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)