----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000
7:50 PM
Subject: Fw: Alert: Commercial Harvest
for Chum Eggs
Thought this might be of interest & there's still
some time left for input- Bill Hamilton
All -- I'll confess that I didn't
have a clue as to the scope of this practice. If you are as
dismayed as I, you may wish to write a letter as indicated below.
-- Doug -----Original Message-----
From: Douglas C. Schaad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 8:29 AM
To: Douglas C. Schaad PhD
Subject: TRIBnet Home Page
Now that facts are out, let's find use for chum
Bob Mottram; News Tribune outdoors writer
Please place the back of one hand against your forehead - either hand
is
OK - and repeat after me.
"Ai-yai-yai! Ain't it awful! Ain't it awful!"
There you've got it; the typical response - virtually the only response
- of
the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in recent years to the
institutionalized waste of chum salmon carcasses by a commercial fishing
industry that strips the fish of eggs then throws the carcasses away
because
of lack of demand for them.
Until last week.
Last week, the department's deputy director acknowledged publicly that,
in
spite of the waste, the fishery for eggs is far too valuable to stop.
He
said that Washington's net fishermen - tribal and nontribal - make
too much
money from the eggs for the state to simply quit producing the hatchery
fish
that contribute so much to the problem.
The deputy director's name is Larry Peck, and you've got to give him
credit
for candor. He put the issue squarely on the table.
For years the department, including its enforcement branch, has pretended
to
be horrified by the waste, which when perpetrated by non-Indians appears
to
violate state law. For years the agency has declared, when confronted
with
the issue by the media - but only when confronted - that it intends
to find
the perpetrators and, if they are non-Indian, intends to write them
up.
For their part the tribes, also when confronted with the issue, have
responded with "ain't-it-awfuls" of their own. Their tribal regulations,
some of them point out, also prohibit wastage.
But the practice continues.
If the state truly were serious about stopping or reducing the waste,
all it
would have to do is stop or reduce its production of hatchery chum.
But it
hasn't. It continues to produce the fish knowing no market exists for
their
flesh, just for their eggs.
And, finally, Peck has candidly stated why. A mature female chum, laden
with
orange eggs, is worth a lot of money, perhaps three times as much as
a
typical coho salmon, whose flesh is highly prized. The average netter,
he
implied, would rather catch a chum than catch a coho.
The facts are finally on the table. So let's forget about decreasing
chum
production, because it isn't going to happen. Let's abandon the hypocrisy
of
our "ain't-it-awfuls." Let's get serious, instead, about finding viable
uses
for the fishes' flesh - as fertilizer, as hatchery fish food, as nutrients
for watersheds, as whatever else that's useful.
And let's stop this awful practice of turning our remarkable salmonid
heritage into useless garbage. How can we explain that to our kids?
*
Meanwhile, the department does seem to be trying to stir itself off
dead-stop in order to move, however tentatively, in the direction of
addressing the issue.
It's holding three public meetings this week to take public comment
on a
series of commercial fishing subjects, one of which is a proposal to
prohibit fishermen from removing eggs from a fish to sell separate
from the
fish.
None of the meetings will be convenient to Pierce County people. One
is
tonight in Mill Creek, north of Seattle; another is Thursday evening
in
Montesano, the third is Friday evening in Longview.
Still, written comments may be sent before Dec. 12 to Dick Geist, Department
of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way N., Olympia 98501-1091. They
also may
be faxed to 360-902-2949 or e-mailed to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The department intends to go to the Fish and Wildlife Commission in
February
with a fish-egg regulation recommendation.
*
So, why does the department need a regulation? What's the matter with
simply
enforcing the state law against fish wastage?
Well, plenty.
Evan Jacoby, the department's enforcement division legal specialist,
says
the wastage law isn't all it's cracked up to be. At least not as far
as
salmon are concerned.
A problem crept in when the Legislature recodified the section of law
on
fish and wildlife enforcement in 1998. The new version makes it a gross
misdemeanor to recklessly waste big game or to waste other fish or
wildlife
worth $250 or more. It's a simple misdemeanor to waste fish or wildlife
worth less than $250 but more than $20.
Wasting less than $20 worth isn't against the law, and 1998 was the
first
time that a monetary minimum was set. The $20 was suggested by a lawmaker
who didn't think the state should make a criminal out of someone who
inadvertently allowed a couple of trout, perhaps, or a duck, to spoil,
Jacoby said.
So, how do you prosecute a commercial fishermen who might reasonably
argue
that the hundreds of salmon he discarded aren't worth the $20?
"It's not technically correct to say those chum salmon are worth nothing,"
Jacoby said. "But they're not worth much."
- - -
* Reach staff writer Bob Mottram at 253-597-8640, or
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
