PROBLEM? - HALF A MILLION SPRINGERS COMING!

[Deleted User]

* We saw how they respected sportfisher's rights concerning the excess Columbia Spring Chinooks last spring! You don't suppose .....

FISHWIRE ADVISORY: A new issue of NW Fishletter (No. 111-10/10/2000) is
now online. Fishletter in Summary is a new feature of this advisory
notification. Subscribe/unsubscribe instructions are at the end of this
message. Fishletter is available at http://www.newsdata.com/enernet/fishletter/

--- FISHLETTER/97 IN SUMMARY:

[1] NEW PROBLEM FOR NORTHWEST: TOO MANY FISH
Fishermen and policymakers got together in Portland last week to discuss
ways to catch next spring's expected surplus of hatchery fish. One
unofficial estimate put the number of returning fish at more than 300,000,
with some saying it could be double that number. The head of Washington's
Fish and Wildlife agency said state lawmakers are questioning why the
state pays for hatcheries if no one can catch the fish. Tribal members
balked at attending the session, but showed up after the conference was
expanded to include discussion of hatchery and fish supplementation
issues. ---

* If they are having any problems figuring out what to do with all those fish, I think we can help them out with an idea! Right?!? Now with up to a half million springers coming up the Columbia next spring, which will dwarf the 190,000 unexpected big return last spring, what kind of excuse could the NMFS and Columbia Tribal Commission possibly come up with to keep us from having a big long mainstem springer season on these excess fish? We should have an open season thru the spring on those fish we paid for, at least up to Bonneville Dam! And have a larger "bubble" fishery off the mouth of the Wind too. The states still have a lawsuit hanging over the "Unfair Pair" in regards to this profound issue. Stay tuned on this one! - RT



[This message has been edited by RT (edited 10-11-2000).]

[Phish_on]

wondering ...

are the hatchery fish all fin-clipped? It seemed to work out pretty well with the silvers this year. Very easy to identify the wild ones.

[Deleted User]

In speaking with Liz Hamilton and Buzz Ramsey of NISA just prior to our attempt at a protest rally last May, they told me they were informed that 40% of last year's hatchery springers were finclipped and this year close to 70%; and soon all of them will be. Since a majority of them will be identfiable hatchery fish next spring we will be able to have a season in which we release all unclipped fish as we now do with native steelhead, thus protecting the Fed. ESA fish. The Indian nets will indescriminately kill the endagered native fish, many of them headed for Idaho. As with last spring, there will simply be NO JUSTIFICATION not to allow us a long Col. mainstem springer fishery next spring! I am optimistic with that being so obvious, and the states pending lawsuit, we will get a much better mainstem season. It remains to be seen if it is anywhere near a fair one though. - RT

[Clamman]

In regards to mainstem spring chinook fishing for the year 2001, there will be a bunch of springers bound for waters above Bonneville dam. Most likely the highest counts on record. Of these roughly 60-70% will be hatchery fin-clipped. This should be enough for a limited selective fishery either in addition to the normal times allotted or coinciding with. The Willamette run looks to be roughly the same as last years, 60K or so.

The problem with any mainstem mixed stock fishery, is that when you have two extremely depressed stocks (upper Columbia and Snake rivers) that have shown no dramatic signs of improvement, even with a relatively large hatchery return you still have impacts to live within. The states are allocated impacts from the Fed's and then divide them from there. The tribes get their allocated impacts and the hydropower get theirs. These are decided by the Fed's whether or not the user group uses them or not. In other words if NMFS decides that there will be no more than 30% impact on endangered fish, and the hydropower gets 22% that leaves the harvest (treaty and nontreaty) 8%. If neither the treaty or nontreaty harvestors decide to fish that impact is still there and will most likely be used by the hydropower facilities. The impacts are alot like budgets in state and many businesses, use it or lose it. That is not to say it is correct, that is just the way the game is played.

Everyone wants to focus their attention on harvest, but from all the meetings, workshops and conferences I have attended the last five years, I would (and do) seriously complain about the hydropower facilities. They get 3-4 times the impacts and haven't changed their operation procedures the least bit. It is status quo with them. That is where the big lobbying money is from. Why else would they donate to any measure or law that would reduce harvest? Just another piece of the impact pie for them.


