VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

04/18/26 11:10amLogin ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1[2]34 ]


Clatsop County Matters
Click on any of the pictures below to link you to a blog written by one of your neighbors, friends, colleagues, or info on a local agency or someone you are thinking of voting for

Welcome to Clatsop County Matters

While this was a forum to respectfully discuss those matters which concern the citizens who live, work and play in this small corner of the Pacific Northwest, the time has come to use a new board for our forum. We are moving our main discussion forum over to Clatsop County Matters'Dried Salmon Forum at Proboards. Please join us there. Sharing news and views of Clatsop County's agencies, governing bodies, businesses, schools, plans, projects and future.
Note posting agreement at bottom of page
Please, use this Voy forum for posting events

and this oneClassifieds for posting your items for sale.

The archives are still here (look up at the top of this page, over on the righthand corner, click on one of the numbered pages) to read and you can cut and paste them over to the other forum board. You can no longer reply to the threads. We hope to see you on the other forum board. Also, remember to visit the bloggers and other sites linked to on this page.
Clatsop County Matters blog


Subject: Cenci of Washington Dept of Fish and Wildlife needs to be fired


Author:
Grossman
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 10/25/06 1:32am

Recently Trooper James Long pleaded not guilty to a charge of theft and perjury stemming from allegations that he was commercially fishing while collecting $20,000 in disability payments for an on-duty injury. Instead of punishing this guy he's a valuable resource that should be used. Pacific County and the WDFW have few agents that know how fishermen need to work in order to have a healthy fishery and its sad to drive away a possibly smart officer on frivilous charges. Just look at the recent boarding of vessels and ticketing fishermen in the Columbia for sturgeon in gillnetters boats as an example of the local agents' incompetence. Every fishermen knows those fish have to be there or they would just end up back in the nets, over and over again. These agents are wasting the taxpayers money by boarding these vessels and drumming up false charges against them, just to ensure they get to keep their large budgets. If Burke prosecutes these fishermen he should be run out of office. Cenci, lead bandit of WDFW raiding party that boarded the vessels should be reprimanded and he should receive adequate training so that he knows how a gillnetter fishes. His vigilante days of the rogue river cop need to be curtailed before he destroys the economy of the communities along the river. His scare tactics to try to silence the gillnetters have come to no avail. He may be able to take a few of us down, but not all of us. Keep reading the papers and you will see how ridiculous his charges against honest fishermen are. Even sports clam diggers are targetted by his agents if they are the same fishermen who challenge him. Some alleged charges happened six to eight months ago. In some cases the charges are even one to two years old and the fisherman have recently received them in the mail! Yet, if the fisherman is someone who has challenged Cenci's authority, or called him on an illegal action, he will tag the person to be harassed. He is using taxpayers money to do this and he is doing this so to validate his budget and so that his budget can be increased, more elite equipment bought and more men employed and controlled by him. Never before has the river been fished by more honest fishermen and that this man is, literally, fishing for false allegations against us is disturbing and sickening.
[> Subject: The law is the law


Author:
persecution complex?
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 08/27/06 7:29am

If the law says 7 sturgeon, than 7 it is...not 100 or so. It seems to me that the river with it's fishing industry having problems, ie. not as many fish, was caused by fishermen who didn't give a damn about the laws and limits of fishes caught. I don't buy your argument that one guy is "out to get" you and other fishermen. If the guy that got caught had too big of a net, then he obviously wanted to catch more. He should know, and probably did, that his "bycatch" would be bigger also. I'm sure that he knew what he was doing and was probably going to sell those fish when he got back to shore.

So...let's keep a guy on the job that doesn't follow the rules, and fire a guy that does and enforces the rules. You may not like the rules, but hey, SO WHAT. They are there for a reason. I don't know any of these guys, but I say KUDOs to the Cenci guy that does his job.
[> [> Subject: You a sports fisherman with Cenci in your back pocket?


Author:
ebb
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 08/27/06 11:50am

You a sports fisherman? You got Cenci in your back pocket? Thats is what this is about. Who supports these communities? You have never gillnetted the river so you don't know what you are talking about. Every single fisherman who has knows you end up with hundreds of fish in your boat thats why Wells said what he did. And, if your not a sportsfisherman plant or BPA, of course your going to say thats why we are low on fish. Our fish are gone because of the dams, period. Not because of over fishing. Persecution complex! Sports fisherman! If you were observant you would have noted that another gillnetter who was not also fined for additional net (BS) was tagged for a mere 45 fish in the bottom if his boat. These fish get trapped in the net. If they are thrown back in the river right where the gillnetter is dragging then they just go right back in the net. Your glad this man is "just doing his job"? Hope someone "just does his job" on you and you know its karma.
[> [> [> Subject: The law is still the LAWWWW


Author:
Flow
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 08/27/06 1:27pm

Sorry, Ebb, you don't know what you are talking about. You are simply just wrong! Seems like you could use a little anger management control.

First of all, I don't know who Cenci even is (other than what you have posted). Yeah, it still sounds to me like the guy is doing his job. Second, I'm not a sports fisherman nor do I ever intend to be. I'm just a concerned, interested citizen. Third, I'm not a gilnetter either, but I do know some information about gilnetters and sports fisherman too.

100 fish? or someone else says 45 fishies. Isn't that still an itsy bit more than 7? Seems like simple mathematics. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 AND 7 !! that's it!

What happens to those fish that sit in the bottom of a boat for, say, 4 hours or so? How long does a fish out of water really last? Ahh, let's see now.... just think about it. Maybe you are an expert on fish breathing out of water and can answer that one? How long can you hold your breath?

