Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

Tribal netting

15K views 195 replies 39 participants last post by  Leopardbow 
#1 ·
Anyone know when they net the forks area rivers? Is there somewhere i can look to see when they do it?
 
#130 ·
I joined CCA reluctantly thinking it was mostly for the guides and to keep them fishing, but as was stated -their aim at the nets, selective fisheries, and derelict gear was worth the $25. I now see the goal is CONSERVATION and for that I'm getting more deeply involved. CCA has experience in taking on big issues. We gotta do something and this is one of the best shots at making something happen.
I've also supported the WSC since its inception and praise that organization for the role it plays.
 
#131 ·
first off-
jc, thanks for the compliment...but really, I'm just a bigmouth guy from Jersey. I don't think I've had too many original ideas yet on this subject, I think I referred to it earlier in the thread as "hideously complex" :D which by now should be clear.
There's a wealth of experience and knowledge reflected in this thread, passion, and a desire to see changes at the very core of the management philosophy we're discussing; I reviewed the thread and found methodology disagreement but no fundamental philosophy conflicts. We all seem to have some very similar desires and goals. How we get there is open to argument, but let's never let arguing about how to get there keep us from traveling!

CCA is playing their cards close to their chest for the reasons the _G man mentioned, and I don't blame them. I also agree with _G's assessment of Gary Loomis. I think CCA should represent all of us, not just one man's personal vision.
I've been vibing right along with RiverElf, gt, JMello, all of you. What a spirited discussion, and what insights!
If we all start cc:ing links to this thread to lawmakers, maybe they can benefit from all our years of observations, because these are carefully considered thoughts from experienced guys who are obviously well-read and smart. And we vote.
We have to demand that management be driven by conservation first, commercial interests second, not the other way around.

BTW I went fishing today, all day, and I'm dog tired. Got two bumps and a pull, that's all. But at least there's bumps and pulls.
 
#133 ·
Great thread… At first I thought I would stay out of this but since the thread has broadened to include Columbia Basin stuff, I want to weigh in with a couple of questions, thoughts and frustrations about this topic. As for the coastal stocks (OP and PS) of steelhead, I have no doubt that gillnets are killing more fish than they should… but my frustration lies in the discussion of the Columbia Basin. Here is how I see the issue and hope someone can comment (with or without the use of a flamethrower is fine).
Here is how I see it:
The tribes, while killing some fish out from the 13 stocks of the Columbia River fish are insignificant when compared to the FEDERALLY run hydro-electric dams. Because of this, the picture seems to look strangely lopsided.

Our federal government is killing a large % of out-migrating smolts on the Snake R with turbines and smolt barges, but because these dams support some inland shipping that make big bucks for several people in the basin and the BPA likes the power to sell to Californians, it becomes much easier for groups like CCA to isolate and blame the commercial fishing industry than to take on the elephant in the room. In fact, the gill nets have steadily declined their catches in the last 50 years where as hydro systems have expanded their salmon killing operations a great deal. So why the one-sided approach to this issue? The Snake River Dams are a great case in point. These things are salmon/steelhead killing machines that every one of us pays for with our taxes… Not only that but it pencils out to pull’em. Where is the outrage? Where is the strategic focus of CCA (I am not attacking, I’m just wondering).

Now I can see wanting to further reduce gillnets that kill ESA listed fish, but do you see how this picture is adding up? The biggest culprits of the four H’s is given a free pass by the crew that should be screaming the loudest. Meanwhile groups like TU, Sierra Club, and the NWF are left to the unsavory task of being in court working w/ Earth Justice to force the feds to build a recovery plan for 13 stocks of fish that actually works. As a result these groups have forced court injunctions ensuring Snake and Columbia River flows to support smolt survival so us sport fishers have some fish to catch… In fact, the whole success w/sockeye this year was because of court ordered injunctive flows that were the result of hard work on the part of some of these other groups. This disconnect between efforts confuses and frustrates me. Why doesn’t CCA hold their nose if they feel like they have to and join w/ the likes of the Sierra Club in pounding on the feds and the hydro system?

I can see why the OP folks are all over the tribal nets, but the sport fishing silence on Columbia Basin (specifically Snake R.) dam operations seems to me to be a hole that you could drive a truck through. Perhaps like Salmo g suggests its strategic and the CCA will take these operations on in their own time… The problem is that now is the time.

Now, I agree that NW salmon issues are not black and white, and I do not profess to be an expert, and to be clear, I AM NOT SLAMMING CCA, I would like to hear what you think about this hydro system “omission” (as I have defined it). I wonder if it is just as James pointed out, NW salmon issues are a real complex can of worms to sort out…
It is also that sense of doom around these fish that has me jumpy and frustrated:(.
JW
 
#134 ·
yes, jerry, the different stocks have many similarities, but also many differences in threat. you may have been aware that 'we' have just paid the B.C. government a huge sum of money, i recall something like 30M, to reduce the harvest impact on the west coast of vancouver island (WCVI). it is a fact that fishes headed for the columbia have been intercepted in significant numbers along WCVI for decades. this season, there is a 30% reduction in fishing due to the fact that they B.C. government has bought out the trollers, with our funds!

but, the dams are going nowhere. the very best that could be hoped for in anyone's wet dreams are the snake river dams. main stem columbia are there forever. all of these dams obviously have a huge impact on the columbia runs, some say they are still bigger than the fraiser runs, the other big producer of salmon. but that vision is long term, worth ticking away at, but does nothing for extinction right now.

same thing is true further north. puget sound salmon 'mix' in several know locations with stocks headed in other directions. the way the ESA listing was done was to ignore the killing of wild fishes via nets. the basic rationale here is lost to me but thats the way it comes down. the fish stocks were listed, sport fishing was heavily regulated, commercial fishing continues as if nothing much had happened except supposed reduced fishing time. of course, as many have already pointed out, the indian nets are all over the place ignoring quotas, and theoretical seasons.

here is a situaiton ripe for litigation, just as is the big C situations. two fronts, two differnet sets of issues but both with the count down clock ticking. my sense of doom intensifies day by day simply because within the last 15 years, i have witnessed stock extinction. look around, salmon have disappeared from any number of systems close to where each of you live and fish.

slow and steady on, stay the course? strategies which are also extinct in this time period of disappearing fish runs.
 
#135 ·
CCA has been in the PNW for a very short time. They can only do as much as they have funds for and that is pretty obvious. They are gaining respect and power quickly because they tend to walk softly and carry a big stick.At the meetings I've attended I can sense that everyone knows they're there and are wondering what they're going to do next.From what I've seen they walk their talk.They have to start somewhere and can't accomplish everything at once. Thats what has happened in the past so nothing gets done.I feel that once they get established they'll take on the other issues as well.I agree that organizations need to work together but the group with the most clout and expertese should run the show where they've had the most success and work with other in their fields.Bottom line is support these groups with funds and a warm body when needed.There is definately momentum right now, we just have to keep pushing.
 
#136 ·
I was involved in CCA in New England. I supported it and became active because of the good work that they had done previously in the Gulf and South Atlantic states. The reason that they were so effective is because they stuck with facts and science and conservation first. They put the fish first and the fishing second. To my mind that was the correct order of thinking. I had long since burned out on the knuckle-headed-meat-hunting fisherman's groups and clubs who only wanted to kill more fish in the sports fishing allottments. CCA stood out as a solid and responsible voice for conservation based management. I also liked they way that they drew off of the talents and strengths of the membership to develop strength in all areas of concern in a region. It was a very good experience of organized activism. There was never a sense of "us and them" with regard to our area chapter and CCA National way down in Texas- the help and support was always there.

This proved especially true after the first few years of work as we saw increasing numbers of forage fish returning to our New England coastal waters and nearshores with some of the first good legal work that CCA accomplished there. What was impresive was that before CCA got into the conversation, the states had sold out the forage fish to the herring industry and they were extirpating them. Anyone who had grown up on the waters of the northeast shores, and Hudson River, Long Island Sound etc, knew that the forage fish and Herring in particular were just about non existent. We had seen the collaps of so many things in our lifetimes. In just three years they began to flourish once again. and then the Striped Bass and Bluefish and Weakfish, the False Albacore and Bonito, and a host of others soon followed. It is not all better there now. but it is a hell of lot better than in the immedite decades before, and it continues to heal.

