Federal or State?

Federal or State?

  • Federal..they can protect us more easily than the state.

    Votes: 4 66.7%
  • State..ODFW will do what's right

    Votes: 2 33.3%
  • Do nothing..It will all work out!

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    6
  • Poll closed .
K

Kodiak

Banned User
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
844
Location
Mill City, Oregon
So I have a question and i would like to see what you guys think. Is it better to try and fight gillnets, commercial guys, and declining runs on the state or federal level? My argument for the federal level is this:

1. There are far more sport dollars generated nationaly than commercial dollars and then could win support in far more states than commercial guys can.
2. Several nat. runs are on the federal threatened speicies list and therefore would be very easy to place a moritorium on gillnets as they are nonselective harvest method.
3. Many hatcheries are federally funded, and with the current state of the economy funding on the scale that sportsfisherman can produce, as long as fish returns stay high.

So what do you guys think? State or fed? I'm curious what you think.
 
B

bigdog

1
Joined
Sep 1, 2008
Messages
1,252
Location
Portland, Oregon
Well them are good points and it does make sence. I feel we should be going about it both fed and state though. The more we try the better the odds are we will get somewhere.
 
Irishrover

Irishrover

Moderator
Most Featured
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
2,085
Location
Ocean
So I have a question and i would like to see what you guys think. Is it better to try and fight gillnets, commercial guys, and declining runs on the state or federal level? My argument for the federal level is this:

1. There are far more sport dollars generated nationaly than commercial dollars and then could win support in far more states than commercial guys can.
2. Several nat. runs are on the federal threatened speicies list and therefore would be very easy to place a moritorium on gillnets as they are nonselective harvest method.
3. Many hatcheries are federally funded, and with the current state of the economy funding on the scale that sportsfisherman can produce, as long as fish returns stay high.

So what do you guys think? State or fed? I'm curious what you think.
I believe a double barrel shotgun in better than a single barrel shot gun. Why limit the cause to just one approach?

History show that the state level in the past has been the most effective.

1922 Purse seiner outlawed on the Columbia River

1927 Fish wheels outlawed in Oregon

1930s horse seining ends

1934 Fish wheels outlawed in Washington

1956 Gillnets outlawed except in Columbia River and Tillamook Bay

1961 Gillnets outlawed in Tillamook Bay

The above mentioned events were done on a state level and not via ODFW but by legisaltive action and the ballot box. The Columbia river gillneters dodged a bullit a few years back by narrowly defeating a ballot measure to ban gillnetting.

On the other side of the coin if it is done on a federal level it would be a single act instead of having both Washington and Oregon each pass a seperate bill. If only one state passes a ban the other state could still allow gillnetting. One would have to take a close look at the Mitchel Act of 1938. That act was put in place to off set the lose of salmon due to the placement of dams on the Columbia River system. It is in place to make sure there are fish for the Indian Tribes, sports and commercial fishermen. There are 25 Mitchel Hatcheries below Bonnieville dam in Washington and Oregon. Ubove the dam there are others and even some in Idaho. The Act has been ammended to address the ESA and maybe that would be a tool. Of course it could get out of control and there is only one group that by treaty is pretty much granted fish and that's not sportmen. We shall see;) (good question that you asked Kodiak)
 
Last edited:
Irishrover

Irishrover

Moderator
Most Featured
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
2,085
Location
Ocean
I did a little checking and came across this bill that is now in the Oregon State Senate

This bill if it should happen to pass would make it illegal to use gillnets in the Columbia River. I'll have to track it's progress It is SB 524 sponsored by State Senator Girod.
 
Last edited:
K

Kodiak

Banned User
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
844
Location
Mill City, Oregon
Good point

Good point

The reason I bring up the fed question is because of what is happening here. The breaking of the agreement between Oregon and Washington on the springer quotas, and the 86 cents of every license dollar going to enforcement instead of where it is currently needed. Perhaps with federal involvment we can get back ontrack. I know a great many small businesses are hurting in both Oregon and Washington. Currently commercial fisherman in Alaska are trying to get a greater alocation of fish up there and reduce the numbers sports guys get. It will not only affect their runs but ours as well. It is no great secret that willamette and lower columbia tribs fish move up there to feed as juvinells and spend a couple of years. Many within view of grindell glacier. I do not believe that Oregon can throw around its weight (politically speaking) to protect a cultural Icon as the fish returning and the the intrests of the men that persue them, on a federal level I believe this could be achieved.
P.S.
Don't forget to vote.
 
Irishrover

Irishrover

Moderator
Most Featured
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
2,085
Location
Ocean
For the whole big picture you are correct. The Feds have the ability to deal with the multi state questions not to mention treaty with Canada and other foreign powers. Once the gill net are out of the river there still remains a multitude of other problems that need to be addressed, but it's a start. That 86 cents of every dollar going to enforcement really jacks my jaw, but that is a whole other thread!
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom