Discussion Board  |  Photos  |  Blogs  |  Videos  |  Directory  |  Kilchis Weather  |  Tides  |  Marine Info  |  AUP  |  Contact/Advertise  |  ifish Decals/Store

Carmen Macdonald

A passion for fishing and hunting grew into a career that's included Alaskan guide, media sales, writer and the politics of outdoor recreation. My company, Vaunt Marketing, represents industry-leading brands in the US and Canadian markets.

Search This Blog

Recent Comments


Recent Posts



February 13, 2015

Who's Killing ODFW?

by Carmen Macdonald

Candidates for the Director of the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife were interviewed publicly today in a Commission meeting. In all honesty, it came across as more of a campaign than a hiring process, but more on that later.

Each candidate was offered 15 minutes total to make their stump speech and provide answers to six questions. For more on what transpired, read Bill Monroe's column on Oregonlive.

I want to focus on what wasn't a part of the interview. Namely, what qualifications these potential candidates might have to lead and operate a public agency of 1,400 people. Because the straight scoop is, ODFW is in a massive crisis.
Consider another Oregonlive article by Kelly House. . It covers some of the issue with declining participation while offering some data that illustrates how hunters and anglers are declining as a percent of the population.

Michael Finley, Chair of the Fish and WIldlife Commission makes this comment in the article, "Most of the Western states are dealing with these same types of issues."


Let's have a look. Heres a recent study from 2013: Exploring Recent Increases In Hunting and Fishing Participation. The title alone ought to give you pause.

Tables 1.1 and 1.2 (Pages 15 and 16 of the PDF) look at percentage of growth, or decline. of hunting and fishing license sales from 2005 to 2011. This is just raw license sales. Did the state sell more or less in straight up numbers.

Washington's hunter numbers grew 12%, their angler numbers grew 30%. California's hunter numbers grew 38%, angler numbers were flat (0% change).

In Oregon, hunting participation DECLINED 17%, and angling participation DECLINED 18%. As a state, the results are the 8th WORST in hunting and 6th WORST in fishing.

Houston... we have a problem. To achieve results this bad (in comparison to the rest of the states) you have to work at it.

This problem didn't begin today. The numbers are from 2005 to 2011. This is a systemic issue dating back at least 10 years. Jump another 10 years back and you'll hit the genesis of the decline. Between 1994 and 1998, anglers numbers dropped by 80,000. When El Nino hit in the 1990's, the ocean coho fisheries were closed as well as coho hatcheries. These anglers left over a 4 year period, and the numbers have never recovered.

Then we cut steelhead hatcheries and stream trout programs.

License numbers bumped in the early 2000's on the back of record Columbia River returns and openings of Spring and Summer Chinook that had been closed or severely restricted for the 24 years prior.

But the Columbia is not enough to maintain anglers. The percentage of people that can afford or choose to own a boat that's safe on the big river just isn't that big, certainly not on the state level.

So what's going on? And where is the concern for this by the Governor, the Commission and the hiring process? And maybe more importantly, why is Oregon on this path? While this very political sounding hiring process complete with stump speeches about creating partnerships, funding steams and tapping other users for cash-- all the important people seem okay with the fact that Oregon is sucking wind on providing for the primary constituents of the agency. The paying customers are telling ODFW they don't like the product. They're choosing to spend those dollars elsewhere.

Oregon has been and is a leader in conservation (given they don't manage the actual land or the water).

Who's killing ODFW? A lot of them are quoted in the article by Kelly House. It's the past 20 years of conservation, with a total lack of meaningful results, and the commentators of the type in the article (and employees of ODFW and the Commission), for whom "conservation" will never go far enough. At least not until ODFW is dead and buried, hunting and fishing are gone, and nobody is left to give a rip about it.

This hiring ought to be about reconnecting hunters and anglers to the resource...in a big way.

Worry about the others, who pay nothing, later. What's transpiring in Oregon is tragic.

January 29, 2015

Summer Steelhead and Paradise Lost

by Carmen Macdonald

Last weekend I was invited on a camp trip over on the Deschutes River. Amongst the group there were bird dogs and chucker hunters, trout flies and trout anglers and steelhead flies, gear and steelhead anglers.

I went loaded for bear, which for summer steelhead included about seven Blue Fox Vibrax Bullet spinners in size 4, about six steelhead jigs and four floats. All my gear fit in the pockets of my jacket. I love these fish.

On Saturday, while winter steelhead anglers descended upon west side rivers in droves, I went 2 for 2 on summer steelhead. On Sunday, my buddy and I went 5 for 6. Of 8 fish hooked, five of them chased down the spinner and smashed it.

There was one other truck with three anglers that we saw on the river. It was simply awesome.

The more I think about summer steelhead, the more amazing I recognize them to be. Early anglers on the Deschutes will begin fishing the lower river in mid-July. Here it was late January and I was still on the same fish, fish that still cartwheel across the water, maybe with not the same enthusiasm, but pretty darn close.

Similar fisheries used to be available in many rivers much closer to home in the Willamette Valley. The Sandy, Clackamas and Molalla Rivers used to have summer programs that ascended far into the mountains. There are still summer programs in the Clack and Sandy, but they're a shadow of their former selves and specifically try to limit the presence of the fish in the basins. The Molalla program was eliminated in total.

Much of the driving force behind the downsizing or elimination of these programs was a study authored by Kathryn Kostow of ODFW. The study called out summer steelhead as having a negative impact on wild winter steelhead due to a "density dependent" effect. The summers, it was surmised, out competed the winters.

Programs fell like dominoes in the 1990's. License sales dropped by 80,000 between 1993 and 1998 (silver salmon were a big part of this).

Oddly enough, last week the Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society held a Hatchery and Wild Symposium in downtown Portland. I would have loved to have been there, but could not attend. A few friends of mine were in the audience.

Kostow was one of the speakers. She spoke to some of the density dependent relationships that were part of the original work on the Clackamas. However, this time it ended differently. My friends in the audience said you might have needed to know in advance exactly to what she was referring, but she offered a sentence. I won't quote because I wasn't there, but it amounted to-- it didn't work out on the Clackamas.

This after 15 years of destruction of fisheries. This after many citations of the Clackamas study to bolster arguments against hatchery fish in so many places. This after a very defensive 2012 memo saying the Clackamas was rebounding.

It's not. We have simply lost one of the best fisheries Oregon had to offer...make that numerous fisheries.

I've ground this axe pretty hard. Right now I want to say that having never met Kostow, many I know and have spoken with consider her a most excellent person. I do not want to take that away. I do want to point out that science is made up of people. People are not infallible. People are not without bias. People make mistakes.

In this specific instance, we've crushed some fisheries for no benefit at all. We've made a mistake.

The earliest summer steelhead I've caught in the Willamette system was caught on February 17th. That hatchery fish would have proceeded upriver and spawned the following year, providing somewhere around 12-months of opportunity (in this specific case, the fish was barbecued in short order :) It used to be said that you could catch steelhead on the Clackamas every single month of the year between the overlap of winters and summers. That wasn't some myth...it was fact.

So as we are now crowding anglers into fewer and fewer places....so much so that groups like TU are hinting at some form of limited entry....I have to wonder.

How many mistakes have we made? How many towns took the hit? How many burger joints like the one that used to be in Estacada are gone? How many connections to fish and the places they inhabit have been terminated?

And what are we going to do we do about it?


And for a capper on weird sense of timing, just before I can hit the upload button on this blog, here's what pops into my email.

In case you can't read the small type in the bottom middle it says, "Participating angler-sponsors assist Russian scientists in the collection of scale and tissue samples, and tagging of all caught-and-released fish. This is a high level scientific project, and all costs associated with sponsoring are tax deductible."

Is this where steelhead fishing is heading? Where the very wealthiest anglers looking for a fishing trip and a charitable donation wing on over to Russia to jam on the Kamchatka?

