so much for fishing.

starcrafttom · Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:29 am Post subject: so much for fishing.

this sounds so far out that i did not believe it and if you have any info that it is not true please let me know . This is from shamino's web site from their president so I believe the source. it goes along with what i believe has been some groups plan for a long time. No need to commit as i do not want to argue with any one. just posting this for your knowledge.

http://fish.shimano.com/publish/content/global_fish/en/us/index/articles/feds_to_60_million.html

Robbi · Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 10:16 am Post subject:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/09_17_09_Interim_Report_of_Task_Force_FINAL2.pdf

Here is the report. Reading it may help evaluate Shimano's responce.

Robbi

rogerbum · Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:29 pm Post subject:

Robbi,

Thanks for posting the link to the report here. I read through that report a week or two ago when I saw various claims of gloom and doom being posted on various fishing web sites. For the life of me, I cannot connect the wide ranging negative comments on the report to anything I've read in the report. To me, much of the railing against the report seems like it was put out be people who read a different report. E.g. I can't see how reasonable people can read the task force's report and extrapolate that to large scale shut down's of recreational fishing.

What's more concerning to me is how the diatribe against the government's efforts get amplified by posting and re-posting by various people on fishing web sites and elsewhere. I'm not certain, but much of what I've read about this issue seems to have been prepared and re-posted by people who apparently never read the government task force report.

I'm not a big one on conspiracy theories, but in some cases it's appears that some external group is preparing false claims and then promulgating them various "viral" methods. It wouldn't surprise me if the claims about the task force report's potential negative impact on recreational fishing were actually made up by commercial fishing interests and promulgated through posts to recreational fishing web sites. It's the commercial guys who have the most to lose should the U.S. ever adopt rational, science based fisheries and ocean management policies.

localboy · Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 7:40 pm Post subject:

Will-C · Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 8:40 am Post subject: so much for fishing.

Fisherman,
Here on the east coast the gumint (feds)totally shut down the black seabass fishery from North Carolina north for six months a few weeks ago. This is pretty much a meat fishery and an understudied fish. These fish migrate quickly offshore past the states three mile limit into the federal zone. It's a wintertime fishery for the northern offshore party boats especially in the winter months. What I thought was strange is they shut it down to zero fish from what was a 25 fish limit. It just happened no warning. I'm all for protecting the resource but this kind of management with a sledgehammer approach didn't give much warning to those that had there lives effected. Don't be surprised if it happens in a town near you. Shimano might have a better idea of what is going on in the backround as they have a large stake in what happens to the recreational fisheries. As for the politics, oh that's right we aren't supposed talk about that here.
D.D.

localboy · Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 9:23 am Post subject: Re: so much for fishing.

1TUBERIDER · Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:30 am Post subject:

Ca management of its coast vs feds. The federal version could be better, but we in Ca have been facing more and more restrictions. Last year (2008) no salmon fishing, very short bottom fishing season. This year 10 days of salmon fishing when the fish are near the spawning rivers and we have 6 miles limits to stay away from the river mouths. Bottom fishing again closed early. Our forecast for fishing with the mpla's is looking from very bleak to no fishing at all.

Another area of concerns is the blanket statement of controlling human activities. I surf and should not be worried but most of these management decisions restrict our access and opportunities. Lets see how successful they are about limiting access to beaches. I know of a whole community (surfers) that would disregard any restrictions to beach access to areas we use everyday.It would be a enforcers night mare unleashed on them. Who knows, we surfers could be held responsible for the acidity levels in the ocean. Just to set the record straight, I do not pee in my wetsuit.

Maybe a federal plan that keeps us on equal opportunities would be better. I can go 30 miles north for more fishing opportunities in another state. The people who live near state borders can give examples of the inequalities. They may benefit from a federal plan.

Many are being disregarded by this administration. Look at the chamber of commerce, and fox news for example and the lack of ammo being driven by fear.

