce regulatory discards of dead fish, the commercial red drum harvest season will reopen April 28.

Commercial fishermen will be allowed to keep and sell up to four red drum per vessel per day when fishing for flounder and/or striped mullet. Because red drum is a bycatch fishery, the weight of the red drum catch must not exceed the weight of the flounder and/or striped mullet catch in a fishing trip. Flounder and striped mullet are the only fisheries where a bycatch of red drum will be allowed.

The reopening of the commercial season will likely result in harvests that exceed a yearly cap that runs from Sept. 1 to Aug. 31 each year. These overages will be subtracted from the 2008-2009 harvest allocation, and could result in stricter regulations next winter.

“It may mean the bycatch limit will remain at four fish per day throughout the fall, or there could even be a December, January, February closure,” said Louis Daniel, director of the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries.

North Carolina waters closed to commercial red drum fishing April 3 because the yearly harvest was approaching a 250,000-pound commercial cap recommended by the N.C. Red Drum Fishery Management Plan. The season normally runs Sept. 1 through Aug. 31.

Traditionally, the highest incidental catches occur in the fall gill net fisheries. But this year, landings in the winter were just as high, indicating some commercial fishermen may have been targeting red drum.

Red drum is a commercial bycatch fishery; it is illegal for commercial fishermen to target red drum.

Many commercial fishermen expressed concern the closure would force them to throw back dead or dying fish. Also, because the discarded fish would not be landed, they would not be counted against the overall commercial harvest.

The Marine Fisheries Commission authorized Daniel to reopen commercial red drum harvest at its April 22 meeting.

“I was pleased the division and the commission could come up with a reasonable approach to account for the bycatch that will inevitably occur in the summer fisheries,” Daniel said. “However, I want to stress, overages in this year’s harvest cap will be paid back out of next year’s harvest allotment.”

The commission also tentatively approved an amendment to the Red Drum Fishery Management Plan that, in the future, will divide the commercial red drum harvest cap into sub-seasons so overharvest in the winter months will not affect the cap for the summer and fall.

For more information, contact Lee Paramore, biologist with the Division of Marine Fisheries, at (252) 473-5734 or Lee.Paramore@ncmail.net.

Ugly Ghost Net in Canadian Waters

2008-04-22T10:14:00.000-07:00

Oceanic Institute Receives Grant for Lay-Gillnet Regulations

2008-04-18T06:47:00.000-07:00

http://www.khnl.com/Global/story.asp?S=8177887
April 16, 2008 05:45 PM

WAIMANALO (KHNL) -- The Oceanic Institute received a $500,000 grant from the Harold K.L. Castle Foundation to fund a five-year study on an assessment of lay-gillnet regulations in Hawaii.

Surveys of fish populations will be conducted in two areas on Windward Oahu: Kailua Bay, where lay-gillnets have been banned together and Waimanalo Bay, where the use of lay-gillnets is restricted but nets are still allowed.

Researchers will measure the abundance of fish in both areas over a five-year period to determine if the ban on lay-gillnets in the Kailua area is effectively preserving the fish populations.

"Most marine scientists and resource manager believe that the relatively unrestricted use of lay-gillnets in Hawaii is having a major impact on the sustainability of our near shore fisheries resources," said Bruce Anderson, Ph.D., Oceanic Institute President.

Oceanic Institute has been conducting beach seines in Kailua and Waimanalo for more than a decade to evaulate the effectiveness of fish stock enhancement efforts.

An Incidental Kill

2008-04-15T20:36:00.001-07:00

Virgin Islands: Only 9 Gillnetters; Fighting Tooth & Nail Against a Reasonable Buyout

2008-04-02T18:59:00.000-07:00

DPNR to soon begin enforcing gill and trammel net fishing ban
By LYNN FREEHILL
Wednesday, April 2nd 2008
http://www.virginislandsdailynews.com/index.pl/article_home?id=17622664

Leaders of the V.I. Department of Planning and Natural Resources have not backed down from a decision to begin enforcing a 2006 ban on gill and trammel net fishing, even though that position cost the gubernatorial administration a political appointee.

V.I. Fish and Wildlife Division director David Olsen's resignation over the issue took effect Monday. The division's chief of wildlife, Judy Pierce, took over as acting director on Tuesday.

Olsen, who held the position since Gov. John deJongh Jr. appointed him in January 2007, said he has no regrets about leaving. "The governor asked me, 'Would you really quit over nine fishermen?' and I said yes," he said.

DPNR Commissioner Robert Mathes said he intends to begin enforcing the gill net ban within weeks.

But first, Mathes said, he will distribute $55,000 among the nine St. Croix fishermen who use the method. The money, which comes from a federal grant, is designed to reimburse them for their nets. The amount that each fisherman will receive depends on the amount of fish he reported catching during the previous year; the highest total set to be granted to any one fisherman is $14,000.

Gill and trammel nets are wide, weighted stationary nets that entangle fish while grounded to the ocean floor. Around St. Croix, the nets often are placed in strategic locations along fish travel routes. The method is not used around St. Thomas.

The nets can catch large numbers of fish quickly. But they also have come under fire from scientists and environmentalists. Opponents charge that the nets snag a harmful amount of bycatch, including noncommercial species like sharks, turtles, reef fish, coral and sponges.

St. Croix fisherman Gerson Martinez, who uses the nets, said bycatch is unavoidable. "There's bycatch in any type of fishing, and there's nothing we can do about it."

Martinez said he spent $10,000 in the last year to try other gear, but nothing works as fast and effectively as gill and trammel nets. Fishpots and other gear must be left in the water for a while and can be disturbed by boats, while fishermen can stay with the nets and haul up their catch right away.

The fishermen, he said, are willing to make some concessions, such as using larger mesh openings to let more bycatch pass through, and reducing net length from 1,600 feet to 1,200 feet.

But Martinez said he cannot accept the ban or the grant money. "There's a livelihood here not only for nine fishermen, but helpers, cleaners, restaurants and small businesses that we supply," he said. "I believe it's unfair that the government comes and shuts us down."

The prohibition on gill and trammel net fishing was signed by Gov. Charles Turnbull in 2006, after several years of discussion among fishermen, scientist, fisheries managers and other interested parties. Such nets were banned in federal waters in the Caribbean in 2005. The local ban and other changes in regulation were supported largely by local fishermen that year as a compromise to avoid year-round closures of some areas because of overfishing.

The deJongh administration decided not to enforce the ban for six months in order to give fishermen the chance to find a senator to sponsor legislation that would supersede the regulation, Mathes said. The commissioner looked to legislation rather than writing a new regulation himself out of respect to the amount of work that had gone into drafting the prohibition, he said.

"They spent several years arriving at that piece of regulation, so it wasn't anything that was a surprise," Mathes said. "I gave the fishermen every possibility to get the law changed, and nothing happened."

Sen. Carmen Wesselhoft had expressed an interest in sponsoring such legislation, but so far no bill has moved forward. On Tuesday, Wesselhoft said she remains interested, but the bill has been held up in the Legislature's Office of Legal Counsel. She could not give specifics of what the bill would entail.

Meanwhile, the administration has begun searching within the territory for a new Fish and Wildlife Division director, Government House spokesman Jean Greaux Jr. said, and hopes to have a new leader in place by summer.

- Contact Lynn Freehill at 774-8772 ext. 311 or e-mail lfreehill@dailynews.vi.

Save Our Wild Salmon National Road Show 2008

2008-03-31T21:46:00.000-07:00

This spring, Save Our Wild Salmon will hit the road to highlight the plight of endangered Snake River salmon and steelhead and the communities, cultures and jobs that depend upon them.

Kicking off in Seattle April 9 and traveling more than 6,000 miles through 20 states, the road show, featuring a 2-ton, 25-foot fiberglass salmon, will journey across the country en route to Washington DC to educate the public about the Northwest salmon crisis and encourage people to be part of the solution by delivering a strong message to Congress — Act now or lose them forever.

Please join us at any of the following Portland-area events:

Saturday, April 12th
Association of Northwest Steelheaders
21th Annual Hall of Fame Banquet and Auction
4:30 p.m.-9:30 p.m., Holiday Inn @ The Airport, 8439 NE Columbia Blvd.
Click here to get tickets to the banquet:
http://www.nwsteelheaders.org/admin/con/banqRes.htm

Sunday, April 13th
Save Our Wild Salmon Road Show - Fin visits the Oregon Zoo
9 am-4 pm, Oregon Zoo, 4001 SW Canyon Rd

Monday, April 14th
Portland Community College - Rock Creek Campus
11-5 pm, 17705 NW Springville Rd. Beaverton-Hillsboro

And last but certainly not least...

Tuesday, April 15th (Flyer attached)
Wild Salmon Road Show Kick-off @ The Lucky Labrador Brew Pub
4:30-7 pm, 915 SE Hawthorne

2 regional leaders will be speaking at the Lucky Lab:
State Representative Jackie Dingfelder
Tom Wolf, Oregon Council Chair of Trout Unlimited

Come out and give the Road Show Crew a push as they head for our nation's capital!

Gill Net Survey

2008-03-31T21:06:00.000-07:00

From Ahab's Journal
March 31, 2008

Looks like Duke University, the Coastal Conservation Association, and the Audubon Society have teamed up to conduct a survey on public support for changes in gillnet regulations.

