COLUMBIA SALMON CLOSURE

[Lund]

friend of mine fished bonn. 4/9/02 and odfw checker told him it will likely close at the end of next week, cause we are not getting the fish counts like last year.

what a bunch of idiots, the water conditions are such that everything is right on schedule. If we had some severe spikes in temp(like last year) we would have those big # days, this year should keep water temps consistent, and spread the run over a month or more.

gill netters got an extention when the fish weren't in yet, and they got more than 1 extention. were are the extentions for the sportsman.

[finclipped]

That doesn't surprise me. Everybody pray the counts pick up, because if they don't, its over.

Thats the problem with giving complete access to the non indian commercial quota, before the run can be determined. Fewer fish means smaller quota's and with the commercials already taking a lot of fish from a smaller run, we could be shut down.

The run just isn't materializing even with the colder water temperatures. I hope I am wrong, but it doesn't look good.

[ 04-11-2002, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: finclipped ]

[fishuntr2]

Has anyone heard about an actual closure date? I have next week scheduled for vacation to salmon fish and it'll really be to bad if I have to stay home and work around the house instead of attending the church of the bent rod!
Bob

[Rusty]

Heard from a ODFW fish checker at Chinook Landing today. He said there will be a meeting "soon" to
"re-evaluate the run in the Columbia." Upon further questioning, he said he was told he will be transferred to the Willamette late next week. This surprised him because he was told he was transferring to Bonneville for the late April "shift". NOT NOW!

Rusty

[fishblood]

Accourding to an article in the Thursday edition of The Columbian Washington and Oregon biologist have a meeting planned for the 23rd to update the run forcast and discuss resticting the season.

[fishchaser]

GREAT!!! :mad: HERE WE GO AGAIN :mad: AGAIN THE SPORT FISHERMAN WILL BE THE ONE TO TAKE THE BIG GREEN HOT DOG FROM THE STATE :mad: I THINK IT'S TIME TO STAND UP FOR OUR RIGHTS!! :mad:

THIS JUST TORQUES MY COOKIE :mad: :mad:

[Artwo]

What will be real interesting is if they allow the commercials to start netting again in May like they were going to.

JK

[Ex-military]

I dunno about all this...according to the website..the YTD for Bonneville is 11675, of which
7899 or 67% of the YTD have passed in the last week. IMHO the best is yet to come.

[SureSet]

11,675 isn't much when you consider the forecasted run size was 400,000 fish. Call it an optamistic 80,000 for the Willamette, and just for kicks, 200,000 for other rivers below the dam, and you still have a 110,000 fish somewhere. On a ten year average we see 120,000 springers over the dam by July 1st and this should be an above average year. We should be seeing 3,000-4,000 fish a day right now and we've only seen one day over 1,500 fish...............

I can see why they might be concerned......

SureSet

[bigshark]

I hate politics, and I don't like very many who are in that game. I have never asked anyone in my life to vote for who I think is best, but I am now asking you to consider how we as sportaman can break this awful hold the commercial interest have on the ODFW. This netting business is just to much to grawl about and then turn our backs on.
No doubt we all hope for this to be a false alarm.
This is one of those things that waiting for it to get worse is not in the sportsmans best interest. We really need to hit were it hurts most. At the voting booth and during campaigns we can change this. The threat of defeat to those who receive campaign funds from commercial interests or have a history of favoring their interests is all thats needed. All candidates should be asked in public where they stand on this issue. They must go on record as having stood or will stand for one group or the other. Please consider, for one election only, the idea of dropping your political party loyalty and vote for a PRO-SPORTSMAN candidate. We will never be able to outspend them but we can outvote them. The number of fishing licences in the various districts suggest the votes are there to make a change in our state politics. I cannot provide the numbers but I believe my source to be accurate. If our voice is loud and clear, candidates from both parties will fall in line. Then you can have your cake and eat it too.

[ 04-11-2002, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: bigshark ]

[Flying Fnn]

WE will do nothing :whazzup: !Some years back the wise people of the N.W. had an opertunity to vote the gill nets off the river :blush: nuf said.But it dose make me sad to think of the good ol days of fishing without having to cary a copy of the regs.to stay out of trouble with the law.Or going back even further befor our time to the 1800's when the mighty Columbia river not only had the biggest runs of salmon in the WORALD, some of them were the biggest salmon on the planet,just imagen fighting 100 plus pounds of hog salmon?And we all know that grand couly (spelling?)dam with no fish ladder put a stop to them.It's amazing how far down we've come in such a short time!Oy oy,help I've fallen off my soap box and can't get up.Oh well its probably for the best :depressed:

[tailchaser]

