"Gillnets are selective".....

#31
Gillnets are selective relative to fish like windshields are selective relative to bugs . . .
Well, not to defend the method, but they are required to use an appropriate mesh size that targets the specific open fishery. In theory this lets smaller fish pass through and larger fish can’t get far enough into the opening to catch their gills. Fishermen are to change their web to suit the target, by law. Of course it’s not perfect, there will be by-catch, and I can’t say how often their nets are inspected. As I recall though the penalty was significant, along with scorn among peers.
One thing I believe is true, and lost on some, is that commercial fishing is a livelihood. These guys don’t want extinction either. Generally at least, they want responsible management as well.
That was my experience anyway.
 
#32
Well, not to defend the method, but they are required to use an appropriate mesh size that targets the specific open fishery. In theory this lets smaller fish pass through and larger fish can’t get far enough into the opening to catch their gills. Fishermen are to change their web to suit the target, by law. Of course it’s not perfect, there will be by-catch, and I can’t say how often their nets are inspected. As I recall though the penalty was significant, along with scorn among peers.
One thing I believe is true, and lost on some, is that commercial fishing is a livelihood. These guys don’t want extinction either. Generally at least, they want responsible management as well.
That was my experience anyway.
IMHO responsible management applies to everyone but the guy putting a drift net out. I think if you talked to some of the guys chasing SRC in Hood Canal they'd argue about the selective BS and it not applying to SRC.

Justin Waters: https://www.washingtonflyfishing.com/forum/index.php?threads/135025/page-5
 

Salmo_g

Well-Known Member
#40
Gillnets are selective. The Director is correct in repeating the gillnetters' propaganda about selectivity with respect to "time, area, and place." (Let me not that "area" and "place" are functionally equivalent) Gillnets by design select for fish whose size allows them to swim into the meshes of the gillnet and become caught. Sometimes fish become entangled in gillnets and become caught even though they are either smaller or larger than the intended quarry. What the Director and gillnet propagandists are leaving out is that gillnets don't and cannot select between ESA-listed or depressed runs of say, Chinook that overlap in time and place (or area if you prefer) with a more abundant hatchery run of Chinook that traverse the same area at the same time.

Bycatch is quite common when two or more species overlap in time and place also. The two species average size might be different (let's say 10# ave, chum and 8# ave. coho) but there is significant overlap in size, such that the "selective" 6 1/2" stretched mesh gillnet can be pretty efficient at harvesting all salmon in the range of 6 or 7 pounds up to about 16 pounds. So yes, the gillnet is absolutely selective in that it won't catch hardly any fish at all that are smaller than 6 pounds or larger than 16 pounds. But when over 80% of the fish of both species in the same area at the same time are in that size range, the gillnet is basically selective for the vast majority of the salmon in that area at that time.

Where WDFW falls off the credibility cliff is in allowing gillnet fishing where bycatch is common and knowingly predictable and includes fish populations that are not abundant enough to sustain the fishing pressure.
 

Stonefish

Triploid, Humpy & Seaplane Hater....Know Grizzler
#44
Gillnets are selective. The Director is correct in repeating the gillnetters' propaganda about selectivity with respect to "time, area, and place." (Let me not that "area" and "place" are functionally equivalent) Gillnets by design select for fish whose size allows them to swim into the meshes of the gillnet and become caught. Sometimes fish become entangled in gillnets and become caught even though they are either smaller or larger than the intended quarry. What the Director and gillnet propagandists are leaving out is that gillnets don't and cannot select between ESA-listed or depressed runs of say, Chinook that overlap in time and place (or area if you prefer) with a more abundant hatchery run of Chinook that traverse the same area at the same time.

Bycatch is quite common when two or more species overlap in time and place also. The two species average size might be different (let's say 10# ave, chum and 8# ave. coho) but there is significant overlap in size, such that the "selective" 6 1/2" stretched mesh gillnet can be pretty efficient at harvesting all salmon in the range of 6 or 7 pounds up to about 16 pounds. So yes, the gillnet is absolutely selective in that it won't catch hardly any fish at all that are smaller than 6 pounds or larger than 16 pounds. But when over 80% of the fish of both species in the same area at the same time are in that size range, the gillnet is basically selective for the vast majority of the salmon in that area at that time.

Where WDFW falls off the credibility cliff is in allowing gillnet fishing where bycatch is common and knowingly predictable and includes fish populations that are not abundant enough to sustain the fishing pressure.
Well put Sg
You can guarantee the gill nets strung up on the canal intended for chum are doing a number on the late wild coho.
SF
 

Latest posts