grays river HSRG plan

Todd wrote:Same shite I've been pointing out for two years...the CCA hopefuls don't have any idea what they are doing, where they are going...or where they are taking the rest of us with them.

Long ago I made a loooonnnggg post on some board or another connecting the dots between management in the CCA and big oil and big energy producers, and their customers.

Connections between PUD's on the Columbia and the major users of the electricity they make...aluminum companies...were easy to draw because they had the same things in common...the same lobbyist(s), asking for the same things.

The return of "wild salmon" to the Columbia, coupled with the end of fishing there, is part and parcel of the continued access to cheap energy...as usual, the public paying the price, and the private industries reaping the benefits.

GL is a tool in this...an ignorant tool, which is the way it has to be. Won't he be surprised, along with his sycophants?

I won't be, but I'd rather put a stop to it than accept it and say "I told you so" when it happens.

Fish on...

Todd

:140:

I don't know you Todd but I sure as hell agree with you. We'd get along just fine.

That hooplehead Warren B will be laughing all the way to his grave.

Todd wrote:

I won't be, but I'd rather put a stop to it than accept it and say "I told you so" when it happens.

not me, i look forward to the day when selective commercial harvest is changed to a new method with a zero release mortality rate so they can go in and catch all the excess hatchery fish, hopefully when they get it figured out on the columbia they can take all the excess cowlitz silvers and i`m hopefull that the new methods will spread to willipa bay and grays harbor to catch all the excess hatchery fish in those systems to and i guess if we are lucky they can come into area 9 and 10 in puget sound for hatchery fall chinook

boater wrote:

Todd wrote:

I won't be, but I'd rather put a stop to it than accept it and say "I told you so" when it happens.

not me, i look forward to the day when selective commercial harvest is changed to a new method with a zero release mortality rate so they can go in and catch all the excess hatchery fish, hopefully when they get it figured out on the columbia they can take all the excess cowlitz silvers and i`m hopefull that the new methods will spread to willipa bay and grays harbor to catch all the excess hatchery fish in those systems to and i guess if we are lucky they can come into area 9 and 10 in puget sound for hatchery fall chinook

Not me either! i look forward to the day when you guys can get the "right" colors of them beads together, so that we can run with it. Can you guys just give us them right colored beads...and quite all this other crap?

Ahh, all the way back to ground zero, how pathetic. What's the big loss, B10 is already toast with a reduction in the exploitation, right? This is the HSRG/WDFW guideline for recovery. The CCA's just an easy target. Hope that works out for you......

Hairlipangler wrote:
What's the big loss, B10 is already toast with a reduction in the exploitation, right?

the cca is the only place that ive heard of wanting to go to 20 percent, have you heard it from anyone else ??, at the nof meeting we were at i didnt hear anything about 20 percent.

Hell, I haven't heard anything other than what LOF said. I post what I hear or recieve.

The question has to be asked, I'm not fishin for a fight, but.....

How the hell do you think reducing the exploitation rate to 20% is going to affect harvest? Don't you think the result might be a boost for mark-selective harvesters? Could it possibly force high mortality nets to find more selective methods or gear? If all you see is that it will shut down B10 for wild retention, I think your field of vision is well, narrow. IMO, the agencies will be forced to give a higher percentage of harvest to the more selective harvesters in order to accomplish productivity goals, or to realize any benefits from reduced exploitation rates. How else do you see it working out?

The question I have is, if one of the objectives is to remove more brats from native spawning beds, reducing exploitation will reduce harvest until lower mortality methods catch up anyways. I'm concerned that hatchery production cuts in the interim wont be enough to offset the reduced harvest of brats due to the reduction in exploitation, eventually (possibly) increasing the number of brats on the beds. Does anyone think this is a valid concern?

When the commercial industry is forced to go selective, and has the ability to harvest far more of those pesky hatchery fish when doing so...who do you think those "more selective harvesters" will be who get the increased allocation?

Hint: It won't be us.

Fish on...

Todd

Here's a typical discussion between those who live on faith, and those who live on facts...

http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/536881/Lower_Columbia_selective_fishi.html#Post536881

Fish on...

Todd

Continue that thought process a little further Todd, by the time that happens, wild productivity will have increased due to reduced hatchery stray, the result of selective harvesting, and the 20% exploitation will be twice in numbers what it is now. There's a ton of ifs and buts. To have a shot at making harvest truly mark-selective in a mixed stock fishery is a trend I'd like to see, all the way to AK. Responsible harvest on a healthy fishery is the goal. Maybe 28% exploitation is acceptable when hatchery stray isn't an issue and productivity rebounds, but I can't argue we're probably better off at least reducing exploitation while the fisheries are so distressed.

Hairlipangler wrote:

To have a shot at making harvest truly mark-selective in a mixed stock fishery is a trend I'd like to see, all the way to AK.

not me.

boater wrote:

Hairlipangler wrote:

To have a shot at making harvest truly mark-selective in a mixed stock fishery is a trend I'd like to see, all the way to AK.

not me.

Me, either...it's bad enough that the proponents are willing to totally fukk fish and fishing on the Columbia, no reason to let them fukk the rest of the west coast, too.

Fish on...

Todd

Todd wrote:

boater wrote:

Hairlipangler wrote:

To have a shot at making harvest truly mark-selective in a mixed stock fishery is a trend I'd like to see, all the way to AK.

not me.

Me, either...it's bad enough that the proponents are willing to totally fukk fish and fishing on the Columbia, no reason to let them fukk the rest of the west coast, too.

Fish on...

Todd

could you imagine a year like this year on the columbia if every fishery that affected columbia river chinook was selective and if sportfishing on the columbia was selective ??, do people realy think we would have gotten the same amount of hatchery chinook back to the river mouth if all those fisherys were selective, its almost like we have an organized group trying to stop sportfishing, its realy fuked up.

I wans't suggesting sportfishers go to mark-selective fisheries everywhere. You both know I wasn't refering to anything like that. Yet, you choose that paranoid path at every opportunity. Knock yourselves out. Sportfishing is as selective as it ever needs to be, and I'll never advocate for anything other than that. If the situation calls for mark-selective fisheries then by all means every harvester needs to harvest mark-selectivley, or with reduced mortality methods.

How the hell do you boys figure to eliminate hatchery stray? How are we going to increase wild productivity? How are you going to create a sustainable fishery without harvest and hatchery reform? So far all I hear from you all is how actions and proposals affect your fishing. That's pretty obvious to anyone reading.

Like I said, lots of ifs and buts. Why assume a worst case scenario? Sure it's possible we could get screwed. But I'd rather negotiate allocation on a healthy fishery. Without a healthy fishery, it doesn't matter.