You say what you say, but I also know aout what some gilnetters do and what others have not done. Yeah, as a matter of fact, I HAVE been on a gilnet boat many times, Ebb, and the fisherman I was with did no such thing! There were no sturgeon kept on his boat! He would quickly get any unwanted fish out of his net to free it. So, there is always another side to a story. There are good fisherman and then there are bad ones. Some know how to count and others don't. Simple as that.

By the way, FYI, Ebb, I don't eat salmon or sturgeon. Just way too much cancer in those fishes.

Have a good day. Try some relaxation therapy--it may help.

Sincerely, FLOW
[> [> [> [> Subject: Your a liar


Author:
Truth of it
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 08/27/06 5:07pm

You have never been with some one dragging a net. You are a liar to say that there's some gillnetting moron out there that grabbed the fish as it came out of the net and dumped it right back in the river to be hauled right back up in the net again. You are a fuking idiot if your saying that doesn't happen. That's the truth of it. And where is this supposed cancer coming from and whose vessel were you supposedly on that immediatly released thier fish? And if they all have cancer, what difference does it make to you if we fish them all and why don't you go after whatever gave them the cancer instead of shitting on people trying to make a living instead of the people preventing us from doing it? How do you know whether or not I know the guy. Do you know him? Is that why your writing on his defense? WTF I don't know him?

The "law" that were fighting is the terminology. It says fish must be immediately released when the fisherman has the opportunity to do so and its safe to do so. Cenci's agents have the discrecion to decide if the fisherman has had the opportunity to do so. They are deciding that the fisherman is going to do something illegal (such as sell an illegal fish) before that has happened. Where else is such a thing allowed? Fining someone for a supposed "thought" of maybe breaking the law?

This is what YOU don't understand. A fishing vessel is the only privately owned place that a law enforcement agent can enter without a warrant or even suspesion. They can board a vessel without probable cause look around and leave. They don't even have to say what their looking for. They are imagining that a fisherman is going to do something illegal with his fish even before he has indicated that he is going to do so. In the past twenty years that WDFW has been on the job looking for fishing violations/poachers spending millions of taxpayers dollars you know how many convictions resulting in jail time they have? Less than one dozen. You know how much they net in fishing violations from Columbia river fisherman? Less than $10,000/year and thats at $300 to $1000 per pop for things such as (gods honest truth) not having corks red enough (a $300 fine), having a busted light ($300 fine), not having a live box running (even when there wasn't any fish in the boat $500 fine). As many as 10 agents on the water for 12 hours in three boats to write one $300 ticket sometimes thats how honest your local gillnetters are.

That's why these agents HAVE to randomly board one or two of the gillnetters boats to raid. They HAVE to find some reason to justify their jobs or they are going to loose their budgets. They aren't like staters with patrol cars in the public eye on the freeways. These guys have boats and equipment they can play with all day long with little supervision and they will loose them if they don't start showing that they actually do something with them. The fact of the matter is that Clatsop, Pacific and Wahkiakum counties have good fisherman and what these agents are doing has nothing to do with keeping us honest they just impede us doing our jobs. The big owners with many vessels as well as the cannaries that own fleets do you think what the agents do harms them or threatens them or makes them fish safer or more honest? Hell no.

Don't you think if the agents really wanted to catch fishermen selling illegal fish they would wait for that action to happen (like where the buying takes place at the canaries and processors)? But then they wouldn't get the fun equipment just plain old cars and clip boards.

What they do instead is violate basic liberty. That's like giving you a fine in a store for shoplifting because your basket was full and so you carried something around in your hand instead of switching to a shopping cart. You MIGHT have slipped it into your pocket and then you MIGHT have walked out of the store without paying for it. Or you MIGHT have paid for it! At what point do you deserve the fine? The letter of the law says if you "take it without paying for it" the interpretation is in what is take? When it enters your possesion? Does that mean your pocket? Your purse? When you leave the store? If the store's security job depended on apprehending shoplifters and/or increasing revenue -not just preventing crime- don't you think that the intrepretation of shoplifting might change from when you left the store (or passed through the checkout line) to whenever the product looked like it might be entering your pocket or purse? Hell yeah!

And so it is with this group of agents. They board boats randomly and if your boarded you might as well bend over cause your gonna get screwed. Anger management? Thats what these boards are for. I don't see anyone huggin anyone here.
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: What a mouth of spew


Author:
Columbia Fish
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 08/28/06 11:42am

TAKE SOME PROZAC!
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Isn't that witty reparte coming from a Portland sports fisherman


Author:
native spawn
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 08/28/06 2:31pm

Ahhhh, getting Portland/Olympia to fight your battles, Cenci?

If you are so sure this is all on the up and up follow along. Contact Burke (360) 875-9361 or (360) 642-9361 email: dburke@co.pacific.wa.us. and tell him you want to be kept informed on how this case comes out. Ask him how many other cases he is prosecuting against fishermen. Ask him if Cenci's team has targetted any fishermen for, say, alleged clam digging violations or any other paltry violations as a way of harassing them for reporting Cenci's illegal on river harassment. If you are soooo sure of Cenci's innocence call Burke up or email him and just ask him.

Or, tell EVERYONE to go take prozac. Wonder which way the cowards in portland/olympia will take?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Sorry pal, Not sports fisherman...