If CCA can keep its long standing and successful conservation ethic at the root of it's work here it will get my support. When I began to study the issues here in earnest, over eight years ago, I often thought of CCA and I wondered how they might fit in out here. I too have a difference of opinion with Gary Loomis approach. And some of his "facts" just dont sound right to me. Stregth in numbers can be a good thing, but only if the membership is pulling in the same direction together. One problem with this region in general is a social tendency to steer conservation and restoration efforts soley to a goal of resumption of harvest on salmonids, ect. We have to take a regional approach, and an ecologically based approach, or we are doomed to fail. We have to put the health of the ecosystems- and the fish are integral to those systems- first in our goals. I would agree with the opinions voiced here that time is running out.

If all we are going to do is fight over who gets to catch the last fish, then that is all that will happen. It will just be a question of by whom and when.
 
#138 ·
Bob What you have described is the general feeling I get from CCA in the PNW.
I have been impressed with the diversity of the Olympia chapter. Theres ocean sportsfisher guys, guides,bait fisherman,conservationists,trollers,biologists,X WDFW employees,politicians and flyfisherman and others I'm sure. Everyone really seems to be in sync. Thats what has me excited that change is coming because folks are leaving their egos home. Thats what it's going to take.Unification!
Theres an Oly meeting Monday,Feb 2 at 7:00.Come and check it out.
 
#139 ·
Well, CCA certainly has a diehard following, and they boast a pretty great record in other parts of the country... that much is obvious from the support given in this thread. Certainly 8000+ members in the NW in two years is impressive. I will follow this closely.
gt:
I agree, different fronts different time frames at work which require different strategies. I also agree that in the Columbia Basin some of the biggest baddest hydro projects aren't going anywhere... I'll never see a June Hog in the Spokane cause Coulee Dam is here to stay. However, I am a fervent believer that the 4 lower Snake Dams may come down... and we need to work on that foundation now. Clearly if Judge Redden rules that the feds are in violation of the ESA again and this leads to pulling the 4 dams out, we are still over a decade away from realizing the benefits of this... and in this way I agree that it is no quick fix but this piece is essential to the long term survival of the Snake R stocks... Here is where I would love CCA to change their platform and pitch those 8000 members into the battle against the USACE and the BPA... With CCA on board with TU and others... we would be that much closer.
River elf:\I get what you mean about the incremental approach... One issue at a time but the following quote from the above CCA Email spooks me.

"Ongoing hatchery review and salmon recovery efforts in Washington waters and the
Columbia Basin have made it clear that if we are to restore depleted and ESA-listed
stocks of wild salmon and steelhead, we must reform fishing practices so investments in
hatcheries, habitat improvements, and hydro operations can be fully realized."

Does CCA seriously believe that barging smolts and other ineffective programs simply need time to be realized? This has been the BPA and NMFFs line for years. Meanwhile stocks continue to grind toward the brink. I hope you are right and Loomis will change his tune when the harvest picture has been figured out and the organization will take and its own government. These lines leave me wondering...
I think I may check out their meeting here in Spokane next time they get together...

Also, I am running down the references to the book tossed out above but are there any other books that would help me understand harvest and over-harvest issues of salmon in the Pacific (or in the Columbia and Puget Sound)? I would love to learn more about the ocean piece of this puzzle.
Well I'm off to dream about rowing my drift boat passed concrete remnants of Lower Granite Dam... Hey, FISH ON! Ha Ha and a great wet dream it is!
 
G
#146 ·
River elf:\I get what you mean about the incremental approach... One issue at a time but the following quote from the above CCA Email spooks me.

"Ongoing hatchery review and salmon recovery efforts in Washington waters and the
Columbia Basin have made it clear that if we are to restore depleted and ESA-listed
stocks of wild salmon and steelhead, we must reform fishing practices so investments in
hatcheries, habitat improvements, and hydro operations can be fully realized."

