Netting on the Sound

Discussion in 'Saltwater' started by CLO, Sep 24, 2009.

  1. nutsack angler newb

    Posts: 417
    Dedmonds, WA
    Ratings: +36 / 0
    Karl... pull together? as gt stated the co-managers have no interest in revealing their catch. Co managers??? I pick my battles and I will point fingers especially when we're dealing with broodstock programs of ESA listed fish (an attempt at rehabilitation) that are being HARVESTED WITH GILL NETS... WTF does that say about co-management?
  2. gt Active Member

    Posts: 2,616
    sequim, WA
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    interesting history lesson from the 60s smalma, disgusting, and still operational. addressing what can be addressed immediately seems to my way of thinking the first beginning step. that means selective fishing must be instituted. we can control that step, have the legal backing to protect already listed ESA fishes and it would make an enormous difference in escapement of non clipped fishes.

    sure habitat is key, but no one here or anywhere in the world i know can get a handle on this and make a difference in any short term span of time. in the meantime the extinction clock is ticking on that river near and dear to you, right now.

    or, as an alternative, shut down fishing, all fishing for lets say a decade and lets see what happens.
  3. SpeySpaz still an authority on nothing

    Posts: 1,827
    Roy, WA
    Ratings: +13 / 0
    here's a quote from 17 Sept Puyallup tribal news issue #96 after claiming that THEY closed the lower Puyallup :
    "It was so nice to see our fishermen fishing without harassment, racial slurs, without the hindrance of catching someone in their nets. To just see boats and nets- wow, what a beautiful day."
    -Nancy Shippentower-Games
    Puyallup Tribal Council Member




    co-managers, indeed.
  4. Go Fish Language, its a virus

    Posts: 1,276
    Rheomode, Wa.
    Ratings: +87 / 0
    Even though I love to catch and eat salmon I would
    agree with gt on a decade ban of all fishing in Puget
    Sound. Would it happen? Not likely....but it would be
    a step in the right direction.

    How do you eat an elephant?
    One bite at a time.

    Dave
  5. SciGuy Active Member

    Posts: 206
    B.I. and surrounding points
    Ratings: +51 / 0
    The Boldt Decision says non-natives need to split the harvest with natives. Doesn't it follow that if there is no harvest by non-natives then there can't be a harvest by the natives? Or when natives over-harvest, thereby violating the treaty, why is there no consequence? If a treaty is continually violated by one party, at some point doesn't the treaty become invalid/outdated/unenforceable? What is the utility of a treaty if there is no reason for one party to abide by that treaty?

    All questions I'd like answered.

    The resource is being raped and nets are Boldting the door.
  6. Evan Burck Fudge Dragon

    Posts: 6,419
    Duvall, wa
    Ratings: +1,596 / 2
    that's what happens when the (alleged) offender is their own enforcement
  7. codswallower Member

    Posts: 80
    seattle wa
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Loss and degradation of good spawning and rearing habitat to urbanization, pollution, dams, improper logging practices, water withdrawals and other less visible manmade causes “take” more salmon than all fishermen ever could, tribal or otherwise. Habitat upstream of the Chittenden locks the has the highest human population density in the northwest.
    Tribal fisheries are a highly visible “taking” of the resource. But we need to look a little deeper than that.
  8. Leopardbow Member

    Posts: 483
    Ferndale, WA
    Ratings: +1 / 0
    Thanks Smalma, fantastic facts and I would have to agree with both you and Gt. Unfortunatley the Nooksack River basin seems to be completely ignored, primarily in the N. of Falcon process as well. Lets get mark selective fishing going, continue on the habitat work that is going on, get in the NOF game and see what type of long-term difference we can make.

    I think we all know, realistically, fishing will not be shutdown.
  9. SpeySpaz still an authority on nothing

    Posts: 1,827
    Roy, WA
    Ratings: +13 / 0
    In a crisis, you do everything you can about everything that's within your power to change.
    Habitat degredation and unchecked development and non-point source pollutants will take time.
    Overharvest could be solved by enforcement of an existing law, the ESA. This year.

    Selective harvest techniques NOW. Nets have to go. This is the only state in the lower 48 where gillnets are still in widespread use, except the OR side of the Klumbia (as far as I know).
    within one or two years, hatchery reform/shutdown would need to happen. All it takes is cojones and common sense. Current hatchery practices could be replaced by instream box programs that raise viable fry naturally, and recovery of wild stocks would be algorithmic. At least there'd be a chance. I'd stop fishing and go to the casting pool for a few years to see that happen!

    seems like a no-brainer to many of us.
  10. nutsack angler newb

    Posts: 417
    Dedmonds, WA
    Ratings: +36 / 0
    YES
  11. CLO Skykchromish Light Saber

    Posts: 731
    Seattle
    Ratings: +285 / 0
    great debate
  12. nutsack angler newb

    Posts: 417
    Dedmonds, WA
    Ratings: +36 / 0
    While we "continue on the habitat work that is going on" I have a question for someone that maybe in the know. There is a piece of property on the sack that continues to get an annual direct hit from the river and property owners have continuously placed rip-rap on the bank to avoid erosion. I was told that if a habitat violation cannot be seen from a public road/view point access then it cannot be enforced by habitat bios, and in this event it would have to go through enforcement who would then have to get a search warrant to enter the property of which doesn't include the habitat bio's admission? Is this the law?
  13. Milt Roe Member

    Posts: 396
    Taco Ma
    Ratings: +14 / 0
    With the non-selective mixed stock fisheries continuing in the ocean, there is a significant non-tribal catch of ESA listed Puget Sound stocks. If the non-tribal ocean fisheries kill some number of fish from a particular basin, the tribes from that basin are entitled to an equal number as long as the Feds deem the impacts of both fisheries acceptable.

    There is a huge political pressure to continue harvesting in the ocean. We recently saw the ocean fisheries curtailed in Oregon and California, but imagine the impact of such a decision farther north where many of the Puget Sound fish travel. Limiting ocean fisheries there would involve international issues along with impacts to the powerful Alaskan fisheries targeting the economically important and relatively healthy northern stocks. We probably will never see the tribal fisheries curtailed as long as those mixed stock ocean fisheries continue.
  14. gt Active Member

    Posts: 2,616
    sequim, WA
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    well milt, i don't see gill nets stretched across the pacific or for that matter anchored along the WCVI out to the 'highway'. getting rid of nonselective harvest is the very basic and first step that is long overdue. does nothing to reduce the 50% only HOW that %age is obtained.

    ESA fishes are being killed as 'by catch', one might ask why the laws of our land are not being enforced right here in washington state, the only place gill nets are still allowed!
  15. Chris Johnson Member: Native Fish Society

    Posts: 1,777
    Bellingham Wa.
    Ratings: +310 / 1
    There are gillnet fisheries in California, Oregon, BC and Alaska.
  16. herl Member

    Posts: 876
    the other washington
    Ratings: +1 / 0
    This sounds good, but I don't think it is true. Yes, we all agree that habitat has been degraded, and that it needs to be fixed. BUT, the increase in numbers of returning adults would be much greater if we reduced the harvest, especially non-selective harvest, than if we just focused on habitat improvement. This could be done right away and the effect would be nearly instant. The East Coast has plenty of habitat problems, yet everywhere they ban nets/commercial harvest the fish populations rebound.

    Our remnant, beat-down, runs of fish are still icons of the PNW. To continue to harvest them when they are on the brink of collapse is pure... well, it's not smart.

    Curt's post sheds a lot of light on why things are the way they are. It was a conscious decision by the managers, to subsidize the commercial fishing industry with hatchery production, at the expense of coincidental wild fish. The micro-coho stands as a monument to the long-term effects of intensive gill netting. Those that couldn't get small enough, just went away.

    Habitat is important, but we shouldn't use it as a cop-out for problems that can be solved today.

    Eric
  17. gt Active Member

    Posts: 2,616
    sequim, WA
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    yes chris, i have watched the beach sets at clam gulch kill every single sockeye coming past. i have also talked with folks in BC regarding the FN terminal fisheries with gill nets. terminal indian fisheries also exist in CA and along the columbia, below bonneville by indian and non indian, above bonneville by indians.

    if your point was to correct me, point taken. if you are trying to make another point about gill net fisheries, i missed that completely.