Author:
same here
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 08/29/06 6:04am

...not from Portland or anywhere else. It seems to me that you just have a thing against any kind of authority. I bet you blame the cop for pulling you over for speeding. Damnit, it's your RIGHT to be speeding, who does that guy think he is? Get over your big bad self, and obey the LAW, whether it be "dragging" or Clam digging. Harassing? Sounds like you really do have a persecution complex.

By the way, I really don't know any of the Fish and Wildlife guys.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: So far you haven't countered a single point - You do sound lilke a politician or portlander


Author:
Dr. Alan Nichols
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 08/30/06 12:37am

It sounds like whom has a problem with *any* kind of authority?

Didn't seem to sound like it to anyone else from here.

It sounded like someone who was angry with an interpretation of a law they thought was unjust. It sounds like people who have actually been in a gillnett boat when its dragging and know that you can't throw fish right back into the river in the same area you are fishing from. It sounds like people talking out of their ass focus on the person instead of the incident.

YOU didn't talk about a single point made, just tried to attack the person making the points. Sounds like you actually do know someone in WDFW or you'd talk about the points made. Or, you ARE a sports fisherman from portland.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Again...neither a Portlander or sport fisherman


Author:
Al the Pal
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 08/30/06 5:30am

What points do you want me to address? Fish in the bottom of the boat that is more than the amount you're supposed to have? Answers itself...if it's over the amount you're supposed to have, then you should be ticketed by the authorities. Cenci being "out to get" whoever ruffles his feathers? Like I told you, I don't know the guy, but it sounds like he's doing his job (whether you like it or not). You don't like the law? get some people together and try and change it. As I have said, I have rode and worked with a gilnetter and he didn't put any other fish in the bottom of his boat, he was just in a hurry to get it cut out of his net so that it didn't amount to more problems. I guess if he can do it, so can anyone else. Do fish and wildlife people have too much power, to be able to board boats whenever they want? They probably don't have enough power (too much for you though, hunh)

I've "talked" to you for longer on this than I originally thought I would, cause I really don't give a damn what you do or think that I am. As I stated earlier, I don't eat the fish from this river anyway, so....do what you want.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: stop it native you dont even care about white fishermen


Author:
melissa
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 08/30/06 10:25am

your too funny! dont even like white fishermen! you said that this was just punishment for all the years they had the cops in their back pockets. what are you doing now defending them?
[> [> Subject: Complex persecution


Author:
Town Blinker
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09/ 5/06 1:19am

persecution complex said:

"I'm sure that he knew what he was doing and was probably going to sell those fish when he got back to shore."
-----------------------------------------------------

Oh you're "sure", huh? Well, mister, you don't know the goddamn first thing about gillnetting or selling fish.
If you're so sure, perhaps you'd give us some examples of lower river gillnetters selling big loads of small juvenile sturgeon. Tell us where they get sold and who buys them-tell us how many truck fulls of small sturgeon get driven away from the West End and East End mooring bases, I mean, you are so sure it's happening. Sometimes there's lots of baby sturgeon in the river and the fishermen pick'em up-but they arent kept because it's illegal and they're to small to be worth anything-they always get returned to the river when the net is back on board. I dont know where you come up with this "four hour" figure, but if you're such an expert on fishing the lower river perhaps you can also tell us just where anyone could keep a floater on a drift for four hours on a running ebb or flood tide and not have it shredded to ribbons. The idea of a four hour drift is so ridiculous it proves to me you know absolutely ZILCH!!! and just have an axe to grind with commercial fisherman.
[> [> [> Subject: EXACTLY! i'd like to know who he'd sell them to?


Author:
nucking futz
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09/ 5/06 12:35pm

maybe this guy knows of a market the rest of us are unaware of plus i'd like to know who the gillnetter is that he supposedly fished with. maybe he could show everyone else how its "done right" huh? he still hasnt told us who this fisherman is that supposedly showed him how to drag the "right" way.
[> [> [> [> Subject: Just eats ya alive, don't it


Author:
fishy fishy
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09/ 5/06 4:49pm

Knowin that someone else knows how to do it better than you. Sorry, I ain't tellin, and yes this person does exist. By the way the 4 hour thing came from down a few postings. Didn't come up with it out of the blue, someone else did. As for the fish being sold, yeah, I would imagine they could wait at the dock and watch for it to be sold. Maybe, just maybe, they want the fish to be able to go back into the water. It's a good thought anyway, but I'm sure that's not the reason, nothing like catchin somebody in the act.
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: I doubt he's afraid of a fairy tale


Author:
Grossman
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09/ 6/06 3:05pm

they don't have that kind of power. There is no way a fisherman throws a fish right back into the river to be caught right back up in his net. You are just sounding like an idiot to insist that this fisherman that you were with did indeed do so. Unless he was high or the most incompetent jackass that ever fished the river.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: ya know what I think, Grossman?


Author:
Town Blinker
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09/ 6/06 6:37pm

I think our friend here isn't so virtuous and either is his fishing buddy. It's the old "one finger pointing at you while four are pointing back at me." He's projecting his own dishonest experience on others ie.; he and his buddy smuggled off a few sturgeon because it was easy and they got away with it. Therefore, by his thinking, everyone who unintentionally catches a few, or a lot, of shorts is also bootlegging them.
He went too far in describing the care his so called friend exercised in returning the fish immediately. He's lying because he's guilty of doing what he is accusing others of doing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: You may be right


Author:
Grossman
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09/ 7/06 7:32pm

As long as everyone reading knows him for a liar or a thief. His hatred for the commercial fisherman is pretty apparent. Wonder what that's about?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re. "Wonder what that's about?"


Author:
Town Blinker
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09/ 8/06 1:28am

oh, just another one of those greedy dishonest so called sportsmen who think everything belongs to them.