Does CCA seriously believe that barging smolts and other ineffective programs simply need time to be realized? This has been the BPA and NMFFs line for years. Meanwhile stocks continue to grind toward the brink. I hope you are right and Loomis will change his tune when the harvest picture has been figured out
I can bring very little informed opinion to this discussion as I have only been in the Northwest for about 4 1/2 years and I am still trying to get my head around all of the players in this issue. However, at the December SW Wa. CCA chapter meeting the VP of Conservation issues for BPA (sorry I can't remember his name) gave a presentation that included a segment on the mitigation efforts for the dams. His comments regarding barging indicated that even BPA sees that component of their program as questionable especially for Steelhead. It seemed to me, by the data he presented, that BPA is making real progress with some of these issues and that they are interested in doing what is proven to be effective. I am no apologist for BPA but it may be they recognize it is in their own best interest to deal effectively with these problems.

He spoke about dam removals that they have the ability to influence and how that was a real prospect, some of which are already in permit. (Smaller dams on tributaries, I believe.) We probably all realize that the Columbia dams are here to stay but I left with the impression that the Snake River dams may, in fact, be in play.

There seemed to be a great deal of frustration on the part of BPA and CCA's legislative committee that one of the controlling agencies have subverted an effort to do a study of alternative selective harvest gear (sorry but there are so many acronyms for these bureaucracies that I am either confused or gave up trying to remember which one and therefore don't want to inadvertently call out the wrong one). The rub of it was that BPA had proffered a grant which was rather substantial to completely fund the study. In the end it became clear that a government "conservation agency" is more heavily influenced by the commercial fishing industry than by their own mandate.

I admittedly have a loose grasp of some of the facts in this discussion but if there are many fewer adult fish to try to get past the dams because of non-selective harvest(gill netting) then no matter what BPA does to get the juvenile fish out to the ocean it is all academic. My impression is that CCA is limiting their focus to the apple which they believe is ripe to pick.
 
#140 ·
Jerry W,

Good questions. A couple quick points: God created time so that everything wouldn't happen at once. OK, OK, maybe not as funny as intended. Loomis has chosen to ignore the mainstem dams in the context of his pitch. That doesn't mean CCA will. But CCA isn't taking it on now. There is Earth Justice, and the taking the feds and its dams into Redden's court is their baliwick. Maybe some day CCA will join in that effort, but meanwhile there is other business for CCA to attend to, the anachronism of the LCR gillnet fishery. No organization is big enough to take on everything, and all the organizations together likely aren't big enough to take on all the conservation work that needs doing. Meanwhile, understand that a great many CCA members are well aware of the contribution of FCRPS dams to the decline of salmon and steelhead.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.
 
#141 ·
Salmo, I totally agree with the points you've made on this thread. Selective fisheries is a big one and was a great place to start and it appears there is tremendous momentom right now. Slowing the political machine down is a big one.Its had its way for so long that its become the norm and common sense was thrown out the window.Thanks for the perspectives that come from years of thought and experience. We are all learning from you.
If CCA continues to focus on selective fisheries and succeeds, they will establish themselves as an organzation to contend with and will be taken seriously on other issues as well. They will also gain support from more and more sportsman which gives them more strength both politically and finanacially. They already have a track record on the east coast and know how to succeed so they had a head start. They avoid the learning curve which is what usually makes it difficult for smaller groups to get anywhere. I am by no means saying they're the only game in town. Other groups are an absolute necessity and they all should be supported financially. Then put your personal effort where your heart is. If everyone does something, someday we will all be proud for the efforts we made and the things we've accomplished.
Mel
 
#142 ·
I spent a while on the HSRG website yesterday, and have a lot more reading to do- but I was Impressed. And they have a lot of info on there, but haven't posted a progress report recently. Last I heard, about 20% of the 1000 recommendations made have already been put into motion, and increasing pressure from conservation-minded groups will help accelerate the needed changes.

like my new avatar? kind of a Matrix joke.
 