How can you trust the politicians. The govinator in our state lost his spine and has reversed direction for shooters. I personally am being affected on many fronts, and am considering moving to another state.

Matt Gurnsey · Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:10 pm Post subject:

The problem as I see it is the request to bring US standards in line with a UN treaty that the US never ratified- in essence, doing an end run around the ratification process.

It is one more case of "the federal government can take care of you better than you, or your local officials can."

And they are going to solve all of the challanges of this complex issue in 90 days. Bypassing efforts locally that have been going on for 20 years.

I've seen what federal involvment has done to sportfishing on the Columbia River / Pacific Ocean area. I used to fish the ocean with my father in the 1970's, and the marina we kept the boat in had long waiting lists, and you paid for the slip year round to be able to have it for three months.

In July, all of the marina was full of boats. The last time I was in Warrenton in July, only about 25% of the slips had boats in them, the marina office / bait store was closed and the businesses that supported the boating / fishing were gone.

While regulation is important, I don't beleive that people in Washington DC have any idea what the people in Washington State need. Nor do they care.

Government regulation is driving marina and boat repair facilities out of business. Current plans are to require upgrades in the near future that could cost a business like ours $50,000 to $100,000 or more- and none of it is based on any science. Just an attitude of "we should do this to make things better".

My morning is off to a great start now... Thumbs Down

localboy · Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:58 pm Post subject:

Wandering Sagebrush · Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:02 pm Post subject:

[quote="localboy"]

Capital Sea · Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:25 pm Post subject:

Our sport fishing opportunities have been harmed to a much greater degree by the lack of applied science based regulation. We are the small player in the allocation debate and without regulation the remaining fish runs would just be eliminated by overfishing.

Further, with all of the governments involved, we would get nowhere without active involvement by our states our federal government and yes, the tribal governments. I believe protecting the resource for future generations should be the number one goal and the longer we delay getting on the right track, the more painful it will be when the correction comes.

In the early 1990's our state passed a salmon marking bill into law and at the time it was strongly resisted by commercial fishers, sport fishing groups and even the tribes. Today this program is the reason half of our local sport fishing opportunities exist at all.

If I have a point, it is that we should all be concerned and vocal but capitalism and international competition are the threat and only good regulation can save sport fishing.

localboy · Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:29 pm Post subject:

rogerbum · Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:40 pm Post subject:

Capital Sea · Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 8:20 pm Post subject:

Au Kai, your encounter on Lake Sammamish was understandably upsetting.

The facts will, I expect interest you. Each year the salmon return to Issaquah creek is estimated accurately based upon the species numbers counted at the Chiteinden locks ladder. The Issaquah creek fish are all but entirely hatchery fish and in years where the return is much larger than what is needed at the hatchery, the Muckleshoot Tribe has the exclusive right by federal law to execute what is known as a terminal area fish harvest. In recent years, the tribe has frequently given the state the right to open the lake to sport fishing and they have done that almost every year since the late 90's.

This is actually a desirable place for the tribe to realize its treaty rights as a very limited number of non hatchery fish are effected. Contrast this with gill nets in the San Juan Islands, or anywhere in the ocean, where all species both wild and hatchery are caught indiscriminately.

localboy · Posted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 8:37 pm Post subject:

^^^Capital Sea, thanks for putting some perspective/facts on this issue for me. Like I said, my knowledge is amateur at best. Sad

Obviously, not being from the PNW I am still learning what the intricacies/nuances are.

It's obviously a complex issue with mulitple interests, all fighting for their piece of the pie and pulling in multiple directions as a result. I'd like my granddaughter (and her grandkids etc...) to experience a healthy Mother Earth and all that it encompasses. Figuring how to do this will be the difficult part. I'm hoping ALL interests will have a say/input and anything decided with be FAIR and based on SCIENCE & FACTS...not politics, undue influence or any particular strong lobby, no matter the source..