Yet another set of assaults on the WDFW Commission

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Citori, Feb 5, 2011.

  1. Kaiserman content

    Posts: 2,628
    Ratings: +431 / 0
    I'm curious, what is the actual catch limit for those nets I see down on the Columbia river near The Dalles? Are they individually owned? Meaning, that one net per native? How many can they net in a day, year...whatever?
  2. Bill on the bay New Member

    Posts: 20
    Union,Wa
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Most Tribal nets are individually owned. Most fishers would be allowed to fish one gear type meaning I cannot fish a beach seine while having a gill or drift net employed. I would not venture to say what the Tribe's or commercials would or could catch in a day on the Columbia R.
  3. Citori Piscatorial Engineer

    Posts: 1,204
    Federal Way, WA
    Ratings: +118 / 0
    I am somewhat amazed at the philosophical discussions that seem to suggest it isn't a good idea to act on your conscience. I would offer one additional bit of information. The tribes and commercial fishers want the commission gone, and are actively lobbying for these bills. Need I say more?
  4. Kaiserman content

    Posts: 2,628
    Ratings: +431 / 0
    Wow, big surprise.....not! :beathead:
  5. Leopardbow Member

    Posts: 483
    Ferndale, WA
    Ratings: +1 / 0
    Well, Senator Ranker's term expires in 2012. Something to be noted by those recreational fishing and hunting voters who I assume vastly outweight the nubmers of commercial folks.

    While not exactly in his district, I know him well, unfortunately.
  6. gt Active Member

    Posts: 2,616
    sequim, WA
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    wow, just back how to find one of the funniest posts salmo g has ever put up, Marx????? hahahahahahahaha

    and then we have a person who is witness to abuse and the status quo folks here are unwilling to accept what he sees and experiences.

    totally amazing that human nature has allowed us to survive for so long.
  7. Ed Call Mumbling Moderator

    Posts: 17,492
    Kitsap Peninsula
    Ratings: +1,471 / 9
    Sonofa....

    So if the public put the Commission into place in 1996 (sorry, predates my transplating here) and it is being lobbied against by Commercial and Tribal fisheries, does that mean that the Commission is having some beneficial impact to fisheries? I realize there is no magic wand to fix these man made problems of habitat destruction and over fishing. Barring that magic wand, does it not make sense that a Commission of individuals would be a better option than a single person focused on government interest and profit taking? It seems that neither government interest or profit taking align well with long term fish run sustainability. I'd like to learn more, and will seek more education from other sources because it is of interest to me. I'm not really interested in the pissing in each other's wheaties contest.
  8. Ed Call Mumbling Moderator

    Posts: 17,492
    Kitsap Peninsula
    Ratings: +1,471 / 9
    From WDFW web site regarding the Commission (which has one WW and EW positions currently vacant):

    Fish and Wildlife Commission

    The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission consists of nine members serving six-year terms. Members are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the senate. Three members must reside east of the summit of the Cascade mountains, three must reside west of the summit, and three may reside anywhere in the state. No two Commissioners may reside in the same county.

    While the Commission has several responsibilities, its primary role is to establish policy and direction for fish and wildlife species and their habitats in Washington and to monitor the Department's implementation of the goals, policies and objectives established by the Commission. The Commission also classifies wildlife and establishes the basic rules and regulations governing the time, place, manner, and methods used to harvest or enjoy fish and wildlife.

    The Commission receives its authority from the passage of Referendum 45 by the 1995 Legislature and public at the 1995 general election. The Commission is the supervising authority for the Department. With the 1994 merger of the former Departments of Fisheries and Wildlife, the Commission has comprehensive species authority as well.

    Through formal public meetings and informal hearings held around the state, the Commission provides an opportunity for citizens to actively participate in management of Washington's fish and wildlife.
  9. smc Active Member

    Posts: 383
    Up River
    Ratings: +30 / 0
    I figure SG meant Groucho and that GT thinks Karl. :clown:
  10. gt Active Member

    Posts: 2,616
    sequim, WA
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    and here i was just about to scan my birth certificate :)
  11. Ed Call Mumbling Moderator

    Posts: 17,492
    Kitsap Peninsula
    Ratings: +1,471 / 9
    To submit with your Commission application to the Governor's office?
  12. gt Active Member

    Posts: 2,616
    sequim, WA
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    kind of went along with the 'socialist' card..............
  13. Go Fish Language, its a virus

    Posts: 1,284
    Rheomode, Wa.
    Ratings: +93 / 0
    I think this thread should be attached
    to the one about who is going to
    catch the last steelhead on S-river.

    It is plain that politics, combined with
    fish and game management, is like letting
    my drunkard Uncle Ernie run a Washington
    State Liquor store.

    The State and the Tribes have done a
    piss-poor job of managing the resource.

    With less monies for enforcement, and the
    untouchables (the Tribes), it seems that
    the best hope is.......

    a five to ten year ban
    on all nets in Puget Sound.

    Dave
  14. Salmo_g Active Member

    Posts: 7,551
    Your City ,State
    Ratings: +1,686 / 0
    Go Fish,

    Why do you say that? There is no credible evidence that nets are limiting the populations of Puget Sound steelhead. The only such evidence is your and gt's visceral hearsay knowledge that the nets are responsible for the depressed size of PS steelhead populations. This is not to say that I recommend having your drunkard Uncle Ernie run a liquor store.

    Sg
  15. gt Active Member

    Posts: 2,616
    sequim, WA
    Ratings: +6 / 0
  16. Go Fish Language, its a virus

    Posts: 1,284
    Rheomode, Wa.
    Ratings: +93 / 0
    Salmo,
    I guess your stance is that the
    nets in Puget Sound are helping the
    Salmon, Steelhead, and other populations
    of other fish in Puget Sound.

    I didn't know that.

    Dave
  17. Kaiserman content

    Posts: 2,628
    Ratings: +431 / 0
    gt, I'd bet $100 to your $1 that it goes nowhere. It will get a lot of attention, but in the end it will end up just fading away. Hell, if they can essentially throw out I-1053 30+ days after it became law and stop on us peasants, what makes anyone think this is actually going to get done.
  18. cabezon Sculpin Enterprises

    Posts: 1,719
    Olympia, WA
    Ratings: +241 / 0
    I'm not a lawyer; I've never stayed in a Holiday Inn Express. But I am a pretty aware individual and I don't see the relevance of a lawsuit at the STATE level impacting tribal FEDERAL fishing activities. Maybe you can enlighten the class??

    Steve
  19. Go Fish Language, its a virus

    Posts: 1,284
    Rheomode, Wa.
    Ratings: +93 / 0
    I've stayed in those rat holes,
    and there is no enlightenment
    without suffering.

    dK
  20. Ed Call Mumbling Moderator

    Posts: 17,492
    Kitsap Peninsula
    Ratings: +1,471 / 9
    What would be the problem with all netting inland and inshore waters being banned?