Friday, February 26, 2010

Surfing and commercial fishing are SO similar....

Imagine if surfing was made illegal in Oregon because someone claimed it was harming the fish which tourists were flocking to Oregon to fish for.

Oh don't laugh-----------it could happen.
It has happened in a few small islands.
And commercial fishing in Oregon is being attacked by 'environmental superior-ists' who claim that harvesting fish is bad.

Seriously---as a surfer, fisherman, and naturalist---it is really discouraging to think that this really can happen in the U.S.A.
I am an independent which leans towards democratic due to the opinion that democrats seem to think ahead a bit more than republicans.

But mostly I am a logical thinker.
Give me a logical explanation to a situation and my vote is for you.

It has become fashionable to label the harvester as an "extractor".

Loggers, fisherman, and farmers.
Lately they have come under the observation of those who like to label them negatively with words like extractor---devatstator---raper of the land---etc.

I want to encourage you to expand your mind.

I wear patagonia clothes in an effort to promote earth friendliness.
I recycle EVERY thing I can.
I LOVE nature and want to preserve nature as best we can.
I fill my refrigerator with glass jars ---not plastic.

I love wood, metal, glass----and plastic is the 'fog' of the vision of the future I hate to contribute to.

But---- just a radical thought-----have we gone too far?

Are we now pushing out natural harvest?

Will gardens be considered bad for the environment in our future?

I am not a conspiracy freak.
To me---it's just stating something obvious.
I have a first hand view of the situation

I am a commercial fisherman.

Why are the commercial fisherman labeled so negatively?

Do we all have chickens in our back yard, gardens growing wildly, and do we really fish or hunt for every morsel of fish and flesh we eat?

This country has become so infatuated with making every rural and beautiful area into a tourist attraction, or retirement community, that the biggest developers have decided to come against the traditional harvester.

Labels such as

These are all just smokescreens and distractions from the truth.

We are all to blame for the demise of salmon runs.
We all are responsible for the development and industrialization which has harmed salmon and all of our resources.

We all use the power from the dams which killed salmon runs.
We all build houses with wood which is clear cut from the hills of Oregon.

Please stop acting so innocent.
Bust out of your office cubicle a bit and think realistically.

Blaming the commercial fisherman is simply not ethical.

There are fishers, environmental groups, and developers who impact habitat involved in this debate.
All have fundamentally different values and they will never come to perfect agreement.
Continual debate is inevitable.
Hostility towards those involved in natural resource based harvest jobs is growing.

Fisherman know they do not have the time, money or resources to fight back.

But still the hobby fisherman, so called environmentalists, and developers continue to push the fisherman down and paint a negative picture about their livelihood.
There are people in the U.S.A. claiming to be "environmentally superior" to others. And the sad fact is that many of those 'superior' people live in urban areas and are often afraid to move out to a space more environmentally enriching and safe for their own family.

It really is a shame.

The resources this country was built upon.
The resources we have, and harvest, to other countries have diminished.
We have replaced these things with all the plastic crap in our houses.
And now we export our jobs.

Are intel, nike tennis shoes or microsoft, our new solutions to resource wealth in the NW?

What happened to the hard working, harvesting, people of the United States of America?

Next we will export our children---to work in other countries---to make goods for U.S. consumers.

Children from rural communities are already leaving their home towns and families.
And we wonder why the family values in the U.S.A. are in decline.
They have no promise in the rural region harvest jobs of their father or mother.

These kids are told they can find better work if they move to urban areas, go to college, and strive for a desk job in a cubicle.

And so many anti commercial salmon fisherman people are in favor of this.

What is happening?

I am in favor of making our natural resources in the U.S.A. a number one priority.
My U.S.A. is not just for these "new frontiersmen" who's hobbies, retirement communities, and tourism revolve around the Disneyland version of Oregon I was born into ----and proudly fight to preserve.

Keep Oregon clean, green and mean.

Do we really think that the tourists, and so called conservationists, will take better care of our home than we will?

Is it really the solution to bring in people from all over to go on a guide boat and catch all our fish?

We have goods, and hard working people to make and harvest those goods.
There is a way to balance this out ethically.

There is NO guarantee that the new frontier of "environmentally superior minded" folk will govern with a preservation ethic by which the land or resources preserved will even be made ACCESSIBLE by all.

We who are truly environmentally minded...
We have LIVES and JOBS which revolve around the natural ways of the earth.
We want the earth to sustain a healthy way of being.
We want to harvest, and re harvest, for generations to come.
We want the salmon to propegate for without them we do not have a LIFE.

We do not want to lose any of the existing species of animals, or humans, which currently exist.
We are naturalists and we want nature to thrive.

We believe that there is a way to balance the supply of salmon with the needs of man.

And we also recognize that the urban dwelling--- so called 'environmentally superior'---- minded person is in conflict with our way of life.

We believe those proud and 'superior' people have the power to change laws.
But those people may lose everything -----by trying to save something so irresponsibly.

Read the FINE PRINT.


  1. I am by no means an expert...
    But I would hazard to guess...
    That there's an enormous difference...
    Between your commercial fishing operation...
    And the unsustainable practices of others...
    It is the overharvest...
    Or indiscriminate harvest...
    That put things out of balance...
    People can argue all they want...
    As to whether we are there or not...
    I would be of the opinion that we are...
    Way, way out of balance...
    I don't think that individual operations...
    Should be outlawed or banned...
    I do think there has to be regulation...
    But those regs and restrictions...
    Have little value or effect...
    If it's only applied to one country...
    The oceans seem inexhaustable...
    But they're not...
    They're a limited and finite resource...
    They were inexhaustable 200 years ago...
    But the volume of consumption has grown...
    While the oceans have not...
    There's no easy answer...
    Especially when people's livelihood's are in question...

  2. I'm against marine reserves.... destruction of inland habitat, run-off of fertilzers and city sewage as well as chemicals, the list goes on.

    Clean up our poor waste and capture habits before anything else!

  3. WaveFarmer,
    I agree with you.
    There are some fisheries which are seriously out of balance.

    I participate in a fishery that is overly regulated in my opinion.
    But I understand why this regulation is in place.
    It makes sense.

    We commercial fisherman in the Columbia River were given only 48 hours total to fish in the main Columbia river last year.
    All other netting was done in the off channels which we are harvesting 99% hatchery born fish.

    The main channel opener of only 48 hours is what the ban is against.

    And yet----sport fishing got 68 days straight of fishing for salmon in the main channel.
    They killed 90% of the ESA salmon which were allowed to be killed.

    Commercial fisherman only killed 10%.

    We are being banned not because we are killing Endagered Species Act (ESA) fish....but because the sportfisherman simply want the river to themselves.

    Even though we only got 48hrs.

    They are using propaganda like 'ghost nets' which are old nets hooked to the bottom of the river and still snagging a few fish here and there.
    Those ghost nets are sometimes 50 years old.

    We simply don't have enough time in the river to leave a ghost net anymore.

    The regulations are strict.

    It is good.

    But the allegations of the 'gillnet ban' groups are harshly over exaggerated.

    I could go on.....

    I am working on a documentary now...
    I will let you watch it when it's done.

    The OTHER side of the story on netting.


  4. Surely not disagreeing with you...
    And definitely don't have any facts...
    Sportfishing I am sure has its own set of problems...
    Thanks for the interesting posts.


  5. I have a real concern that they could ban surfing inside marine reserves, because you are harming or interfering with the behavior of sea lions and other sea life that has been put on the federal endangered list and you can not interfer with any endangered animals behavior in the wild and Iam sure you have had a sea lions where you surf in the water.