ODFW news release: Sturgeon Plan

[Pete]

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
2501 S.W. First Ave., Portland OR 97201
Internet Address: http://www.dfw.state.or.us

February 6, 2003 Contact: WDFW: Brad James, (360) 906-6716
or Margaret Ainscough, (360) 902-2408
ODFW: Anne Presentin, (503) 872-5264, ext. 5356

One-year plan reached for lower
Columbia River sturgeon sport harvest

Washington and Oregon fish managers have agreed on a one-year lower Columbia River sturgeon sport harvest plan that will close retention for two separate periods to limit catch.

To meet the overall sport harvest guidelines of 32,000 fish, the river above the Wauna power lines (at Puget Island where power lines cross from Cathlamet to the Oregon town of Wauna) is anticipated to close to sturgeon retention seven days a week from March 24 through June 30, while the river estuary below Wauna is expected to be closed for retention seven days a week from July 10 through Sept. 30. Catch-and-release sturgeon angling may continue during the retention closure.

For the remainder of the year, sturgeon fishing will be open seven days a week.

Annual bag limits will remain at 10 fish per angler, but the states will consider a reduction to a five-fish annual limit through the permanent rules process.

The plan allocates 60 percent of the recreational harvest (18,000 fish) to the estuary area of the river, and the remaining 40 percent (12,000 fish) to the area above the Wauna power lines.

The states are managing for a 2,000-fish buffer in the overall sport harvest guideline, equating to a 30,000-fish recreational harvest. Fisheries will be managed for the quota in each area, and specific retention dates may be adjusted to meet the quotas.

"This plan offers opportunity to fishers all along the river, while reflecting recent years' harvest distribution," said Bill Tweit, Columbia River policy lead for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).
"This is a good compromise for this year and ensures that conservation needs are met," said Ed Bowles, Fish Division administrator for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). "Oregon will re-assess the fishery using a full public process this summer and fall with the goal of developing a three-year agreement."

The sport harvest plan was developed in response to declines in the white sturgeon population, which dropped 4 percent a year from 1996 through 2001.

[live4fishing]

Thanks PETE for this info. Its really a drag. :sick: Oh well at lease we can still C&R.

[fish_on]

Boy that sucks the party boats get most the fish. ..!..

[Lured In]

STG...What's your thought on this? :whazzup:

[SafetyChain]

graemlins/berry.gif graemlins/berry.gif graemlins/berry.gif graemlins/berry.gif

So where do I sign up to be a walleye or small mouth guide? Maybe a shad guide too!
No No I got it....

ANNOUNCING A NEW SPORT FISH.....

Peamouth Chubs.... The other white meat!

[ 02-06-2003, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: SafetyChain ]

[TheRogue]

I don't agree with this either!! Rather see a reduction to a 7 fish limit, and keep it open year around. I would also like to see a pretty vigorous analysis of the guide/party boat catch, and work there to see if we can spread the impact a little.

However, if you look at the pure economics of it, the sturgeon fishery in the Estuary likely has a much larger impact as a % of the area's economy than the fishery in the other stretch does as a % of the area's economy.

In English (not TR-speak :wink: ), to close or severely limit the estuary fishery during it's peak would have a much higher local impact than cutting us off up here....in an area that's been pounded pretty darn hard over the years.

Again, I don't agree with it, but I can visualize the reasoning.

TR

[Sturgeon Tom]

60 % to the estuary? What's with that. Do thay have someting that the rest of the people of Wa and Or don't have. To get that much more is not right. We pay the same for the right to catch sturgeon as they do. :whazzup:

[STGRule]

Lured In: Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I'm home sick today (feels like somebody took a wire brush to my throat last night). My office is not involved in the management end of sturgeon stuff. We are research. I don't have any "official" answers to your questions. I know that they held a bunch of public meetings, the biologists from Washington and Oregon came up with some recommendations (that were different between states) and all the information went to the Compact for season setting.
As for my personal opinion, I think block closures are better (although I believe Oregon was lobbying for days of the week). I don't know why they didn't drop the annual limit unless it really wouldn’t have made a difference (maybe the 10% catching 90% thing). As for the 60/40 split, I am guessing that it had to do with the number of angler days and probably some economic consideration also. People that don't have boats have a right to catch sturgeon also and I think charters are cheaper than guides are.
I am a little confused about the anger of some people. You are not being excluded from fishing in the estuary when it’s open. Its only 1.5 - 2 hours down the road. It is highly unlikely that the charters are going to move up here when the estuary is closed but nothing is stopping us from going down there when it is open. :shrug:
As has been pointed out before, sturgeon fishing pressure has grown exponentially since the salmon fisheries have crashed. There simply is not enough sturgeon to meet the demand and still maintain stock health. We have the only consumptive sturgeon fishery in the world of this magnitude. In fact, we have one of the very few left in the world period. We have what most everybody else can only dream about. In order to keep having a consumptive fishery, we will need restrictions. And back to a basic point, when retention is closed, you can still fish. You can fish all day long, every day, until your arms ache from reeling in fish. If you want to keep, go to where it isn't closed to retention.

[roadsend]

Sturgeon Tom and ssteelhead Steve,

If you studied the estuary harvest, I think you would find that the bulk of it would be on guided sleds. If you looked at the guides, I think you would find that most do not live in estuary communities. I also believe that the vast majority of the sport (non-commercial) fisherman also do not live in estuary communities. Why do all of these folks fish here? Good fishing, a quality trip. A low estuary quota would result in concentrated pressure in the estuary and very early closure.
We are all in this together and little is to be gained by infighting among sportfisherman.

