Todays Oregonian Wild Coho article

[Born to be Wild]

Well, Jonathon's article finally made it to print!

I noticed a typo as soon as I started reading it because I am also writing an article on the subject matter presently.
I have not read the article yet, but noticed in the second paragraph, he stated that "streams where they were born in 2002".

I wished they did grow that fast, but in reality, they are 3 year old fish.
2002 Adult Coho (hatchery or wild) were born in the Fall/Winter of 1999/2000.

No biggie!

I haven't got past the second paragraph yet, but it should have some good optomistic info in it!

I did post some info on Wild & Hatchery Coho on the "Save our Hatcheries" thread last night.
-Dan-

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Oregonian article (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1044536481238501.xml)

[KingFisher85]

State officials say that the sport harvests this year will probably be set at about 40,000 fish, twice last year's level. The pre-season forecast for returning hatchery coho this year is 863,100, more than twice last year's pre-season forecast. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Oh boy, get ready for another good year!

[Born to be Wild]

After further review...

Hatchery-born coho also had an extraordinary year. State officials had predicted that 362,000 cultivated fish would return to coastal rivers and the Columbia in 2002. The actual number was 660,100. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Extraordinary year? 660,100 Coho!

Geez, then what would you call a year like 1991 when I believe we had 2.1 million Hatchery Coho? (I don't have the #'s in front of me, but believe it was in that ballpark).
Or maybe as recent as 2001 when I believe there was in the neighbor hood of 1.5 million Hatchery Coho!

I believe if you went back to the "good old days", the '70's, we had something like 3-4 million Hatchery coho on some years!
But, I'm sure they released more smolts back in those days, which is fine with me!
I kind of like the way things are going on the Oregon Coast; less hatchery smolts, more wild fish!

Cultivated? Does thet mean hatchery?
Sounds like some kind of farm crop!

The huge returns were driven by a dramatic improvement in ocean conditions combined with severe restrictions on fishing. The coho's historic decline had prompted former Gov. John Kitzhaber to implement the state's sweeping salmon recovery plan, aimed at stream rebuilding and habitat improvements. But experts agree it's too soon to link 2002's profuse returns with those efforts, launched in the late 1990s. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Well, maybe it's too soon to tell yet, but I don't question that the two biggist factors in the turn-a-round in Wild Coho populations is due to Ocean conditions and "dramatic" protection of the "Wild Coho" (OCN's).

State and federal scientists also say it's too early to remove Oregon coastal coho from the endangered species list, because salmon returns show a history of wild fluctuation. Dramatic climbs are often followed by precipitous plunges. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">I don't know that I agree with that?
If it looks to be a good Coho year (OCN's), then open up some limited fishing on them in rivers and bay's where the runs are predicted to be strong/healthy (management). Then when all the rivers are healthy, open up a managed fishery on the OCN's in the Ocean.
If the "flucuation" predictions are to me dismal, then manage accordingly!

The coho's upward spike is raising new problems for the Endangered Species Act, however. The powerful federal law is already under attack by people who think that wild salmon should not be listed when hatchery salmon are abundant. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Are these people on drugs, or do they not believe in science?
OK, I believe it is ok to smoke, because I have never seen anyone "light up" and die of Lung Cancer!

The agency is conducting a review of federal hatchery policy -- triggered by the 2001 legal ruling -- and will use that information when it decides in November whether coho and another 22 runs of West Coast salmon should be removed from the endangered species list.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Well, those of you that believe in the difference and importance of "Wild Fish" might want to speak out on this one!
Things are on the "upswing" and let's not let these folk's that want to exploit these fish, or are nieve, set us back with there irresponsible ambitions and well financed attorney's!

"We still have a lot to learn and a long ways to go," Griffin said.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Ya know, maybe I'm lucky, but all of the Biologist I know and converse with from time to time, tell me the same thing, they don't have all the answers!
And, most of them like to fish and hunt!