Of course, it isn't hard to discern just who gets more fishing violations at the Columbia River. The participants in the sport fishery collectively rack up hundreds of exceeding bag limits, undersized fish, wrong species and taking non-fin clipped fish citations.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Believe me, I don't like them either


Author:
So unloved
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09/ 8/06 5:40am

I agree with you completely that the Sportfishermen are alot worse. I have heard tails from some that they take extra fish, wrong size fish, etc. As I stated, and I wasn't lying, I am not a fisherman at all. The fisherman was someone that I went fishing with a time or two, and it was quite a few years back(when fish were more plentiful).

Say what you will that's all there is to it. I'm sure that there are dishonest people on both sides.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: That might explain why you thought he fished in a certain manner


Author:
art
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09/11/06 1:16am

Maybe you fished with him during a different season? There is no way that, on a consistent basis, a fisherman pulls just seven sturgeon out of his net when he is in the river in the fall. It usually is between 10-50 but I have been on a boat when it was hundreds and you want them out as quick as you can because all they are doing is taking up room for fish that there are actually a market for. On the other hand if you throw them out right where you set your net out they are just going to end right back in your net. It isn't good for the fish to be grabbed by the gills over and over again as they are pulled out of the net, either. So, it isn't in the sturgeon's best interest of survival to be thrown back into the same area over and over again.

Fishermen don't have a reason to keep such a huge catch of illegal fish. There's no market for them and there's way to many to take to friends and family for "gifts" so its a ridiculous claim that these fishermen are purposefully catching/keeping the sturgeon for any reason.

This is why fishermen are having a hard time believing you. Your having a hard time believing fish and wildlife agents are pressured by sports fishermen lobbyists to concoct violations against commercial fishermen because if facts were looked at people could see that sports fishermen get more violations by a margin of atleast 10:1. But the thing of it is that its neither the sports or the commercial fishermen that are causing the fish to disappear on the river it is the dams. ALL of the fishermen know that but BPA would have the sports and the commercial and native fishermen all at one another's throats right and left rather than joining together to go after the power companies and their dams who are the true culprits.

We'll sit here in little pissing matches while they get away with the rape of the river.

PIRATES on the Columbia illegally taking and destroying our fish? Look to the dams, the companies that need them for their incomes and the politicans who's pockets are lined with their lobbyists' monies!
[> [> Subject: Redux: "probably going to sell those fish"


Author:
Town Blinker
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09/ 5/06 8:05pm

persecution complex? said:
"I'm sure that he knew what he was doing and was probably going to sell those fish when he got back to shore."

You're right that he did know what he was doing.
But you're 100% wrong if you think him, or 99.9% of Columbia River gillnetters and processors engage in under the table commerce on shorts or bycatch.

You're whole premise is founded in ignorance and you are talking out your ass. During any opening in August, there isn't one boat in the fleet fishing Tongue Point on down (Area 1) that doesnt collect a gob of short sturgeon on the low water sets. Some guys will get them worse than others, but they are neither targeted or kept and smuggled off in some imaginary black market. They are a nuisance, but an unavoidable nuisance and are immediately returned to the river when the net is all in. No one is going to risk the huge fine running around or going to the beach with a boat full of short sturgeon and certainly no buyer/processor is going to let several hundred pounds or more of short sturgeon cross his dock. The severe consequences of those actions by far outweigh any nominal monetary benefit.
[> [> [> Subject: Good points


Author:
Grossman
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09/ 6/06 1:53pm

Excellent post, Town Blinker.

I am especially interested in the supposed gillnetter who took pc out on the river and supposedly dumped the short sturgeon right back into the river as he was bringing in his net. Yeah, right. I think pc talked to the fisherman again and found out he was talking out of his ass and the fisherman didn't want his name used.

I am frustrated at the Fish and Wildlife Department. I am frustrated with a law that allows them to board without probable cause and w/o saying what they are looking for, especially in a dangerous work place like a slippery deck when fish are being ahuled in.

I am frustrated with agents who don't know what to look for and who pretend there is a market for something when there isn't. There wouldn't even be anyone to sell that many fish to. I know some people think fishermen keep illegal fish for themselves but that many is ridiculous. To think that a fisherman is going to throw fish right back in the river only for them to be caught right back up in the net is stupidity. A fish and wildlife agent should know this when we are talking about a livlihood and community's economy here. We need congress people on both sides of the river to step up to the plate and note what is happening to jeopardize it.

We have agents that interpret laws in a way which illegally infringes on our 4th amendment rights. We have agents who have no idea how fishermen operate who are free to loosely interpret laws in a manner which best protects their own jobs as river police with an expensive price tag, equipment and wages to match.

This is inconsistent with providing for a safe community as well as a stable economy. The safety of the community has not been ensured by these random boat searches. Not once have the searches found anything that have threatened the community. Any and all violations that these searches have found have been at the INTERPRETATION of the law by the agent. It is ALWAYS cheaper for the fisherman to pay the fine then to get a lawyer and fight the ticket, which is what the agent is banking on. This ensures his job is secure. However, his job is NOT NEEDED. Taxpayers NEED to realize that if they want to save money river police via the fish and wildlife department are not needed and funding for them should be slashed completely.

The Coast Guard does the real job. They keep the "pirates" from operating and do the searches for drugs. They are even Fish and Wildlife's back up when enough agents cannot be rounded up for a raid or one of their boats are down.