Dear CCA Member:

We are participating in a survey run by Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University to test the attitudes of recreational fishermen concerning gill nets. If you would like to participate in this survey, go to the link below:

Click here for survey

The survey results will be shared with the NC Chapter of the Coastal Conservation Association. Your participation in the survey is optional, but choosing to participate will be of great help to the research team. The survey will only take a few minutes. The link will be open until April 7.

Thank you,

Jay Dail
President, CCA NC

Light in the River

2008-03-31T16:01:00.000-07:00

http://www.lightintheriver.org/
Lewiston Morning Tribune (Idaho)
March 28, 2008 Friday

Scientists: Fish plans should be tweaked;
NOAA draft opinion on fish management needs to include climate change provisions, study says

BOISE - Climate change will rush salmon and steelhead to extinction if the government fails to factor it into fish recovery plans, according to the authors of a study released Thursday.

The scientists also said "pollution hot spots" along migratory fish paths, such as Lewiston's pulp mill, must remediate thermal and chemical pollution to save the fish.

Former Oregon Chief of Fisheries Jim Martin of Portland and Senior Global Warming Specialist Patty Glick, of the National Wildlife Federation in Seattle, presented their study on climate change and fish recovery.

The study, called "A Great Wave Rising," offers plans for endangered fish runs. The research was sponsored by Save Our Wild Salmon, the NW Energy Coalition, and Sierra Club.

"We have already entered the age of global warming," Martin told reporters during a telephone conference. Without accounting for climate changes, salmon and steelhead "recovery will be too little, too late, ineffective and wasteful."

The pair put out the study prior the May 5 issuance of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Biological Opinion of how to manage endangered fish in the Columbia River. The government rewrote the opinion after U.S. District Court Judge James A. Redden declared the last plan inadequate.

Martin and Glick said NOAA's new opinion still misses the mark.

"The current draft is terribly inadequate, particularly in regards to global warming," Martin said.

Brian Gorman, spokesman for NOAA, said the plan will change to include global warming.

"We have added a whole bunch of things to the draft, including addressing the issue of global warming," Gorman said.

The changes won't go as far as Martin and Glick recommend. They suggest removing four lower Snake River dams to speed fish passage. The government opinion doesn't endorse that suggestion.

"We don't recommend breaching the dams, certainly we didn't in the draft and we won't in the final," Gorman said. "But there are hundreds and hundreds of opportunities for us to address issues that we hope to restore salmon and certainly keep them from going extinct."

Idaho figures heavily into Martin and Glick's proposal to help fish adapt to wetter winters and hotter summers.

The Snake and Salmon rivers should be key to fish survival.

"The Snake and Salmon wildernesses are the last great anchor," Martin said.

The Environmental Protection Agency also must take a tougher stand on polluters, he added. His report singled out Potlatch Corp. in Lewiston as one example of "thousands" that need tougher standards.

"It's right at the component where the Clearwater pours into the Snake, directly in the main migration path," Martin said.

As for removing four Lower-Snake dams, Martin said the "environmental community" will find ways to compensate farmers for the loss of cheap barging.

"We are not going to save salmon on the backs of farmers," Martin said.

University of Washington climate change and fisheries expert Nate Matua, who conducts NOAA-funded research, said Martin and Glick did a good study.

"They did a good job of summarizing the research," Matua said.

He also said people who work on salmon and steelhead recovery plans have failed to consider climate change.

"It's interesting that we have lots of recovery plans written and are just starting to see interest that the climate is going to change," Matua said.

Politically, government regulators have avoided the topic, he said.

"The political powers have not been thinking that hard of global climate science for most of the last decade," he said.

Gorman said the opinion crafters only recently started embracing climate change science.

"It's fair to say when we were producing a draft in the summer of last year, global warming and climate change were not at the top of everybody's list," Gorman said. "I think what's changed is our knowledge base and awareness."

Martin said NOAA needs to try harder.

"Average people need to know that we know so much more than we're taking advantage of right now," Martin said.

---

Ferguson may be contacted at dferguson@lmtribune.com or at (208) 848-2274.

Pacific Council okays longline application for public review

2008-03-29T17:39:00.000-07:00

March 28, 2008

From the National Coalition for Marine Conservation...

On March 10th the Pacific Fishery Management Council gave the go-ahead to an exempted fishing permit (EFP) application by a commercial fisherman who wants to longline for swordfish and tuna. Pelagic longlining is currently prohibited in U.S. waters off California, Oregon and Washington under the council's West Coast Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan. Five conservation groups, including the National Coalition for Marine Conservation (NCMC), attended the meeting in Sacramento, CA to testify against the permit. Three council members voted against it, including the state directors from California and Oregon and a representative of the recreational fishing community.

The final decision on the EFP rests with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). A 2007 application, approved by NMFS, was withdrawn last December after the California Coastal Commission, which has authority to review permits for consistency with its coastal management program, rejected it for the second time in a year. The proposal is highly controversial because of its intent to show the economic viability of a full-scale longline fishery as an "environmentally friendly" alternative to the tightly-restricted drift gill net fishery. At least 71 vessels have expressed an interest in longlining.

"Contrary to what is suggested in the proposal, longlining for swordfish and tuna is anything but environmentally safe and selective," NCMC president Ken Hinman told the council, "and it is difficult and costly to manage. Bycatch in a west coast longline fishery would include a long list of species for which international scientific bodies have recommended reducing or at least not increasing fishing mortality: bigeye tuna, yellowfin tuna, albacore, bluefin and striped marlin. It would also include highly vulnerable shark species and endangered sea turtles."

The longlining proposal will now go out for public comment, after which the council will decide whether or not to forward it to NMFS.

Letter re Keeping Status Quo in make up of Stakeholders Group

2008-03-28T07:37:00.000-07:00

Greetings.

I am writing to remind you of the upcoming Lower Columbia River Salmon Fisheries Stakeholder Group meeting scheduled for Friday, March 28 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. in Cathlamet, WA. The meeting will be held at The River Street Building.

Below is a brief overview of Commission decisions related to your efforts, a brief description of the attached documents, and a short note on membership of the group.

Overview

Over the past several months, the Oregon and Washington Fish and Wildlife Commissions have worked with their respective staff and the facilitation team to determine how best to move forward with efforts to engage stakeholders on specific issues associated with lower Columbia River salmon fishery management. Based on these efforts, the commissions have agreed that convening a stakeholder group virtually identical to the one convened last year is appropriate; further, they have agreed upon a more clearly defined purpose statement for the new group as follows:

The purpose of this stakeholder group is to develop recommendations regarding a lower Columbia River spring and summer salmon fishery management plan including future allocation of allowable harvests of salmon between the commercial and recreational fisheries.

This purpose statement was developed in response to the expressed interest for clear guidance from the stakeholders involved in the prior process as well as a variety of concerns raised by stakeholders before, during, and subsequent to the recent allocation decisions.

Additional direction for the Lower Columbia River Salmon Fisheries (LCRSF) Stakeholder Group can be found in the attached document

Purpose and Sideboards

In the document the Commissions specifically note that the group’s recommendations should be consistent with the two states’ statutory obligations and conservation mandates and should include objective-based approaches applicable across a variety of run sizes and across a long-term time horizon consistent with US v. Oregon (through 2017).

In support of the Commissions’ directions, the LCRSF Stakeholder Group’s Planning Group (agency staff, Commission liaisons, and facilitation team) has developed a proposed agenda for the March 28 meeting and a proposed
set of draft Operating Principles (both also attached).

Please review the draft agenda and provide any comments by Wednesday, March 26. Discussion of the Purpose and Sideboards document and the draft operating Principles are the first items proposed for discussion on March 28.

Membership

As you will see in the draft agenda, time has been set aside for a conversation regarding membership of the LCRSF Stakeholder Group. The Commissions took the issue of membership under consideration and have determined two things: 1) the group as currently constituted seems to be sufficient to complete the requested task; and 2) if after reviewing the purpose, the Stakeholder Group requests additional ‘seats’ be added, the agencies will work to fill them. At this time, the only change to this group from the prior group is the replacement of Gary Soderstrom by Brian
Tarabochia as the representative of the Columbia River Fisherman’s Protective Union.

We look forward to seeing you on March 28. Please do not hesitate to contact me or another member of the Planning Group if you have any questions.

Paul De Morgan, Senior Mediator, RESOLVE
435.750.7075 (office)
503.490.5999 (mobile)
pdemorgan@resolv.org
www.resolv.org

Utilities Chime in on CR Commercial Fishing Absurdities: High Power Finger Pointing

2008-03-27T06:27:00.000-07:00

Please read this recent "In My Opinion" piece Time to Rethink Our Commercial Fisheries by Terry Flores, Exec. Dir. of Northwest River Partners.

Ms. Flores is absolutely right in a majority of her points. The major exception is that tanglenet gear is HIGHLY non-selective and should absolutely not be considered a selective alternative to gillnetting.