Recovery began when ocean coho fishing was shut down in 1994. Fishing restrictions have been eased slightly since then, but harvests remain sharply down. The average Oregon commercial and sport harvest from 1970 to 1993: 1.27 million coho a year. The 1994 to 2002 average: 67,000 coho a year. Sport fishermen are now only allowed to keep hatchery coho, identified by a missing adipose fin. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">There is some of the measure's taken combined with great Ocean conditions that I feel are responsible for the "dramatic" comeback!
Be thankfull, we have responsible fishery managers! They were under a lot of political pressure from the "hatchery enthusiast" which now may have to swollow some pride?

"The biggest factors (last year) were the ocean and fishing restrictions." <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">I agree with that one!

Biologists, meanwhile, hope that when coho numbers decline as cyclical ocean conditions reverse, the fall will not be nearly as precipitous as in the early 1990s. Higher wild coho numbers could let officials raise fishing levels permanently.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Well hopefully we don't get into extreme El 'Nino conditions like we did in the '90's!

"I was starting to wonder with the poor returns . . . whether coho could ever come back," Jacobs said. "Last year changed my mind."
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Well, I had faith! Keep that stream restoration going and don't slack off now!
-Dano-

[BrionLutz]

Depoe Bay Dan,

"After further review..."

Me too &lt;grin&gt;.

I thought 2002 was a down year after 2001 which was a really "extraordinary".

Here's the graph from The Fish Passage Center and 2002 looks a bit over average but nothing like 2001.

http://www.ifish.net/uploads/20570737.jpg

I know Astoria this year on Coho was nothing like 2001.

I wonder what we are expecting for 2003, a repeat of 2001 or 2002...very different years.

Brion

[The Fishing Geek]

Geez, then what would you call a year like 1991 when I believe we had 2.1 million Hatchery Coho?<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Cohoriffic?

[Ramstrong]

Brion,
The 10 year average that you show on the graph includes the large #'s for 2001 as well. So when you take that into account, the run last year was still significantly better than the runs from the mid-late 90's.

[BrionLutz]

Ramstrong,

Originally posted:Brion,
The 10 year average that you show on the graph includes the large #'s for 2001 as well. So when you take that into account, the run last year was still significantly better than the runs from the mid-late 90's. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">I'll take what I can get &lt;grin&gt;...but 2001 was "extraordinary" while 2002 was a bit above average.

I was just puzzled why the article focused on 2002 vs. 2001. I wonder if they actually meant 2001?

The article noted that the 2002 return was causing fears that those opposed to salmon restoration might use it as excuse to take the Coho off the endangered species list.

I would hope that the huge decline from 2001 to 2002 would bolster the biologists statements that yearly spikes don't constitute a "recovery" showing how much the return can change from one year to the next.

I had to fight the Coho off with a bat at Astoria in 2001 while they were MIA there this year.

Though I had great luck with the Coho in the upper Columbia near Washougal.

Brion

[CATCH AND EAT]

I'm looking forward to this years ocean fishery. Yeah, last year was not anywhere near the Alaska style fishing of 2001 but it was still pretty darn good. Just had to work a little harder.

Caution is fine, especially since we are entering into another el nino year but if the numbers are there for this years returning salmon they they should let us at them. However, as far as preparing for an el nino year they should take that into account for both hatchery and wild fish when considering spawning. Bases on the 90's we could theoretically see a decline in the next few years of salmon returns. Due to poor ocean conditions. How do you fix that? Raise more smolts? Release more smoltz to keep numbers up?

I am suspicious of the methods that ODFW uses to compensate for off years on salmon returns. But truthfully, I really don't have any better ideas myself.

Come July, I will officially be a Fishaholic. Oh, here's a thought. El nino, warmer ocean temperatures, tuna caught while salmon fishing. Can you say tuna in close? :dance:

[Born to be Wild]

Brion,
The 10 year average that you show on the graph includes the large #'s for 2001 as well. So when you take that into account, the run last year was still significantly better than the runs from the mid-late 90's. <font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Ramstrong,
Indeed, last years return of "Hatchery" Coho was better than those of the mid 90's, but that ain't much to compare too!
Probably some of the worst returns on record?
This year should be good to great fishing in the salt, Bouy 10, and the rivers!
Wouldn't doubt several Washington rivers are open to 4 fish limits!
Last year the Cowlitz and the Cowlitz only was upped to 4 Coho (non fin clipped) a day in season because they realized then that there was going to be a much larger return than anticipated.
The Cowlitz was the bright shining star last year!

