Commercial gill netting on the Columbia

Skip Enge

Uck Uck Uck, bitches
Makes me think this crap won't end until the last salmon and steelhead are caught...this argument has been going on for 40-50 years...interesting it is decided by 4 peoples votes.

My Dad was a logger and helped his dad on his commercial gill net boat right at Cathlamet, WA...when i cam along Dad had a number of gill netting friends and from my point of view they were outlaws and pirates who constantly justified incidental catches...Few today make a living at it, nor have for a long time...Let's remember why the gill net fishery was shut down in the lower Columbia. How has it changed as a result? i don't see a fish numbers rebound in the upper Columbia tributaries. the places I fished have not been good for a decade...Trying to remember the last truly good coho numbers on the Kalama or the Washougal.
 
Last edited:

O' Clarkii Stomias

Active Member
Makes me think this crap won't end until the last salmon and steelhead are caught...this argument has been going on for 40-50 years...interesting it is decided by 4 peoples votes.

My Dad was a logger and helped his dad on his commercial gill net boat right at Cathlamet, WA...when i cam along Dad had a number of gill netting friends and from my point of view they were outlaws and pirates who constantly justified incidental catches...Few today make a living at it, nor have for a long time...Let's remember why the gill net fishery was shut down in the lower Columbia. How has it changed as a result? i don't see a fish numbers rebound in the upper Columbia tributaries. the places I fished have not been good for a decade...Trying to remember the last truly good coho numbers on the Kalama or the Washougal.
Kinda flies in the face of the whole killer whale thing.
 

Old Man

Just an Old Man
6 people got together and passed a law that screws all the fish coming up river in the spring and summer time.:mad::mad:
 

Salmo_g

Well-Known Member
Now it will be interesting to see how Saloman's bill, which originally would have banned all NI gillnetting in WA to just banning it in the Columbia River, in the WA Senate does - it needs to move out of committee by this Friday or it dies.
 

Shawn Seeger

(aka. wabowhunter)
It is NOT science it IS politics and money! Look into Buckmaster (OR) and who he represents and how he got into the council. (You will sleep the stink).

If people understood what a gillnet is and how it can never be selective they might be outraged, but probably not because they can buy dinner.

Gills are fish lungs, once a fish is caught by the gills it is 85+% going to die. Not like catching a fish in the lip with barbless hook, keeping it in the net in water to identify wild/hatchery and unhooking and releasing fish with a sore lip.
 

Shad

Active Member
I'll answer the OP's question. This passed, very simply, because Oregon's complement to the WA Fish and Wildlife Commission is made up of mostly shills for the gillnet industry. They backed out on the recent gillnet reform plan (agreed to by both states) before the trial period even finished, so this is no surprise at all to anyone who's been following the issue in recent years. Doesn't make it okay, but it does explain the situation.

I have a HUGE problem with the arrangement that lets OR and WA gillnetters fish both sides of the river while being licensed in only one state. Residents of OR should not be allowed to unilaterally make decisions that impact fish runs in both states (like this one does). That needs to be addressed, but gillnetters from both states benefit from that paradigm, so.... Until somebody outspends the commercial lobby, yes, we will continue down the path to extinction.
 

Salmo_g

Well-Known Member
So now the WA Commission has back tracked on its earlier commitment to permnantly remove gillnets from the Columbia River. And they want to continue the Columbia River endorsement fee ($8.75) that was needed to provide sportfishing monitoring on CR tributaries like the Methow where we haven't had a season for several years - why do they sell CR endorsements in years when there is no sport season to monitor? And they are seeking an increase in fishing license fees while providing ever decreasing sport fishing opportunities - so we can even further subsidize commercial salmon fishing! This thing's nuts!
 

Skip Enge

Uck Uck Uck, bitches
So now the WA Commission has back tracked on its earlier commitment to permnantly remove gillnets from the Columbia River. And they want to continue the Columbia River endorsement fee ($8.75) that was needed to provide sportfishing monitoring on CR tributaries like the Methow where we haven't had a season for several years - why do they sell CR endorsements in years when there is no sport season to monitor? And they are seeking an increase in fishing license fees while providing ever decreasing sport fishing opportunities - so we can even further subsidize commercial salmon fishing! This thing's nuts!
I may not buy a CRE anymore, maybe I will just use my Artistic License, and claim freedom of expression when I wave my magic wand over the waters...
 

Shad

Active Member
I'll answer the OP's question. This passed, very simply, because Oregon's complement to the WA Fish and Wildlife Commission is made up of mostly shills for the gillnet industry. They backed out on the recent gillnet reform plan (agreed to by both states) before the trial period even finished, so this is no surprise at all to anyone who's been following the issue in recent years. Doesn't make it okay, but it does explain the situation.

I have a HUGE problem with the arrangement that lets OR and WA gillnetters fish both sides of the river while being licensed in only one state. Residents of OR should not be allowed to unilaterally make decisions that impact fish runs in both states (like this one does). That needs to be addressed, but gillnetters from both states benefit from that paradigm, so.... Until somebody outspends the commercial lobby, yes, we will continue down the path to extinction.
This needs a slight re-do. Seems a full 50% of the "yes" votes came from WA, so my apologies to the members of the WA Fish and Wildlife Comm. for selling their contribution to the demise of Pacific salmon short. Indeed, they were co-fuckers of the citizen majority in both states.

Furthermore, I should add I no longer have a reasonable answer to @ribka 's question. I, too, am now questioning how this passed. Whatever the reasons, it's just another example of governments overruling citizens, and a particularly disgusting one at that.

When are CCA action alert templates going to start addressing these assholes in the proper tone? Honestly, these letters should simply say something like,

"Your recent decision to support rescinding critically needed gillnet reforms on the Columbia River disappointed me greatly, and you will not get my vote next election because of it.

In short, fuck you.

Sincerely,
(Name here)
Concerned citizen (or "Peon," if you prefer).

Trouble is, Commission members are appointed, so we don't even get a vote!
 

Cougar Zeke

Active Member
and people wonder why lawsuits are the only way to get things done........ If WFC hadn't threatened a lawsuit would we have had any progress on the endangered species crap on steelhead?

I hate it, but maybe they need to go back to work on Columbia gillnets?
 

Latest posts

Top