While the points made in the piece are all important and very relevant, it is revealing to look at who Ms. Flores represents. The Northwest River Partners are utilities, aluminum plants, and agricultural businesses that rely on dam operations for their business profits. The removal of commercial fishing from the Columbia River could be just a first step toward decreasing hatchery output, decreasing spill for smolts and eroding the vitality of the Columbia River sport fisheries.

Allocation Process Revisited: An Answer To the Chaos

2008-03-26T11:48:00.000-07:00

March 5, 2008

Chair Marla Rae and Members
Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
3406 Cherry Ave.
Salem, Oregon
97303

Dear Commissioners,

I am writing to offer my suggestions for important decision criteria that could form a foundation for the Commission’s deliberations and decision making affecting the allocation of Salmon fisheries in the Columbia River.

As I said in my testimony before the Commission the current situation could be significantly improved by promulgating rules that would define important criteria and document the appropriate analysis to support the definitions. I offer these suggestions in the hope that more rigorous decision criteria will help defuse some of the conflict around these decisions. In the absence of sound criteria the decision making process will, inevitably, become politicized which will optimize political forces but will most probably misallocate limited natural resources.

The following criteria are arranged in a suggested priority for consideration.

First: The most important consideration is meeting conservation goals. The Columbia River supports several ESA listed runs of fish and recovering these runs is without doubt the most important task before us. Harvest decisions are, and should continue to be, constrained by ESA impacts but there are also other factors that should be considered to protect the sustainability of fish populations that are as yet not subject to the ESA. Management needs exist such as providing adequate hatchery brood stocks and protection of the resilience of unlisted runs is vital to avoid their collapse. It is also apparent that the bycatch of other species raises significant concerns and must be closely monitored. It is often tempting to harvest up to the edge of sustainability and serious impacts must be avoided. As has been the case for some time, it is reasonable to expect harvest to be limited to allow the achievement of conservation goals.

Second: After conservation needs the remaining surplus is subject to further constraints often expressed in legislation. Social equity is paramount and such elements as Indian Treaties in particular require that a portion of the available surplus be reserved for specific social purposes. Other elements may include priorities for rural community development and stability. Also the preservation of unique cultural ways of life or subsistence may be emphasized. These latter criteria need to be clearly identified as important if they are to be considered since they will play important roles in the sensitivity of political opinions.

Third: Economic priorities tend to drive many decisions and in general it is best to derive the most value added to the economy from the remaining stocks of fish after the first two priority needs have been met. Classical economic theory suggests that striving for economic optimum is the most efficient way to allocate the limited resource among competing and different uses. This results in the greatest amount of net benefits to the State’s economy and in most cases this would be the best strategy. Oregon policy as reflected in ORS506.109(sub5) states “To regulate food fish populations and the utilization and public enjoyment of food fish in a manner that is compatible with other uses of the lands and waters of the state and provides optimum commercial and public recreational benefits.” Note the emphasis on optimum allocation of benefits.

The competition among uses is better understood if strong economic analysis is brought to bear within the decision process. It is important that such analysis be thorough and done in an objective and unbiased manner. For that reason it would be useful for the Department to consider the credibility of the results as being important and assign this task to some independent entity that has credibility with both the commercial and sport fishing interests.

If great economic disparities exist it is inevitable that significant conflict will be present and sound economic information will be extremely useful in the decision process. The most useful analysis will provide information about the direct contributions of each use of the resources and the resultant multiplier for each use. This type of analysis is relatively straightforward but can be expensive and time consuming. Nevertheless, making decisions that will have significant economic impact without this analysis will have significant error potential and such errors will only compound the current conflict.

The real world is not optimum however. There are legitimate reasons to choose sub optimal alternatives. When this is necessary the reasoning behind such allocations should be open and transparent. Small business set-asides or direct benefits to specific local areas may be needed but again these should be stated and justified in open transparent processes and supported by analysis that will document the efficiency effects of such decisions.

Fourth: The highly variable nature of salmon populations from year to year brings great uncertainty to the decision process. In order to absorb that uncertainty it is important that alternatives and substitutes be part of the decision environment. It would be prudent to develop a common understanding among key stakeholders of the following issues.

What is the viability of moving sport fishing to the tributaries of the Columbia?

Can commercial demand for salmon from the Columbia River be met by Tribal fisheries?

Can the current select area fisheries be enhanced and managed to provide the fish needed by the commercial fleet?

Fifth: Decisions that influence the mix of harvesting opportunities will impact the Department’s revenue through license sales and landing fees. This is an important consideration because of the essential role the Department plays in monitoring and evaluating fish populations and providing services to the harvesting community. At first blush this may seem to be self serving but it always plays an important role and it would be best to openly project the impacts as the decisions are made.

I have made these suggestions in the hope that the current situation could be improved. I am concerned that unless there is better definition and understanding of why these decisions are made and better knowledge of the expected results we will continue to see political battles over each allocation decision. This is time consuming and ultimately will erode everyone’s credibility. I hope you will see these suggestions as opportunities for change and realize that I do not intend them as criticism. Thank you for the opportunity to provide my thoughts to you and I will be happy to assist you in the future.

Yours truly,

Rod Sando

cc. Eliker, Bowles

06.109 Food fish management policy. It is the policy of the State of Oregon that food fish shall be managed to provide the optimum economic, commercial, recreational and aesthetic benefits for present and future generations of the citizens of this state. In furtherance of this policy, the goals of food fish management are:

(1) To maintain all species of food fish at optimum levels in all suitable waters of the state and prevent the extinction of any indigenous species.

(2) To develop and manage the lands and waters of this state in a manner that will optimize the production, utilization and public enjoyment of food fish.

(3) To permit an optimum and equitable utilization of available food fish.

(4) To develop and maintain access to the lands and waters of the state and the food fish resources thereon.

(5) To regulate food fish populations and the utilization and public enjoyment of food fish in a manner that is compatible with other uses of the lands and waters of the state and provides optimum commercial and public recreational benefits.

(6) To preserve the economic contribution of the sports and commercial fishing industries in a manner consistent with sound food fish management practices.

(7) To develop and implement a program for optimizing the return of Oregon food fish for Oregon’s recreational and commercial fisheries. [1975 c25

Dissent from Pro-Gillnet "Coastal Caucus" Letter

2008-03-24T10:30:00.000-07:00

March 24, 2008

To: Coastal Caucus Members And Supporters
Subject: Gillnets on the Columbia

Dear Senators and Representatives

You are no doubt aware, your Feb. 6 letter to the ODFW Commissioners got a good deal of exposure.

I am one of those who testified at the Feb. 8 allocation hearing in which those of us asking for a reduction to the gill net allocation outnumbered the pro gill net people by at least 4 to 1. I admitted to being a member of the CCA but I am not a spokesperson for that organization. I am an old sports fisherman who has fished the lower Columbia since the age of 10 in 1942.

My testimony was about working with spring chinook, as a volunteer, at The Falls Hatchery on the Kalama River in Washington between Dec, ’99 and June ’02. It was there that I learned that up to one third of the fish we held for spawning would die before it was time to take their eggs in Sept. A small percentage of those fish would die from seal and sea lion bites. Over 90% of them would die because of encounters with gill nets. Even though we inoculated them, those with severe enough net cuts would fungus up and die anyway. The really disheartening part of that experience was knowing that a like percentage of the wild spring chinook we sent upriver would die from net damage before they could spawn.

Please consider again the fact that at least one third of the hatchery fish we held for spawning had escaped from one or more encounters with gill nets. Otherwise they would have been included in the gill net catch. The damage gill netters do to the resource goes far beyond the fish they bring aboard and then release. One could easily argue that gill nets ultimately kill more fish than they harvest.

The CCA has a solid track record of removing nets from rivers around the U. S. through the political process. It has the organization, resources, and political clout to bring gill netting on the Columbia to an end. Oregon and Washington CCA chapters are exploding in size and the level of enthusiasm for this endeavor is beyond anything I have ever witnessed.

Jim Martin ODFW retired has a proposal which may be the gill netters last best hope of staying on Columbia waters. It would limit them to terminal areas or out of the way places like Youngs Bay where they could no longer encounter upriver bound salmon and steelhead.

In the meantime, if you intend to continue supporting gill netting on the Columbia, you may want to stand ready to answer question about the following issues.

Why are the Columbia gill netters permitted to do business under the cover of darkness and out of the public eye? With between 50 and 100 boats spread out over up to 140 miles of river, enforcement of our laws in the dark is impossible.

Why do the states accept the voluntary reporting of their catch either directly or through a second party? Many gill net boats tie up at out of the way places which makes it impossible to monitor their catch at the conclusion of a netting period. There was perhaps more than one reason the lower Columbia gill netters protested so vigorously about having to fish upriver from Hayden Island during this ’08 spring chinook season.

They report minimal incomes insufficient to pay their bills for fuel, gear, repairs, and insurance to say nothing of payments on some boats worth well north of 100 grand. Some of them complain they can’t pay their fuel bill with the fish they take on the Columbia. I no longer accept their explanations about family tradition and protecting drift rights being the reasons they fish the Columbia. So why do they continue to fish and profess to lose money season after season if there is no chance their piece of the pie will become significantly larger?

The high price of fish gives them motive and the states provide the opportunity for them to scam the system. If that is the situation, they are doing considerably more damage to the resource and taking considerably more fish than we are aware of.

