sturgeon

[Bill Monroe]

I hate to bore everyone (but bet I won't)...
Will anyone be at the commission meeting in Portland Friday afternoon to speak up about sturgeon and the coming reductions on the Columbia? I'll write about it Sunday, most likely, and just wondered if there are any of you worked up enough to attend...I frankly am not too concerned about cutting back a little, but I know there are some out there who fish sturgeon a lot more than I...
The sturgeon business is toward the end of the agenda, so will be in the afternoon sometime...
This isn't the decision meeting. That comes in December in Eugene...

[boater]

from what ive read we will lose 8000 fish and the commercials only 2000, i have sent my letter to let them know what i think about that and i hope others do to, quite frankly it stinks.

[invader]

i dont get it!!.... how can they restrict more when we cant fish for them NOW??????????????????????

[fishuntr2]

I won't be there. I would rather not catch salmon then not catch sturgeon. :grin:

[Fishplay]

Yes Bill, I'm planning on attending Friday's meeting. I gave public testimony at the October 11th commission meeting in Sandy also.

It has been proposed to cut back the total harvest by 10,000 fish. Which I beleive is good management. We currently share harvest with the commercials at a 80/20 split. This is why, as boater points out, our sport harvest will be reduced by 8000 fish verses a 2000 commercial fish harvest reduction. It is nearly certain this overall harvest reduction will be adopted as we have exceeded the quota the past few years.

The 80/20 split is not a bad ratio in my opinion. What is at issue is the mis-handeling of slot fish through the commercial harvest process. High numbers of sport keeper size (slot) fish are being maimed and killed when removed from nets. I know many of you have witnessed the damaged fish.

Also being proposed is a reduction to the 10 fish annual retension limit per angler. ODFW staff has recommended a five fish annual limit. I have asked the commission to consider a seven fish limit.

It is also very likely that the lower columbia river will be divided into two zones. Separating the gorge from the estuary and dividing the quota. It is a known fact that a mis-proportionate amount of the lower columbia river quota is being landed in the estuary in the spring. Causing premature closure of the entire lower river. This is unfair to the metro/gorge angler.

One more issue is the continued allowance of a rapidly growing fishery that targets the broodstock(ie. catch and release of oversize). Targeting these fish durring spawning and or warm water temperatures is not only stressfull but life threatening. It kills fish!!!

If you fish sturgeon - you will be affected by the upcoming rule changes. Now is the time for critical input. The final decission will be made and adopted on December 13th in Eugene.

Hope to see some of you there! :wink:

[NEUTRON]

Fishplay, good informative post and thanks to
Bill for bringing it up.

STG Rule, what's your take?

[ 11-08-2002, 06:55 AM: Message edited by: NEUTRON ]

[roadsend]

If they divide the river into zones, they should limit tags to one or the other like they do with eastern and western Oregon deer. This should also apply to guide licenses.
Not to do this would be to concentrate the pressure on the estuary until the quota is exhausted thus leading to early closure.

[kampy]

Bill
Let us know about the Eugene meeting in December. I live near Eugene and would likely attend.

[Clarity]

Fishplay- Great info, I hope to make this meeting myself. One thing, though, please don't state that C&R of oversize kills them unless you want to share where you got your facts. I realize that this debate has been overdone on this forum, but I have yet to see any studies suggesting increased mortality of these fish due to stress induced by fishing. I'd rather agree that we have two different oppinions on the matter and leave it at that.

[Biteme]

Lets see now. Catching and releasing fish if it is true and can be supported by science that it causes higher mortality rates in spawning adult fish, Then why is it ok to hold up a nice winter steelhead nate for a picture and not ok to catch and release a big sturgeon. If it is indeed an increased mortality rate issue then why should any catch and release fishing be allowed. I am sure that the fisheries biologists have studied and will continue to study this and for now there data doesnt warrant any changes. I think that some of you that would like to see c&r of oversized sturgeon banned also have some nice pics or yourselves holding up nice chrome native steelhead.