To quote Ferris Bueller, "If you have the means, it's so choice." I would agree. Insane trip that I'd love to take. I don't look cross at anyone who would take this trip. I do look cross on those who would perpetuate a false shortage of fish and opportunity on the premise that, at least on the Clackamas River, we're gaining something positive for wild fish.

September 10, 2014

More On Hatchery And Wild

by Carmen Macdonald

It seems that at this point, every couple of months I see another article published by notable researchers like Michael Blouin, Mark Christie and Michael Ford. To cut right to the chase, these studies conclude that the Relative Reproductive Success of hatchery fish is lower than that of wild fish. In other words if 100 wild fish (50 pairs) can produce 100 returning adults in the next generation, hatchery fish will produce fewer. In the case of wild broodstock steelhead, that number might be 85 returning fish instead of 100 with an RSS value of 85% for these fish.

What follows these articles is a wholly political discussion with those vehemently against hatchery fish standing on the position that hatchery fish are bad, hatchery fish are bad and hatchery fish are bad.

On the research side, what I read is a call for more money for more research so that the components causing this 15% reduction can be dissected.

While all of this is taking place, hatchery programs are (perhaps by design) thrown into turmoil. We have lawsuits, lost participation, lost economics and what will amount to a lost connection between the population and the resource if the trend continues.

While an 85% RRS value for steelhead seems to be a source of condemnation, I believe exactly the opposite. Looking at some layman-understood components that affect spawning success, 85% is one heck of a good number.

What follows here is an email I wrote to Michael Blouin at Oregon State University on the first of August. I did not receive a response from Mr. Blouin, but wanted to share the concepts involved. The italic components were not part of the original email...I've added them here in an attempt to further flesh out the concepts.

Dear Mr. Blouin,

As an angler I've read with great interest the number of Relative Reproductive Success studies that you've been involved with publishing over the last years. Within each, I see quick references to what appear to be some critical concepts that we'd want to understand, but then not much in regards to follow up.

A couple of them are:

a. High level of variation in spawning success between adults. I'd believe most interested in salmon and steelhead would expect progeny to be spread more or less evenly across the spawning adults that preceded them, but that's not the case as you've mentioned. Certain spawners are highly successful, others are not at all- which is true across both wild and hatchery spawners.

On Hood River, genetic studies found that the parents of any given run year were not evenly spread across the population with every two wild spawners replacing themselves. Instead, some spawning events produced many fish, some one or two, and many none at all. To me this suggests that on a given year X, Y or Z tributary might hit those perfect conditions and others experience just the opposite. Think about our hatchery programs. We no longer scatter-plant fish. We apply them to select locations in order to greater expose them to fisheries and minimize their influence on wild spawners.

b. Spatial distribution of spawners. You've referenced spatial distribution of spawners being different for wild and hatchery fish. Generally, I understand that wild fish, especially steelhead, are found higher in systems and better disbursed through spawning tributaries. Hatchery fish are generally planted lower in systems and returning adults tend to hang around the area of their liberation and the spawning tributary nearest upstream.

Within these two concepts alone I see great reason for differences in reproductive success. With regard to variation in spawning success, my thoughts would lead me to believe that to be successful in spawning and returning the next generation, the conditions where spawning, emergence and early life history take place have to be just right. When it's great, it's really great. When it's not good, nature comes down hard. Couple that with greater spatial distribution of wild spawners, usually higher in systems and my thoughts quickly wonder how we can ask that hatchery fish and wild fish be equally successful?

Wild fish are the progeny of a wild event. Hatchery fish have to be applied to a wild river. They cannot be a wild event. Their point of liberation is chosen by humans, not nature.

Is anybody asking or contemplating whether the question of hatchery fish equaling wild fish productivity is even legitimate to ask? It doesn't seem so.

And the further thought here is that wild broodstock steelhead have been shown to perform at 85% of their wild ancestry. With that number and the fact that within fishery programs we're actively trying to minimize interaction while maximizing harvest, how has the result been allowed to be characterized as a negative?