[Lured In]

STG...sorry for hassling you while you are under the weather. :sick: :wink:

Thanks for your response. I am not questioning the restrictions as much as why was it not more restrictive in some ways? I just checked and saw that ODFW finally finished last years harvest reports and now have the those posted.

What I find interesting in that data is:
1. Last year (2002) had the highest CPUE (25%) in the last 9 years.
2. 2002 saw the fewest angler trips in the last 9 years.

So basically last year was a banner year. In fact the best year on that spreadsheet. That is pretty amazing when you consider the fishery was closed for almost 3.5 months. To me, that would indicate the fishery is doing better than in previous years. (Please understand that I KNOW I am not a biologist, just trying to figure out the logic on this.) :wink: According the spreadsheet, the average CPUE for the last 9 years is .216. If the fishery was being 'depleted' somehow you would expect there to be a lower CPUE for fewer angler trips, not a higher CPUE?

When considering the quota's for this year by'zone', the spread sheet raises another question. Using last year as an example, in May and June alone there were almost 63,000 angler trips and a harvest of over 19,000 sturgeon. I would bet that the VAST majority (90%) of those fish were harvested in the lower river (below Wauna) during those months.

My point is that May, June and July have the most angler trips, the most catch and the highest CPUE of the whole year. I doubt anyone would argue that most of these fish are coming from the Estuary. If that is the case than we can expect that the lower river WILL be closed by the July 10 date as the quota will more than likely be met before then. Especially with the upper river being closed as of Mar 24. (shifting pressure to the Estuary a month early.)

Also there is no mention about transferring of quota from one area to another. If everyone goes down to the Estuary to fish and 20K sturgeon are harvested by July 10, that leaves only 10K for the upper river for the remaining 6 months of the year.

Can someone explain to me how this has any economic benefit?

STG..I also agree on the 10% of the folks are catching 90% of the fish (not literally but figuratively). If that is the case than all the MORE reason to have dropped the individual yearly harvest down to 5.

I guess what I find frustrating is that I honestly thought they were going to try to spread out the pressure and try to keep the seasons open for as long as possible. While I don't think that 12,000 fish will be caught on the upper river, I have no doubt they will easily blast out the 18,000 fish quota below Wauna before July 10.

The links I am refferring to are :
Monthly: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/InfoCntrFish/InterFish/stgmonth.pdf
Cumulative: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/ODFWhtml/InfoCntrFish/InterFish/stgcum.PDF

[ssteelheadsteve]

This really tilts the catch to the Astoria Crowd.
This Sucks. Burn more fuel and keep a ungrateful community alive. Astoria sucks and does's not deserve this excellent treatment.

[SHLEPROCK]

I think that the 60/ 40 is as fair as possible but if everyone goes to the estuary this Spring to fish for keepers and Springers the 60% is not going to take long to reach.
I think that they should have left the entire river open utill the quota for that section was met.
Most of the people fish for salmon during upper block closure but now they have a reason to fish the estuary for both at the same time.

[David Johnson]

“This is a good compromise for this year and ensures that conservation needs are met,” said Ed Bowles, Fish Division administrator for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). “Oregon will re-assess the fishery using a full public process this summer and fall with the goal of developing a three-year agreement.”

The sport harvest plan was developed in response to declines in the white sturgeon population, which dropped 4 percent a year from 1996 through 2001.

The increase in CPUE is probably attributed to an increase in skill level and not an increase in #'s of fish.

And for all who are whining, note above, they use a "public process" to hammer out these regs. It's more constructive to go to these meetings than sit around and complain about what was done at them.

[Lured In]

David...thanks for your input and while I hope that I am not coming across as "whining", I am trying to understand the logic. (assuming you were referring to me.)

Yes, i was aware of the meetings, unfortunately I was unable to attend.

[Bill Monroe]

Seems to me that economics hasn't got a lot to do with the decisions on splitting quotas. It's a matter of effort and access (where have we heard that before?)

It makes little or no difference that a lot (and I don't for a moment think most) of the fishing in the estuary is on charters and guide sleds.
So what?
Those are people out there enjoying access to a public resource.
And having seen the days of fishing in the estuary, I think it's pretty clear that the most effort is down there, even if it's not convenient or someone elses' effort...

It's a tough situation and was pretty well hammered out in a lot of public meetings first...in fact, it still isn't finished.

[TJB]

I heard that nobody from the sportfishing side showed up to lobby. That the only ones there were the charter boat people and the commercials. If that is true then you should not be complaining about seasons if you didn't step up to the plate.

[David Johnson]

Sorry Lured In,

I guess I actually I was more or less responding to the way a lot of people handle these issues. It wasn't directed at you.

I understand how it is with making it to the meetings with work schedules etc.

In the past I spent a few years working as a fish checker for ODFW. I was constantly confronted by fisherman who complained about the rules, the gill nets, the seals.......every person that ever got in my face about these types of things (as if I could actually do someting about them) I would ask if they ever drove to Salem, joined an organazation, wrote there rep. Not one of them did. They just went fishing and then whined about other peoples decisions.

At a recent meeting concerning the tangle nets there were 100 gill netters and 5 sports fishermen. Now if the sports fishermen want something done they should put their money were their mouth is.

There, now I'm off the soap box....

Again, I'm sorry Lured In.

[roadsend]

I attended the public meeting in Astoria and saw several sport fishermen presenting input.
I was told privately after the meeting by one of the honchos that the split quota was a done deal and had been so for some time. Based on other comments, I can't help but wonder how much direct lobbying was done by those with better access to the powers that be.