ISG

[Deleted User]

Thanks ISG. That's a disturbing situation with regards to the BPA! But us sportsmen have been calling for them to come up with improved juvenile and adult salmon passage for years. It sure makes profitable sense for them to spend lobby money to reduce harvest so as to increase their ESA impact allotment, for more power to sell to California. That lobby money could be going into research and developement of better fish passage systems http://www.ifish.net/forum/images/graemlins/mad.gif ! That's the big biz ugly American way. It's not the sportsfisher's decision to give a 22% impact to the power companies; it's the Fed.Gov./NMFS! Conformance to a righful standard should be brought on the power industry. Since you are on the "inside", can you send copies of your posts as well as mine (especially this one) and others to the right people negotiating within the allocation conferences? Perhaps Guy Norman? I've already sent him much more than my 2 cents worth. How about to a pretty fair minded guy in Senator Ron Wyden? - As for the remaining allotment of 8% ESA impact as it now stands (I think it was 9% last spring), the Col. Tribal Indian netters got almost all of that last spring! And remember that they connot fish selectively because their nets kill all native fish tangled in them. It is undeniable that us sportsfishers should get our Treaty called for half of this allocation; thus a 4% impact on ESA fish. Estimates of next year's run is between 300,000 to 600,000 fish. Let's err on the conservative side with the 300k number. Biologist's estimate that 5% or less of the run is the ESA protected native fish. That's 15,000 native fish. The Indian's, and sportsmen's, allowed 4% impact would thus be 600 fish each. If 1 out of every 20 sportcaught fish is a native, then even in the absurd hypothetical scenario that all of them caught and released died, then we should still have a 12,000 fish Col. mainstem quota coming. HOWEVER, the extensive study proven fact is that we kill less than 7% of those released ESA natives. That means our fair allotment of ESA impact of 4% is only 3% less that the 7% mortality rate on released springers. Then take into account that sportfishers have rarely ever gone above a 30% interception rate on any run of salmon or steelhead (according to expert fish biologist and former head of the ODFW Jim Martin). It's obvious; we couldn't come close to taking our fair 4% ESA impact allotment even if allowed to fish the entire run thru! (30% of 300,000=90,000 fish caught at the highest end of likelyhood. 5% of 90,000 is 4,500 native fish caught and released. 7% mortality of 4,500 natives is 315 fish; well under the 600 ESA impact due us). That means an unrestricted finclip harvest season for the entirety of the run is what we deserve of our paid for fish! We deserved it last year too. Furthermore, the 1974 Fed. Court revisions to the Judge Belloni and Judge Boldt decisions of the late 60's indicated that if one side of the Indian or non-Indian user groups took more than their 50% share of the fish in a given year that it would be made up to the under harvesting side the following year. Under those directives, with the Indians getting almost all of last spring's impact harvest, the sportfishers should not only get all of the hatchery fish we can possibly legally catch, the Col. Tribal Indians should consider buying us a whole bunch of farmed salmon to distribute to us as well. Of course we won't hold our breath for that to happen; and we don't need or want that to happen. But if we aren't given our FAIR QUOTA of next year's Col. springers then whoever is to blame for that travesty had better hold their breath ... and their ears! And be concerned for their jobs! - RT



[This message has been edited by RT (edited 10-12-2000).]

[Phish_on]

how about if "God" gets some "allocated impacts" ? ?

[Deleted User]

Phish;

I recall the Bible saying that Jesus was a great fisherman. I also recall a saying: Give a fish to the hungry and they will eat for a day; teach them to fish and they will always have something to eat. Some truth to that, but these days that holds less water!

------------------
-------------------------Know fish or no fish. - RT

[Phish_on]

No no ... it's:

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will sit in a boat and drink beer for hours and hours.

My previous comment was just my gut reaction to all the bureaucratic gobbly-goop ... the tribes get this the hydropower gets this the irrigators get this the commercial fishers get this the sportfishers get * - - - WHAT ABOUT THE FISH ?

I know, they get whatever's left ... hi - ho

[Clamman]

Your post has some points that are the heart of the ongoing debate. Mr. Norman answered your querie as best as he was able to under the circumstances. This mess, US. vs. OR, is alot more complicated than the majority of the general public can fathom.