One other component that intrigues me is the issue of capacity. From what I can gather, the first three years of the Hood River study release numbers of hatchery smolts numbered no more than 5,000. Consequently, those were also the years that returned the best relative reproductive success from hatchery fish. From what I believe I've read, the years that followed included releases in the range of 45,000 smolts.

We know a capacity exists in our rivers. We can go beyond capacity by adding smolts that use little resources before they exit the system. However, when they return as adults and try to spawn, they're 100% subject to all forms of natural selection, and capacity. What I see within the studies appears to be the expectation of an infinite upside. To be equal to the productivity of wild fish, hatchery fish would have to be there in numbers (and the aforementioned locations) that are capable of delivering successful reproduction equal to that of wild fish.

And because we're applying hatchery fish to streams in a manner that will limit their spatial distribution and utilization of the best habitat, rational thought would conclude that the stream's capacity will come down hardest on these fish.

As I consider steelhead, they were made a game fish in the late 1970's. By the early 1990's sport harvest was ended. With only a small level of tribal harvest and sport release mortalities, by what mechanism would Hood River steelhead be below capacity?

With regard to the work you've done, do you have spatial distribution information of where successful and unsuccessful spawners were found? Were the hatchery fish applied to areas that also produced successful wild spawning or were they in low success areas? Is there any information with regard to capacity of Hood River and the stream segments used?

In all of this it appears that the conventional wisdom says that to be of benefit, the RRS of hatchery fish needs to equal that of wild fish. Is anybody asking if that goal is at all reasonable?

And finally, from a population level. If first generation broodstock steelhead have a relative reproductive success that is 85% of wild fish, does the hypothetical math below work?

a. Wild run= 1,000 fish
b. Remove 50 pairs to create broodstock
c. Produce and release 100,000 smolt at 1% return
d. 900 wilds (1,000 minus the 100 removed) return plus 1,000 broodstock

If the Relative Reproductive Success of the broodstock fish are 85% of the wilds, am I in a better population position with 100% of a 1,000 fish run, or 100% of 900 wild and 85% of the additional 1,000 broodstock?

I'd greatly appreciate your insight.

Thank you!

As we move forward with management programs, there is a reason we have some separation between science and policy. And with regard to Relative Reproductive Success, a difference in raw value does not immediately mean damage to wild populations.

To me some in-depth discussion and transparency within these concepts from the leadership at our management organizations would do much to advance trust within ongoing processes.

May 12, 2014

ODFW Budget: Where The Rubber Meets The Road

by Carmen Macdonald

Back in the early 1970's, my family used to make an annual summer pilgrimage from our suburb of Pittsburg to Jekyl Island, Georgia for a summer vacation. Being the youngest of five kids, I was in the sure position of being relegated to the back of the station wagon for the trip, camped out on top of suit cases and competing for space against our brittany spaniel.

The soundtrack from these marathon trips is forever etched in my brain. I have nearly instant recall of random songs from the seventies, sometimes at really weird moments.

As I've followed the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's budget proceedings, Mary MacGregor has been a fixture I've been unable to shake.

"Torn between two lovers, feelin' like a fool. Lovin' both of you, is breakin' all the rules."

While I can't shake the songs that pop up, they don't necessarily come with an explanation of why they've chosen the moment to pop up. That takes some sorting out.

Over the last decades, the Oregon Department of Fish and WIldlife has been on a steady reduction of General Fund dollars and become largely funded directly by anglers and hunters. Even the large pool of "Federal" dollars that are received by the agency are derived from anglers and hunters in the form of Dingell-Johnson and Pitman-Robertson funds. These are both excise taxes paid by manufacturers on all the fishing and hunting goods we as consumers by. These monies are redistributed to the states based upon the number of fishing and/or hunting licenses sold.

Commercial fisheries are exempt from Dingell-Johnson taxes, that's why you see tags that say "For Commercial Use Only" on some of the gear in commercial outlets. It's untaxed and does not contribute to management or conservation.