Any person with a business background who takes an objective look at the information available would conclude they are either among the worst businessmen in the world or, pardon the pun, something is fishy. The gill net industry has brought suspicion on itself. In my opinion there should be a state investigation into their waste and probable theft of this public resource.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Sincerely,

Red Vandehey

cc: All signers of the pro-gillnet Coastal Caucus letter and all remaining 81 members of the Oregon legislature.

Note: A Representative replied back! Constituents of Rep. Rosenbaum have cause to write in with their thanks!

-----Original Message-----
From: Rep Rosenbaum [mailto:Rosenbaum.Rep@state.or.us]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 8:12 AM
To: Red Vandehey
Subject: Gill nets on the Columbia

Dear Red,

Thank you for taking the time to write Rep Rosenbaum about your concerns of gill net fishing on the Columbia River. She agrees that these are important concerns. Rep Rosenbaum supports the rights of sports fisherman and is concerned about the hazards gillnets have and continue to cause.

Again thank you for taking the time to write. Please feel free to contact the office again about this or any other issue.

All the best,

Megan Osborne
Staff to Rep Rosenbaum
Speaker Pro Tempore
Dist. 42

Oregonian Editors Hear from Citizens Concerned about Salmon

2008-03-21T13:06:00.001-07:00

Great LTE's in the Oregonian today! Keep it up. Click on the image for an enlarged version.

Tillamook CCA Banquet A Huge Success!

2008-03-21T09:01:00.000-07:00

Derelict Fishing Gear in Puget Sound

2008-03-07T14:45:00.000-08:00

Shifting Baselines
by Jennifer L. Jacquet
March 7, 2008

Lost, derelict fishing gear as old as 60 years continues to 'ghost fish' and kill lots of marine life across Washington State's Puget Sound all for the sake of nobody. At the American Fisheries Society meeting of the North Pacific International Chapter I attended this week, Ginny Broadhurst the Northwest Straits Initiative spoke on a great project working to remove this web of derelict fishing gear from the waters of Puget Sound. So far, the group has recovered 1286 derelict crab pots and 679 nets. Most of the nets they find are gill nets, which drift and kill fish and other animals until they sink to the bottom and the carcasses rot and then they float back up in the water column and repeat the process for decades and maybe even centuries. The Northwest Straits Initiative wants to remove 90% of derelict fishing gear (some of which they can spot with sonar) from Puget Sound by 2012. (Unlike Puget Sound, many regions of the world suffer from the influx of foreign lost fishing gear and the task becomes more difficult and must be indefinite.)

The gillnet in the video above became derelict during the first week of gillnetting season in San Juan county in August 2006. The fishing boat suffered mechanical problems and had to be towed in to port. The net was cut because the boat equipment could not function to bring it on board and so the boat captain reported the incident and provided the location. The net was removed just one week later by the Northwest Straits Commission derelict gear removal team with support from WDFW and Corps of Engineers. Still, after just one week in the water, the impact of this single net was astounding. Found in the net were:

* 1 dead harbor seal
* 30 dead red rock crab
* 38 dead kelp crab
* 30 dead spiny dogfish sharks
* 25 dead sockeye salmon
* 5 dead Chinook salmon
* 30 dead rockfish
* 40 dead kelp greenling
* 90 dead flatfish
* 110 dead spotted ratfish
* 30 dead lingcod

The positive impacts of this kind of work on the water are immediate and yet fishing gear clean up initiatives have trouble getting money. The entire cost of the Northwest Straits Initiative to remove 90% of derelict fishing gear by 2012 is $5 million. Don't suppose the industry responsible for losing the gear might be willing to chip in...?

The Pacific Northwest: A New Era in Conservation

2008-03-05T13:35:00.001-08:00

by David Cummins, CCA President
March, 2008

The 30-year history of Coastal Conservation Association is dotted with memorable conservation victories followed by surges in membership and expansion. Whenever a game fish law or a net ban passes in one part of the country, anglers in another part take notice and immediately want to make the same things happen in their own waters.

What happens behind the scenes in building towards those defining moments is what CCA is all about, and it is that unique model that has allowed CCA to expand from a single state in 1977 to almost 100,000 members in 17 states and a presence on all three coasts in 2008.

Right now is another exciting time in the history of Coastal Conservation Association and one of the key reasons is the explosive growth of the CCA Oregon and Washington chapters. In almost two decades of work for CCA, I have never seen the rapid membership growth, chapter development and grassroots fundraising that have erupted in the Pacific Northwest over the past 12 months.

It was just in March of 2007 that the CCA National Board of Directors voted to approve the creation of CCA Washington and Oregon. As we approach the one-year anniversary of this latest expansion, I want to share with you my excitement over your exceptional organizational efforts so far.

With more than 4,000 members, multiple chapters with pending banquets, two growing state boards, an active regional Government Relations Committee, strong state officers, a new Executive Director and so many other early accomplishments, it is easy to get excited. I have to believe this is the fastest start of any state in the history of CCA. Clearly the future is very bright for CCA and the marine resources of the Pacific Northwest.

Beyond the mere numbers, which are impressive enough all by themselves, the most inspiring aspect to the rocket launch of CCA in the Pacific Northwest is the simple passion of the Washington and Oregon members. In every trip I have made to the region, I never fail to be impressed by the look in every member’s eyes. I have to imagine it is the same look that was in the eyes of the original 14 members who came together in a small tackle shop in Texas to stop the decline of redfish and launched GCCA. That same zeal to make a difference in the conservation of our resources is recognizable from Maine to Texas to Washington. It is an unmistakable sign that the fire is burning bright in the Pacific Northwest.

The road to fisheries conservation success is a long one and CCA in the Pacific Northwest is very effectively laying the groundwork to capture the next memorable conservation victory. Building the foundation is the longest, and most important, phase to any construction job and it is critical that a conservation group have the tenacity and longevity to achieve lasting conservation.

Through 30-plus years of activity, CCA has been fortunate to achieve much in the Gulf, Atlantic and even in global fisheries, and I know that this tradition in conservation will continue. But as I look to the future, it is exciting to imagine what will be accomplished in the Pacific Northwest and the tradition in conservation that your efforts will create.

Illegal Gill Net Found In Gulf

2008-02-24T07:41:00.000-08:00

This could have made for a great fundraiser, just allow people to help burn the net for a donation....

The net was dragged to shore, taken to a county incinerator and destroyed,

Illegal Gill Net Found in Gulf
By CHRISTIAN M. WADE The Tampa Tribune
Nov 15, 2007
http://pasco.tbo.com/pasco/MGBHINAO09F.html

HOLIDAY - It's been more than a decade since Florida voters overwhelmingly adopted a ban on fishing nets in coastal waters, but poachers are still flouting the law.

Tuesday morning, a U.S. Coast Guard patrol discovered a gill net - roughly the length of a football field - strung across the Anclote River channel about a mile out into the Gulf.

Minutes later, the patrol notified the Pasco County Sheriff's Office, which dispatched its marine unit to remove the illegal net from the heavily traveled waterway.

The net was laden with lady fish and mullet, and apparently was rigged by someone who knew what they were doing, according to sheriff's office spokesman Doug Tobin.

"Not only is it a navigational hazard, but it's a felony just owning this kind of net," he said.

Tobin said the sheriff's office is investigating and has no suspects.

The net was dragged to shore, taken to a county incinerator and destroyed, he said.

Approved by 72 percent of voters, the 1995 constitutional amendment limits the size of fishing nets to 500 square feet and prohibits gill or other entangling nets made of monofilament.

Voters adopted the ban after netters nearly destroyed Florida's once fabled offshore fishing. Ban proponents said the nets also trapped and drowned dolphins and sea turtles.

What followed was a massive buyout of gill nets from netters put out of business by the ban. The state paid millions of dollars for hundreds of miles of nets.

Illegal netters still threaten coastal fisheries, though, state regulators say.

"We still have a real problem with poaching in the state," said Gary Morse, a spokesman for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. "It's a major concern to us."

A gill netter can catch several thousand dollars worth of fish in a single day, he said, and for some that's worth the risk of getting caught. Violators face a third-degree felony, a $5,000 fine and a 12-month suspension of their commercial fishing license. For a second violation, they face another $5,000 penalty, forfeiture of their fishing license for life, plus all the gear and equipment they used in the violation.

Ted Forsgren, executive director of the Florida Coastal Conservation Commission, said as the penalties have become more severe, the number of poachers has decreased.

Fish stocks, especially mullet, have been rebounding under the net ban, but there's still money to be made by unscrupulous fishermen, regulators say.

"The law has more teeth in it now," Morse said. "But the poachers are still out there."

Helping the king reclaim his throne

2008-02-21T15:07:00.000-08:00

http://www.nasfonline.org/troutandsalmon.htm

Trout and Salmon talks to Orri Vigfusson, chairman of the North Atlantic Salmon Fund, who explains why his organisation's agenda is different from other conservation bodies, and why he has high hopes for the future

Orri Vigfusson, man with a mission

T&S: MANY ANGLERS KNOW your name and have read something about the North Atlantic Salmon Fund. But how would you answer a person who said, "I have never heard of NASF. What exactly does it do?"