[STGRule]

Fishing for oversized sturgeon does kill some of them. All dead oversized that are found (and they look for them) have been examined for a number of years now. Lately they even use a metal detector to find hooks. The fish are examined for hook wounds, opened up to find the state of maturity, and examined for hooks inside the bodies. The number of dead sturgeon attributed to fishing has stayed (up to the last few years) fairly even. These fish (and I believe their potential production) are SUBTRACTED from population estimates and directly effect the numbers of fish that are available for harvest (ie, harvest guidelines). I believe these numbers will be published soon in the 2002 Annual Report. It will be available on the BPA website when it is completed and you can read it yourself. I let you know when it is published.

[ 11-12-2002, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

[roadsend]

Somehow I am getting the drift in this thread that it is OK to hold C&R salmonids out of the water for pictures.
As I see it, this defeats the whole purpose of C&R fishing - fish survival.
Nets should be used for restraint only, not to lift fish from the water. If hooks cannot be immediatly extracted, leaders should be cut. Hooks should be corrodable, not stainless. Salmonids are too delicate to be handled unnecessarily.
Sturgeon obviously oversized should also be released as carefully as possible.

[riverrat]

mis-handeling resulting in maiming and killing fish is why i have boycotted commercially produced fish.....a thought, has there been any talk of commercial quotas by the pound or ton of eveything that is caught....an annual boat limited by weight of fish, or each boat that comes in from fishing is inspected with each speicies weighed......when a preset quota is caught they are finished for the year.....for example....x-number of pounds per species and when they reach x in that species fishing for them is finished even though they have not reached their quotas in other species.....does this make sense??????

[Bobber Down]

Has anybody ever seen how a gillnetter takes a sturgeon (both under and oversized) out of their net.

Look at the fishing pressure, maybe the charter & guides should report their catch to the commercial quota. They are commercial fisherman with poles. Or regulate them somehow, and I don't have a clue how that could be done.

I'm not in favor of the split of up river and down river. Maybe everybody should hunt and fish in their own county (JK).

[Fishplay]

I'm more than happy to share where I got my facts. :rolleyes:
It is no secret that oversize fish are killed by this target fishery. This is a fact that can not be debated. The only fact that can be is; How Many......and how many is Too Many. At this time ODFW department staff is comfortable with the mortality rate. They reported so to the commission last Friday. As STGRule stated, they do search the riverbank for carcasses. My concerne is what percentage of the total fish killed are actually found.
As for where my facts came from for me to make this bold statement:
I have personally witnessed this saddening activity. In fact I was party to it on one occassion. We tried for a considerable amount of time to revive an eight footer that a friend's son fought to over- exhaustion, but after much effort we finally had to except the fish was dead. I have since witnessed dead broodstock floating past me at Rooster Rock on more than one occassion. Last year while fishing Northern Pikeminnow I watched two guide boats target oversized just below the Dalles dam. The water temperature was quite warm and the fishing was good (for them...I wasn't catching anything). A few of the fish they fought and released quickly above us. I beleive those fish were released successfuly. One of the fish they fought a while longer and released belly up near us. We ended up reviving this fish after they went back to the slaughter. A few times they drifted past us with fish on. I can only guess what the outcome of those fish were. We confronted both boats about there activity and each had a surplus of attitude to dispense. My stepfather told me they were back at it the very next week.
This has become a common occurance. Many of us here have seen the carnage.
At this time there is no scientific data available that adresses the stress and or mortality rate on our spawning fish due to catch and release. Studys are being conducted though and I impatiently await it's release.
This is another one of those issues where the science available is insufficient to make an educated deccision. I support a senseable approach and lean to the conservative side. We manage our sturgeon stocks for escapement. Meaning our goal is to allow for a certain percentage of the overall population to escape- the poles, nets and whatever else nature sends their way- into the broodstock population. Targeting these fish simply for recreation seems rather neandrathal in policy and sport to me. graemlins/stupid.gif

The popularity of this sport is growing. The mortality rate of broodstocks is growing. The amount of harvestable fish is declining.
Now is the time for policy that protects the future of our sturgeon.
graemlins/1zhelp.gif graemlins/1zhelp.gif graemlins/1zhelp.gif graemlins/1zhelp.gif graemlins/1zhelp.gif graemlins/1zhelp.gif

Biteme: just for the record.......I don't believe that endangered runs of native steelhead should be targeted either. Those who fish upriver in march hoping to catch and release that 20lb+ native winter run steelhead need some moral grounding.

