Re: grays river HSRG plan

by Todd on 14th September 2009, 12:56 pm

I'm not sure why this is so hard to get ahold of, but here goes again...

When the commercials go full-selective, they will outharvest the sporties by many factors, maybe a factor of ten.

If it happens on the Columbia, don't pretend to be surprised when the next allocation meetings with WDFW and ODFW end up with a 65-35, or 70-30 split, in favor of the commercials...

Fish on...

Todd

by Todd on 14th September 2009, 12:58 pm

Hairlipangler wrote: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.

Don't put it ten times more hatchery fish than we can ever possibly harvest...besides being an actual plan that would work, it's also cheaper than what we're doing now, rather than costing more and not working, like the rest of our "plans"...

Fish on...

Todd

by Todd on 14th September 2009, 1:00 pm

Wild productivity WILL NOT be increased when the same amount of wild fish are being killed, and the decrease in hatchery fish on the spawning grounds will be negligible...

Sportfishing, however, will suck even worse.

Fish on...

Todd

by Hairlipangler on 14th September 2009, 1:07 pm

I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater Todd. We need hatchery fish for harvest. We don't have the available habitat to eliminate hatcheries. I agree with a reduction in hatchery production if we cannot, and up until we can, harvest them without jeopardizing wild stocks.

And Todd, if that were to happen, it'd happen for us now. It's not, not by the outrageous amounts you're predicting. Commercial and tribal fisheries will still be bound by allocation agreements Todd. Agreements with us, as we are now with them. I'm not against more fish for tribal and commercial fishermen if we can do it in a sustainable manner, and explicitly NOT BY FURTHER REDUCING THE ALREADY SELECTIVE SPORT FISHERIES.

by Hairlipangler on 14th September 2009, 1:17 pm

Todd wrote:Wild productivity WILL NOT be increased when the same amount of wild fish are being killed, and the decrease in hatchery fish on the spawning grounds will be negligible...

Sportfishing, however, will suck even worse.

Fish on...

Todd

One, who say's the same exploitation rates will apply after reduced mortality methods or gear are established for commercial/tribal fisheries?

Two, if the decrease in hatchery production is negligible, we either didn't reduce production enough, or we haven't reduced harvest mortality enough. That's the only way wild productivity won't be increased. That, or hatchery fish have no actual negative affect on wild productivity. Is that what you're suggesting? I hope not.

by Todd on 14th September 2009, 2:14 pm

I think you will be very surprised come the allocation meetings following the commercials going "fully selective"...the reason the sporties get the higher allocation now is that we have the ability to harvest more hatchery fish per ESA impact fish than do the gillnetters...when that turns around, so will the allocations, especially when we have been stupidly...and wrongly...claiming that we, the more selective group, must be allowed to have the higher allocation so we can get all those hatchery fish off the spawning grounds.

It's the argument we've been making, and winning, for years...and as soon as they're more selective than us, and have the ability to harvest FAR more of those pesky hatchery fish, then it's the same argument, just on the different foot.

The lack of knowledge of history and foresight of consequences of current ideas will be the downfall of the CCA, they'll implode when their ideas turn out to not help fish or fishing...but be assured, somehow or another it will be on GL's "win" list, anyway, the next time he goes to stump for money.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. This is the same stuff I told him at the original two or three dog and pony shows, and he looked at me like I just called his mama a turd...and said "we'll find out about that and get back to you"...how many phone calls you think I received?

by boater on 14th September 2009, 3:02 pm

Todd wrote:

The lack of knowledge of history and foresight of consequences of current ideas will be the downfall of the CCA, they'll implode when their ideas turn out to not help fish or fishing...

i agree.

by boater on 14th September 2009, 3:05 pm

Hairlipangler wrote:

One, who say's the same exploitation rates will apply after reduced mortality methods or gear are established for commercial/tribal fisheries?

i dont think the tribes that want to gillnet will ever quit gillnetting

by cowlitzfisherman on 14th September 2009, 3:11 pm

Todd wrote:
The lack of knowledge of history and foresight of consequences of current ideas will be the downfall of the CCA, they'll implode when their ideas turn out to not help fish or fishing...but be assured, somehow or another it will be on GL's "win" list, anyway, the next time he goes to stump for money.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. This is the same stuff I told him at the original two or three dog and pony shows, and he looked at me like I just called his mama a turd...and said "we'll find out about that and get back to you"...how many phone calls you think I received?