OV: We are working to restore Atlantic salmon stocks to their previous abundance. We want to see the day when rivers are again so full of wild salmon that we will be able to harvest a sustainable surplus. We believe the only way to do that speedily and efficiently is by making the Atlantic Ocean and all the migration routes a sanctuary for salmon until stocks rebuild.

T&S: That makes sense but it sounds like an enormous task. Why did you get involved?

OV: Fishing fleets from several nations engaged in a huge free-for-all after the salmon's oceanic feeding grounds were discovered off Greenland, Iceland and the Faroes. By 1989 it was clear that the wild Atlantic salmon could be wiped out if the killing continued. I love salmon fishing and I was so concerned that, helped by a few good friends, I launched a conservation group that quickly became NASF. It has grown into a worldwide organisation with helpers, advisers and supporters of many nationalities and active branches in all the salmon- producing countries on both sides of the Atlantic.

T&S: Other organisations are trying to conserve salmon. How is NASF different from them?

OV: Our policy and working agenda is very different. Our objective is abundance. The great majority of fish that are killed die in nets. So the simplest and quickest way of getting more salmon to spawn is to remove or greatly reduce the netting. We prefer this to concentrating on the conservation limits that are usually the aim of inter-governmental agreements. With that type of agreement we have to be satisfied with the minimum number of fish needed to replace themselves. What most people want is the maximum number of fish to provide the greatest sport, sustainable harvests and very significant economic returns for rural areas.

T&S: And how can you do that?

OV: NASF has a very clear agenda. Our aim is to eliminate the most destructive commercial fisheries. These target mixed stocks of salmon from many rivers and several nations. I talk to the commercial fishermen themselves. Most of them are as anxious as anglers to see salmon stocks restored to their former levels. In political terms I explain our philosophy in numerous articles, speeches and presentations allover the world. We also produce policy papers for governments, political leaders, commercial fishing organisations, charitable bodies, conservationists in general and the general public. We sometimes take full-page advertisements in newspapers.

The 'safe areas' indicate those parts of the world where NASF's commercial agreements have provided a haven salmon. But, as map shows, there is still much work to be done

The "safe areas" indicate those parts of the world where NASF's commercial agreements have provided a haven for salmon. But, as this map shows, there is still much work to be done.

T&S: What did you see as the main problem?

OV: Mixed-stock commercial fishing. The netsmen have no way of knowing if they are killing salmon from rivers that can sustain the loss of the fish or from rivers in such decline that the removal of even small numbers of their remaining spawners can have devastating effects. All the scientists agree that it must be stopped because each river has a distinct stock of salmon.

Norway Salmon nets begin to END!

2008-02-21T14:17:00.000-08:00

Netting buyout launches NASF salmon conservation plan for Norway
80% of Netsmen sign up
Exclusive London Salmon Dinner on March 2
International spotlight shifts to Ireland. Now the only country still promoting a drift netting policy for wild salmon.
http://www.nasfonline.org/north_atlanticsalmon_fund.html#ns

A five-year, 3 million-dollar netting buyout in Norway gives the North Atlantic Salmon Fund (NASF) yet another success in its long battle to rescue the Atlantic's wild salmon stocks from over-fishing.

The agreement covers the Trondheim fjord and salmon destined for such great rivers as the Gaula, Orkla. Stjordal and Verdal, all of them legendary amongst anglers for their huge salmon. In company with the other rivers that flow into the Trondheim fjord they were losing too many of their fish to commercial netting. Now netsmen who have been catching over 80% of the registered catch "the percentage needed to trigger the buyout" have signed up to the NASF-inspired agreement. This will provide a unique environmental opportunity, strengthen the spawning stocks, restore the salmon image and create community value of the salmon in the sportfishery.

NASF-style agreements in which commercial salmon fishermen are compensated if they stop fishinghave left Norway and Ireland isolated as the only countries on either side of the Atlantic where large-scale netting continues. They were also the only places last year not to enjoy a substantial upturn in salmon numbers.

NASF now hopes that conservation-minded angling interests throughout Norway will copy the Trondheim buyout and that the country's salmon stocks will rapidly improve as a result. This will delight the many people who have feared that Norway's reputation as a premierangling destination could not survive if unabated netting continues.

NASF's chairman Orri Vigfusson said: "I am very grateful to Arne Joerrestol, chairman of the Norwegian Salmon Netsmen Organisation for giving us this wonderful opportunity. He has placed conservation ahead of his economic interests and made it very much a first priority. You cannot compromise on salmon conservation and Arne's leadership is a shining example of what can be done.

Note to ODFW Commission "Think Outside the Net"

2008-02-20T15:25:00.000-08:00

Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission Public Forum:
2008 Management Objectives for Allocation of Mainstem Columbia River Spring Chinook
Virginia L. Ross, Attorney / Member, Coastal Conservation Association / February 8, 2008

Madam Chair and Commissioners:

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on salmon harvest management objectives for Spring Chinook. I am Virginia Ross, a native Oregonian. I earned a law degree at Lewis & Clark where I studied salmon law and the gillnet industry in my final year. My thesis analyzed and called for the end of the lower Columbia River gillnet fishery almost 20 years ago as a non-selective, deadly, costly to manage fishery that was corrosive to a large and valuable Oregon sportfishery. A link to this research is here. I am also member of the Coastal Conservation Association, but I speak only for myself and for endangered salmon and steelhead today.

I am concerned about this issue as an Oregon citizen. It doesn’t matter whether I fish for salmon and steelhead recreationally, or whether I buy salmon in the grocery store, or whether I eat salmon in restaurants, though I enjoy doing all of those things. Those are secondary “consumer” concerns of mine. My main concern, as a citizen, is for stewardship of our precious anadromous fish runs and to put the needs of ESA listed wild salmon and steelhead first.

You know that a group of Oregon “Stakeholders” has been convened in a “Visioning” process for Columbia River harvest. I witnessed one of these meetings, and I felt that the needs of the ESA listed fish were not well represented. The Stakeholder group itself is a group of harvesters, both sport and commercial, but it is weighted heavily toward commercial harvest interests. Some commercial Stakeholders even tried to hide their ties to gillnetting to make the group seem more evenly balanced. Please do not use this biased, commercial harvest oriented, so-called “Visioning” process as your guide. Use your own real vision, a pioneering vision, an Oregon vision. It’s time to envision a future of commercial fishing in the Columbia River, if any, that is truly selective, safe and non-lethal for endangered salmon and steelhead. Gillnets and tanglenets used on the main stem of the Columbia can never meet this standard.

I have three main points today:

First,
I urge the Commission to actively pursue alternatives to gillnets and tanglenets. Oregon leads the nation in progressive, innovative solutions such as the bottle bill, public beach laws and vote by mail. We are a Pioneer state. Why are we tied to an outdated lethal, non-selective harvest method like gillnetting for such a fragile mixed stock fishery as the Columbia River? We can do better than this, and it is within your legal mandate to spearhead new approaches.

One look at history of gillnetting shows that the gillnet monopoly itself grew out of a lie. That Orwellian lie told to the public was that fixed gear fishing methods such as fishtraps were “murderous” and non-selective. The exact opposite was true of fishtraps, and the same was true of gillnets. But the voters were successfully deceived by the gillnetters back then. Today, 60 years later, we are still living the lie. Managers struggle to manage this burdensome gear, conducting studies on non-target fish mortality rates, and claiming that gillnets can be made “mark-select” “gear select” or “timing select” and mandating “recovery boxes” to revive severely damaged fish. Why all this expense and effort? Because gillnets and tanglenets (which are really just steelhead gillnets), are lethal and non-selective by design. Managers struggle to contain and treat the symptoms of this deadly design but they can’t cure the disease. Symptoms include the waste of thousands of non-target salmon and steelhead thrown overboard every year and dying at outrageous rates of 30% and 40% or more.

Reforming this industry is hardly something we can leave to the gillnetters. They were once offered almost half a million dollars to develop a non-lethal selective fishery but declined the offer. Eventually Oregonians will abolish non-Treaty salmon netting in the Columbia River. If this Commission used its pioneer spirit, it could start now to actively encourage commercial harvest reform by researching selective approaches. Concerning this Spring Chinook season, if any gillnet fishery season is allowed at all, it should be set only in the SAFE area fisheries off of the main stem. Other reforms you could adopt immediately to limit the damage from this fishery would be to allow only daytime gillnet fishing, to require an ODFW observer on every gillnet boat, and to impose strict documentation requirements for every commercial fish landed, regardless of whether it is sold or not.

Second,
I’d like to demonstrate quickly what is meant by 9” mesh and 8” mesh. These terms are used in arguing that mortality of non-target fish can be reduced by “gear-selectivity.” Let’s look at what this means. Nine inches is not the length of one side of a 9” mesh opening. Mesh size is measured from knot to knot diagonally. So a CD, with a 4.5” diameter, is roughly equivalent to the opening in 9” mesh net. Eight inch mesh is about the size of a cocktail napkin. If you have ever seen or handled an adult salmon or steelhead, you can understand that these differences in mesh size are virtually meaningless. Moreover, no adult salmon or steelhead can swim “through” an opening the size of a CD or a cocktail napkin.