I'm personally tired of hearing everyone who takes from the rivers ***** about thier quota's outside of sportsmen. Fishermen who buy licenses are being taken up the wazoo because it's an easy way to manage by the ODFW. I don't believe nets should be allowed in the rivers period!! I'm very scetchy to the usefullness of them in the ocean also. But I had an indian tell me yesterday that he owned the fish in the river, so it was his right to take them however he wanted to. I didn't recall gill nets and duckworths in any treaty recently. They also get to keep a native that's absolutely off limits to you and I. Then sell them right in front of us. Makes you kinda bitter. I think if there is a run down in size everyone should cut back. I'm here on the south coast and we're taking in the shorts this year on our quota's also. The salmon harvest has been cut in half, bottomfishing too, and only 1 halibut per trip. However, commercial numbers haven't changed much at all?? Go figure. The commercial accidental catch for halibut is twice the size of the sport catch. Tell me they don't target them knowing they can sell it. Our license costs are going up every year to boot. I'm damn near ready to stop buying a license to not support this crap. Oregon is by far the most regulated state that I know of to do anything. There are so many rules it's pitiful. I agree something has to be done and I would be giving my two cents to that support if it comes up. :mad: graemlins/berry.gif

[garyk]

BigShark -- I certainly appreciate your rage. Two points to keep in mind:

1. The ODFW Commissioners are not elected by the public. They are nominated by the Governor and (someone help me out here, Pete? *** Clerk?) confirmed by one house of the Legislature.

2. Now, you may be tempted to blame the governor for his nominees, BUT the Governor is contrained by the rules that say the the Commission has to represent non-sportsman's interests. That's why you have ranching, logging and commercial fishing interests sitting on ODFW.

If you want to get mad -- just see if seats are reserved for sportsman/conservationists on the various agriculture and logging commissions -- THEY'RE NOT!!

So basically, the Oregon Legislature decided that the ODFW commission body is to be heavily stacked with interests that favor commercial extraction.

This same Legistlature is dominated by rural conservatives, so I always find it somewhat amusing that rural dwellers who complaining their 'sportsman rights' are being trampled, are getting screwed by their very own state senators and representatives.

People like Ted Ferrioli, from up the Gorge, who in conjunction with the Cattleman's Association hoped to eliminate your right to use navigable rivers.

Like the old conservative said of the political process -- " You either take part, or get taken apart".

Whew, enough, must calm down, ...

[ 04-12-2002, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: garyk ]

[Jennie@ifish]

That may not be all.

I got a report via e mail last night that, if true, or proven, could be terribly upsetting, disgusting, and outrageous.

It went something like this, written in as an anonymous source from Portland:

I thought you might be interested in this. If the numbers are correct, and from what I have been told from my source, the harvest from the commercials alone could have eaten away all of the impacts for non-treaty harvest based on current predictors using historical baselines.

and then this:

The gist of the who thing is, that at the current rate
of passage, using historical dam counts as a baseline, the Columbia River
Management bio's are only 50% confident that the run will be 118K!

So.... this is all terribly confusing, and difficult to understand, with all the percentages, etc... but, one thing I can say...

We better figure it out and DO SOMETHING.

I will post the excel spreadsheet soon, so that you may start doing your research.

Jen

[Jennie@ifish]

Did anyone hear what I just posted?

Hello?

Why did they get to use that size of net?
The size they used were known as steelhead nets prior to 1976.

Was this mesh size chosen purely out of political pressure by a few commercial who didn't want to have to buy a $2500-$3000 net on top of the recovery tank cost?
Most commercials had 4 3/4" or 5" laying around from other fisheries in the past.

Why is there a commercial season that runs into a traditional sport peak harvest times (spring break)?

If the sport season is closed next week or even the week after for sport allocated impacts in jeopardy of being reached, then NSIA had better step up to the plate and demand that any further impact had better go to the sport fishery (if there are any left).

If there are no impacts left, then NSIA had better demand that the states halt all further test netting that is currently going on right NOW!
And also any further commercial seasons that depend upon impacts allocated to them.

Shut up and fish? I would, if there were any left!

J

[ 04-12-2002, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: Jennie@ifish ]

[Ex-military]

Jennie,
I remember back a couple weeks ago there was a thread on the nets and I think there was a post on how they came about getting the net size they did...do ya know off the top what the commercial quota was and how much the actual harvest was?

[GoFish]

Why do the comercials always get the front part of the run? They're always out in March when the natives are in the river. Put them to the back of the pack!!!

I've said it before on this board, get organized, vote and get involved. ******* won't ever get the job done. I've heard the same complaints for 20 years!! Gillnetters are organized and they spend money to lobby for their access to the fish. The ONLY way to get them off the river is to trump their money with votes at election time. Until mass numbers of sportfishers show up at these meetings nothing will change.

[TheRogue]

There is such a HUGE difference between the AVERAGE, and the MEDIAN. To use the "average" run size is a ****-poor way to do anything. The run of last year was an anomaly, just as one of those 20,000 fish runs is an anomaly. Son of Okie hit it on the head by looking at the numbers WITHOUT last year's run.