[Clarity]

"Targeting these fish simply for recreation seems rather neandrathal in policy and sport to me."

Get real. None of us fish so that we won't starve, therefore it is all sport in the end. To object to one kind of fishing simply because it isn't "moral" to you is the same argument that PETA makes to outlaw all hunting and fishing.

The "fact" is that the broodstock is doing well, as evidenced by the words of ODFW and the fact that shakers are abundant. You are right about managing for escapement, but I am much more concerned about how many fish make it through the slot to become broodstock. It is for this reason I welcome the lowering of the allowable catch quotas.

Your story about the guides overstressing fish is certainly sickening, but not an argument against targeting oversize. There are morons in any sport. I have watched people let a native coho flop in the boat before release and I have seen people harrassing chinook on their redds. Should we shut down salmon fishing because these idiots exist?

I admire that you are willing to change your fishing practices based on what you see is good for the species. I'm just not convinced that this is where the problem lies.

See you at the meeting.

[BottomFeeder]

Biteyourself,

So until we are sure targeting oversized fish is killing too many breeder sturgeon we should just go on fishing for them? You might as well have said "until we are sure this car is out of gas then we should just keep on driving." Thank God the Hamfisted Biteboy isn't writing policy.

How about until we are certain targeting oversized fish is not adversly affecting the population we put a stop to the practice?

And the possesive their is not spelled "there"

Maybe you should just stick to saying things like "would like fries with that sir?" or "would you like catchup with your order?"

-BottomFeeder

"

Lets see now. Catching and releasing fish if it is true and can be supported by science that it causes higher mortality rates in spawning adult fish, Then why is it ok to hold up a nice winter steelhead nate for a picture and not ok to catch and release a big sturgeon. If it is indeed an increased mortality rate issue then why should any catch and release fishing be allowed. I am sure that the fisheries biologists have studied and will continue to study this and for now there data doesnt warrant any changes. I think that some of you ...Blah Blah Blah"

[Smj]

Wow, How about this. One over sized sturgeon gets caught twice this month and does just fine. Next year, same time, many many more guides and sporties catch the same oversized sturgeon eight times during this month. How is that fish doing now?

Another thing, sturgeon are activly feeding fish and salmon and steelhead generaly aren't in fresh water.
Just a couple of points to ponder.

Smj

[Tagster]

graemlins/lurk.gif

:hoboy:

[Mojo]

Time for everyone to take a time out! Name calling and snide comments are not going to win over someone that disagrees with you. Please keep this nice, and present your side in a logical, unbiased (if you can), and pleasant manner. I hate it when Jennie gets mad!

[Tacklebuster]

Nothing like a good topic on a zipperlip river or catching oversize sturgeon to put people in the holiday spirit :hoboy:

If people would check the name calling and attitudes at the dock, I think a lot more would get accomplished than making a few people mad graemlins/idea.gif

[Wood N' Fish]

Can't contribute more than------ :hoboy: graemlins/1zhelp.gif

[Fishplay]

Golly some of us is touchy. :whazzup:

So far I think this has been a relatively well mannered debate. I have seen no name calling or fouls worthy of penalty as yet. Although Bottom feeders comments do come close This is still mellow by comparison. I'm nearly as thick skinned as the sturgeon itself and I'm sure Diamondside is capable of brushing off a little off color critisizim so lets not get over sensitive about things and just let the debate be what it is.

Let me start off by saying I don't feel it is appropriate to catagorize my statements with those of PETA. Because I am concerned about our environment and maintaining sustainable fish and game for future sportsman does not make me a radical.
Having morals is not a disease or affliction that radicals suffer from. We all have them. It's just that for some they are in decline or maybe they have simply lost touch with them.
moral, definition of:
implies conformity with the generally accepted standards of goodness or rightness in conduct or character
relating to, dealing with, or capable of making the distinction between, right and wrong in conduct.