Hope the guys fishing the salt treat the "wild one's" with respect this year, 'cause there will be lots of them "hooked & released" again!
-Dano-

[finclipped]

Also to keep in mind is the tribes continued efforts to have more hatchery coho smolts released above Bonneville. Through a bargaining agreement, the states agreed several years ago to release more coho to fuel tribal commercial fishery's for coho. This skews the "over bonneville" coho counts on a historical basis.

[Born to be Wild]

I was just puzzled why the article focused on 2002 vs. 2001. I wonder if they actually meant 2001?
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Brian,
The reason they focused on 2002 vs. 2001 was because 2002 is what affects 2003 returns (hatchery jacks) and 2001 is hindsight to hatchery fish and doesn't affect our hatchery returns of 2003.
2001 is however a factor for the 2004/2005 (Fall and Winter) wild fish relating to how many parents (spawners) there was 2001.
It's easy to get the senario confused! But, wild fish are affected by how many of them spawn, where as hatchery fish are affected by how many man chooses to spawn!

I would hope that the huge decline from 2001 to 2002 would bolster the biologists statements that yearly spikes don't constitute a "recovery" showing how much the return can change from one year to the next.
<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Keep in mind that there was a decline in hatchery numbers in 2002, but at the same time, there was a dramatic increase in wild Coho numbers the same year (2002)!
When the going get's tough, the tougher get going!

So far, the wild Coho have continued growing in numbers since the devastating flood of '96 knocked them down! No flucuation up & down there yet! Just a continued incline.
And that's great news for Hatchery Coho fisherman also because the sooner these wild fish increase in numbers the sooner the hatchery quota's will open up!

Simple formula, the more wild coho there are, the more they will allow to be killed via "hooked & released" mortality which translates into more of the available hatchery Coho to be harvested in the "salt" where they are intermixed with wild stocks.

One last note; I don't know and don't think anybody does know for sure why the 2002 class of Hatchery Coho declined when Ocean conditions were so good, and at the same time, the Wild Coho dramatically increased.
Is it because the wild fish are more hardy as science has indicated?
Or, is it because our hatchery Coho mostly come from the Columbia and it's Trib's and experienced a drought year in the spring of 2001 when they migrated out to sea during which there was a lack of a Columbia River Plume (the "plume" caused by the fresh water entering the salt is a healthy atmosphere for smolts)?
Or did the Columbia smolts get hammered by a large number of predators?

Who knows?

[Straydog]

Looks like another good year coming but 2001 was really awesome.

Way to soon to think about delisting in my mind but I wonder if they are not selling restoration short in it's role in these returns.

Time will tell and it will be interesting to watch!

[ 02-07-2003, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Born to be Wild]

Oh Straydog,
I'm not too concerned about the possibility of them delisting the OCN's (wild Coho) because we are in a great rebuilding cycle! The best thing ODFW & WDFW ever did, for the fishery, is to fin clip the hatchery Coho!

Now we can keep track of the of the different stocks in the Ocean, and hopefully release the wild one's (unharmed) too spawn!

Yesteryear, they slaughtered everything thing, (wild & hatchery Coho) and had no way to distinguish the difference in the salt! But now they can!

So, I say let them (fisherman) harvest some of those excessive (abundant) Wild Coho where the rivers can handle it!
But, times have changed, and I don't think they would allow the same senario to happen again, and have better science now, and have the advantage of fin clipping!
(But, I do have some concerns because I think they allowed the wild Coho to be fished to where it was almost, "a point of no return"!

You can have too many or more than enough "critters" in a certain area that exceed the habitat conditions! (Deer or Salmonoids)!
Believe it or not, I believe we have reached that point in some rivers!

Thank God, we are approaching the abundance in some rivers vs. the "listed" conditions of the past and in some, we are definately in the clear!

I have a little more faith in the "newer" science/hatchery practices of old than I have seen in the older practices!

Things are looking up!
Can you say, Fish On!

[Straydog]

Dan,

I agree we should allow wild fish harvest where the numbers support it.

The only way I can see we could have "too many" is if the managers keep dumping hatchery fish when the wild fish have reached habitat capacity.