Coastal Fishing Forums: AllCoast banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,160 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Coastsiders

We have a crises that paternally will change your fishing for the rest
of your life, and cause economic disaster at an unprecedented level to
a fishing industry, and we are the target.

I ask you in the strongest language to stand up and be counted, I need
everyone on this not just the same guys. There are 12000 members and I
want everyone of you, this is that important. If you choose to sit on
the sidelines on this, that will tell me and the rest of the political
team we are just wasting our time, because you could care less whether
there is a salmon season or not. We have have many things going on a
lawsuit over MLPA funding etc. We are working full time for you please
stand up and be counted on this one.

As you are all aware by now we are faced with an impending disaster to
our 2006 ocean salmon season. Due to the dangerously low natural
spawning of salmon in the Klamath, our salmon season is going to be shut down
this year unless we do something about it. The plan being proposed
would see an end to fishing as we know it. In order to fend off a looming
economic and social catastrophe we are urging you to get involved. We
need EVERY member of the fishing community, their friends, family, and
even their enemies to send a letter to the Governor, Director Broderick,
and Secretary of Resources Chrisman urging them to support what we are
calling the â??Ticehurst Planâ??. If accepted, this plan would allow us to
continue to enjoy what is our most valuable marine resource while
giving the Pacific Fisheries Management Council an opportunity to revisit
their management strategy for the Klamath Chinook Salmon fishery.

We are asking you to write hard-copy letters and email (do both if you
can!) to the Governor, your state assemblymen, Secretary of Resources
Chrisman, and Director of Fish and Game Broddrick. Timing is critical
and they really need to go out by the end of the day on Monday the 27th.

Please emphasize the financial disaster this would mean for our state,
along with any your personal feelings about a salmon season closure
based upon some antiquated notions of fishery management.

Here is the TICEHURST PLAN:

"I have been working with Roger Thomas and others to come up with a
solution that makes sense. After much discussion with everyone, here is
what I would like to propose in Seattle next week at the PFMC meeting.


I am going to propose an emergency action similar to the proposal that
I made one year ago.

I will propose to suspend the 35,000 natural spawner "floor" in the
Klamath for 18 months and to establish a season similar to that of last
year for both recreational and commercial fishing. I will propose to
refer the issue of the "floor" to the appropriate committees to reevaluate
and analyze its relevance in the light of the latest scientific
information and the deteriorated condition of the river.

My rationale for doing so is the economic disaster associated with the
draconian steps we would have to make in our fishery management season
for salmon this year. In addition to the economic impact however, is
the fact that the latest science calls into question the rationale for
protection of natural spawners. Further, the health of the river has
changed the management equation and until the river is returned to health
and has adequate flows the old management rules are not pertinent.

When I last proposed a similar floor motion it failed 7 to 6 and the
swing vote was the vote against by California Fish and Game. I will need
the public's support in convincing F&G to revisit their position, which
I think they should do in light of the latest science and the economic
consequences to California.

Darrell Ticehurst
PFMC Council Member and proud member of Coastside"

The governor is reached at:

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-445-4633
To send an Electronic Mail please visit:
http://www.govmail.ca.gov

Mike Chrisman is the Secretary of Resources and reports to the
governor, and can be reached at

Resources Agency
1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311
Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 653-5656
(916) 653-8102 fax

Ryan Broddrick is the Director of the Department of Fish and Game and
reports to the Secretary of Resources, and can be reached at

CA Department of Fish & Game
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 653-7667
(916) 653-7387 fax

Here is the link to find your State assemblyman, and your state senator
- enter your zip code and the names and addresses come up:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html

We need you, donâ??t drop the ball.

Bob Franko
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
123 Posts
Sure would be great to have a bunch of our so-cal breatheren to post up that they have sent in letters. I know a bunch of you guys tow up to Moss for salmon fishing. If we don't stop this thing you won't be doing that this year!

Eric

Tyee --- Farallon 25 Fisherman
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,160 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
You didn't expect me to post this w/o submitting
some correspondence to our governor now did you . . .