It's not all sport in the end!

There are three catagories of fish and game users; Hunters, Fishers, and Sportsman. The Sportsman lives by a code of ethics and conducts themselves in a moral and ethical manner. Who each of us becomes is defined by the choices we make.
I will not target a spawning fish. I will not target an endagered fish. I will not hunt and kill what I do not intend to utilize. I will not harrass wildlife in the name of sport .

Back to the Facts.
Diamondside: You say the fact is the broodstock is doing well as evidenced by the words of the ODFW. What words exactly would that be? Would you care to share those words and facts with us.
The facts as presented at the meeting were that the department really doesn't know the health of the broodstock. That is why there are scientific studies being done.

I would like to point out that if you spend the time and read my posts you will not find that I'm advocating the elimination of catch and release of oversize fish. I limited my concerne to durring spawning season and high water temperatures. I consider these to be the critical times at issue until the data becomes available.

When someones posistion or opinion is different than mine on a subject that is of great concerne to me I like to listen closely and open-mindedly. I almost always can learn something from them. I have even had my opinion change when doing this. Just a thought. :wink:

I sure hope I'm not the only one who shows up on December 13th. I was lonely all by myself last friday. :depressed:

[Bill Monroe]

Just on the off chance anyone is still even remotely interested in the original purpose of this thread, the advance story for sturgeon is in today's paper. The oversize issue is not going to be discussed in the regulations round, but will be taken up later...I'll do a column about that, too...probablyin the spring. Washington wants to address it soon, Oregon wants to wait...
Both commission meetings are about as far as possible from the Columbia...washington in Mt. Vernon and Oregon in Eugene...I think, though, that wasn't intentional, just the way the schedule worked out...You can get the state's options report, I think, by calling Curt Melcher at the Clackamas office. If you signed up at a meeting this year, you're probably already on the mailing list..

Or, as I've noticed with a lot of you, you may already have tapped into the system and received the report...even though it's not written yet...

[OceanBlue]

Fishplay: maybe we ought to make this the official IFISH oath!
I will not target a spawning fish. I will not target an endagered fish. I will not hunt and kill what I do not intend to utilize. I will not harrass wildlife in the name of sport .
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">I sat through the presentation on October 11 in Sandy. I believe the ODFW has good reasons for exploring a reduction. Keep the big picture in mind, folks.

Fishplay, you go guy! It is always heartening to see someone being a part of the solution instead of the problem. Your energy is focused in the right direction! graemlins/applause.gif graemlins/applause.gif graemlins/applause.gif graemlins/applause.gif

[Fishplay]

You can read Bill Monroe's article HERE (http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/sports/103727874776020.xml) .
I saw you at the meeting Bill. Sorry you could not stay for the sturgeon report. Things actually moved along pretty quickly after you left. Everyone was tired so they kept there statements and reports as succinct as possible and the warm water/panfish issue that wasn't on the agenda only lasted a few minutes.

Bill,
I'm not sure who your directing the last statement of your last post at??? But yes; it is truely amazing what can be learned if a person attends commission meetings and work sessions. You do however have to be present for the discussion and sturgeon always seems to be the last thing on the agenda.
I'm also unsure what your original purpose of this thread was. I thought it was to anounce and promote interest in sturgeon policy. If that was not your intention then please except my apology for tagging onto your topic. If you prefer to have your topics read only maybe Jennie can make a place for you simular to the Guide Reports. You can not initiate a topic about critical management and in that post ask if anyone is fired up about it, then not expect debate to ensue.

Bill's article brings up a couple points I'd like to address.
He mentions one of the options for management is to make adjustments to the slot limit of 42 - 60 inches. Thank you for pointing this out Bill. I had let that one slip past me in my first post to this thread. Making changes to the legal size of retention fish has been tried before. This has been found to be ineffective in the past. The only thing this succeeds in doing is skewing the data the department uses to manage the resource. Department employees have testified to this. This is not a viable option!

