Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Yes on 81

Discussion in 'Northwest Fishing' started by Trick, Oct 15, 2012.

  1. Trick

    Trick St Helens Active Member

    Messages:
    235
    Likes Received:
    75
    The general election is fast approaching and first off......make sure you vote. Second......vote yes on 81 (if your an Oregon voter).

    It is long past due to find a way to conserve commercial fishing while doing it in a manner that will substantially reduce their ESA impacts on target species and more importantly stop wasteful mortality on non-target species such as steelhead and sturgeon to name a couple.

    I know the governor has a plan going forward, but forgive me if I'm a little distrustful of the political process.

    Feel free to discuss the positives and negatives of the measure.
     
  2. motoman98

    motoman98 Gresham, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    80
    'splain it more, please!
     
  3. Trick

    Trick St Helens Active Member

    Messages:
    235
    Likes Received:
    75
    The voters pamphlet is out now and explains the body of the measure. Washington and some of the tribes have been testing seine nets the last few years with excellent results. I like what I've seen with this method of commercial harvest when compared to Gillnets. I've worked in the commercial industry and have spent a life time on the CR and IMHO this is an excellent compromise between maintaining the commercial sector and doing more to protect our ESA fish and stopping the bycatch.

    Here is a video the Colville tribe helped produce on seine netting benefits.
    Wild Release: Colville Confederated Tribes' Selective Salmon Harvest - YouTube


    There is a very important meeting in regards to the Governors plan on this Thursday.

    Attend Thursday’s Important Meeting in Portland. The next meeting of the bi-state Commission Working Group is scheduled for Thursday, October 18 at the Portland Airport Embassy Suites Hotel (address: 7900 Northeast 82nd Avenue; Portland, OR 97220) The meeting will start at 8:30 and is open to the public. The agenda can be found here. We need to pack the room with supporters of this common sense reform (we will have stickers and signs available). Be sure to sign in clearly indicating your support for removing gillnets. While the workgroup public comment period is likely to be short, you can provide brief comments to the Commissioners to express your support. In short, show up and be counted!


    I hope that we see progress on both fronts, but I suspect with the measure passing we will see more effort in reforming the industry on the river in a manner that is more inline with Oregon's history of sustainability.
     
  4. hoody

    hoody Tigard/Beaverton area Active Member

    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    29
    The anti 81 ads say that WA fishermen will still use gill nets. Is that true? They made it sound pretty unfair. Help me understand.
     
  5. Trick

    Trick St Helens Active Member

    Messages:
    235
    Likes Received:
    75
    The first thing to point out is that each state is technically able to do with their portion of the river as they see fit. Fortunately WA is far ahead of us in researching and testing seine nets to lower ESA impacts and were already making the moves to switch to fish friendlier gear. Oregon has been in a legislative stalemate for years that has protected the status quo and their big $$$'s, which is what you are seeing now in those "not fair" ads being placed on the airwaves.

    Second thing to point out that WA and OR have a long history with the joint compact in adopting current rules and regulations.

    Third thing is even if for some unforeseen reason WA chose to break from tradition, 80% of the non-tribal gillnet waters lay within OR boundaries. WA gillnetters would not be allowed to deploy within OR waters.

    Many say they want commercials gone period. I think that is extreme, but I feel it is time to do more to protect our resources for future generations.
     
  6. OEDub

    OEDub SW OR Coast Active Member

    Messages:
    133
    Likes Received:
    32
    As a biologist, I'd like to hopefully clear some things up, step back, and encourage everybody to further inform themselves in order to make a well-educated decision on this matter…

    Gillnetting is a non-selective, yet targeted harvest technique used to land fish in a very effective manner. Meaning: you can “target” a specific species by utilizing timing, location, and gear restraints. For example, a smelt gillnet is composed of a much finer mesh than a salmon gillnet. This gear restraint allows the angler to target a size category, but not a species. This is why it is classified as targeted, yet “non-selective”, as any fish in that specific size category has the potential to be caught in the net. However, if timing constraints are enacted, many non-targeted species can be eliminated from the catch. For example, you can potentially minimize American Shad by-catch by setting seasons that are not concurrent with the migratory timing of that species. If location constraints are implemented, by-catch is further reduced.