True, with the numbers returning it does dilute the ESA listed fish and your math is relatively close to what could possibly be allocated by the states. BUT.... that 4% is for non-treaty harvest, so if that is split out in a fair number it leaves 6k each. Still a ton of fish. Some of the highest potential catches on record could be harvested this coming spring.

Applying the mortality rate is not as simple as you have theorized, though close. The biggest problem is that the 7% mortality stated is not something I would bet the bank on. There have been some discrepencies in "numbers" related to that study. It is still under review and not believed to be consistant enough for application in all situations. The current theory and practice by most harvest managers is to use a 10% minimum mortality, and as high as 18% depending upon gear. The problem, and variable is angler handling, which in my observation is still below average.

It is true that sporties can at best only intercept 30% of a mainstem run. Jim Martin is correct in that one aspect (though he never was head of ODFW, whew!). But also remember that if, say we error on the conservative side, the sports can only get 20%, the more fish returning the more that 20% is going to be. For hatcheries to produce more fish their needs to be a method of harvesting a higher than 20-30%, i.e. commercial gillnetting. If you reduce the number of non-treaty user groups, then their is no need to produce as many fish, thus the sporties 20% becomes proportionally smaller, considerably. As hard as it might seem, the two groups are joined at the hip whether they like it or not. The Columbia River hatcheries produce fish to be caught. For their to be a commercial season their needs to be a substancial return, the sporties benefit from this. Because the more fish the bigger that 20% is. Enough for now.


ISG

[Deleted User]

Thanks ISG. Can you address the 4%/6k figure for a combined total harvest scenario? Isn't it closer to 8%/24k+ of 300k+ fish? -- I also feel compelled to strongly disagree with the government mindset that we need commercial gillnetters taking a large number of fish, which unfortunately also take ESA native fish, in order to justify allocated funds for hatcheries. First, if they weren't allowed then there would be a bigger ESA impact availability for sportfishers, and thus an increased sportfishing presence has proven to be worth much more to the economy! Second, there has been the simplest gillnet alternative solution right under everyone's noses, that I've mentioned before: Instead of allowing ESA killing gillnets into the lower river, which also slows the sport catch way down for significant periods much longer than the nets are in, allow the licensed comm.'s to dipnet the choicest springers right out of the various hatchery holding ponds! These fish are still in prime marketable condition and can be bled and iced immediately after killing them; unlike nets that let them hang dead in the water for significant amounts of time, which means the hatchery harvest likely will be of better quality. After such an alloted comm. take, the state and fed hatcheries can and do sell off excess fish graded for either human or animal consumption; thereby helping to fund the hatcheries. Any gillnetter that would squawk about such an easier way to get additional fish harvest income to their regular jobs would be very likely to really enjoy getting off on their mass harvest "sport"! Why else could they not prefer the ease and less boat/net/gas/crew/maintence/ins./etc. costs of gillnetting to such a native fish saving alternative?? .... This is not the case with the fall salmon, which turn to animal grade by the time they enter holding ponds. So maybe it's time the comm. gillnetters find other fun "sporting" means of additional income to their regular jobs? Or allow them to trap fish just below the Bonneville ladders for a selective hatchery fish take; releasing the natives! At the very least, for a fall alternative allow only the new tooth tangle nets ABOVE the majority of sportfishing areas instead of below a majority of them so as not to wipe out our paid for fish and worthwhile fishing opportunity for such significant time periods which last much longer than the time the nets are in! There is no way around that these are viable better alternatives, that is strongly bolstered by the need to protect ESA listed runs of salmon! Please submit this public posting to the NMFS and ODFW/WDFW to those that will give it proper due consideration. Maybe it will be a big favor to the comm.'s too, because it's an easier alternative and may just head off another fight to legislate a total net ban by initiative and a ballot vote. - And guess what! These gillnetting alternatives would also very easily apply to Indian Treaty harvests! They could have their cake and eat it too. They will get the same amounts of harvest money without killing native fish!! And they can still do traditional cerimonial mainstem and tributary dipnetting for additional fish by means they used when the Treaties were signed. The same principle applies to them as to the comm.'s because you and I and the Indians know they don't gillnet with modern nets and boats for traditional cerimony; they do it for the money. Which they can still have by only harvesting hatchery fish! - Thanks much ISG.

