Gill-net ban back in spotlight

State senator backs proposal, which could end up on ballot

By Lauren Dake / The Bulletin

SALEM — The use of gill nets to catch Columbia River salmon has long been the subject of controversy. The battle is heating up once again thanks to a new attempt, backed by a state lawmaker, to ban the devices.

Depending on whom you ask, the controversy arises either from environmental concerns or from a disagreement about which group — commercial fishermen or sport fishermen — should be able to harvest the most salmon.

Gill nets, often used by commercial fishermen, catch fish by their gills. In doing so, critics say, they injure fish and minimize the number that can be thrown back into the river alive. Those who’d like to ban gill nets on the Columbia would like to expand the use of seine nets, which have a smaller and, presumably, less punishing mesh.

The Endangered Species Act protects certain types of salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River, thus limiting the number that can be caught.

“There are definitely two sides to the issue,” said Steve Williams, an assistant administrator with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. “From the sport-fishing industry side, they look at it as a situation where if they weren’t having to share the fish with the commercial industry, there would be more fish available for them. From the commercial fish side of it, they look at it as a long-standing historical business that’s been in this state for many years. It’s really an issue of, we have a limited number of fish and a lot of people fishing, and people on both sides have opinions about who should have those fish.”

By Douglas Werme
Published: December 01. 2011 4:00AM PST

The city of Bend is facing criticism from a wide-ranging group of concerned citizens on the proposed surface water improvement project. As a geologist with 30 years’ experience in the energy business, I thought I would look into the energy costs used in the city’s analysis. I found that assumptions used are now outdated and require a complete reanalysis. The very source of the city’s data, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, has issued a major revision to its predictions.

The city commissioned a 50-page report comparing the cost of the proposed surface water project to water supplied by wells. Energy costs are central to the analysis. Electricity costs have a double-barrelled impact on the comparison in that wells will require electricity to run the pumps while the surface water alternative could generate electricity that can be sold. The study the city relies upon assumed electricity prices will triple in 17 years.

Eighty percent of the planned new electrical generating capacity in the U.S. will use natural gas. The market price of electricity from any source, whether it is from hydro, wind or a conventional power plant, will be tied to the price of natural gas.

In 2008, oil prices shot up to $100 a barrel, and natural gas peaked at more than $13 per million BTU. At that time, it seemed reasonable to predict climbing costs for all forms of energy. Now, oil is again above $100, but natural gas is not $13 — it is $3.10. The reason for this is that advances in producing gas from fractured shales have yielded a huge flow of natural gas. Recently, oil has also been produced from fractured shales, with large amounts of associated gas as a byproduct, which will be sold at whatever price the market will offer.

The city used electrical price projections predicting a steady climb from $50 per megawatt hour to $150 by 2028. Wholesale power actually declined last summer to $30.04. The Northwest Power and Conservation Council issued a report earlier this month revising its energy cost predictions. It cites a fundamental shift in the entire energy supply, and propose a scenario with flat natural gas prices through 2030 and suppressed electricity prices.