Gene:
>There seems to be feeling among some of the Tweeters respondents that a
>'dark force' ,such as the timber companies, are backing I 640 to protect
>there interests and therefore the initiative should be opposed.
> That may be true.

Hell, as I understand it it's DOCUMENTED as being true. That's what
public funding disclosure laws are meant for. "the feeling"? "may be true"?

Get real. It's not "a feeling". It's not a case of "may be true".
It IS true. Unless Seattle newspapers are lying...

Thus, consideration of the issue on political grounds is not
simply an exercise in paranoia, or a hypothetical exercise
based on intuition of a scenario that "may be true". This
measure does represent a political struggle, with big timber
trying to impose their spin on the salmon issue: that timber
harvest practices aren't the problem, that commercial fishing
is the problem. If they win the measure, they've gone a great
distance towards winning the underlying point, and a great
distance towards ducking out of the need to improve timber
practices.

Do you have a competing theory to explain why big timber would
put money into such a measure? A sudden attack of environmentalist
concience leading them to attack another group of resource
users? The timber industry? Give me a break - they see for
themselves a great advantage if this measure passes.

> However, regardless of how great or bad the forestry
>practices are if minimal amounts of fish get to the rivers then the
>future returns are going to be dismal.

Of course, bycatch is irrelevant to salmon recovery. If 2 salmon
are caught by all fishing interests combined, it doesn't matter of
one is caught by commercial folk and one by sports folk, or both
by one or the other. Nor does it matter if 1,000 seabirds are
killed by commercial fishermen in the process (in regard to
salmon recovery only).

No - bycatch is not a good thing. I'm not arguing in favor of it.

Nor is strengthening the timber, aluminum and agriculturals position
in the political fight over salmon. The reality is that campaigns
like this are going to be co-opted by those interests in an effort
to convince the populace that fishing, not habitat degredation, is
the one and only culprit in the salmon decline.

But, the "minimal fish back to the rivers" problem isn't the issue
addressed by this bill, so I have a difficult time understanding
why you bring it up. Without other changes in salmon management,
the fish not caught by commercial interests are available to be
reallocated to sports interests. This may even have something
to do with the fact that sportsfishing interests back the bill...

In Oregon at least, a total catch limit is set, then is divided
amongst the tribes (who get, what, 50%?), sportsfishermen, and
commercial fishermen. We've seen fights over the proportions
between the commercial and sports folks in Oregon, but these
aren't over the total number of fish returning to the rivers,
but only over who gets them.

Does this bill reduce the overall catch? Since it's set by
a multi-state commission overseen by feds, it's hard to see
how it could...

So, how does reducing bycatch increase the numbers of salmon
return back to the rivers? How does it reduce smolt kills
in dams? How does it mitigate die-off due to stream degradation?

There's also bycatch problems in the Alaska fishery, yet the Yukon
run is strong, I believe???

This bill is designed to reduce bycatch, yet is being (as I, an Oregonian,
I admit, understand) promoted as a salmon conservation measure.

It does nothing for salmon conservation.

It does everything to strengthen the various well-heeled interests
in their fight to derail efforts to protect salmon spawning habitat.

I look at it as a matter of triage - solutions to the bycatch
problem can be addressed over the next few years, while the
"final solution" to instream habitat preservation/restoration
matters must be solved very soon. Political alliance with
commercial fishermen may open avenues for addressing the
bycatch issue in concert. They're the first resource users
to "come over" to the conservation side here in the PNW,
and I hate to scuttle this recent alliance. I disagree
with them over several issues, marine mammals being one (to
a degree). But, dumping them to help timber ain't my style.

Think politics. Think prioritization. Think triage. Follow
the money, and ask if you really want the timber industry in
the driver's seat of the salmon recovery engine.

It is a political, not technical, problem.

> At that point the problem is
>irresponsible fishing practices. The fact is any of following issues
>can decimate a salmon fishery by itself, logging, dams, commercial
>fishing practices

Not sports fishing practices? Why not?

>Failure to deal with any of these
>issues means the fishery loses. This is not the 1950's. Mining has
>changed, logging has changed, and now fishing practices must be changed.

Yes, and logging is well on the path towards changing back - read the
news, my friend, and tell me that congress is not on a path towards
freeing timber of much of burdens placed on it by the NEPA, NFMA and
ESA legislation of the 1970s.

"We've not yet given up the dream of logging in designated wilderness
and National Parks". James Geisinger, 1988ish, then PR flack for the Oregon
Timber Coalition, now doing similar work for the Western Forest
Alliance (both of these lobbying groups).

"It's ours. We want it. We want it now." Harry Merlo, then
CEO of Louisiana Pacific, in regard to Tongass National Forest old
growth.

>The catch must be managed on the basis of sound management practices for
>wild fish and not whether someone can meet their boat payments. There
>is not enough resource out there to keep all of the current commercial
>fishing capacity going,

>especially with the wasteful bycatch problems.
How does bycatch affect salmon catch?

There is already a big shakeout in commercial fishing, in Oregon
at least. Two winters ago I wandered about the Newport Marina,
where about 2/3 of the commercial fishing boats were up for
sale. They had a coho season measured in days that year, as
I recall.

>This measure is supported by the Puget Sound Anglers (at least 7
>chapters) Trout Unlimited (? chapters) Poggie Clubs (? chapters) the
>Friends of the Cowlitz, etc, etc. All of these groups work on habitat,
>pen rearing fish, work with hatchery programs. etc, etc.

And is also opposed by a large number of conservation groups, as
I understand it (or, at least, a large number have chosen not
to support it). Also, when you state the Sierra club "is in
favor of gillnets in WA", isn't that an oversimplification? Is
it not possible to oppose a particular measure that may well
cause deep, long lasting political losses for overall conservation
work even if one thinks that the goal of reducing bycatch is
one worth working for?

>A sports caught salmon is worth $312 to the Washington State economy and
>a commercial caught salmon is worth $16.

Irrelevant in regard to salmon conservation - a dead fish is a
dead fish. An old-growth stand of Doug Fir is worth tens of
thousands of dollars, a spotted owl nothing. Are you suggesting
I conclude that ... naw, I doubt it.

>Some people say I 640
>is divisive within the fishing industry. I have lived in this state 50
>years and sportsfishing and commercial fishing have never "gotten
>along".

True enough. I've lived in Oregon about 35 years, and Democrats
and Republicans have never gotten along, either. This doesn't
change the fact that current actions within Congress are
deepening the divide between the two parties...

>Sportfishers in Oregon tried to go thru the legislative process for a
>similiar effort this year, they were shot down. It seems that no matter
>how the subject is presented it is poorly timed, poorly written, not
>quite right, but if, what if, etc etc etc

It is because proponents continue to push the idea as being good
for salmon, when it is only good for timber interest, sportsfisherfolk,
aluminum companies, agriculture ... and of course the bycatch. I
don't want to minimize the latter, but the fate of various salmon runs
is an issue of great short-term importance. Not biologically (the
political timescale can be measured in months, I believe), but
politically - the decisions we make now will be lived with, most likely,
the rest of our lives.

In our current situation, conservationists can't afford to ignore
attempts at political manipulation.

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>