For the record, I'm completely okay with hunters and anglers paying the freight for ODFW, as long as ODFW is both demonstrative of its commitment to the needs of this community and delivers to the best of its ability.

But increasingly, that's not the case.

To look at what's transpired, we have to backtrack two decades in fisheries. In the 1980's and early 1990's Oregon was a destination fishery for 10's of thousands. Counter to today's fisheries, ocean coho where a mega-driver of participation and fiberglass ocean boats were as common on the coast as aluminum sleds.

Harvest levels were egregious.

In 1993, the bottom fell out. Over-harvest met the most persistent El Nino (a warm water event that suppresses cold water upwelling off the coast, starves the environment and crushes juvenile salmonid survival) ever recorded and the bottom fell out from fisheries.

On the backs of closures, license sales dropped 41,000 in 1994. Rather than wait out the storm and modify harvest levels, the fish were listed. Then Oregon Trout, which included leadership that went on to be: Governor Kitzhaber's natural resource director, the founder of the Native Fish Society and the Executive Director of the Wild Salmon Center, indicted hatchery fish, not El Nino, as the driver of the decline.

For coastal Oregon, three initiatives were undertaken:
1. Harvest rates on coho were cut from as high as 80-90% of the adult population to less than 20%.
2. The largest habitat restoration plan, The Oregon Plan For Salmon, was initiated.
3. Coastal hatchery plants of silver salmon were virtually eliminated.

By 1998, license sales had dropped by more than 87,000, 13%- kaboom.

El Nino ended. Fish runs bounced back. But the 6 million hatchery coho that drove coastal fisheries were gone. Coastal communities have not recovered to this day.

But coastal coho were not the only component of the story. Hatchery fish were targeted far and wide. We reduced and/or eliminated steelhead plants. We cut stream trout programs in droves (remember when rivers were planted with hatchery trout?). We cut programs galore. Certainly that should have saved some money, but it didn't.

We initiated a whole new entity within ODFW, the Conservation and Recovery Program. From layers and layers of labor-intensive studies and monitoring, we're developing reams of reports and insight. Later, we built a world-class research facility in the Oregon Hatchery Research Center and funded it with license dollars. The only problem with both these efforts are they costs a fortune and none of it is putting any more anglers on the water.

Remember them, the people that pay for this stuff?

And there's the crux. The public at large loves the concepts of biodiversity and ecological balance, but they're not paying for it. They want nature to balance itself, in harmony, yet they appear to miss the fact that we've all moved in to nature's house.

We have recovery plans for salmon that, in cases like the Willamette system, are laughable.

We're hog-tied by the Marine Mammel Protection act in the face of a marine mammal population that has exploded exponentially. We have the Migratory Bird Act, though it's been federal projects that have created problems with avian predators.

We have conservation biologists where we need managers. We have biologists who have no understanding of anglers or hunters.

Biodiversity is a worthy goal. I can see where I'm setting myself up to be lambasted by the "see he just wants to kill everything" crowd.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I'm all for these efforts, a lighter touch and biodiversity, granted:

a. We're quantifying results from them, but we're not. We've initiated lots of hatchery restructuring based upon showing results to wild fish. None of it has been effective, and yet we continue these efforts with a direct negative result to participation and funding. I'm sure there are similar efforts on the wildlife side.

b. You don't ask me to shoulder the responsibility to pay for it all, and they are. These are the two lovers of ODFW and the surrounding political landscape. Over decades we've weened General Fund dollars from the agency, yet increased the responsibilities of the agency beyond components of fishing and hunting.

Want to balance a fish and wildlife budget on anglers and hunters? Embrace fish for fishing, and game to hunt.

As a country we've got a Bambi hangover, and this is much of the other side of the equation- we don't value the sporting life. Released in 1942, along with increasing urbanization, Bambi and more recently the 1970's images of the clubbing of baby harp seals, and even more recently the Discovery Channel (original documentary version, not what exists today) have created generations of charged emotion surrounding fishing and hunting. For some great thoughts on Bambi, see the 1992 article, The Trouble With Bambi

The emotion has brought us into this quest for "ecotopia." With biologists doing "God's work," we will atone for the sins of our fathers.