These nets catch any adult salmon or sturgeon that swims by, not to mention seals, birds and other marine life, and they kill 40% or more of the non-target salmonids they encounter. They are designed to suffocate and kill fish and they do not discriminate.

Now I’d like to show you a real gillnet with a 5” mesh. This size mesh will certainly catch and damage any ordinary steelhead. A steelhead can be expected to struggle and thrash continually as all parts of it get entangled in the net. Steelhead are exclusively a game fish, so these steelhead gillnets should not even be allowed on the mainstem of the Columbia River. They are the wrong tool used in the wrong place. We can do better than this.

Finally,
I ask you as Commissioners to please consider ODFW’s possible exposure under the Endangered Species Act. For years you have set lethal, non-selective gillnet seasons on the main stem of the Columbia despite the presence of ESA listed fish. You have accepted the mortality assumptions of 30% and 40% for salmon and steelhead in gillnets, working them in to your calculations for allowable impacts under the ESA. In some cases, you accept assumptions where no study has even been done. In the 2008 Joint Staff Report on page 23 we see that steelhead specific studies for 4.5” tanglenets (about the size I showed in the demonstration) have not even been conducted. Yet the staff advises you to simply “assume” the steelhead death rate in these nets would be 18.5% without any proof. Are you comfortable with this assumption? Some mortality rate assumptions come from highly controlled test fisheries conducted by professionals. Would they withstand judicial scrutiny as the barometer for the real incidental mortality rate for severely endangered steelhead under the ESA? Why should even one steelhead, a game fish for almost 30 years, be killed by these uncontrollable nets?

Trying to reduce gillnets’ high incidental take of non-target wild fish leads to excess escapement of hatchery fish. ESA requirements demand these hatchery fish be kept out of native spawning areas as much as possible. So once again, the gillnet gear itself interferes directly with your responsibilities under the ESA. I raise these concerns because, as a taxpayer, I think it would be unfortunate for time and resources to go toward defending the use of this lethal, non-selective gear. Direct your time and resources to develop selective harvest options instead of on defending inherently defective gillnetting.

As Oregonians responsible for our fragile natural resources, we can and must do better than gillnetting. I urge you to permit only a SAFE area commercial gillnet fishery for this spring Chinook season, allow at least a 70% sport allocation to minimize excess hatchery escapement to spawning areas and work actively to phase out all gillnetting where ever and when ever our precious, dwindling wild salmon and steelhead are present. As Oregonians, we can do better.

Thank you for your attention.

Jim Martin: Recommended allocation of 70/30%, sport/commercial for Columbia River Spring Chinook

2008-02-19T21:17:00.001-08:00

January 31, 2008
Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission / Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
3406 Cherry Ave. / Salem, Oregon 97303

Regarding: Recommended allocation of 70/30%, sport/commercial for Columbia River Spring Chinook fisheries for 2008 and hatchery production shifts to compensate the gill-net industry.

Dear Commissioners,

I am Jim Martin of Mulino, Oregon, and am the conservation director for the Berkley Conservation Institute, a division of Pure Fishing, the World’s largest fishing tackle company. I am the retired Chief of Fisheries of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. I managed harvest and served on the PFMC and the Columbia River Compact for many years before retirement 8 years ago.

The allocation of Spring Chinook salmon between sportsmen and non-Indian gill-netters is a difficult problem and is getting worse. It is getting worse because the very limited ESA Impacts allowance of 2% for non-Indian fisheries is far too few to meet the demand of the traditional share for commercial fisheries and a growing sport fishery. As Washington and the Pacific Northwest moves toward the projected 400% increase in population by 2100, you can imagine the intensity of the conflict without change!

The history of managing wildlife has been to limit commercial fisheries/market hunting and to shift allocations to sport hunting or fishing over time. Columbia River fisheries are experiencing this historic shift if viewed over a long time. Now is the time to continue this shift.

There are good, solid policy reasons to do this. This decision should be guided by transparent criteria, not just a political deal that some can “live with”.

I suggest the following criteria:

1. Maximize the harvest of surplus hatchery fish with the minimum bycatch impact on listed wild Steelhead and wild Chinook salmon.

2. Maximize the economic benefit to the state of Oregon, the Pacific Northwest and to local rural communities. Examine how many jobs are gained or lost based on various shifts in allocation. It simply takes too many fish to support each commercial fishing job, compared to the thousands of jobs that are supported by sportfishing for so few fish. For example, it takes an average of 9 days of sportfishing for each hatchery Chinook caught. At these rates, early closures of the season cost the Oregon economy millions of tourist dollars lost to Canada and Alaska.

3. Maximize the economic return to the funding base of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. When license sales lag, the Department is faced with increasing license fees or laying off staff/shutting down hatcheries. These allocation decisions have huge implications for the funding base of the Department that supports conservation of the resource.

4. Allocation should also include an analysis of the substitutes. If the sport fishery is closed in the Columbia River, how likely is it that the tributary fisheries will support the lost angler days and license purchases? If the commercial fishery is restricted, how likely is it that the Indian commercial fishery, the select area fisheries and the commercial troll fishery will supply the market adequately?

Based on these criteria and the particularly dismal prospects for Willamette and other tributary spring Chinook fisheries, I recommend that you allocate 70% of the non-Indian impacts to the sport fishery and 30% to the commercial gill-net fishery in 2008.

This would still provide a meaningful share to each fishery, similar to past Spring Chinook allocations of 65/35%, similar to current allocations of sturgeon (80/20%), and in recognition of the majority of the Indian gill-net impacts that will be supplying the commercial market to the public. Such an allocation would give a reasonable chance of the sport fishery going into the first week of May, which is very important from a marketing and tourist booking perspective. This is particularly important on a year like 2008, where the traditional Willamette, Clackamas and Santiam fisheries will be so poor. In 2008, the sport fishery is more dependent on a Columbia season than ever before.

Hundreds of jobs are depending on a stable, dependable Columbia River spring Chinook fishery. Compare that to the few gill-netters (less than 100) who have been landing spring Chinook over the last few years.

I suggest that you analyze the lost revenue to commercial fishermen from current allocations and make it up to them by reprogramming some of the mitigation fall Chinook and Coho smolts into select areas for future fisheries that will supply better economic utilization of the fish and will reduce hatchery surpluses and excessive hatchery fish on the tributary spawning ground. You could also increase the Spring Chinook smolts allocated to the select areas from Willamette hatcheries or working with Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, from selected Washington hatcheries such as Cowlitz, Lewis, or Kalama. There is a win/win here if you choose it.

By reprogramming excess hatchery production to the lower river select areas, we will increase overall Ocean survival, dramatically increase economic contribution to sport and commercial fisheries, reduce bycatch, reduce wasted hatchery fish, and dramatically reduce strays on the spawning ground, particularly of Coho. All of these things are good and will move us toward a better balance of fisheries and production for the future

Oregon’s fisheries will be under tremendous pressure as the region grows and the demand for high quality fishing increases. Climate Change and development is taking its toll on the resource. The trend has been evident for my whole career of 38 years and the rate of change is accelerating. We cannot continue to try to support a commercial fishery that demands too many fish for each job, and for each dollar of economic contribution at the expense of a sport fishery with much greater economic value, more jobs and a lighter touch on the resource.

State of Washington leaders in the past have recognized this trend and have drastically reduced non-Indian commercial fishing effort in Puget Sound. The reality is that the sport fishery in Puget Sound is the recreational use and the Indian commercial fishery supplies the market. This is wise management and recognition of a sustainable balance. The same trend is building in the Columbia River. It is time for leaders on this watch, on both sides of the river to follow the example of leaders in the past.

This is not about good guys and bad guys…or generous people or greedy ones. The time for such name-calling is over. This is the time for shifts in policy to gain the best economic gain from the resource with the lightest conservation touch.

Please lead based on objective criteria and a transparent public process rather than press for backroom “deals” of the past, that leave so many stakeholders wondering what you decided and why.

Thanks for considering my recommendations. I have spent my whole life managing these fisheries and the key is to look to a vision of the future that is sustainable and good public policy.

Sincerely,

Jim Martin
Conservation Director,
Berkley Conservation Institute
Pure Fishing
Mulino, Oregon

Another Great Letter to the Oregonian

2008-02-19T21:11:00.000-08:00

Dear Editor:

Many reports, analyses, and studies have been authored which address the issue of eliminating gillnets from the lower Columbia River. Since the implementation of the 1981 Northwest Power and Conservation Act, the vast majority of these studies were conducted by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). Funded entirely by the electric ratepayers of the Pacific Northwest, NOT TAXPAYERS as commonly reported. It is important to make this distinction since the majority of commercial caught salmon are, in fact, shipped outside the region for the benefit of NONRATEPAYERS. Ask yourself, “How many times you have seen Columbia River spring Chinook for sale in your local Safeway, Freddies, or Albertson” store?”

ODFW and WDFW commissions do not abide by the conclusions of these studies nor do they respect the plight of our endangered salmon and steelhead, but rather elect to authorize the “strangling” of many many fish which populate the Columbia River. Gillnets are nonselective killers which wreak havoc on ALL OUR FISH, including sturgeon, walleye, etc. Furthermore, when a gillnet is lost in the river (a ghost net), it fishes on and on and on and kills forever - out of sight and out of mind. The commission is populated with gillnet sympathizers appointed by the governor – all of whom need replacing. Our beloved fish deserve a more caring steward, one who errs on the side of conserving our natural resource and preserving a national treasure.