#143 ·
Well, actually I liked the joke about time, Salmo:thumb: I hope CCA can make a difference. They certainly seem energized and passionate about bringing salmon/steelhead into the future... And I have to say that I really appreciate these threads, I learn a lot and its good to see so many folks out there that care about (and work for) these fish and their habitat.
For my part, over here on the East side of the mountains, I will continue to work hard on the hydro issues... if others are working on getting the fishing industry to cut down on the ESA listed wild fish mortality, that is great.
I'm leaving town tomorrow and won't have internet for a while so this is probably my last post on this thread, (unless its still cooking next week) but I look forward to more of these spirited discussion. Thanks!
JW

PS remember, if you think of any good books or resources on the subject of overfishing, let me know... SpeySpaz, I will check out the HSRG site.
Also, you folks should read the book River of Life, Channel of Death by keith Peterson. A great history of the lower Snake RIver salmon/steelhead hydro disaster.
 
#145 ·
there seems to be some common sense at work, but still, not perfect.
for instance, the HSRG seems to be solely concerned with salmon, and their third party facilitator is LLTK, Long Live The Kings...all well and good, but HSRG seems to have ignored wild steelhead, at least in the South Sound which was the part I reviewed yesterday.

Looking at the status of the Nisqually, near and dear to me, the steelhead run is listed as critical, and they are part of an ESA-listed ESU, yet HSRG makes no recommended changes to hatchery or harvest that might help resuscitate this run of fish. In fact, no mention of steelhead in their management recommendations. That strikes me as strange and I've already emailed Long Live The Kings for some answers.

At the time of Boldt the Nisqually was the #15 rated steelhead river in the State, now...:(
 
#147 ·
there seems to be some common sense at work, but still, not perfect.
for instance, the HSRG seems to be solely concerned with salmon, and their third party facilitator is LLTK, Long Live The Kings...all well and good, but HSRG seems to have ignored wild steelhead, at least in the South Sound which was the part I reviewed yesterday.

Looking at the status of the Nisqually, near and dear to me, the steelhead run is listed as critical, and they are part of an ESA-listed ESU, yet HSRG makes no recommended changes to hatchery or harvest that might help resuscitate this run of fish. In fact, no mention of steelhead in their management recommendations. That strikes me as strange and I've already emailed Long Live The Kings for some answers.

At the time of Boldt the Nisqually was the #15 rated steelhead river in the State, now...:(
The nisqually hasn't been netted for steelhead in quite some time. In addition there hasn't been hatchery releases for the same amount of time. The Nasty appears to be the hardest hit by the south sound productivity maliase that also afflicts the Puyallup and the Green....
 
#148 ·
true, hasn't been netted for steelhead since the numbers went in the toilet in the mid-eighties, if I remember correctly.
but nonselective nets are in the river during significant migratory times for those steelhead, which often have major overlap with salmon returns and bycatch still occurs. I've seen them go in the boat.

My opinion is that the South Sound "malaise" is nets and absence of conservation measures. The Nisqually has over 40 river miles of relatively well conserved habitat and should be a steelhead factory as it once was; but the run will never rebuild itself if most of the few returning fish end up in nets along with Kings, Silvers, and Dogs.
 
#150 ·
Kings == fall returns which historically where there isn't a large population of summer runs.

Silvers == fall to early winter.

Chums == winter

I wouldn't say the *majority* of the run is covered by the nets, but some of it is, at least an appreciable portion of it (based on info from Bios I know).

I wished the Sound Sound issue were so cut and dry, but in extensive talks with bios, there really isn't a strong consensus as to the cause. It does appear to be worse the further south you go, with the Nisqually being the most affected.

The deal is, using specific river systems that are know to have *very* specific problems that are localized isn't a good thing to bring up as evidence of netting impacts. There are *plenty* of nets that have impacts far worse (like the Hoh) that are far better examples.
 
#149 ·
It works like this:

People to commercial netters, "Do you catch many wild steelhead in your nets because if you do we can't have you fishing anymore where you make your money."