    The commercial gillnet fishery in Oregon is a highly regulated, quota-based fishery and is restricted to the Lower Columbia River (Mid-Columbia gillnetting is conducted via Native American treaty). Quotas are formulated every year for all salmon fisheries (ocean sport, In-Basin sport, Ocean commercial, Terminal “Bubble” fisheries, In-Basin commercial, etc…) based on the predicted returns for that year. Gillnet restrictions on gear, location, timing, duration, and methodology are all implemented by ODFW and reviewed by multiple scientific agencies. The gillnet fishery in Oregon is a Restricted Vessel Permit Fishery…meaning that: 1.)The Columbia River Gillnet Salmon Vessel Permit is required in addition to a boat license for gillnetting salmon and sturgeon in the Columbia River. 2.)No new permits are available. Prior year permit renewable if gillnet permit fees are paid by December 31 of permit year. 3.)Permit holder may transfer permit to another person or vessel only if statutory requirements are met.

    Gear restrictions and seasons are implemented and strictly enforced during the Oregon gillnet fishery. Season durations range from several hours to multiple days, depending on the timing and available quotas. Commercial catch typically has to be reported within 24hrs of the closure of the fishery, and this data is used to update quotas and to re-assess any potential future openings. If either the target species quota or by-catch quota is met or near, the season can be closed. In the event that a quota limit is breached, other fisheries can be adjusted in order to compensate. Gillnetting is a highly efficient harvest method and has the potential to greatly impact a population. However, with direct oversight, dynamic restrictions, and a restricted entry it can be well regulated and managed.

    ODFW is already currently developing rules to move commercial gillnetting off the mainstem Columbia via a 3-year transition period. This would direct the commercial gillnet fishery to off-channel areas enhanced by hatchery-raised fish, limiting the impact of upper-reach Columbia fish and allowing them to pass. However, this plan requires the involvement of WDFW. If Measure 81 passes, it removes the ability for ODFW to regulate the fishery and could adversely impact negotiations with the State of Washington. Remember, this will affect neither Washington-based commercial gillnetting nor Tribal gillnetting via Native American treaty. In fact, the only change may be which side of the river the fish are taken and by whom. The quotas and impact may not change at all, as they may possibly be redistributed to others (Washington, Tribes, etc...). This will not prevent or stop gillnetting on the Columbia River.

    Now, my two cents on this subject:
    Remember, “feel-good” initiatives are rarely scientifically-based and typically laced with more propaganda than “fact”. The perception that gillnets are floating walls of death, killing everything that they comes into contact with, is a gross misrepresentation. I have observed fisherman with well-monitored nets effectively release non-targeted species. I personally have used filament gillnets to catch, tag, and release White sturgeon for monitoring. Tag data proves viability of these released fish. That being said, if it were unregulated, gillnetting has the potential for over-harvest. As it currently stands, ODFW can use science-based methodology to monitor, evaluate, and adjust the fisheries to balance economical viability with ecological sustainability. This measure abolishes this dynamic and scientific oversight, and through the manipulation of emotion, permanently closes this Oregon-based commercial fishery forever. This is exactly like Measure 18 in 1994, which banned the use of bait and dogs to hunt bear and cougar. Even the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act (aka Assault Weapon Ban) of 1994 was a “logical” bill to pass, as it played to the emotions of the uneducated and ill-informed. As a fish biologist, I believe that there is so much that we can do to improve the viability of our anadromous populations. I am even a proponent of re-evaluating the commercial gillnet fishery parameters…but I believe that it should be done in a scientific/fact-based manner in cooperation with partnering entities. If there is an area that necessitates improvement, we should strive to work towards that goal. If a season has to be closed in order to protect the population, I would support that. However, as a scientist, I cannot and will not support an initiative that will permanently dismantle an economically viable and sustainable fishery when it is purely and entirely based on emotional ploys and propaganda.
     
    BigBull 301, maddog, DMax and 3 others like this.
  7. MrNiceGuy

    MrNiceGuy between springfield and shelbyville Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,665
    Likes Received:
    669
    That's a long winded way to say "yes, WA fisherman will still use gillnets. This law only applies to OREGON fisherman on the same river."