Here a few words I emailed-off.

To WHOOMEVER . . .

After years and years and years of mis-managing the California
Coast and the coastline resources you propose another closure
of the Klamath River Salmon Season. WE the fisherman of California
suffer again due to the Political CRAP that occurs in Sacramento.

Closing places until you can gather SOLID AND RELEVANT SCIENCE
has got to stop.

There are now posts going up all over the internet, here's one you can check . . .
http://www.allcoastsportfishing.com/forum/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=402&topic_id=2104&mode=full&page=

When are you people going to wake-up UP THERE!?

Thank You.

John Collar.


John.
Parker 2320 'FloMar'.

I received this in return . .

Thank you for your email to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The Governor appreciates hearing from concerned and involved
Californians, as well as from individuals all over the world
who have an interest in California.

Governor Schwarzenegger is committed to restoring your confidence in
state government. As the Governor has said, with hard wo and your
help, California will once again be the "Golden Dream by the Sea".

Due to the unprecedented number of emails sent to the Governor,
there may be a delay in immediately responding to your email.
Please know that the Governor's office is making every effort
to respond to your inquiry and will ensure that your voice is
heard by the Governor.

To help us respond to you, please include your email address when
you communicate with the Governor's Office. Please note that we
are unable to accept e-mail attachments because of the risk of
Internet viruses. We ask that you please send your attachments
via traditional mail to:

Office of the Governor
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814

For more information about Governor Schwarzenegger and the State
of California, please visit the California website at www.ca.gov.

Again, thank you for your email. Governor Schwarzenegger is proud
to serve you and all Californians.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EXCUSE me while I hurl now . . .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,369 Posts
>As you are all aware by now we are faced with an impending
>disaster to
>our 2006 ocean salmon season. Due to the dangerously low
>natural
>spawning of salmon in the Klamath, our salmon season is going
>to be shut down
>

First off I would like to say that I think closures should be a last resort always. I also think that the first closures should always be commercial and not recreational.(I am sure some commercials or going to flame me for that comment)

Second, and I am just wondering, if the spawning is at a dangerously low level, why would we not want to close that fishery until it rebounds or severly restrict it?

Again, I don't like my fishing to be restricted, but if a fishery is in trouble I wouldn't want to be the cause of wiping it out. It seems to me that the spawning levels should be rebuilt to protect the future of that fishery.

If they have no proof that the levels are low, then agree that it should remain open. But if it is true, then they should close it off to the commercials first and restrict the limit to 1 fish per angler per day. JMO

I don't know anything about that fishery and I am not trying stir anything up, but I just didn't understand why we would want to leave something open if the statement above was true. If someone involved in the process could convince me as to why I should support this, then I would be more then happy to give my support.

Just looking for an understanding here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,211 Posts
Hey there guys,

Wait a Minute!! I've got a lifetime license and I've already paid for and got ALL my salmon and steelhead cards. Does this mean I get a partial refund this year if they cancel the season?

Just being silly ...... as I do see the seriousness of this and it's potential impact on other fisheries.

Gonna visit the DFG booth at the show for their take too!

tsuirkichi
 
G

·
"Due to the dangerously low natural
spawning of salmon in the Klamath"

If those truly are your own words, then you're the one waving the big bright red flag.

I see a contradiction erring on the side of economics and not healthy fisheries.

Please detail how wrong I am and do it in this public forum for all to see, and I'll gladly support you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,160 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Politics on a Friday night, I should say not.
It's time to go fishin'!

Maybe you were unaware of all the water that was diverted from
the Klamath the last 4-5 years for irrigation water for the farmers.
This has disrupted the whole ecosystem of the Klamath River!

Now if your a Salmon and you've been spawning in the same habitat
for 50 to 100 years, and all of a sudden the bottom of the river
has been trashed with all the digging and uprooting of the
shoreline, silt and sediment washed awayed, chemicals added,
trees uprooted, and their roots holding things in place are
gone also.

None of the words in the original post are mine, none!
They were passed to me from Bob Franko via email.


The TICEHERST Plan is a cover-up IMO.
These guys (gubment) got the money they wanted from the farmers for
the water, and now that the river is all jacked up . . .
Let's close the Salmon Season so we can try to repair the
damage created over 4-5 years and lets piece it back together
in 18 months. I've been following the Klamath saga for years.

As it relates to Northern California, and fishing,
the COASTSIDE fishing site might be something you
should look into. When you have 12,000 members with
the majority being PB'ers you can't afford to shoot
from the hip with this kind of stuff.

It's politics at it's best, with a side-helping of money and greed.

Hide the critters I'm headed to Catalina!

Have a great weekend!

John.
Parker 2320 'FloMar'.
 
G

·
Sorry, I got mixed up who was saying what to whom. Bob Franko is the one waving the red flag, but JSEA is the one calling the Ticehurst plan a cover up. So, I'm even more confused now.

Franko wants support for the Ticehurst plan: "We need EVERY member of the fishing community, their friends, family, and even their enemies to send a letter to the Governor, Director Broderick, and Secretary of Resources Chrisman urging them to support what we are calling the â??Ticehurst Planâ??."

"It's politics at it's best, with a side-helping of money and greed". Again, still confused.

I'll check out the Coastside info this weekend.

Good luck on the critters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,160 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
I don't remember saying I supported the plan, not once.
And I know I'm going to get roasted for my position.

Closures = years of resource mis-management on all levels,
and then gathering data during the closure period to make
it look like good science and relevant data.

Let me also clarify this statement . .
"It's politics at it's best, with a side-helping of money and greed".

That statement is meant for everyone involved with diverting the
water for the farmers. Money talks, and the Klamath and it's Salmon
are now suffering. That statement had absolutely ZERO to do with
COASTSIDE!

Sure glad I'm amped for my island trip or I wouldn't have been able
to respond until Sunday. I might have been burnt to a crisp by then!

When I can't sleep before a trip, yeah fishing is still for me.

John.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
>I don't remember saying I supported the plan, not once.
>And I know I'm going to get roasted for my position.
>
>Closures = years of resource mis-management on all levels,
>and then gathering data during the closure period to make
>it look like good science and relevant data.
>
>Let me also clarify this statement . .
>"It's politics at it's best, with a side-helping of money and
>greed".
>
>That statement is meant for everyone involved with diverting
>the
>water for the farmers. Money talks, and the Klamath and it's
>Salmon
>are now suffering. That statement had absolutely ZERO to do
>with
>COASTSIDE!
>
>Sure glad I'm amped for my island trip or I wouldn't have been
>able
>to respond until Sunday. I might have been burnt to a crisp by
>then!
>
>When I can't sleep before a trip, yeah fishing is still for
>me.
>
>John.

I am trying to figure out your position here.

The "Ticehurst Plan" is being proposed by Coaside board member and Pacific Fisheries Management Councel member Darrell Ticehurst. The plan calls for an 18-month suspension of the "floor" number for natural (read wild fish) spawners.

The fundamental problem is that the Council is not counting the return of hatchery fish. Due to the massive fish kills in 2001 and 2002 we are now seeing the impacts on the returning wild fish. It is also important to recognize that there is NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "WILD" AND HATCHERY SALMON. None. Genetic studies confirm this.

We (Coastside) are saying that we should not be using the "wild" spawner number for fisheries management. It does not work and is based on 30-year old science. However, it is very valuable in that the number of wild spawners is a direct indicator as to the health of the river. We all know how screwed up the Klamath is. We should be using "wild" fish to manage the fish as a whole, from gravel bed to open ocean, not to manage how many we catch in the ocean.

The fish kills in 01/02 were casued from low flows and the wrong time of year that increased water temp and promoted the growth of algae which further increased the levels of some bacteria. When the salmon came in the river and no place to go they were killed by the 10's of thousands. Some estimates were as high as 60,000 with a minimum of 36,000 I believe.