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Melcher said catching and releasing up to 100-year-old fish that are 10 feet and larger doesn't appear to affect their ability to spawn and produce new fish. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">In my opinion this is an irresponsible statement! Immediately following that statement Bill reports <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">But little scientific information is available. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">What!!! Come on!!!
Talk about tapping into the system and reporting what hasn't been written yet .

Even if the fish is indeed spawning (which I'm not sure is conclusive) are they spawning at full capabilities? Does the stress effect the spawning cycle? Are the fry completely uneffected? What percentage of the fry are viable? Are we getting optimum results from our broodstock? Can we minimize the stess and mortility and increase the production
with block closures at critical times?
These are just a few questions that will not be answered untill adequate research is completed.

Making and reporting irresponsible statements that lack scientific data to back them up does not serve the public's interest. You let the sportsman down on this one Bill. Had Chris Melcher made that statement and you not thought to ask about scientific data to support it I would have let it go. I expected better of you. After all you are one of our own. An Ifish
member! While I don't expect you to hold the same opinion as me I do expect you to report responsibly.

No one wants to tackle this issue in Oregon. It's growing in popularity and it's big money . People are coming from out of state and country to catch these ego fish. It is billed as the Fresh Water Marlin . Tackle for oversize fishing is expensive. That is why the Sportfishing Alliance advocates it. I think it's time to ask for some conservative and responsible policy regarding Columbia river broodstock!

As Bill's article states ODFW is not addressing the oversize issue at this time. The decission making meeting in Eugene on December 13th concernes harvest policy. Any sturgeon testimony if kept breif and on point can be given however. It is a public meeting and the commission makes itself available to the public because it wants to hear your concernes.

Isn't civil debate intellectualy rewarding. Is anybody learning anything here? Is anyone fired up about sturgeon policy. I invite you to join me in Eugene whether we share the same point of veiw or not.

Hello Jennifer (Pilars Mate),
Thank you for your kind words and support. I know you and John share my strong concerne of sustainable fisheries for future generations.
It frustrates me that so many are defensive to change if it might mean any sacrifce on their part. They become so cemented in there posistion that they close their mind to all valid points and civil discussion.
An Ifish oath? :wink: Wouldn't that be inspiring! graemlins/hearton.gif

[ 11-16-2002, 06:21 AM: Message edited by: Fishplay ]

[Bill Monroe]

My goodness, isn't someone being more sensitive than me...? And up earlier, too...

Hey! I don't care what you guys want to debate or whose thread you want to debate it on. The original note was about changes in sturgeon fishing rules. Oversize fishing isn't one of those changes. Story said it will be debated separately and later.

BTW...I am and have always been opposed to that particular fishery. I don't buy the we-should-do-it-until-you-prove-it argument about resource management. We've screwed up too many things we've found out about after the fact.

I didn't stay Friday because I had two stories to write, a Sunday column and the elk ranching ban. I can't do everything and be everywhere. Sturgeon stuff is waiting until December and it was easily taken care of this week. I also talked with Bud and Marcia and will deal with the bass and panfish stuff later. As it was, I spent 16 hours in commission meeting and work Friday.

And I also only get so many inches to explain stories, so sometimes the information comes through as skeletal. I'm sorry about that, but there are a whole lot of other things happening that mean just as much to people going to theaters, paying sewer bills or (perish the thought) still following the blazers.

I'll be in Eugene and spend another 16-hour meeting covering sturgeon. The final decision won't be made there, it will be in the biological meeting between Oregon and Washington in late January. Department directors will only get commission direction in December, although yes, that is by far the best place for public testimony.

I'm working today on a Sunday column about slobs in sleds (hey, that sounds kind of catchy) on tidewater and a feature I spent 12 hours on Monday driving around with a biologist looking for a deadly disease in brainstems (mine, clearly, is just about fried). I had to put together all of Thursday's outdoor stuff (including the sketchy sturgeon details) and still get in a homes and gardens piece about bears in the kitchen in Waldport that will run in a few weeks. And did I mention the photographer who dropped 65 CDs on me of bird shots and wants me to copy, catalog and categorize them this week so he can get them back for his book?

