Discussion in 'Saltwater' started by SciGuy, Oct 18, 2011.

  1. Colin

    Colin new member name

    I think before bashing fishing rights one might want to look into how many fish the Tribal hatcheries are producing and releasing. Do a little research.
  2. Joe Smolt

    Joe Smolt Member

    This assumes hatchery activities are benign, which they are not
  3. Jonathan Tachell

    Jonathan Tachell Active Member

    Who is paying for those hatchery fish to be relaesed? The tax payers in most cases. Just becasue the tribes are rearing fish does not mean they are footing the bill although in some cases they are helping. Not to mention most of the hatchery fish that they are raising do not get fin clipped which means no chance for us to harvest a fish where only fin clipped fish may be retained ( which is almost everywhere now ). Also if a hatchery fish is not fin clipped how do you tell the difference between a wild and hatchery fish to minimize cross breeding or get a true number on the amount of wild fish returning to a stream? You can't. Its win win for the tribes, raise fish, don't clip them so we have to release them, they return to the rivers and get caught in their gill nets. Not to mention wild fish numbers appear to be higher than they actually are which allows netting to continue.
  4. bennysbuddy

    bennysbuddy the sultan of swing

    I think we should dig up judge bolt and beat him for starting this mess, that or all buy seiners & gillnetters get rich.
  5. skyrise

    skyrise Active Member

    no fish in your area?? get used to it. this wont stop until every fish is gone forever.

    "He mentioned that the tribes and WDFW get together with their biologists to determine seasons, etc. Basically, the season for the tribes easily runs full time from the end of August into December gathering coho and chum. Go figure!!! ............ "

    what a joke how do you determine a season when you have no idea what has spawned in a river or stream. let alone what few fish might actually make it back.

    does the WDFW A. know what has spawned in any stream in the whole state = NO.
    B. do they know the numbers of fish that are returning = NO.
    C. do they care if any thing makes it back = NO.
    D. are the commercials running this whole game = YES
    E. do we have a chance to change any thing = NO.
    if i am wrong go fish any puget sound or hood canal stream .
    is the OP next to go = YES
    its just a matter of time.
  6. Smalma

    Smalma Active Member

    I suppose that If I were not such a cynic I would be astounded about the amount of mis-information being sprewed on this thread.

    If some of the posters on here are truly interested in seeing changes in fish management issues of interest I suggest that they spend less time "venting" on threads such as this and more time on gathering information to understand these issues. Being in a position arguing from knowledge is almost always more productive than using erroneous information for the foundation of your argument.

    Tight lines
  7. Blktailhunter

    Blktailhunter Active Member

    About a month ago I stopped by the Cowling Creek Hatchery that is operated by the Suquamish Tribe to watch them spawn the Kings. Maybe it was a statistical anomaly both both times I was there fully 50% of the fish were not clipped. When I asked one of the workers about clipping the kings he told me that they clip 90% of them. After seeing the spawning I'm having a tough time believing that figure. I keep thinking of the 25lb unclipped king I had to release this past summer off of Kingston was probably laying on that sorting table.
  8. ak_powder_monkey

    ak_powder_monkey Proud to Be Alaskan

    seems to me if there are sport fisheries with harvest you shouldn't complain about commercial fisheries with harvest.

    Releasing fish while seining is easy, when you brail the net you release the ones you don't want, much easier on the fish than sport fishing for sure
  9. herl

    herl Member

    Which information is false? What is the correct information? This is a very important issue to a lot of people - people who might be willing to do something about it. So just saying that a lot of the info is wrong is not very helpful. I, for one, would appreciate a brief explanation of how/why commercial salmon harvest in WA is biologically and economically sound. Or if it is not - what can be done about it?

    I am tired of hearing that it is not as bad as it seems, or that it is a hopeless situation. And I am tired of hearing that the managers have it under control. Something needs to change and I'm willing to help. I have my ideas based on my (admittedly incomplete) understanding of fish, fisheries, and what has happened to other severely depressed wild fish stocks. If you know what needs to change and how to change it, fill us in.