Both the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of Fish and Game have both said that "overfishing has nothing to do with the situation on the Klamath."

Boats fishing out of SF and south catch on average 4 Klamath for every 1000 Sacramento River fish.

The Ticehurst Plan is the only chance we have to save not only our season but the millions of dollars and jobs and business that depend on salmon every year.


Ben Sleeter
Coastside Fishing Club
Political Team
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
â??The charm of fishing is that it is the pursuit of that which
is elusive but attainable, a perpetual series of occasions for hopeâ??
Let's not lose Hope.

I support the Ticehurst Plan. I have sent out all the letters I can.
PMFC meeting in Seattle next we, so quick action is needed.

Bill Shelton
 
G

·
Thank you Mr Ben Sleeter for clearing up things - at least to me.

If I read your position correctly, you believe anomalous conditions (both natural and man-made) existed that detrimentally impacted the salmon populations. Furthermore, the census methods (using wild vs. hatchery) further distorted the true conditions. The Ticehurst Plan basically calls for NO ACTION until the numbers can be sorted out among all interested parties - including the fishing industry - and the government agencies are calling for a strong REACTION that would negatively impact the lives and families of fishermen.

I would agree that the data needs to be clear before negative action is taken.
 
G

·
Hey John,

Sorry to take your quote out of context, but I wasn't trying to roast you. I didn't even spark up a Bic lighter.

I do believe fisheries can be managed, but management needs to be responsive to all parties involved. Bad data makes for bad decisions. Ticehurst wants to suspend negative management until the data is sorted out. That sounds like a good idea.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
>Thank you Mr Ben Sleeter for clearing up things - at least to
>me.
>
>If I read your position correctly, you believe anomalous
>conditions (both natural and man-made) existed that
>detrimentally impacted the salmon populations. Furthermore,
>the census methods (using wild vs. hatchery) further distorted
>the true conditions. The Ticehurst Plan basically calls for
>NO ACTION until the numbers can be sorted out among all
>interested parties - including the fishing industry - and the
>government agencies are calling for a strong REACTION that
>would negatively impact the lives and families of fishermen.
>
>I would agree that the data needs to be clear before negative
>action is taken.
>

For the most part that is the crutch of our position. Before we decide to put thousands of people on welfare and deny the citizens of California access to what is a very sustainable fishery we need to make sure that decision makes sense both economically and from a resource perspective.

I need to also mention that last years regs were very limiting for salmon - especialy hard hit were the commercial guys. This again was due to the situation on the Klamath. We want last years regs put in place again until the State and Federal govt can come up with a realistic plan that addresses the real issues at hand. We are in no way asking for something that would end up hurting these fish to an even larger degree.

Nobody wants a healthy population of salmon more than us (the Central Valley has been seeing near record runs recently!). This fishery is what keeps recreational fishing going in our corner of the state. We dont have other options to pursue like you guys down south (you guys have it great!). But this problem on the Klamath will not be solved in any way by restricting ocean fishing. These are in-river issues that must be dealt with if "wild" salmon ever stand a chance on the Klamath. So long as California continues to use its land resources the way we do we all better face the fact that salmon hatcheries are not just needed but required. Either that or we just give up on having any salmon at all. (I guess we could all just be happy eating that artifically colored crap thats filled with disease from farm-raised operations.)

I was trying to come up with an analagous situation for southern California today and the best I could do was WSB. Imagine the state closing all WSB fishing because there were not enough "wild" fish (as is probably the case???? I dont know myself) and ignoring the tens of thousands of hatchery fish still available. The thousands (if not millions) of dollars spent on these hatchery programs - nearly all coming from our collective pockets - is nothing but a waste in this situation.

The State and Federal governements are failing us anglers and it is time they be held accountable. It is obvious that big-money politics take a front seat to the actual health of our fisheries and that is a shame.

Ben Sleeter
Coastside Fishing Club
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top