ALL of fish and wildlife's work can be done from shore. They certainly obtain warrants for the vessels that they can prove to a judge need to be searched and they can watch the boats offload at the canneries/buyers/processors. Taxpayers are paying unneedfully for overtime, equipment, and supposed expert training that isn't really forthcoming and certainly isn't pertinent to the fishermen on the Columbia River.

I urge people to follow native's advice and contact the Pacific county prosecutor, DA Burke (360) 875-9361 or (360) 642-9361 email: dburke@co.pacific.wa.us and see how many fishermen have been cited "violations" what kind of violations and if these violations came after they reported an agent for abuse of office. Contact DA Marquis, (503) 325-8581 Email: jmarquis@co.clatsop.or.us for cases of Oregon fish and wildlife agent abuse issues, although they don't seem as prevelant. I think this is because the agents are more reluctant to lie to the judges on this side of the river.

One interesting case: Two fishermen, under the age of 18, were about to have their case dismissed (thier corks were'nt red enough) when the ODFW agent came into the hearing and told the ADA that he had been informed by the WDFW that the two had been arrested on similar violations and were awaiting sentencing in Washington. The boys protested their innocence and their attorney asked for their supposed file to be faxed to the court. The agent said it was part of an ongoing investigation and could not yet be released. So, suddenly this was no longer a first and only violation but they were ongoing problem juvenile delinquents (in the agent's words) so they were fined and given a year's probation! This was over 18 months ago, now, and still nothing ever materialized from the supposed ongoing investigation of the Washington Dept of Fish and Wildlife. However, the boys' father had made a report against the WDFW's agents' abuse of power. Message delivered swift and sure: you report any of us and we will get you no matter what side of the river your on!

Some fishermen were shaking their heads, muttering "foking idiots" and thinking they deserve what they get when they "rock the boat." However, now that the WDFW and ODFW are randomly coming down on more and more fishermen what should be learned is that those that don't stick together to stop abuse of power will one by one be picked off. They've got to stop picking one fisherman to be thrown to the dogs for the season and stick together to make lasting change or sooner or later it is going to be their turn, or the only ones left in the fleet will be the ones owned by the canneries/rich guys. No more small independent owners.
[> Subject: i called and fishermen were charged in several clam harvesting violations


Author:
freaking out
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09/ 1/06 12:47pm

however he failed to see a correlation. asked if these fishermen had ever complained of being harassed by cenci he said he couldnt remember. asked if there had been recent complaints against cenci and it wasnt a matter of public record and none of my business! isnt it a matter of public record if a public officer has complaints against him? does it feel like a threat if a public office tells you that something is none of your business?
[> [> Subject: You still don't get it!!


Author:
The LAW
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09/ 1/06 4:00pm

and I guess you never will. How can it be harassment if they are violating the law. Now if this Cenci guy was trying to catch the fishermen and they were obeying the rules, and he tried it over and over, with nothing found. Then I would say that that was harassment. Currently, it sounds like he's observing all of the lawbreakers and going after them. Sounds like a good lawman. Nothing more, nothing less. How can you claim harassment if you're GUILTY?
[> [> [> Subject: you too


Author:
nucking futz
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09/ 3/06 12:41pm

first of all i am not the same person (as a matter of fact i am pretty sure there are atleast three people writing on this thread) and second of all your right. one of the fishermen with a clam harvesting violation was a fisherman not doing anything wrong and cenci stopped and boarded his boat four times before he finally found something and what he found is that "his corks werent painted orange enough"! the fisherman reported cenci for harassment. the fisherman then had his vessel boarded every time he took it out. the fisherman then was stopped everytime he dug clams. the last time in frustration he just gave his clams to the agent and told him he could have them. three months later he received a ticket in the mail for interferring with an officer performing his duty wasting shellfish illegally disposing of shellfish.

if a law person wants to get you they can find a way because so much of it is in interpretation and thats the point it seems you are determined to ignore in all of the posts that have been made. it is an interpretation as to whether or not the fisherman is "immediately" returning the fish to the river in a manner which does not endanger the fish and gives it the best chance of survival. just like the cop who will give the white guy a slap on the wrist for having his license plate light out and will give a ticket to the hispanic for the same "violation" because it is in his discretion as to whether or not something is a clear violation or something that just warrants a warning.

a fishing and wildlife agent can say it appeared that the person dug and then illegally released clams that were small so that they could get larger ones as part of their clam limit. what you dont get is that there is no way to combat that except to say, "nuh-uh". what you dont get is that people do have concerns about corruption about abuse of powers and about agencies trying to inflate their budgets by ilegally ticketing and harassing honest business man.

you do seem awfuly compliant and pretty persistent for someone who doesnt have anything to do with this matter. as someone who doesnt eat fish or know anyone in the enforcement agency and supposedly knows a gillnetter well enough to sit in on a catch (what was he fishing for? when was it? what season? which could very well explain why there were merely seven fish in the bottom of the boat) you seem pretty vested to complete this argument.

your argument that the person should follow the law until they can get it changed is not valid. all lawmakers would say is that it seems to be working so far. they have to show that it is not working in order for it to change. also, i can not believe that any citizen would totally ignore the fact that agents can board vessels without a warrant. thats crazy! that law needs to be changed. they need to show that there is reason to believe a certain boat is violating the law just like anywhere else. it boggles my mind that agents can do such a thing and it is further proof how absolute power corrupts absolutely.
[> [> [> [> Subject: Couple of things


Author:
yes you are
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09/ 4/06 12:01pm

There are a few problems with your post. One that sticks out like a sore thumb is your choice of the word "immediate" as far as when the fish get released back into the water. In whose book is 4 hours, Yes, 4 hours considered immediate. Not in anybodys I know (except for fishermen). I would think an "immediate" release would be within half an hour of catching(at least) for best chance of fish survival. There is the other problem with the net, oh, but that's just a minor thing.

