Northwest Fishing Reports

So here's something I've been toying around with for a little while. I feel like the recreational fishermen and women of the state have been getting the short end of the stick but the long end of the shaft lately. Especially anywhere above the Columbia. I know a lot of people feel this way, and may are upset with our whole situation here. It's gonna be a read, sorry in advance

I should count myself as one of them. Not so much on the closures in general, but because of the politics behind the closures and really with a lot of what has been going on lately around here.

The WFC hatchery suit was an interesting one. It got huge amounts of ridicule from the angling community and beyond, and now, with NOAA passing a new series of referendums (or something like that- I'm no politician) that call for provisions to open the hatcheries under certain guidelines (namely registering/clearing their programs with the ESA or something). That may or may not get passed this year, we'll have to see. If it doesn't, the future of hatcheries looks sort of bleak up here.

But, this whole lawsuit thing has given me an idea. I don't have the means to do this obviously, but there are people out there who may... I want to here everyone's thoughts on this.

Gillnets. No recreational fisherman in their right mind likes them or the thought of them. Upon hearing the word gillnet, every fisherman shakes his head and scowls as if a dirty elephant just walked through their living room.

We all know that non-selective fisheries such as gillnets have a sh*tty by-catch aspect that kills unwanted fish. Native steelhead, other salmon, trout, whatever... and there is a certain bASStardization that occurs with gillnetters abusing their "privilege" to damage our rivers, sometimes just by leaving the nets in because they're too lazy to take them out. I've seen it, y'all. Many of us have seen worse. Up here in B'ham, the local tribes (Lummi and Nooksack) have been given the nicknames Skummies and Nutsacks. Now, that's deplorable, and I don't endorse the use of those terms, and don't agree with the viewpoint that the Natives are the bad guys here. Obviously though, there is some gasoline that's fueling the flame, so to speak. We wouldn't have the issue if there wasn't something wrong with it to begin with. Again, I'm just pointing to evidence, not endorsing the bashing of the tribes.

But, gillnets. That's a practice that is quite deplorable in of itself. And here, after a rant, is where my idea finally culminates.

The evidence is out there. Hell, we could conduct a scientific survey and follow gillnetters throughout the year and measure unwanted bycatch amongst other things... derelict nets, dead fish...etc. That's all quantitative stuff that can be measured. Such scientific surveys were used in the WFC lawsuit ( a survey that didn't mention at all the low rate of hatchery-wild interbreeding). Hell, even if the correlation of the bycatch number was low for us, there still is a bycatch. Look at WFC did. We wouldn't even have to point to the numbers. "Oh, it's bad? stop it all. Right now." That's essentially what they did.

So, if such a study were to be done, a lawsuit could then go out against the use of gillnets by the tribes, using almost the same rhetoric that the WFC lawsuit used: The targeting of salmon and steelhead in gillnet fisheries leads to a reduction in Wild fish stocks amongst Salmon, Trout, and our beloved Wild (and endangered...) Steelhead. That sounds like a reasonable thing to pursue. However, I'm not sure how the nation sovereignty thing works... if someone like the WDFW could even sue the tribes.

Even after all this, and the tribes acknowledge that the nets are harmful, they could point to their cultural heritage. That's important as well. However, in this day and age, we have seen that some practices just aren't used any more because they are outdated and there are better ways to do said practice.

To quote John Oliver from Last Week Tonight (Prisons)

From an America Tonight Exclusive: "Sugar was used to treat wounds before the advent of antibiotics back in the early 1900's." John Oliver: "Yeah, but then we all decided that it was no longer an acceptable medical practice, like curing a child's cough with heroin."

Okay, a little off topic, maybe... but I hope you get my point. Collectively, we can see that nets are a damaging entity. Maybe it's time to take action instead of threatening to dump hay bales in front of the nets and shooting boats. Obviously that's a little hypocritical seeing that I've been typing this up for the past half hour or so behind a keyboard, but whatever. (Also I'm not a lawyer or an interest group, so I can't really do much.)

Just my two cents. Sorry for the rant-read-whatever it is. Controversial, maybe as well. But it's on my mind I have nothing but the best intentions for the sake of our fisheries and the fish themselves.

Give it to 'em.
Ian

Where's the disdain for the offshore nets?

Mile long + Gillnets, factory trawlers..used on a much larger scale with a much larger by catch and detriment to a much larger array of fish and wildlife.

If we are to phase out gill nets - and am not saying it is a bad thing - then why not start with our own?

onmygame

Ian,
It's a pleasure to read your well written posts on here, on many subjects.
You seem like a very bright person, good intentioned, and respectfull in how you communicate.

I can't say that I would know the first thing about how to go forth with a "Study" as you spoke of, regarding the evils of gillnetting. You make a very good point though in the matter of, (just because a custom is the standard practice of centuries, it doesn't have to continue to be seen as responsible"----- the comparrison to treating a cough with heroin, etc.