------------------
Know fish or no fish. - RT

[This message has been edited by RT (edited 10-16-2000).]

[Clamman]

RT,

The 4%/6K was a scenario that was intended to show how impacts where broken down between treaty and non-treaty users. Figure that any non-treaty impacts are for both sporties and commercials. Don't expect impacts to trickle towards the sports if a user such as non-treaty commercials are cut out of the loop. Tribes and hydropowers come first, sports get them only if the previous two don't want them.
Harvest scenarios and prelim. run expectations should come out soon enough, I can't really speculate or divulge beyond that.

Columbia River hatcheries are funded primarily by federal dollars. This money comes from a number of sources including the Bonneville Power Administration. More than just sport fisherman pay for this. Any Tom Dick or Jane who flicks a light switch or pays federal taxes helps raise those fish. So descriminating against a non-treaty user group could have more negative effects than possitive.

The primary advantage of catching a fish in the river than dipping them out of the hatchery is strictly quality. I doubt very many sport anglers would trade their right to fish in the mainstem to dip a dark matured springer out of the Umatilla hatchery. The same is so for most commercial fisherman. I have been to nearly every hatchery on the Columbia River that raises spring chinook and fall chinook. Not a single hatchery has a fish that is marketable to the general public. That is why the state sells them to food banks and prisons. These fish do not show up at fish markets such as the one on Pike street. The reason people fish, whether they are commercial or sport, is for the joy of it. The commercial fisherman have a saying, "Work is our Joy". I would hope that any person who enjoys their job could say the same, can you?

From your post, I see that it is obvious that you and many of the BB followers are very unfamiliar with conventional gillnets. These are not nets that strip mine the river, they can be very selective due to gear type, size and season restrictions. They do not sit in the water for long periods at a time, they drift for short periods depending upon the tide. A drift can range from 15 minutes up to an hour. Most of the fish caught are still alive, and not caught in the gills but actually just past the pectoral fins. These fish are fresh and of just as good of quality if not better than those sport caught. I have monitored many boats in my career, and am always amazed at the hard work, technique and joy that encompasses this vocation. It is also a nice suprise to see you do an about-face in regards to tooth-nets. These have been shown to be extremely effective in Canada. They have also shown great promise in the Columbia, Willipa, and Puget Sound. The preliminary findings show a less than 5% instant mortality, which is almost half of what most sport fishery managers use.

Don't underestimate the value of diversity. The more diverse the user groups the more opportunity exists. The less diverse the user groups the less opportunity exists.

A word of advice, it carries much more creedance if a user group communicates with NMFS and the ODFW and WDFW commisions rather than me. BE clear, concise, and non-argumenative. Don't fall to the notion that your voice doesn't count. I have seen many of seasons and regulations altered by the informed testimony of an angler, hunter, or conservationalist. If you choose to be silent or rude, expect the worst. More to come when I have more time.


ISG

[Deleted User]

Seemingly, my solution suggestive post didn't sit well with you at all ISG? You said more when you have time. - Can you explain who interpreted the Treaties to mean that "sporties will get fish only if the Tribes don't want them"? Huh?!? - I have also visited many hatcheries and seen springers in varioius conditions. When they first come in most are bright and likely of good human consumption grade. If a hatchery has either already recieved enough return for egg/milt taking purposes or are clearly expected to get an excess return, then the fresh arrivals could be used in place of or to supplement reduced gillnetting, IMHO. I have seen springers over 900 miles from the ocean in the hatchery ponds near Idaho's Sawtooth Mts. from the upper Salmon River. The fresh arrivals were fairly bright, not dark, even way the heck up there; although there are certainly better hatchery take alternatives, for many reasons. The springers that go above Bonneville Dam are the reddest meated best eating strains in the NW. I have seen guys clean grey bellied ones out of tributaries that have brighter redder flesh than Willamette springers that are caught just coming into the lower river near St. Helen's with white bellies. So we just differ in opinion there. Strongly. - And I certainly take exception to anyone who characterizes gillnets as selective! - I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph.

------------------
Know fish or no fish. - RT