I would agree that in your first paragraph, it appears that person is being harrassed or targeted.

So people shouldn't follow the law at all. Instead of trying to change the law, let's just not follow it. Where does that stop? Apparently it doesn't. Let's just say that a law enforcement officer needs to get a warrant to board a fishing boat, where is he going to find one before the fisherman FINALLY dumps the illegal fish overboard. Maybe we need to start paying for judges to be out on boats, so that the enforcement agents can pull up to his boat and get a warrant and then go serve it. Better yet, screw it, everyone knows that fishermen are all the honest type. Yeah, right!! We should just do away with all fish and wildlife guys. In this case it's just like a vehicle on the road, and gets treated the same. No warrant needed.

If you don't do anything wrong, you wouldn't need to worry about fish and wildlife guys.
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: 4th Ammendment, ever heard of it? Since we are all innocent why bother having a constitution?


Author:
Legal Minded
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09/ 4/06 3:24pm

[Let's just say that a law enforcement officer needs to get a warrant to board a fishing boat, where is he going to find one before the fisherman FINALLY dumps the illegal fish overboard. Maybe we need to start paying for judges to be out on boats, so that the enforcement agents can pull up to his boat and get a warrant and then go serve it. Better yet, screw it, everyone knows that fishermen are all the honest type. Yeah, right!! We should just do away with all fish and wildlife guys. In this case it's just like a vehicle on the road, and gets treated the same.]

A fishing vessel is not treated like an automobile in that an agent does not have to show just cause for boarding. As an automobile driver an officer that pulls you over does not have the right to search your vehicle without just cause. Even if that vehicle is your business enterprise they must have just cause to enter/search it, even if everyone in town suspects you of being a drug dealer if there isn't a warrant for a search the officer can not search your vehicle unless he can say in a court of law that he saw you using your vehicle in a manner which directly indicated that you had drugs in it. Judges are not riding around with cops and I think that drugs are a much more detriment in our society than illegal fish, don't you?

The Fish and Wildlife agents can raid the fishbuyers plants, the canneries/processors if those businesses are buying illegal fish. They can wait for the boats to come in and watch them offload, which would certainly be safer and a lot less expensive for the taxpayer than all the shenanigans being pulled on the river. The vessel boardings are not necesary to catch the fishermen who are catching illegal fish and are a clear violation of the 4th ammendment.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Partial correction ...


Author:
Walter Richards
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09/ 7/06 9:58am

Quote: "As an automobile driver an officer that pulls you over does not have the right to search your vehicle without just cause."

Courts have repeatedly ruled you don't have an "expectation of privacy" in your car. The officer CAN search your car ... just not a full search. IE: Anything lying in the open is fair game. Which basically means the only things an officer can't search (unless you count secret compartments) are the glove box and trunk. And if you keep your insurance/title papers in the glove box - as most people do - the officer can "search" that as soon as you open it to retreive those papers.

And even then, when you cross the border, they don't need a warrant to fully search your car. Their only "cause" is that you're entering the country (legally, I might add).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Understand your point however


Author:
Grossman
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09/ 7/06 8:14pm

Maybe it doesn't qualify as a search when they don't enter the vehicle. It is what lies in "plain sight" and then if it looks suspicious they have the right for further investigation. However, pulling you over, in the first place, wasn't random, it was because you were in violation of a law. While we have the U.S. Supreme Court ruling 5-4 in the Michigan v. Sitz case that allows stops without warrant or suspicion as "justified" because of the severity of the drunk driving problem it is known as "The DUI Exception to the Constitution," why isn't the boarding of the commercial fishing vessel by law enforcement agents w/o probable cause not known by any exception to the consitution?

In each circumstance of random searches of vehicles it is because of the safety of the public, health as well as acts of terrorism in the case of at the border. Drunk driving endangers everyone on the roads. The random searches of fishing boats? For what safety benefit is that? Endangered species? Then every single person coming out of any forest area should be able to be searched, as well as have to carry a camera into the wilderness with them since they, potentially, could be destroying habitation or endangered species themselves. No, random searches are, as the judges ruled in Michigan v. Sitz case, because of the severity of the problem. There has been little problem of commercial poaching occurring, absolutely not severe, neither documented nor undocumented.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Perhaps it's viewed differently, because ...


Author:
Walter Richards
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09/ 8/06 7:07am

... of the federal gov'ts (USCG/Navy) historic "right" to board any boat they want, under the guise of "safety inspections".

It's the next logical step that - if the federal gov't doesn't need a warrant or cause, neither do state or local gov'ts.
[> Subject: Oregon's fish and wildlife trooper Klepp contributes


Author:
artful dodger
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09/11/06 12:42am

Casting a Web over where they bite
Rees Brothers

Bob Rees of Tillamook isn't quite ready to bring along a laptop computer when he hires out his services as a fishing guide.

But he can row and talk on a cell phone at the same time -- and even chew gum once in a while if the river is calm and the fish aren't biting.

Rees, 37, is hooked on high tech.

The Portland native is the mastermind and traffic controller behind The Guides Forecast, a Web-based Internet fishing forecast that also has a version published each Thursday in The Oregonian.

Every Sunday evening, Rees sends out e-mails to each participant in his stable of 19 other fishing guides, anglers and trusted sources around the Pacific Northwest.