Anyway, I gon on record as sounding pathetic, in that I have no idea how I would find the time to be involved in a study of gillnetting.
But I do want to give you a shout out for such a well written thread.

You have several good points, This gill-net thing is so far out of control it is unbelievable. Not just west of the cascades. Tribes are gill-netting the upper Columbia River trying to clean out non native fish. Who knows what their kill is of by catch and the sad thing is our great Washington Fish and Game is going along with it hook line sinker and gill-net. It makes me sick to think what recreational fishing will be like ten years from now. I talked with a game agent the other day at Connolley Park in Moses Lake about the lack of planted trout in the area lakes this year, his response was that WF&G does not have the budget to raise trout for stocking the area lakes any more. The warm water hatcheries are about non existent and the tribes are killing spinyrays(and any thing else in the net) as being non native. It seems to me that WF&G is using our license fees to help eliminate recreational fishing, don't they realize when there are no more fishing that we will not buy licenses and then they will have a budget problem. And that my friend is my two cents worth.

I agree with every response so far.

I think in your situation, Ian, you are not a hypocrite, as ideas can be more invaluable than any other asset we have. And in your situation (not a rich person, but a young man starting off in life) this is a great and reasonable contribution to a cause you believe in; a well thought out, measured idea. It may not be perfect, but it is indeed reasonable and id just like to give credit where its due. Its certainly better than anything ive done.

Onmygame is absolutely right about our commercial fiaheries and ive said the same things all along. Ill sum it up with this. "Be the change you hope to see in the world" ( i think its a ghandi quote and im not sure if its totally correct but you get ths idea.) basically unless we also ban gillnettikg the natives can always say "well they're doing it too"

Lastly if there does end up being a movement for this going forward i would pledge some money towards this cause, since that is the best thing i could personally contribute, and this is the best idea ive heard yet. If someone does come along and hires some lawyers, lobbyists, and/or advertising in attempt to ban gill netting i would support it by contributing cash donations. This is something i believe in.

Great post Ian. Great because it nails a problem we are all frustrated with. IMO allowing gill nets is counter to recreational fishing. However, the problem is bigger than that. It is actually an example of one of many problems our country faces. I don't have time and it is not the correct forum to get into the big picture. Your mention of "lack of funding for stocking" plus what I read about the courts saying "don't write fishing tickets cause we can't handle the load" are both facets of another fishing problem brewing.

I'll just say- lots of people are mad. If we raise a big enough stink with a lawsuit the politicians will listen. It will boil down to forming a big, loud group of voters.

I like the idea of trying to form an argument based upon data. As long as it is gathered correctly, you cannot argue with numbers (although people will try, which is why your numbers need to be bullet proof). If you came out with a figure, for instance, showing that 25% of the catch in a gill net is by-catch of some sort of endangered species, or you tally the total numbers of by-caught endangered fish and find that you could literally be talking half the run of an endangered species as by-catch, I think people would start to listen. I also agree with the idea that you need publicity. A lot of people yelling loudly with sound data behind them is a good thing. A lot of people yelling loudly with random and completely unsupported information (the situation as I see it today) does no good whatsoever. It may take funding and some muscle in the scientific, political, and environmental arenas, but if you start to gain public interest and get people on your side, that is when I think things will finally change. And when I say people, I mean more than just recreational fishermen. For instance, if you get some level-headed conservationists to support your cause, lots of other people will follow. I think the conservationists could be a key ally in this fight (for instance, show that wild Chinook are basically gone, and that resident Orcas are suffering and leaving because they prey on mostly Chinook, and boom, you have some action) but I also don't think many people at all in the northwest care or know about our salmon and steelhead issues, outside of the fishermen (of all types), and a comparatively few biologists.

salmon season set, to open soon, read the WDFW e-mail here;

http://www.northwestfishingreports.com/ ... =4&t=23102" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ian Horning wrote: surveys were used in the WFC lawsuit ( a survey that didn't mention at all the low rate of hatchery-wild interbreeding). Hell, even if the correlation of the bycatch number was low for us, there still is a bycatch. Look at WFC did. We wouldn't even have to point to the numbers. "Oh, it's bad? stop it all. Right now." That's essentially what they did.

The WFC suit was successful because the DFW wasn't following the rules when operating hatcheries. They didn't just say hatcheries are bad. They said the state doesn't have the required permits.

@fishvacuum:

You bring a good point: The hatcheries weren't doing what they said they'd do: Develop a strategy to decrease interbreeding between hatchery-wild fish and in the end conserve wild fish. They were using the Chamber's Creek fish, which was not covered by NOAA and therefore illegal.
Cited as evidence for why these "early run" fish still harmed the hatchery system was a survey done that demonstrated how fish of H-H or H-W origin were less suited to river fishing than their Native counterparts.

Thanks for filling in the gaps! I do not know everything there is to know about this topic, I'm just a fisherman who is trying to keep up with the times and develop ideas and ways of protecting our fish and our fisheries.

Ian