Suggest all you want that I should stay at a meeting, but you're just going to have to trust that I know where the priorities are and am trying my best to use the time wisely. Sitting through another Steve King sturgeon spiel isn't it...as good a job as he's doing for almost all of you who don't realize it.

Anyway, I gotta go...

Paper just came and I want to read the other funnies before sitting down to my computer at work.

As always, I'm there today if anyone wants to call and get more information about sturgeon. there is a little. 503-221-8231. Long distance to my desk is 888-222-8231.

(P.S. It's Curt Melcher, not Chris)

[AnglersRental]

Wow... Bill is right on on this one. Compare Bill Monroe's stuff to that guy J. Brinkman. I'll take Bill anyday. I just wish the Oregonian would let Bill use more of its "valuable" newsprint on outdoor issues.

I disagree on the issue of C&R oversize. It is irresponsible to suggest taking something away from people w/o data to support a need for the ban. That is a public resource. How bout If I suggest that all sturgon fishing should be C&R until you can prove that enough juveniles are making it thru the keeper slot and are growing to broodstock size?

Isn't that the same thing? I fish oversize, and try to do it responsibly, I could care less about fishing keeper sturgon, I do that maybe once a year. Whos the problem, you or me? I hear people bragging about how they killed 60+ sturgon during the year on one boat. (legally, taking other people out and on more than one tag.) If there is a resource deficency, start with the people killing fish rather than the people releasing them.

Why not cut the tag to 5 fish?

UG

[AnglersRental]

Or Hey I had another idea!

Lets start a sturgon hatchery, we could import some fish from San Francisco or the Fraiser River, maybe even Russia, and breed them in a hatchery. We will release little babv fin clipped sturgon, so you can tell the hatchery fish from the "wild" fish, and there will be plenty for everybody. Then we can OVERHARVEST all we want!! We can just make more! Has anyone thought of this?

UG

[ 11-15-2002, 06:31 AM: Message edited by: Uglygreen ]

[Bill Monroe]

UG...Thanks, I think...

The sturgeon hatchery thing has been discussed, by the way, but mostly dismissed cuz of the natural production below the dam. I think there's a private hatchery operating...maybe the one in California, where the Sacramento sturgeon aren't doing very well. One of the wrinkles is that sturgeon take so long to grow...they're not like salmon or steelhead that can be hatched and released within a month or a year or two.

And therein is the wrinkle with fishing oversized sturgeon.
That fishery is growing in popularity, especially in the past several years, but test-netting to measure recruitment is only done for five or six-year fish and larger. Therefore, there is almost no information about what's happened in the past several years while the oversize fishery was expanding a bit.
Further, nothing at all all is known about either the effect of high water or drought in the spawning zones below the dam or ocean conditions...these fish, remember, do come and go.

As fun as it is, I have trouble encouraging people to fish on spawning anything...spring trout in the Deschutes, fall chinook in the Trask, even spring female bass guarding their nests...whether or not they're released.

I've seen first hand what problems logging old growth forests caused...the problems were identified long after the cut was made by people who didn't know any better.

And women had to actually have miscarriages in the Coast range before the forest service stopped spraying them with 2,4,5-T.

Same with fish management.

Sure, the sturgeon looks and acts tough enough, but until we know a whole lot more about why and how, we shouldn't be so willing to risk a potential jeopardy for a few minutes of selfish adrenalin...

anyway, them's my thoughts on that...

As for the new regs process, I covered it before and will say it again....I feel like the guy on the merry go round reaching once again for that elusive ring.

[dawhunt]

I have never fished oversize sturgeon on purpose,I've caught more then my fair share as far as I'm concerned and thats not very many maybe 10 or 12 if that many.I just don't believe in harassing or injury something if I can't keep it. My wife and I like to eat sturgeon and keep 7-8 fish a year then I'm salmon or steelhead fishing.I'm not saying its wrong to fish them but why ??,how many times can you hook a large sturgeon and release it before it finally dies or quits spawning ??? in the same vein how many times can you gillnet a sturgeon and release it before it finally dies or quits spawning.I know we're going to get hit hard next year on how many and how much we can fish but the way I look at it at least we'll be able to fish them and keep a few,I'd hate to see it get to where we can't even keep a sturgeon to eat.So its really up to us to take care of the fishery because those college educated people in charge don't have a clue and have totally s-----d up our fishing everywhere !!,they've managed our fishery down to where it is today.I can understand the guides outlook on this the oversize fishery is worth a ton of money for them and its sport to us but something somewhere has got to give or we won't have a sturgeon fishery at all.Nothing but C/R like canada and that would be a shame.I'm not trying to p--- anyone off just the way I feel about it,As far as raiseing our lis. fees next year :depressed: , I sure hope I don't see any pay raises in the fishery dept :mad: , I hope that money go's where it belongs and not into some managers pocket. BAN ALL GILLNETTING in the Columbia River !! Again no offense meant to anyone EXCEPT the gillnetters !!
Bob

[ 11-15-2002, 08:30 AM: Message edited by: dawhunt ]

[Eric Linde]

TBill, Fishplay and Bob,
Hi my name is Eric Linde and I know two of you. I've been following this thread and feel the need to jump in here. I recently became a guide and spend alot of time in the Gorge fishing for all speices of fish including oversize sturgeon. I have been on the sturgeon task force the last 5 years that was responsible for helping to form this fishery, so I've been around these issues for awhile. I would like to point out a few things you might be over looking.
The Depts. of Fish and Wildlife in both states established a spawning sanctuary from Beacon Rock to the dam. It is closed May 1 until July 15. A full 2 and a half months in the spawning season. These fish spawn in the fastest water below the dam. Not in the frog water by Horsetail Falls. One other thing is that the Army Corp of Eng. closed the river from the new locks to the dam year round.
Fishplay makes it sound as if every other oversize sturgeon that is released dies. Only about 1 in 4 are actually spawning. I've personally released quite a few fish in the last 10 years and honestly can't think of one fish that I thought was in trouble. The last couple of years WDFW has been out in their catch and release boat taking the big fish on board to determine length, sex, and whether or not the fish is spawning or not. So there is data being compiled.
In talking with the Depts. the number of o/s sturgeon that die each year has stayed pretty constant over the last 20 years.
As far as the popularity of sturgeon fishing goes yes it has increased. But I'd say o/s fishing on the whole is decreasing. Most of the people who fish have done it and don't want anything to do with. Not to mention that it is the same time as the popular estuary keeper fishery.
You also say that changing the slot limit won't work. A 60" fish is the start of the broodstock size. How many 63" fish have you caught lately? What would happen if we cut the upper end size to, say 54". Would we recruit more fish into that broodstock size to insure a fishery in the future?
To say we are harassing these fish is to say all catch and release fisherman are harassing fish. You might want to be careful about your spawning ESA listed fish theroy. I believe that is what a Idaho spring chinook is.
What we have is a World-Class fishery in one of the most beautiful settings anywhere. Make sure we don't over react to a problem with a shot gun approach of closures and restrictions.

[Bill Monroe]

Eric, as usual, makes good points...
Most C&R fishing in Europe, by the way, is banned because they consider it cruel and unusual...

[greenhead]

Say tell them experts that the gill Hackers are good for the sturgen,and every other Kritters in the Big River. Then tell them where there money comes from.(sorry sore subject)

[Joe]

For what its worth....

I would be in favor of reducing the annual bag to 5 and decreasing the maximum length to 52". Anything to keep away from C&R only. I just don't have an interest in catching just for the sake of catching. I was always taught as a kid not to play with my food. :wink:

[fish forever]

re. the original thread [post. I for one would be more than happy to see my punches dropped from 10 to 5 and/or see the slot dropped from 60 to 55" if we could get a year around keeper fishery.

The season was closed so much this year that i didnt get to punch a single fish. And for me, punches and slot are irrelevant if you cant keep any or there are not enough fish to catch. One thing i used to like about Sturgeon fishing is that you can get away from the crowds when everyone else is chasing the salmon -and- have the chance to keep one.