    Maybe not. ..if you don't have a problem with dwindling wild salmon populations being harvested en masse for commercial gain. Assuming an equal harvest, sportfishing provides more value and a higher quality of life for many more individuals than commercial fishing does. Sport fisheries can function, and even grow, without increasing harvest. My opinion is that wild fish, particularly wild fish so close to so many people, are far too valuable to be netted at wholesale prices. If I am wrong about that I wish someone would explain how, so I can stop being upset by what is going on out there.
  10. bennysbuddy

    bennysbuddy the sultan of swing

    How about closing fishing for everybody for the benifit of the fish?
  11. Smalma

    Smalma Active Member

    Herl -
    Commercial fishing of salmon has been on going for a long time and while we all would like to see less of the fish going into the commercial bin it is hard to argue that for most stocks current commercial harvest rates is the dominate factor driving our salmon populations to the ESA lists.

    From the comments it is clear that some here have a poor understanding of the Boldt decision. While it is easy to blame it on a single man it is the federal law which has been supported by the various federal courts all the way up to the US Supreme Court. I recall reading that the State had taken various aspects of the decision to court many times and lost every time.

    It is equally clear that some folks have a poor understanding of what a seine fishery is and sometimes confuse seines with gill nets. Heck CCA Washington/Oregon have been pushing hard to replace gill nets with seines.

    While there a plenty of examples of stocks suffering from over harvest the root cause of the population problems has too high of harvest rates; regardless of the fishing method. From a biologoical prespective the issue shoould the harvest rates not how those rates were acheived. Why not attack the harvest rates rather then the fishing method.

    There are certainly some arguments to be made for a different allocation the allowed catches (more to the recreation and less to the commercial) however the best arguments are not biological; rather social and economically.

    These issues have been discussed here on this site many times in great detail and clearly there is little value in wasting anyones time in re-visiting them.

    Sorry I brought up it; please return to the ranting.

  12. herl

    herl Member

    Fair enough - the general biological issue is harvest rates not the harvest methods (except in the case of gill nets and bottom trawling). I think the fastest and most economically sound way to reduce harvest rates would be to ban the US nets. Of the two industries (sport and commercial), who accounts for most of the harvest? and who is pushing for more harvest? I'm guessing its the commercial folks, but I don't know that for a fact. If you don't want to talk about it anymore, no problem.

    Commercial fishing, by definition, is only about harvest. Some recreational anglers want to kill more fish, but a lot don't. Some would be happy with C&R across the board. In my mind, the recreational industry is dependent on the presence of fish, not neccesarily their harvest. Much more bang per fish. So I guess I think that the good social and economic arguments should make it clear how to address the biological issue of harvest rates.
  13. Smalma

    Smalma Active Member

    Herl -
    Remmeber that this thread started about a salmon fishery. The reality is that the vast majority of the recreational anglers fishing for salmon are looking for fish to harvest and CnR season/fishing geneates very little interest.

    Here in Puget Sound depending on the species and specific stock it often is the case that recreational anglers harvest more fish than the non-treaty commercial fleet. The majority of the harvested chum and pinks end up in the commercial nets while with the exception of the Nooksack coho and Samish hatchery fall Chinook the majority of the non-treaty PS Chinook and coho harvested end up in the recreational anglers' fish boxes.

    Something to keep in mind is that those of us on this site are hardly a cross section of the State's anglers and their interest. However you are correct that the value of the fish in a recreational fishery is in the man-days of recreation that the resource supports not the number of fish harvested. But it remains the case for many of our fisheries the man-days produced is directly related to the opportunity /expectation to harvest fish.

    Finally it is good to remember that the commercial industry gets its "power" from the laws of the State not the managers (who are following legislative mandates). Those laws are supported by us the citizens of this State through the actions of our elected representatives. If you want to see a change it will take a change in the mind set of the State's citizens/legislature. There is nothing the derails any efforts to enact such changes that rants based on emotion and erroneous information. It is just too easy to dismiss arguments based on faulty information.

