State considers banning gillnets on Columbia River

TUMWATER, Wash. (AP) - Commercial fishermen in Washington and Oregon say a proposal to ban gillnets from the main stem of the lower Columbia River would destroy their livelihood, while supporters say the plan would protect endangered salmon.
The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission heard from dozens of speakers on the issue at a public hearing in Tumwater on Saturday.
Commissioners are considering a contentious proposal that would phase out the use of gillnets by non-tribal fishers on the main river by 2017 and give priority to recreational fishing there. The proposed rules would move the centuries-old practice of gillnetting, the primary commercial-fishing tool, to side channels and tributaries.
Washington state commissioners are scheduled to vote at its next meeting set for Jan. 11-12 in Olympia.
The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission approved similar rules on Dec. 7.
A bistate work group assembled by Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber recommended the gillnet ban and other major changes to salmon and sturgeon fisheries in the lower Columbia River. The group included three commission members each from the Oregon and Washington.
Kitzhaber requested that the rules be developed as a compromise after a group of environmentalists and recreational fishing interests pushed a ballot measure that would have banned gillnets altogether next year.
On Saturday, the proposal drew intense opposition from commercial fishermen, who warned of lost jobs and livelihoods from limiting the use of gillnets and said the proposal was more about allocating resources to sport fisherman than conserving them.
"There is no need for this plan," Georgia Marincovich, whose husband, Jack, is a longtime gillnet fishermen, told commissioners.
Critics say gillnets are harmful to salmon restoration because they kill many of the fish they catch but can't differentiate between endangered fish and targeted species. Gillnets hang under the water surface and snag fish by the gills.
Washington has been studying alternative fishing gear to see whether it is safer for endangered fish. The most-touted method is a purse seine, which encircles fish in the river then is pulled shut at the bottom to trap them. Fishers can sort out endangered fish and set them free.
But commercial fishermen say the proposed alternative fishing gear - such as beach and purse seines - won't work, questioning whether they could be economically viable on the Columbia.
Otis Hunsinger, an Oregon commercial fisherman, said "this plan ain't going to work for me." Hunsinger said he would have to buy more expensive equipment because his 24-foot boat is too small for him to be able to use seines.
Supporters, meanwhile, urged commissioners to approve the new rules and protect the region's salmon.
Stan Brogdon, president of CCA Washington, a statewide advocacy group for salmon and steelhead, called the policy fair, forward-thinking and long overdue.
"Gillnets are incapable of selective harvest," he said, adding that the time had come to remove them from the main Columbia River.
Recreational fishers say gillnets are harmful to the recovery of salmon and steelhead - 13 species are listed under the federal Endangered Species Act.
The proposed rules prioritize recreational fishing on the main stem of the lower Columbia and relegate gillnetting to off-channels, which would see more hatchery salmon releases.
The proposal would give sport fishermen larger shares of salmon in the main stem of the Columbia. It would also require sport anglers fishing for salmon and steelhead in the main Columbia and its tributaries to use barbless hooks beginning in 2013.
Jody Mather, who guides fishing trips in Washington and Oregon, said the proposal to prohibit the retention of white sturgeon would devastate his business. "If you stop this fishery, you completely take the business that took me 16 years to build," he said, adding, "I'm done."
Tribal fisheries are not affected by the proposed new rules.
The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission heard from dozens of speakers on the issue at a public hearing in Tumwater on Saturday.
Commissioners are considering a contentious proposal that would phase out the use of gillnets by non-tribal fishers on the main river by 2017 and give priority to recreational fishing there. The proposed rules would move the centuries-old practice of gillnetting, the primary commercial-fishing tool, to side channels and tributaries.
Washington state commissioners are scheduled to vote at its next meeting set for Jan. 11-12 in Olympia.
The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission approved similar rules on Dec. 7.
A bistate work group assembled by Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber recommended the gillnet ban and other major changes to salmon and sturgeon fisheries in the lower Columbia River. The group included three commission members each from the Oregon and Washington.
Kitzhaber requested that the rules be developed as a compromise after a group of environmentalists and recreational fishing interests pushed a ballot measure that would have banned gillnets altogether next year.
On Saturday, the proposal drew intense opposition from commercial fishermen, who warned of lost jobs and livelihoods from limiting the use of gillnets and said the proposal was more about allocating resources to sport fisherman than conserving them.
"There is no need for this plan," Georgia Marincovich, whose husband, Jack, is a longtime gillnet fishermen, told commissioners.
Critics say gillnets are harmful to salmon restoration because they kill many of the fish they catch but can't differentiate between endangered fish and targeted species. Gillnets hang under the water surface and snag fish by the gills.
Washington has been studying alternative fishing gear to see whether it is safer for endangered fish. The most-touted method is a purse seine, which encircles fish in the river then is pulled shut at the bottom to trap them. Fishers can sort out endangered fish and set them free.
But commercial fishermen say the proposed alternative fishing gear - such as beach and purse seines - won't work, questioning whether they could be economically viable on the Columbia.
Otis Hunsinger, an Oregon commercial fisherman, said "this plan ain't going to work for me." Hunsinger said he would have to buy more expensive equipment because his 24-foot boat is too small for him to be able to use seines.
Supporters, meanwhile, urged commissioners to approve the new rules and protect the region's salmon.
Stan Brogdon, president of CCA Washington, a statewide advocacy group for salmon and steelhead, called the policy fair, forward-thinking and long overdue.
"Gillnets are incapable of selective harvest," he said, adding that the time had come to remove them from the main Columbia River.