Commercial fisherman to people, "Nope, no wild steelhead caught here."
 
#155 ·
Re; the Heukers--
as a former commercial myself, I can say it won't take but a few hours hanging out in a fishermen's bar to convince you the practice of overcatch/underreport is widespread, even common. If you knew your season would be done if you reported your bycatch, would you report it? And some sportsmen are no better, not punching fish cuz they're too cheap to pay for a new punchcard. Same principle.

The two most important and basic management metrics- actual return and actual take, are both mere guesses.
Setting harvest limits against projected returns that always somehow seem to run short most of the time...the cart is pushing the horse here.
 
#152 ·
seems as though, if we boiled all of these posts down to the nub, we would all agree ALL nets need to come out. selective fishing is the alternative and would not challenge the indians 50%. with ESA listings, it would also seem to be a management tool that has the most immediate impact and perhaps merit.

anyone at CCA paying attention or are they too busy standing around 'lobbying'???
 
#154 ·
I agree selective fishing is the one way to effectively protect ESA listed fish. However, i think only through a combination of things e.g. selective fishing (non-gillnetting), habitat restoration, hatchery reform and better hatchery management will improve native fish returns.

Having said that, it takes time and I believe a new attitude is being spread through the PNW regarding some of these issues. You have to remember that the tribes are just one piece of the puzzle. They do have treaty rights to the fishing, but I think if we make other changes, make sacrifices, then the tribes as co-managers will also make concessions.
 
#157 ·
I believe a lot of this is determined in the North of Falcon process, so we need to change leadership and a change of attitude in that process which essentially divides up the "projected" catch.

So, if selective harvest reforms aren't made, how would you encourage or make commercial fisherman to better comply and report bi-catch?
 
#158 ·
Jason, I always knew you were my soul brother. Not to get all squishy or anything:D

to your question, Leopardbow-
probably can't; the conservation is going to have to come from the front end.

example: third party scientific-only return projections, with a conservative rate-of-return window that triggers a closure in the EARLY stage of a poor run.

mandatory jail time and revocation of fishing license on first offense. Period. Commercial or sport or tribal.

citizens with binoculars and digital cameras monitoring harvest activities.


for God's sake, the least they could do is ACT like it's important. DFW took it in the hiney this year, with an enormous budget cut.:beathead::beathead:
 
#160 ·
The state can't really do anything about the tribes. It can do a lot about other commercial fishing quotas (non-tribal).

Also, why aren't all you anti-tribal net zealots raising money to help tribes aquire fish traps? If one went about it the right way (not angry or patronizing), I bet some tribes would be happy to switch to trapping v. netting, especially if someone else were footing the bill. The tribes have a RIGHT to these fish. Going after tribal fishing quotas is an expensive proposition because of the 5th Ammendment right to just compensation (Value of annual salmon quotas X Forever = Not cost effective). And for all of you who will undoubtedly say, "the value is diminishing with the runs". Well, if it diminishing, who ever is at fault (culverts, the state for rampant development, etc.) will pay for the diminished value. I digress, but my point is, anything that happens on the tribal side will most likley have to be collaborative. Commercial fishing on the other hand--we owe them nothing. That's the low hanging fruit on the harvest side.
 
#161 ·
Spey - I think the only way we can help regulate commercial fishing, sports fishing poaching and other illegal harvesting of ESA listed fish is through regulating ourselves until the State takes the money from the sports fishing industry out of the General Fund and puts it back into the resources we are paying for e.g. more enforcement officers.

Derek, I agree with helping the tribes see the benefits of fish traps vs. gill netting, however, i don't think money is an issue for the tribes as much as it is the ease for someone to place a net. In addition, I am not even sure if fish traps are legal in the state.

It would benefit the tribes I think for them on their own to do a better job of self-regulating their tribal members on their fishing practices and explore alternatives to netting as we, non-tribal members do our part.

I agree that development, timber harvesting and other factors have diminished habitat, but until we all work together, what we are doing now, just isn't working. I think we can all agree that pointing fingers isn't working, it is through action, unified action that will make a difference.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top