In Our View: Throw Back Gillnet Rule

With two competing industries in two states vying for the same bounty, conflict is inevitable when it comes to the Columbia River’s salmon harvest. Since 1915, Washington and Oregon have adhered to an uneasy truce, with concurrent seasons and similar rules governing the sport and commercial fishing seasons on a river that long has supplied the economic and cultural lifeblood of the region.

While the future of salmon remains a political football that has drawn billions of dollars in recovery efforts and has generated much discussion and discord, a recent decision by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission threatened what little harmony existed. Fortunately, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown  has stepped in, extolling the virtues of bistate agreement.

On Jan. 20, Oregon’s commission adopted its version of Columbia River reforms, opting for a plan that would violate an accord to limit commercial gillnetting to off-channel areas of the Columbia. That raised the potential for Washington and Oregon to have different commercial and sport seasons, which would end a century of concurrent fishing. Declaring that “non-concurrence between the two states is not acceptable,” Brown directed the commission to change its policy.

Understandably, there is going to be some disagreement over how the states manage the fishery along 145 shared miles of the river, from the mouth to Bonneville Dam. There also is much disagreement over how to allocate the fall chinook catch between sport anglers and commercial gillnetters. Both states adopted reforms in 2013, allocating more salmon for the sport fishery and moving gillnets off the main channel. Those reforms were scheduled to be fully implemented this year — until the Oregon commission tried to throw a monkey wrench into the works.

“Oregon and Washington have invested a great deal of time and effort in resolving conflicts and providing certainty for fisheries in the lower Columbia River,” Brown wrote in a letter to commissioners. “It is the policy of my administration to honor those commitments.”

That was a prudent decision. The truth is, attempting to renege on the agreement or to increase the allocation for commercial gillnetters amounts to an effort at propping up a fading industry. The Columbia River gillnet fleet consists of approximately 180 fishermen, a number dwarfed by the battalion of sport anglers. Much to the chagrin of gillnetters, the critical mass of the sport fishery means that it makes economic and political sense for sport anglers to wield more power as the states attempt to balance competing interests.

Meanwhile, officials in Washington are paying attention. When the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission opted to ignore the agreement between the states, a group of 51 Washington lawmakers sent a letter saying that allowing gillnets in the main channel of the Columbia would “negatively impact recreational fisheries from the river’s mouth to the upper Columbia in Eastern Washington.”

The crux of the issue was best reflected in something that Oregon legislator Betsy Johnson told The Oregonian. “What we really have here are two groups fighting over who catches the most fish,” she said. “Or the last fish.”

Poor management policies that ignore bistate agreements or cater to one particular side would help to hasten that calamity. Oregon Gov. Kate Brown was wise to hold her state’s commission accountable.