Just about as many phone calls as I got too Todd! :61:

Gary is own worse adversary!

by cowlitzfisherman on 14th September 2009, 3:13 pm

boater wrote:
Hairlipangler wrote:

One, who say's the same exploitation rates will apply after reduced mortality methods or gear are established for commercial/tribal fisheries?

i dont think the tribes that want to gillnet will ever quit gillnetting

No one can make them ever "quite" so If you were a tribe member...would you quite? Smile

by boater on 14th September 2009, 3:30 pm

cowlitzfisherman wrote:

No one can make them ever "quite" so If you were a tribe member...would you quite?

no, its what they like to do, ive grown up watching the muckelshoots net the duwamish for years, to them its a big deal, they take there whole family out on a gillnet boat and alot of the time they stay over night on the boats, the cca or any other group is going to do nothing to stop that and the tribes will never be put in a place where they are the last user group using gillnets leaving themselves open to protests, the tribes stepped in durring the wild steelhead release ordeal and said that they didnt want to be the only user group keeping wild steelhead and they will say the same thing about gillnets, they will not be put on the spot as far as gillnets go and anyone who believes other wise is a total moron.

by boater on 14th September 2009, 3:32 pm

and to cite the colville indians is stupid, they either had to use selective methods or not get a new hatchery.

by Hairlipangler on 14th September 2009, 5:20 pm

I think you will be very surprised come the allocation meetings following the commercials going "fully selective"...the reason the sporties get the higher allocation now is that we have the ability to harvest more hatchery fish per ESA impact fish than do the gillnetters...when that turns around, so will the allocations, especially when we have been stupidly...and wrongly...claiming that we, the more selective group, must be allowed to have the higher allocation so we can get all those hatchery fish off the spawning grounds.

We are selective, or capable of mark selective harvest. That's one reason, among many reasons why we should continue to press for enhancing sport fishing opportunity. We all know the reasons, I won't bother.

And what about the eventual most selective group of harvesters? Who will they be? Will they get stuck with surplus mush collected at weirs or hatcheries? Who gets that bone? It's gotta be done doesn't it? Can you get stray down to below 5% without some type of zero mortality collection system in the terminal areas? Shouldn't the most selective, whomever that turns out to be, do heavy lifting when it comes to the other responsibility of making the brats, get them harvested and off the spawning beds?

The task of collection/harvest is monumental. It's going to take some pretty creative measures to accomplish. I think if you segregate the fisheries, and get the "collective" mortality of all harvesters down, you accomplish everything at one time. I don't see that as the doom and gloom you crotchety old buggers do.

by boater on 15th September 2009, 9:12 am

Hairlipangler wrote:

And what about the eventual most selective group of harvesters? Who will they be?

http://wdfw.wa.gov/do/newreal/release.php?id=aug2809b

“Commercial boats could actually catch a lot more hatchery-reared salmon if we can find new ways to reduce mortalities of protected wild fish.”

by Todd on 15th September 2009, 10:22 am

Hairlipangler wrote:
And what about the eventual most selective group of harvesters? Who will they be? Will they get stuck with surplus mush collected at weirs or hatcheries? Who gets that bone? It's gotta be done doesn't it? Can you get stray down to below 5% without some type of zero mortality collection system in the terminal areas? Shouldn't the most selective, whomever that turns out to be, do heavy lifting when it comes to the other responsibility of making the brats, get them harvested and off the spawning beds?

Most selective? Probably seines, or fish wheels.

Who will they be? The non-tribal commercials.

No, they won't get stuck with the surplus mush...the whole point is to make sure there isn't surplus mush.

Get stray down to below 5%? Easily...very easily, and cheaply, and without killing a single wild fish.

Heavy lifting? If you want the commercials to do the lifting, then you will will get your wish...just remember, that heavy lifting of removing all the hatchery fish will happen downstream of sportfishermen.

Fish on...

Todd