He said he typically gets half or fewer of them to respond.

"Sometimes I have to call them on the phone," he said. "A lot of guys don't type, so I just call them up. They're much happier to do it by telephone."

Rees is revising his own free short version as late as Wednesday night for the Web site and expanding on details -- specific catches, how-to, tidal information, best-baits and lures, etc. -- for an expanded version sold to 4,000 paid subscribers. It's on the site by Thursday morning.

Rees contracts for help from another angler, Michael Teague of Tualatin, an outdoor writer and property manager, who helps gather information and write reports.

The Internet connects him closely with a third partner, his brother, Doug Rees, a technology guru and health-care administrator in Olympia, Wash.

They started the service eight years ago, but Doug Rees doesn't fish as often as he did then.

"We put it together and Doug makes it all happen on the Web site," Bob Rees said.

Rees sells both his long forecast subscriptions and a series of how-to reports he's written, but said the income isn't much.

The anglers and guides aren't paid to contribute their information. The guides get exposure and, sometimes, overflow bookings from each other and Rees. His friends simply contribute for free.

"Bob [Rees] is a good guy. I went to college with him," said Trygve Klepp, an Oregon State Police fish and wildlife trooper in Astoria who sometimes tells Bob about conditions and where the fish are biting ("But I never talk with him about cases," Klepp said).

[Believable? I don't know, what about you?]



Rees said many other guides ask to help out, but that it's hard to get some of them to stay committed to the weekly grind.

His hand-picked forecasters know better than to embellish local fishing with a glossy report when it's not good, Rees said.

"They have the integrity to realize that always putting out a good fishing report isn't the way to go," Rees said. "It can put pressure on them to produce results and that kind of backfires.

"Of course we don't always get the forecast section of our reports right, but our readers often share with us how we have helped them catch more fish."

And that, said Rees -- who also lobbies tirelessly for fish and their habitat -- can only be good for the future of fishing in troubled times.

"Hopefully, it turns more anglers into advocates," he said. "Armchair politicians are no longer cutting it."
[> Subject: Anyone know Duncan well and was his name released in the Daily Astorian?


Author:
artful dodger
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09/11/06 12:53am

Is this reporter making Burke sound that incompetent or is he really that way? Please tell me the guy atleast had the scrupulls to say it APPEARS that these fishermen or these men were cited for or that they allegedly had the fish for a period of time that "far exceeded tolerable time limits" ?!?!?
[> [> Subject: Bill Monroe....


Author:
Town Blinker
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09/13/06 10:27pm

Is a scum sucking anti-commercial fishing elitist pig, as was his mentor, the equally odious Don Holm.
[> [> [> Subject: nothing like a bit of unbiased reporting


Author:
futz
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09/13/06 11:09pm

to get at the "truth" of the matter! SHEEEEESH! This is a couple of counties' predominate economy that's being bashed here.
[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: nothing like a bit of unbiased reporting


Author:
Town Blinker
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09/14/06 12:08am

Yeah, so when is old Billy Monroe gonna dedicate a column to the hundreds of fishing violations racked up by his faithfull readers ie.; the Portland Metro area sportsmen who come down here and break every fishing law? I mean, it's not like he couldn't go to the courthouses on both sides of the river and get their names. But gee golly gee whizz, that might cast a negative light on those stalwart sportsmen and he wouldn't wanna do something like that, would he?
[> [> Subject: Re: "Anyone know Duncan well ?"


Author:
Town Blinker
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09/13/06 11:06pm

Yeah, I known him for nearly forty years. He's a straight up guy and an honest fisherman and these pissants are trying to hose him unjustly.

And Bill Monroe wouldn't make a pimple on Duncan's ass.
[> [> [> Subject: Sturgeon out of water


Author:
Villiage idiot
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09/14/06 10:32am

If Duncan decks a "gator" how long does Duncan got till Duncan dunks a "gator" that will still go? (swim away)
[> [> [> [> Subject: been well known to be still swimable 24 hours later


Author:
futz
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09/14/06 2:41pm

if the gills aren't torn and if they aren't crushed. they are extremely hardy.

it is no biggy that the industry is being watched. any industry needs to be watched. what is aggravated is when it is watched by idiots who have no clue as to what constitutes a violation.

fish tickets are a way to collect data so that we know where the fish are being caught, how many are coming out of the river and so forth. yet, you wouldn't believe the way they are used to jam up a fisheman if the agent is pissed off at you. if a fishing family has two boats and they both go out, come in and sell their fish and are writing out tickets who cares what fish came in on what boat? well the agent does. he watches the fish come off one boat and then sees the kid write out the ticket for the fish. half of the time the ticket isn't all of the way filled out because the vital info is just there but then the agent comes up and says hey, this isn't filled out all of the way. the fisherman sighs and says okay here, and finishes filling it in putting down either one of the boats because it just doesn't matter which one. BOOM the agent issues a ticket for a violation of providing false information because he saw that fish come off of the other boat. the fisherman is baffled because he doesn't even know how the agent can say which fish came off of which boat but if it goes to court at the very least the fisherman has to pay court costs plus his own attorney fees so he pays the violation. then if he ever does go to court because he is tired of all of the petty crap the prosecution pulls out all of the prior violations to show that the fisherman is supposedly what Burke would call a "pirate"!