Recreational fishers say gillnets are harmful to the recovery of salmon and steelhead - 13 species are listed under the federal Endangered Species Act.
The proposed rules prioritize recreational fishing on the main stem of the lower Columbia and relegate gillnetting to off-channels, which would see more hatchery salmon releases.
The proposal would give sport fishermen larger shares of salmon in the main stem of the Columbia. It would also require sport anglers fishing for salmon and steelhead in the main Columbia and its tributaries to use barbless hooks beginning in 2013.
Jody Mather, who guides fishing trips in Washington and Oregon, said the proposal to prohibit the retention of white sturgeon would devastate his business. "If you stop this fishery, you completely take the business that took me 16 years to build," he said, adding, "I'm done."
Tribal fisheries are not affected by the proposed new rules.
So the responsible commercial fisherman, you know the guy that depends on the fishery for his livelihood, is not allowed to fish but the native who get tons of free stuff from the government and tribe gets to catch all the fish they want? This makes no sense to me, I've seen more waste from native fishermen than non natives. A whole bay full of dead and gutted silvers because they were only after the eggs. Of a trunk full of kings just sitting in the sun on the side of River road in Puyallup. Ridiculous.
Well, there ya go. Bicker, bicker, bicker. The tribes have casinos, smoke shops, and other tax-free industries now. Not much to do with their culture from what I've read about the past. But then, the world moves on, with or without you. We have an extinction in our sights, everyone agrees, but no one wants to give up an inch to prevent it. It's always all or nothing. Why is that? If gill nets are the evil here, then all should realize that and stop using them. And how many of these fish, once they make it out to sea, ever make it back? What percentage? With the hordes of commercial fishing boats out there at sea, from many countries, is the percentage high?  Would banning gill nets improve that percentage? Why can't we just get an honest assessment from people instead of all this diatribe about what they'll lose because of one change or another?
I'm all for the ban; as long as you go after the tribal guys too. of course that wont happen.
Works for me. I counted well over a hundred of them on both sides while I was working out of the Dalles. Way to many for fishing to survive,
Gill nets need to be banned every were by use of all. This ban needs to include all the tribal fishing also. The tribes need to have unlimited fisshing rights but, only in traditinal fishing practises. Gill netting is strip mining of the oceans!! And yes I support sport fishing as they pay almost 90% of the moneys that ends up in the pocket of Fish and Wildlife for the fish side of the taxes..
Wildlife conservation is far more important than jobs. Humans can adapt to a change like temporary unemployment much easier than a species can recover from overfishing or habitat destruction etc."Otis Hunsinger, an Oregon commercial fisherman, said "this plan ain't going to work for me." Hunsinger said he would have to buy more expensive equipment because his 24-foot boat is too small for him to be able to use seines."SOUNDS LIKEÂ A DAMN WHINER! Have fishermen really become a bunch of pansies dependent on one specific way of doing things?
 @UnderAbridge You sound like the whiner ! Would you like some cheese to go along with your whine ? Government rules and regulations is what a lot of people suffer from  in losing jobs or no job . Three top reasons manufacturing left AMERICA. Unions,taxes,rules and regulations.Â
Â
 @Maynard G Krebbs  @UnderAbridge "Three top reasons manufacturing left AMERICA. Unions,taxes,rules and regulations." BS, they left because the profits they make here are not obscene enough for them. Your ilk are so singular in thought. Blah, blah, Unions, blah, blah, taxes, blah, blah Government, blah, blah rules. Turn of FOX.
I haven't been able to catch a legal sturgeon on the Columbia in three years. They're all over-sized or under-sized. I'm willing to not fish the Columbia for ten years, (if I live that long), if it means the survival of the fishery.
Ban the NETTING... CANCEL fishing seasons... SAVE THE FUTURE / GENETIC IDENTITY OF WILD PACIFIC SALMON AND STEELHEAD!
This comment has been deleted
 @the unvarnished truth Unfortunately the United States government hasn't followed the rule of law in relation to a lot of native rights guaranteed them in the treaties signed many years ago. Those treaties are supposed to have the same strength as the Constitution once they are ratified. It's not about race, it's about the government upholding promises it made to native nations that gave up their land in exchange for those promises.
 @jcman  @the unvarnished truth Many of those treaties need to be updated. if tribes want to fish as allowed under a treaty signed in the 1800's then they need to use the same equipment as then. if the tribes want to fish along side others then the tribes need to follow the same rules as everyone else.
@jcman @the unvarnished truth Yes, those treaties were signed MANY years ago and since then the whole world has changed. Back then when the native Americans were not allowed to leave the reservation and they were completely dependent on hunting to eat the world was a completely different place. I really doubt those who wrote the treaties back then could have imagined how the country would change in the next 100+ years. Let the natives fish just like the sports fisherman have to. The native Americans aren't the only group of people the government has failed to follow the rules for, sooner or later the government gets around to doing it to most Americans one way or the other.
BAN ALL NETTING!Â
Ban the nets on all rivers!!! Â We need to give the fish a chance. Â And using a band aid is not going to get it done. Give it 5 years and the fish numbers should be making a great comeback.
But...it's still OK for the indians to plug the river with their nets??Â
All gillnetting should be stopped. No one should be gillnetting.
If you wipe out the fish, you're done as well. That would only be one result, many more issues accompany the decline in fish populations.
Would like to see all gill netting banned in inside waters. Leave them for out in the open ocean and give some of the fish a chance to get upstream and breed. Not going to work though unless they try and work with the tribes. States have no jurisdiction over them.
Last line says it all.