Pat Fox
Cedar Hills, Oregon

Chinook season to open for 12 days

2008-02-19T12:50:00.000-08:00

Officials agree to allow lower Columbia recreation anglers to fish
By CASSANDRA PROFITA
The Daily Astorian
Read the whole story here.

At a joint compact hearing Friday, the two states agreed to allow 450 Willamette chinook to be caught in the lower Columbia, which could pave the way to a spring chinook sport season of about 2,500 fish below the Interstate 5 bridge.

The sport season above the I-5 bridge to Bonneville Dam is expected to produce a catch of 15,800 spring chinook.

"I was happy Washington overrode Oregon's decision," said fishing guide Billy Davis, of Warrenton's Gale Force Guides. "It's better than nothing. I was happy to see a one-fish limit too. That might make it last a little longer. It's definitely better than what we thought they were going to do."

Gillnet seasons will be open on the Columbia River mainstem on Tuesdays from March 25 through April 29 upstream of the Willamette River to Beacon Rock. The sport season will be closed while gillnets are on the river to avoid conflicts between the two contentious groups.

The commercial fishery will be managed up to 76 percent of its allocation of impacts on wild spring chinook up to May 1. According to Jim Wells, president of the gillnetting group Salmon for All, the commercial fleet lost about 4 percent of its allocation, which determines how long the fleet can fish for hatchery stocks.

"We lost probably 600 fish when those four points of impacts were shifted to the sport side," he said.

After a contentious battle before both Oregon and Washington fish and wildlife commissions, the two states reconciled their decisions on splitting the wild spring chinook allocation between sport and commercial fishers Friday.

The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission voted to change the split of impacts from 57 percent sport and 43 percent commercial to 65 percent sport and 35 percent commercial, and the Oregon Fish and Wildlife decided not to change the allocation split but to use a 10 percent buffer to keep the sport season open through April 30 above the mouth of the Willamette River.

Open Letter to ODFW Commissioners (2/14/2008)

2008-02-19T06:09:00.000-08:00

To: Open Letter to ODFW Commissioners
Subject: Gill nets on the Columbia

Dear Commissioners,

I testified at your Feb. 8 sport/commercial allocation hearing. I am the old guy who led off by saying his father was part of the successful movement to remove gill nets from Oregon waters in the first half of the last century. I also said I joined the Pacific Northwest Coastal Conservation Association out of frustration after years of writing to politicians and bureaucrats to get something done about the number of fish gill netters kill and waste on the Columbia.

As a group, your body language and general lack of interest in what sportsmen had to say, made it clear by the end of the day that we had wasted our time. It was obvious some of you would rather be somewhere else than sitting through 7 hours of testimony you already suspected or knew had no chance of changing the status quo. The fact that the chair consistently shut down sportsmen at 3 minutes and allowed some gill netters to go well beyond, did not go unnoticed.

Since my reason for testifying was to reduce the gill net allocation, I thought I would share with you my experience with springers as a volunteer at The Falls Hatchery on the Kalama River in Washington from Dec 1999 to June 2002.

At that hatchery we trapped every upriver bound fish. On fish handling days all wild springers were put in the tube to reenter the river above the falls. Hatchery springers that had a chance of surviving, were placed in our holding ponds. To meet our egg take goal we needed a minimum of 300 fish. We hoped for 500 because history told them that as many as 1/3 would not survive until fall to be spawned. A small percentage of those losses were caused by seals or sea lions.

At least 90% of those losses were fish that had gone into a gill net and managed to escape. It was heartbreaking to watch those prime fish fungus up and die over the summer even with inoculations. But the real shame was the wild springers we put upstream that were net damaged and had no chance of surviving until spawning time.

It seems most of the discussion about the mortality rate in gill netting centers around the fish they bring aboard and then release. The dirty little secret no one wants to talk about is the fish who encounter their nets, tear free, and go on to die before they can spawn. The hatchery springers held at The Falls Hatchery made it clear that over a summer, at least 20% of the total wild fish run would fungus up and die from net damage prior to spawning. That would be an unacceptable loss if it was only 10%.

Fifty years ago Oregon sportsmen finally ran the last of the gill netters off Oregon waters. Today sportsmen from both Oregon and Washington are coming together to end gill netting on the Columbia as we know it. What we needed to unite us was an organization like the CCA.

Membership is exploding and we will soon be strong enough to influence elections, replace Commissioners, and pass initiative petitions. Sportsmen owe Gary Loomis a debt of gratitude for his expenditure of resources and time to bring the CCA to the Northwest and chair it. My hat is off to him.

In my opinion, it is too late for the stakeholder group to even agree on the shape of the table. The animosity between sportsmen and netters has gone on for too long and both sides are dug in. After all the years of sportsmen feeling they were getting the dirty end of the stick on the allocation, and then having to fish behind the netters, a lot of us are willing to hold out for the whole enchilada. In war, and this is a war, when you know you have the will, manpower, and resources to prevail, nothing short of total capitulation by the other side is acceptable.

As I see it, your choices are to wean the gill netters off the Columbia salmon, and soon, or stay with the status quo and let them suffer the consequences of an abrupt, and perhaps brutal, end to their fishing the river.

I am not anti commercial fishing. I am anti gill nets because of their waste of the resource which benefits no one.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Sincerely,
Red Vandehey
Hillsboro, OR
redv [at] xprt.net

cc: Governor Ted Kulongoski
ODfW Director Roy Elicker
Mads Ledet Pres. CCA Oregon
Stan Steele, Chair, Gov’t Relations CCA Oregon
Bill Monroe Oregonian
Steve Duin Oregonian
Editor Oregonian
Each member of the Oregon House and Senate

Concerned Citizens Speak Out (2/15/2008)

2008-02-19T05:55:00.000-08:00

On Feb. 12th, Steve Duin of the Oregonian wrote an excellent piece on the arrival and rapid growth of CCA in the Northwest, and exposed some of the chronic problems we have suffered due to fisheries management skewed toward commercial harvest interests. Responding to Duin's article, concerned citizens added their voices with the letters to the editor on the right. (Click to see larger image in a separate window.)

Decimating a national treasure
The Oregonian (2/14/2008)
Read the full article here.

And at the Pacific Northwest Sportsmen's Show, all the usual obsessions faded before the passionate preoccupation with fish. Salmon harvests. Steelhead runs. Spring chinook allocations. And the state's self-defeating fish policies.

"I'm a Christian, right-wing conservative," said Dean Finnerty, one of 12 licensed guides on the North Umpqua, "but when it comes to fish and conservation issues, I'm very much on the left. We do a horrible job in this state managing our natural resources." To his way of thinking, Oregon Fish and Wildlife "cares nothing about protecting native stocks of steelhead; they care only about the money generated from the sale of licenses."

Like most of the catch-and-release enthusiasts at the show -- a cast of thousands -- Finnerty believes the politics are skewed toward the commercial gill-netters. So does E.G. Eilertson, who lamented the gaming commission's quest for "equity" in allocating the spring chinook.

"There's just a little inequity," he notes, "in the equipment they use." Not to mention the lobbyists the gill-netters employ. The inequity has inspired a Pacific Northwest chapter of the Coastal Conservation Association, a national organization that aggressively promotes sportfishing and marine conservation.

When the subject is the CCA and overharvesting of the area's greatest natural resource, all roads lead to Gary Loomis, who started crafting custom rods when he got out of the Navy in 1964. When prostate cancer caught up to him in 1995, Loomis sold his business, determined "to give back to the resource" in the 18 months he was told he had left.

Thirteen years later, Loomis is still on the warpath about the commercial slaughter of salmon.

"You have 287 extinct salmon and steelhead runs in the Pacific Northwest, and another 130 on the endangered species list," Loomis said, "and we're still overharvesting.

"Our federal tax dollars have paid these people to harvest our resource to the point of extinction. And when it gets to the point where they can't make a living, our federal government has paid to subsidize them for not fishing a resource they just wiped out. I think it's insane."

Loomis started Fish First in 1995 to restore the run on a Lewis River tributary. For every salmon that reached that creek in 1992, 506 returned to spawn 10 years later . . . an abundance that only served to attract the gill-netters and turn that tributary back toward ruin.

"We're not after commercial fishermen; selective harvest is what we're after," Loomis said. The law isn't much help, he argues, because it was written by the commercial fishermen and processors to ensure they got this national treasure -- the 2007 salmon harvest in Alaska was worth $374 million -- for free.

Sportsfishing Supports Majority of ODFW Budget (2/14/2008)

2008-02-19T05:52:00.000-08:00

There are a few additional issues relating to the salmon allocation that I believe should be addressed. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife manages our fisheries and receive a dramatic majority of their funding from sport-fishers. Commercial interests contribute 1% to that same budget. The fishing license sales in Oregon have been on a dramatic decline since 2002 when the sport allocation began it gradual shift in favor of the commercial interests. While it is significant that the sport-fishers contribute the majority of money to our states ability to manage the fishery there is a far greater importance linked to license sales in Oregon. All goods that are sold for sport fishing are assessed a 10% tax by the Federal Government. This tax is returned to the states based on the total number of license sales. The fund has been specifically allocated for fisheries enhancement and restoration.