    NO on 81
     
  8. Trick

    Trick St Helens Active Member

    Messages:
    235
    Likes Received:
    75

    Very well thought out post and I appreciate your feedback. I happen to agree on several issues and disagree on someothers. I come from a different background and bring forth insight from actually working in the industry in years past. My brother continues to make his living as a broker in the business buying from the processors and selling to the end user (restaraunts, grocery stores, etc...) My family was raised on the north coast and I've had the opportunity (much like you) to have first hand experience.

    I don't have time right now to tackle everything you talked about, but you clearly spelled out my biggest issue with the current method.

    "Gillnetting is a non-selective, yet targeted harvest technique used to land fish in a very effective manner."
    They are very effective and very non-selective. You can target a particular species with them based on timing, but that is a hollow argument in favor of gillnets since honestly any harvest method can and should be based on run-timing. My beef is the nature of the device that targets the gill plates/gills to hold the fish until harvest. Damage to gill structures, as we are all aware of, is a bad thing for salmon. Of course, slime and scale loss are of concern also. Gillnets have had a monopoly and it has prevented the advancement of newer/fish-friendlier methods.
     
  9. Trick

    Trick St Helens Active Member

    Messages:
    235
    Likes Received:
    75
    Ok.....is that truly your only reason for voting no? Regardless, it appears that gillnets will be pushed off the mainstem through the legislative process and WA during the last work group meeting between the states (which I attended) were actually more aggressive towards the removal of gillnets in favor of alternative gear.

    I just chuckle as the stakeholders go at each other pushing their agendas, while swaying the sub-groups with little in regards to "science".

    Hey, if you trust that process it's all good....I just am wary of it.

    But wether you vote yes, or no just vote.....that is the most important message.
     
  10. PDXSparky

    PDXSparky Keizer / Hillsboro Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,305
    Likes Received:
    801
    Agreed. Even the people who worked to put this in the ballot have recently come out against it. I've already voted no on 81. I encourage everyone to do the same.
     
  11. Zepoll

    Zepoll Keizer Active Member

    Messages:
    187
    Likes Received:
    71
    Agreed.

    NO on 81.

    We already have people put in position to regulate Fish and Wildlife. Let them determine what is the correct course of action the legislation.

    REGULATORS ARE ALREADY IN PLACE.

    Also... it only applies to Oregon Fisherman. WA Fisherman will still continue to do it.

    This measure is put up by the sport fisherman industry. The people who make their living of guided stealhead trips and things of that nature. It's not about "save the fishes" it's about jockeying one industry's position into a better spot to make money over anothers.

    Read about it, and decide for yourself.

    Oregon voters should say no to Measure 81 and allow regulators to decide on gill nets | OregonLive.com
     
  12. Trick

    Trick St Helens Active Member

    Messages:
    235
    Likes Received:
    75

    First off the people put into position are not biologists, but individuals appointed into the position often more to do with political/business alliances rather then for biology purposes. One commission member who's term expired earlier this year was John Englund, owner of Englund's marine supply on the lower CR. The #1 seller of commercial goods to the industry on the CR. Do you think that is in the best interest of science or????.

    The measure was drafted and spearheaded by the Coastal Conservation Association. Around 150k signatures were gathered and I suspect that 99% of those were not by people making a living off the river. I haven't made a living off the river in years and when I did it was commercially.

    Oh....and the link you provided was simply an editorial piece. Here is a editorial quote that I will throw up from another site that touches on the economics of this.

    "It's ironic to see how western nations look at the commercial pillaging of natural resources in developing countries and try to influence the short term thinking with a longer term view of the value of cultivating a robust tourism industry around unique natural experiences but miss the same picture here. Fishing for big chinook salmon up and down the easily accessible and reasonably well developed lower Columbia during the best weather months to be in the PNW would seem to be low hanging fruit for that sort of mindset. I applaud the progressive thinking from our northern neighbors! It is just mind boggling that a welfare commercial fishing program for a tiny, part time in-river fleet can remain such a huge priority for Oregon that they'd protect it to the lengths they do."
     