    Tight lines
  14. Chris Johnson

    Chris Johnson Member: Native Fish Society

    Thank you Curt, great post
  15. skyrise

    skyrise Active Member

    "Finally it is good to remember that the commercial industry gets its "power" from the laws of the State not the managers (who are following legislative mandates). Those laws are supported by us the citizens of this State through the actions of our elected representatives."
    of course this doesnt help when you stand on a river bank and look at water that is devoid of any fish. when just a few short years ago you could count the dead ones that had spawned.
    and really the department missed a good opportunity after the Boldt decision to look hard at what was to happen down the road.
    like wild steelhead release and etc.
    oh well i guess i can show my grandson pictures of salmon and steelhead some day.
  16. Joe Smolt

    Joe Smolt Member

    I recognize that I don't understand all elements of this topic. Its hard to have anything other than a visceral reaction when I think of the lack of fish & carcasses in the rivers the past 2 yrs vs just 4 or 5 yrs ago. Hard to take a balanced view when you see commercial nets stretched across many areas of the sound every half a mile when all I heard is that they are harvesting chums for the roe.

    Curt is right this is a political issue and we as recreational fishermen need to influence it. I contribute to different environmental and fishing conservation groups. I have yet to see and wish to see common political goals being spearheaded by these organization to gain influence by numbers. I have yet to see WSC, TU, CCA, etc say we are combining to achieve specific policy changes. Until then, we know politics is run under the golden rule, thems that got the gold make the rules. Alternatively stated, history is replete with small special interests gaining political/financial favoritism because they are small, financially focused, and their interest is too small for the broader public conscienceness. If I can't understand all these issues, what chance do we have for broader public awareness. Thats political carte blanche. What influence can we have? Hell we can't even stop the harvest of wild steelhead with a wealth of data showing all the warning signs? This may be old crap being rehashed, but the death by a million cuts stings today


  17. dryflylarry

    dryflylarry "Chasing Riseforms"

    I simply don't understand how WDFW can allow fishing on the Hood Canal at all in spite of lack of oxygen problems publicized the last several years. WDFW doesn't hesitate to shut down recreational fisheries when there is a problem, do they? Enjoy the poor photo I took while crossing the bridge today... Oh, and sorry for any misinformation this may generate. Anyone check the size of the tribes net mesh lately along your neighborhood shoreline yet to see if they are fishing legally according to tribal rules? If you ask me, it's time to raise hell. It's ok. Make yourself heard on the subject, including this site. Finally, I don't know who's boats these are in the Hood Canal at present. Maybe Curt knows. Anyone know?
  18. cabezon

    cabezon Sculpin Enterprises

    If you want WDFW to close fishing (ALL FISHING) you better have some really good answers to these questions. 1) Is there ANY evidence that periodic hypoxia in Hood Canal is impacting salmonid populations? Are there dead salmon washing up on the beach? Does one see salmon gasping for oxygen at the surface? Are the populations of searun cutthroats, the only salmonid that spends significant time in the canal declining? 2) Is there ANY conceivable mechanism by which periodic hypoxia in Hood Canal could impact salmonid populations? Do the periods of hypoxia (late summer) coincide with movements of salmonids into or out of Hood Canal? Is there evidence that salmonids are migrating around versus through regions of hypoxia? If there are no data, why would you advocate closing the fisheries based on a problem that does not appear to impact them?

    Also, one important note: if WDFW ever has to do triage concerning which fishers are the first to be shut down and which are the last, amply court precedent indicates that the federal treat right of individual tribes to fish in the usual and accustomed waters far trumps the privilege of non-treaty individuals (tribal and non-tribal) to fish.

  19. DimeBrite

    DimeBrite MA-9 Beach Stalker

    In a few years when last few wild Puget Sound chum are struggling past the nets, a new set of heros will emerge. Based on the "Whale Wars" doctrine, they will battle the commercial ships by fowling their props and tossing stink bombs onto the decks.
  20. dryflylarry

    dryflylarry "Chasing Riseforms"

    No, my bad. I doubt the lack of oxygen is a major problem for the salmon in the Canal. However, if they might be forced to the surface because of the lack thereof, perhaps it makes it little faster and easier to get in the nets!!... Close down the Hood Canal? Hell yes! Were your around here when you had a chance to catch a salmon over 30 pounds there, with 20 pounders common enough? I was. The boats you see in the picture is why the fish are mostly gone now for cripe sakes.