[Fishplay]

Yes, thanks UG for weighing in with your opinions. Even though I do disagree with most
of them. How bout If I suggest that all sturgeon fishing should be C&R until
you can prove that enough juveniles are making it thru the keeper slot and are growing to
broodstock size? Isn't that the same thing? <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">No; this isn't the same thing. You
are saying all harvest should stop. I have not said all oversize fishing should stop. I have
not advocated a Ban . Again I ask you to read my posts for what is written not
what you want to read into it because you are threatened by the possibility of having to
make a sacrifice. We the harvesters are making concessions. The annual bag limit has
been pared down. The slot limit has been adjusted. The total allowable harvest has been
reduced. Now we face all of the above yet again. You see we already started with the
people harvesting fish and now it's time to look at the people releasing and sometimes
killing them.

Bill I apologize for coming off a little strong but your statement insinuated that my
comments were unfounded when I was only reporting what I had learned first hand
through research and meetings. I appreciate your work and dedication as well as all
those at the department and commission who are working hard to provide data and make
informed decisions.
I also apologize to Curt Melcher. It's not the first time I have mis-spoke someone’s
name. (Might be more of that brainstem stuff)

Eric,
Thanks for your input. You bring some issues to the table that I would like to address.
The spawning sanctuary was a step in the right direction and affirms that the wise people
of both states who are the stewards of this resource are concerned about fishing pressure
on broodstock. Yes, research shows the fish spawn in the fast water directly below the
dam; thus the creation of the sanctuary. The only problem with this is that the fish also
move in and out of the shallows to feed in preparation for the spawn. If the sanctuary
was effective the O/S fishery would not be so successful below the deadline. What is
needed in my opinion is either increase the size of the sanctuary (move the line down
river) or close the entire river from May1 to July 15th. The later would protect the
broodstock above the damn as well.
Fishplay makes it sound as if every other oversize sturgeon that is released
dies. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">I don't think I did that at all. I shared a couple first hand experiences and included what I
thought was the possible causes of the problem. Simple over-exhaustion in the first case
and a combination of water temp and exhaustion in the second.
Only about 1 in 4 are actually spawning.<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Eric, can you tell us why this is? I find this information very interesting!!!!
Could it be related to stress?

All we realize from a change in the slot limit is a one time escapement. You then
increase the pressure on the remaining fish in the new slot limit and you end up back at
square one. Plus as I stated earlier the data is then further skewed. We are having some
trouble digesting the data now since the last slot adjustment. This was presented by
department staff at the meetings in detail with supporting statistics. Those statistics also
showed very minimal benefit in reducing the annual bag limit. And I stress very
minimal . It seems very few anglers are successful or many simply choose not to
harvest fish. Maybe they feel about sturgeon the way I do about salmon. I'd rather eat
sturgeon than salmon any day.

Convince me why we should make this investment towards a broodstock population if
we're unwilling to protect that investment down the road.

To say we are harassing these fish is to say all catch and release fisherman are
harassing fish. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">If those catch and release fisherman are targeting protected and/or spawning fish, be it
sturgeon broodstock or ESA listed salmonoids, then yes that is exactly what I'm saying.

Again thanks Eric for your contribution to this debate.

Fish Forever
Get out there next weekend and get yourself an eater. Good luck!

[STGRule]

Fishplay: I'll tackle the 1 in 4 spawning thing. Male sturgeon spawn every one to two years. They don't have the calorie load problem with producing ova so they can spawn more often.
Female sturgeon spawn every 3-7 years, probably 4-5 leaving about 20 -25% of the female population to spawn in any given year. The timing probably has to do with the calorie load it takes to produce mature oocytes. This is one reason that the species re-absorb the eggs if they can't spawn. They also are long-lived enough to not require spawning every year to perpetuate the species.
The older, more mature (read largest) females contribute the most to a population.
This survival technique is a double edged sword. It allows for natural disaster survival that can span years (volcanoes, land slides, droughts and such) but leaves the species very vulnerable to over-exploitation. It takes up to 10 times the amount of time to recover as it does to do the damage. This is the most compelling reason for caution.