The regulating agencies did everyone a HUGE disservice by factoring last year into the average. I believe I said something to that effect, early on when they were calculating this year's harvest quotas. In the end, the lowly, cash-spending, business supporting sports fisher is going to get the shaft!!

Again!!

kyle

[bigshark]

garyk........thanks for your post. It helps me to understand the problem better. I am out of my element here as I know very little about out state politics. I hate to sound like a johnny-come -lately and beat on a dead horse. Why I am so upset about this now is not easy for me to explain. The shortest answer is I have lost my patience and have turn to the bull-in-the-chinacloset mode. Somebody out there has to be smart enough to come up with a workable plan to solve this mess. I shall do my best to refrain from venting as it solves nothing. A friend of mine is an ex-lobbist. He tells me its all about money and revenues to the state. Maybe tourist dollars and all those business benefiting from them can be attracted to this issue. Just a thought...........just when my bloodpressure was under control too :mad: :mad:

[finclipped]

Just a clarification, Run sizes are estimated on the previous years Jack Counts. Not the previous years adult returns.

Look at Dart to see what I mean. Jacks are indicitive of the overall adult population size. So more jacks means a greater population of adults returning the next year.

On average, 1 jack returning this year means 20 adults will return the next year. We had 14,000 spring chinook jacks return last year which would give us an estimated run of 280,000 this year. So where are the adults? Is it possible they were wiped out by Ocean commercial fleets in Alaska, Canada or Japanese fleets? Were they eaten by other predators? Can any of you biologists give some insight?

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Garyk

You are correct, commissioners are appointed and not elected. The current membership has someone who also represents hydro-electric interests.

I was at this mornings ODFW Commission meeting and as usual things were goofy as usual. The part I like was in the director’s report where Commissioners grilled staff as to last year’s fiasco concerning the early Bonneville Dam spill to aid Spring Creek hatchery Tule salmon. The debate was whether it cost $200.00 for each additional tule salmon it created (as per ODFW Staff) or whether it cost $1500.00 for each of the 1000 additional salmon according to NMFS. It was noted that many of the commercial tule salmon caught last year sold for as low as $0.30 a pound. ODFW staff indicated that it was not their concern to do a cost benefit analysis, it is just their job to mitigate for lost production from dam construction because these salmon are so important to commercial harvest. One commissioner did ask where did they draw the line if the could spend an additional $100,000.00 to create 100 more fish what guideline would prevent that and no answer was provided.

With our commission commercial harvest rules

[OldRedSled]

aren't we in another El-nino year? ANy how i looked around for the totals on the Commerical impact and only found this:

"Commercial catch March 17-22 was 3,902 hatchery spring chinook, bringing the grand total to about 7,266 fish and possibly as high as 11,300, although the final numbers have yet to be totaled(ARE YOU KIDDING ME ITS APRIL 12 THEY COUNTING ON THERE FINGERS?? :mad: ) The quota was for 9,700 Willamette River hatchery fish, which Oregon and Washington officials agreed to allow commercial netters to catch. With a combined potential total of 19,500 ->OTHER hatchery fish as biologists expected that commercials could catch ->ANOTHER 9,000 or 10,000 hatchery fish, which included spring salmon from; select area fisheries, upriver brights, Sandy River, Cowlitz River and others.

The last Columbia River commercial salmon season was set on March 26, 2002. So the nets will be out of the river for the month of June. :mad: Although there may still be a short commercial fishery on the Columbia in mid or late May" :mad:

ORS

[OldRedSled]

As of wed THE fish counts over the FAlls had increased every day to 851, and the Bonneville count was off its high down to 1320. I wonder if the number over the Falls one day this month will be higher than the numbers over the DAM. Anyone give me some odds on that, ill make a bet. :grin:

ORS

[garyk]

*** Clerk, yes, thank you for verifying that the ODFW commissioners are appointed by the governor, but then do they have to be confirmed by the (I believe) Senate, as do most nominees?

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Yes, the confirmation part is, I believe, a recent change. The newest commissioner is a Lawyer – a Political – and a Family Rancher, all in one. Is it any wonder how she was the first…

[Son of an Okie]

I went to the DART board and looked up a few things. Taking out last years total to April 10th (last year was really an anomoly with almost 90,000 over, next highest count since 1949 was just shy of 30,000 in 1977), and looking at the 10 years previous for a more valid average we come up with 6507. Looking at all data since 1949 shows there were 16 years when the count was higher and 32 years when the count was lower. (No data present for '65, '66, '74, '75, and '76). So while we might not be where everyone predicted, we still have the 17th strongest return to date since 1949.

[ 04-12-2002, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: Son of an Okie ]