  13. Mikej

    Mikej Portland Gold Supporter Gold Supporter 2015 Volunteer 2016 Volunteer

    Messages:
    3,135
    Likes Received:
    3,018
    Trick, why don't you explain the SAFE areas and how they work, and could be expanded? How the SAFE areas provide many thousands of hatchery fish in side channels of the Columbia, with VERY, VERY few wild fish, for the netters. E'splain how many hatchery Willamette spring chinook smolt (Baby salmon) were taken from sportsman to provide the commercial gillnetters in the lower Columbia via SAFE areas. You seem to be better to explain that than I ever could.

    The commercial gill netters (Non Native Americans), from thier ads against 81 would have you believe that they'll be forced to hang up their net, have nothing to do to pay their bills and all go on walefare, food stamps and lose their homes. NOT TRUE!

    Mike
     
  14. Trick

    Trick St Helens Active Member

    Messages:
    235
    Likes Received:
    75
    The SAFE areas were originally conceived as a method of lowering the impacts of ESA listed species by moving the commercial industry in to areas that were thought to have the ability to house a robust artificial production with little impact on those ESA stocks. Basically, they were never used for what they were designed for (curtailing commercials off the mainstem) and they really just morphed into additional commercial catch at the expense of upriver production.

    What your eluding to (I believe) is the upriver smolt production that was moved downriver to SAFE areas?

    The Governors plan (which the commercials are screaming about) is very similar to the Safe for Salmon plan that was killed in legislation around 4 years ago....which by the way was more about politics and less about science as always. The current Governors plan is to once again shift more smolt production into off channel areas in an effort to sustain a commercial interest while appeasing the vocal sport fleet.

    I still believe that it would have been better to continue to harvest on the mainstem with selective gear at current levels then to ramp up the incredibly expensive SAFE area which has been a huge subsidy (at your expense).

    Here is an article on Oregonlive written by Bill Monroe back in 2008 that explains SAFE for salmon that was killed by the commission.
    http://blog.oregonlive.com/billmonroe/2008/09/safe_for_salmon.html
     
  15. Gaucho Gringo

    Gaucho Gringo Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    389
    Likes Received:
    275
    No one has made a living gillnetting on the Columbia River for over 70 years. I have heard the same crap from the gillnetters for over 55 years. All of them are moonlighters and have been since I can remember. The day when a person made his entire living off of fishing the Columbia river has been gone for over three generations. They do not belong here anymore than than the hydraulic gold miners who rape the natural resources for their own benefit. If they really wanted to help and make money they would fish for northern pikeminnows, but they are too lazy to do that. MAY THEY ALL ROT IN HELL WITH THEIR DAMM NETS AROUND THEIR NECKS!!!!!! Just my personal opinion which I have had for over 60 years.
     
  16. jake2far

    jake2far Portland Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    112
    While the "experts" debate the pros and cons, think about this; GHOST NETS.
    An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
    The above link works.

    Using nets that catch anything in a size spec should never be deployed unless you keep whatever is caught in them.
    I suggest anyone who thinks they "know" what a gill net can do should join the recovery effort for the lost nets, look at what they have done, count how many are lost per year, and realize there are an unknown number in the river, and they continue to catch fish.
    Please go locate, remove, inspect, than come back and tell us how to vote.
    I worked the river for years, I repaired fishing equipment for a living, the discard or incidental catch thrown back is not always alive or in shape for release.
    Discards - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    This is not a "feel" issue, it is real, argue for any method surrounding gill capture technology, than share the rate of success and failure, they are not the "best practice available".
    I hunt, I fish, I believe in using the available resource, how about this pull a deer tag, go out and shoot your deer, when you get up to it if you don't want it just leave it, ohhh ya go ahead and shoot any animal you think is a deer, if it isn't ya just leave it and move on. Hey it could live and you aren't responsible because the law says ya gotta leave it.
    I have seen ghost nets pulled from the river, there are dead fish in them, and they were wasted.
    How about this, I go hunting and I lose my gun, it continues to wander around in the woods and shoots whatever and whenever it wants to. In fact it will shoot people, birds, seals, and anything else it can. Ghost nets have killed people.
    Lets see my current tag for salmon allows 5, how many full tags do you think are sitting in those nets?

    Jim