In summary, by allocating native fish impacts in favor of commercial interests we are limiting vital funding that is required to maintain and recover the heritage of our wild salmon runs.

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Gil Muhleman

Gillnets Kill Theater: ODFW Allocation Hearing - Part 3 (2/8/2008)

2008-02-12T08:07:00.000-08:00

Click To Play

Gillnets Kill Theater: ODFW Allocation Hearing (2/8/2008) - Part 1

2008-02-10T17:18:00.000-08:00

Click To Play

Commission deadlocked on allocation

2008-02-04T16:03:00.000-08:00

But Conrad Mahnken, a commission member from Bainbridge Island, countered with a plan shifting the allocation to 65 percent sport and 35 percent commercial.

Mahnken said he is concerned about commercial fishing concentrating on the front end of the spring chinook run, because it is possible to change its timing and life history patterns by disproportionately culling early fish.

A retired fish biologist, Mahnken also said there is not good information on how many spring salmon die when they drop out of nets being picked by commercial fishermen or are killed by marine mammals once trapped in the net.

Commissioner Will Roehl of Bellingham said for the panel to set new allocation percentages relegates the stakeholder discussions to side issues.

Commission deadlocked on allocation
http://www.columbian.com/sports/localNews/2008/02/02032008_Commission-deadlocked-on-allocation.cfm
February 3, 2008
BY ALLEN THOMAS, Columbian staff writer

OLYMPIA - Washington's position on the split of Columbia River spring chinook salmon between sport and commercial fishermen will be decided Friday by a Moses Lake rangeland-grazing consultant.

That's because the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission deadlocked 4-4 on Saturday in votes whether to give sports fishermen a larger share or continue the status quo.

Commission member Chuck Perry was not at Saturday's meeting. A telephone conference call is scheduled for 5 p.m. Friday to allow Perry to cast the deciding vote.

The public will be able to listen to the teleconference at the state Department of Fish and Wildlife office, 2108 Grand Blvd.

A policy that shared the upper Columbia spring chinook impacts at 57 percent for sportsmen and 43 percent for the commercial fleet expired at the end of 2007.

The department's staff recommended a one-year rollover of the expired agreement while a 13-member stakeholder group continues trying to hammer out a long-term deal.

But Conrad Mahnken, a commission member from Bainbridge Island, countered with a plan shifting the allocation to 65 percent sport and 35 percent commercial.

Mahnken said he is concerned about commercial fishing concentrating on the front end of the spring chinook run, because it is possible to change its timing and life history patterns by disproportionately culling early fish.

A retired fish biologist, Mahnken also said there is not good information on how many spring salmon die when they drop out of nets being picked by commercial fishermen or are killed by marine mammals once trapped in the net.

Commissioner Will Roehl of Bellingham said for the panel to set new allocation percentages relegates the stakeholder discussions to side issues.

"Eight percent (from 57 percent to 65 percent) is a gradual change, it's not significant,'' said commission member Gary Douvia of Kettle Falls. "I think it appropriate the commission provide a more clear cut, for the stakeholder group, direction and then have them focus on where we go a year from now, to reset the course and establish the commission's priorities.''

Voting for a 65 percent sport share were Mahnken, Douvia, Ken Chew of Seattle, and Jerry Gutzwiler of Wenatchee. Voting for retaining the 57 percent sport share were Roehl, Miranda Wecker of Naselle, George Orr of Spokane, and Shirley Solomon of Skagit County.

Neither sports nor commercial interests were happy with Saturday's stalemate.

A scientific review group has recommended removing more hatchery fish, so fewer mix on the spawning grounds with wild fish, diluting the genetics. Because wild fish survive catch-and-release on sport gear better than in nets, more hatchery fish can be caught with a higher sport allocation before reaching incidental kill limits on wild salmon.

"It's just a matter of how quickly we're ready to get on with doing the right thing for the fish,'' said Liz Hamilton, executive director of the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association.

"We work with sport groups to hammer out a deal in good faith, then a couple of radicals go behind the scenes with dirty tactics to sabotage the whole process,'' said Bruce Crookshanks, a Rochester commercial fisherman.

Oregon's decision - Also on Friday, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission will adopt that state's position on the Columbia River spring chinook allocation. The Oregon commission meets at 8 a.m. at the state Department of Fish and Wildlife headquarters, 3406 Cherry Ave. NE, Salem.

Late last week, the Oregon staff recommended a sport spring chinook season between Interstate 5 and Bonneville Dam open six days a week through April 30. Between Bonneville and McNary dams, the sport season would be open daily from March 16 through May 10.

There also would be some sport fishing in the Snake River.

The commercials would fish between I-5 and Bonneville with a harvest objective of 6,000 spring chinook, although that could vary from 3,600 to 7,750 depending on the mix of small-mesh tangle nets and large-mesh gear used. The commercials also would fish February through mid-June in off-channel areas such as Youngs Bay at Astoria.

The Oregon proposal results in a 57 percent sport/ 43 percent commercial allocation, if all goes according to computer models.

Oregon has an optional proposal that allows some fishing downstream of I-5 in March, with upstream of I-5 open through April 26.

Oregon's staff proposal is a slight favoring of sport interests by essentially guaranteeing their fishing does not close before late April. If the sports fleet needs more than 57 percent of the allocation to reach late April, it would be taken from the May portion of the commercial share.

It's not too late to act

2008-02-03T11:28:00.000-08:00

Another one by Bill Monroe.... He is starting to really become an advocate for change. Keep it up, Bill!

http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/bill_monroe/index.ssf?/base/sports/1201922723218740.xml&coll=7

It would be nice to look back and say the states paid heed to this column's warning on Feb. 5, 1995, that commercial gill-netting on the mainstem Columbia River needed to be shifted to the lower river's bays and inlets, out of the paths of migrating endangered Snake River fish.

Or to report the commissions acted upon a plea a month later by the National Marine Fisheries Service to phase out mainstem gill-netting by 2002.

Alas, more than a decade later, we're deciding again who gets the last fish.

There's still a way out, one that needs -- no, begs for -- attention. It won't (and can't) change anything this year, but it can (and must) happen.

A solution has been quietly forwarded by Jim Martin, retired chief of fisheries for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

He outlined Jim Martin's plan and the possible effects:

But he also asks both states to consider shifting the gill-nets and some hatchery salmon production into downriver terminal zones such as Youngs Bay, Tongue Point, Blind Slough, Deep Creek, Wash., and others.

Think about that.

Studies have shown a twofold increase in the survival rate of coho salmon released from lower-river net pens instead of directly out of tributary hatcheries.

If commercial nets have just as many, or probably more, salmon available in those areas, they won't need to be on the mainstem Columbia. In fact, they stand to catch more of the freshest returning salmon available. They still will get a few strays, but managing much lower numbers will be a comparative snap.

The nonfishing public's right to these fish would be more than satisfied, as would legislative mandates to protect netters' jobs.

I'm no cartographer, but a map of the lower river sure seems to show areas where additional net pens might be located, even given attendant stray rates from the mainstem.

Without mainstem gill-netting below Bonneville Dam (and tribal netters need to be on board with this idea, too), sport anglers would gain a much longer season on the water, since catch-and-release isn't nearly as deadly as the incidental net bycatch.

Downsides? Sure. Any time you subtract fin-clipped hatchery smolts from upper river hatcheries, the take-home harvest percentage is liable to drop. On the other hand, more fish are likely to return. And upriver hatchery releases would continue.

Still, it is too bad the plan he espouses still relies on the use of the gillnet. Can we do better than that? I hope so.

Walking tight lines

2008-01-29T10:24:00.000-08:00

Bill Monroe, The Oregonian
January 24, 2008

As fish and wildlife commissions in Oregon and Washington careen toward their decisions on spring chinook salmon in the next two weeks, the non-tribal (i.e., lower Columbia River) gill-netters ought to just sit back and keep their heads down.

It's not a good year to call attention to what many anglers term "kill nets."

But, apparently, that hasn't stopped at least some of them from asking for preferential treatment in the limited areas they may be allowed to harvest the world's premier salmon.

According to a story in today's Daily Columbian (here), netters would like the states to close the Columbia River to sportfishing on the days they're allowed to set their nets between Interstate 5 and Bonneville Dam.

That zone is where this spring's primary salmon action will occur as sport and commercial fishers go after a predicted healthy showing of upriver-bound springers.

Typically, commercially spring netting occurs in the lower Columbia, from the mouth of the Willamette River to Astoria. But this is anything but a typical year, with an unusually dismal Willamette spring run in the forecast.

Willamette numbers will be too low to allow any commercial netting that might jeopardize them and, in fact, are also too low to permit very much sport angling in the lower Columbia, an area long popular in March and April.

Netters ought to know better.

When they get seasons in larger areas downriver, sportfishing is allowed to continue and there should be no difference upriver. If commercial netters want to move upriver, they ought to be willing to share the river with sport fleets there as well.

Read the rest at: http://blog.oregonlive.com/billmonroe/