[yelloweye]

So in many of the discussions regarding Columbia River springer allocation, it appears one of the primary reasons sporties want more of the allocation pie is because we fish selectively and the commercials do not (yes I know they say they do). But suppose the commercials were to step up to the plate and say "we want to fish selectively using traps and fish wheels" and hypothetically those methods have a 10% mortality rate on wild fish (which I believe would be reasonable given that they are simply going to be dipnetting them out of a live box and putting them back into the river) and further that the commercials then say "now that we are fishing selectively with similar mortality rates, we want an allocation of wild fish impacts that is equal to that of the sporties". Would we as sporties seriously consider such a proposal? Or would we simply fall back to the economic benefit arguement? What if the commercial selective fishing techniques have a LOWER mortality rate than the hook and line rates? And finally, what if the tribes embrace selective fishing and then say they want a bigger piece of the pie? I'm losing hair over this just writing it down. Thoughts?

 

[RowVsWade]

So in many of the discussions regarding Columbia River springer allocation, it appears one of the primary reasons sporties want more of the allocation pie is because we fish selectively and the commercials do not (yes I know they say they do). But suppose the commercials were to step up to the plate and say "we want to fish selectively using traps and fish wheels" and hypothetically those methods have a 10% mortality rate on wild fish (which I believe would be reasonable given that they are simply going to be dipnetting them out of a live box and putting them back into the river) and further that the commercials then say "now that we are fishing selectively with similar mortality rates, we want an allocation of wild fish impacts that is equal to that of the sporties". Would we as sporties seriously consider such a proposal? Or would we simply fall back to the economic benefit arguement? What if the commercial selective fishing techniques have a LOWER mortality rate than the hook and line rates? And finally, what if the tribes embrace selective fishing and then say they want a bigger piece of the pie? I'm losing hair over this just writing it down. Thoughts?

I believe if each user group (ie Non-tribal commercial and sportsfishers) had the same "mortality rate" on ESA fish then the allocation between the two user groups would be roughly the same.

As for Tribal, they are covered under a different set of standards. The treaty rights are all but written in stone. There could methods of persuasion/coercion for change but that would be a voluntary response by the tribes. IMHO

 

[Red Neckersom]

Commercials should just use hook and line, IMO. Seems like it would be a cheaper and easier change for them to make.

 

[CommanderX]

The tribes receive 50% now, so selective fishing means more wild fish would survive. A huge plus. I would think most would agree with equal allocation if more wild fish survived. Seems like a big win for everyone except commercial fishing equipment suppliers.

 

[RowVsWade]

Commercials should just use hook and line, IMO. Seems like it would be a cheaper and easier change for them to make.

Red---I've seen that also (hook and line) the bycatch is just as disturbing. Turtles, small sharks, etc....lines of hooks for miles literally until the captain of the charter pulled the line over the 36' boat. Mexico was the place of this disgusting display but the mentality of commercial fisherman throughout the world isn't much different. IMHO

 

[fishslave]

Would we as sporties seriously consider such a proposal? Or would we simply fall back to the economic benefit arguement? What if the commercial selective fishing techniques have a LOWER mortality rate than the hook and line rates? And finally, what if the tribes embrace selective fishing and then say they want a bigger piece of the pie? I'm losing hair over this just writing it down. Thoughts?

Wouldn't it depend on what your fisheries goal is? If it's important to remove as many hatchery fish from the system as you can, then it would make sense to do that.

Would a huge glut of springers in the market be economically beneficial if the prices were low and wouldn't the glut of hatchery fish drive prices even lower, making it a bad idea?

Maybe we need to recognize tribal fishing as fulfilling the states requirement for viable commercial fisheries under the law and buy out the remaining CR gillnet licenses.

So many what if's...