This industry needs an agency that is comprised of fisherman to oversee it. Construction workers have engineer inspectors overlooking their work who have to constantly take certification courses updating their knowledge of the construction world. Fish and wildlife agents, if they are going to be allowed to issue citations and board fishing vessels, should have to undergo constant certification process as well. They should have to know the difference between the fish and how long they can survive out of the water in reality, not wht some book says. What does it look like to drag and area and throw sturgeon right back in to be caught in the net again. What does that do to a fish to have its gills damaged over and over being pulled out of the net again and agian? does it matter which vessel the fish came out of? is is worth a citation? why is the information gathered? is it to catch dishonest fisherman or is it to collect data? is it in any way related to saving our dwindling fish population?

i think if the agents better understood the fishermen's job they would/could do their job better. if the agents job is to find the "pirates" they wouldn't waste their time and the tax payers money with stupid violations that don't mean anything that don't save fish, don't make the river safer, don't make the industry more competitive and are wholly for data collection or as an outdated means of controlling a group of people to do what they are told to do.
[> Subject: BPA raping the river


Author:
native spawn
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09/14/06 4:43pm

Fish caught in NW power struggle
Preservation projects compete for limited dollars

By CASSANDRA PROFITA
The Daily Astorian

Oregon and Washington tribes say the Bonneville Power Authority is skimping on fish and wildlife projects for the entire Columbia River.

Lower Columbia fish experts say BPA is neglecting the estuary.

Commercial fishermen worry they will one day lose the funds for salmon-rearing fisheries such as the North Coast's net-pen project.

And state Sen. Betsy Johnson says fishery programs vital to the region's culture and economy should not have to worry about losing their funding from year to year.

As the Northwest Power and Conservation Council rolled out its BPA funding recommendations in Astoria Wednesday, regional interests lined up to share their views on how money should be spent on the Columbia River.

BPA has a $450 million budget for the next three years to correct for the negative impacts of hydroelectric dams in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana.

But with funding requests reaching $1 billion, a lot of fish and wildlife projects did not make the cut.

The North Coast's net-pen fish-rearing project, called Select Area Fisheries Enhancement or SAFE, could have been one of them, and supporters are worried the funding will be threatened once again in three years.

SAFE rears and releases chinook and coho salmon at Youngs Bay, Blind Slough, Tongue Point and Deep River sites for harvest by commercial and recreational fishers.

It is one of five estuary projects in line for BPA dollars and one of two that has full funding support.

Local fishermen with Salmon For All, Johnson and Sen. Mark Doumit of Washington told the council the benefits to fishermen make SAFE paramount to the region's economy.

Doumit said funding for the net pens should be as permanent as the dams themselves, given the project's role in mitigating the dam's effects. Johnson thanked the key council members for prioritizing the fishery, but earlier said she thought the project deserved permanent funding.

"This is the second time I've been pressed into finding funding for the Youngs Bay fishery," she said in an interview Wednesday. "We need funding permanently, not funding year to year. You can't have a program without certainty for the future."

Some last-minute shuffling by council members Joan Dukes of Oregon and Larry Cassidy of Washington put SAFE on the priority list.

But to make it work, they had to take funds from other estuary projects, and fishermen worry three years from now it will be the SAFE project getting cut, as pending litigation threatens to shift the focus of BPA funding toward protecting endangered species of salmon and away from hatchery mitigation programs.

This year, the council had to bump an estuary study of juvenile salmon off its funding list and cut money from three Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership salmon and habitat monitoring and restoration programs to keep the $1.8 million in annual funding for SAFE in its $3.6 million budget. Six other estuary projects were eliminated from consideration earlier in the process.

Dukes, vice chairwoman for the council, is a resident of Svensen who served in the Oregon State Senate from 1987 to 2004. She said there was no doubt in her mind the SAFE program was worth the cost to the others, but estuary projects overall deserve a bigger slice of BPA fish and wildlife mitigation funds.

"I fought to have (the juvenile salmon study) put in the mainstem funding because they had room for it there, but Washington wouldn't do it," she said. "We're hoping BPA decides to fund it on its own."

Cathy Tortorici, a fisheries expert with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the estuary has been neglected. Her juvenile salmon study, which examines the ties between fish mortality and estuary conditions, was cut from the funding list before she presented her preliminary findings to the council Wednesday.

"The focus should be on the entire system, and that includes the estuary," she said. "So much attention is given to the mainstem, but our point is they all work together in one ecosystem."

Cassidy, who fought Dukes when she tried to save the NOAA project by putting it into the mainstem budget, said he was fighting for fiscal discipline.

"I don't think funding it out of a different budget is fiscally responsible," he said. "If you want the estuary projects, you've got to discipline yourself somehow by reducing other projects in that budget."
[> Subject:


Author:
cencis nemesis
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 10/25/06 1:22am

[> [> Subject: This guy wants a piece of us, let's give it to him


Author:
cn
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 10/25/06 1:32am

Each of us, at least once this season, goes over to LB to clam dig. Act real suspicious the whole time. When the crapped crusader leaps out between two vehicles to check your sack o' clams, make sure you have less than the limit and have a mix of small and large.

Drive this jackass crazy with his ego self. Jeezus H! He's the head of the dept and he's spying on people w/his binos? He's supposed to be preventing crime not catching people at it. And he's only there looking for fishermen to add to his belt notches.

If you want to support your local fisherman, go clam digging, follow the law and look over your shoulder the whole time.
Main index ] [ Archives: 1[2]34 ]


Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
Shaming/flaming is prohibited, be an adult. While posts can be removed at the discretion of the forum administrator, or at the request of the person starting the thread, there are no guarantees so be thoughtful in what you post as it may remain in cyberspace (or someone else's computer) indefinitely. Thank-you for your respectful comments!
[ Contact Forum Admin ]


Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.