The problem with this path is that nature is ugly. Nature "balances" the ecosystem with catastrophic events: famine, disease and all forms of horrifying death. It includes great swings of the pendulum between prey and predator, spending very little of reality in the middle.

This is not management; it's the absence of it. Wolves are wonderfully romantic creatures. They're also refined killers and add nothing to the financial stability of Oregon, ODFW, and the conservation mission of the agency, because again, the mission is funded by anglers and hunters.

A couple comments that I've heard all too often include:
1. The agency (ODFW) first and foremost is responsible for the conservation of species above all else.
2. If everybody on all sides of debates are a little bit unhappy, the policy must be pretty good, falling right in the middle.

On the first one, that's wrong. By statute, use of resources and conservation are co-equals. It is okay to have an impact on wild populations with hatchery programs. Hatchery programs have not and will not drive wild fish to extinction as has become the pop-culture of those that would turn rivers into museums. According to ODFW documents, hatcheries return $76 for every single state dollar invested in the program. Participation is critical to funding the conservation mission, without it, there is no conservation mission.

On the second, it can also mean that the policy is no good and lacks underpinnings. This is a question of leadership. Does it feel to anybody else that ODFW does not have a driver at the wheel? At what point do you discover the potential of a 34 million dollar shortfall? Who is out in front on this, what is the plan that has been being followed? What were the expectations?

It's a difficult position for a government agency, which serves at the will of the Governor and legislature, to demonstrate strong leadership. Nevertheless, Directors of government agencies rise to this position knowing what comes with the job. They should be willing to chart a path and take the responsibility for its success or failure. Has Director Roy Elicker embodied this?

Has anybody seen or heard from or about the Deputy Director of the agency, Kurt Melcher, since he took the position?

I love Oregon. When I came to this state in 1984, it seemed we understood that we had levied numerous injustices against the available habitat for the sake of the people living here, but at the same time we were committed to managing a balanced approach to fisheries and hunting. Currently, we have an agency that is responsible for the status of fish and game, but has no real purview to effect change. ODFW can talk habitat, but they don't manage the land. They can talk about stream flows, but they don't manage the water.

Anglers and hunters see ODFW looking for more money to provide less. I have to agree. Pull back the curtain and that's all that's there. On the fishing side, ODFW manages hatcheries and harvest, and have chosen to reduce the hatchery component though it doesn't define the status of wild populations, and that cut immediately impacts harvest….it's really pretty simple.

In all that I've read from groups like Cascadia Wildlands, Oregon Wild and the Native Fish Society, they add nothing. They seek to take from those who largely fund the conservation mission and offer nothing in return.

The way out of this mess is in some broad level leadership decisions.

1. Is Oregon going to embrace fishing or not? If so, it takes fish. If not, let's just make that decision and get on with it instead of perpetuating this façade that removing hatchery programs is actual management.

2. Is the Governor or the Department going to lead on the tough issues? Marine mammals, avian predators, ill-advised cougar legislation, wolves, unfunded mandates- these topics are all in the red in the budget columns. It's going to take some leadership to get out of this mess.

3. Who will fund the future of the agency? A birdseed tax to fund non-game bird management has been shot down twice in the legislature. Non-game enthusiasts are vocal with demands, silent on funding.

Maybe we need a dog food tax to fund wolf management? I see the amazing commentary as people ooze over wolf reintroduction…he buddy, how about you pony up?

Overall, something has to change. If everyone's views are important, everyone ought to be willing to pitch in. Unfunded mandates are killing ODFW. Legislators love to deliver a pet project and sportsmen's license fees are going all directions, and more and more of those directions have nothing to do with fishing and hunting.

If the contributions of the sporting community to the lifestyle and economy of the State of Oregon is not going to be valued, I regrettably have to live with that. At this point of budget discussion, I can however, my viewpoints heard to the best of my ability.

I'm not a fan of Governor John Kitzhaber. I believe he fancies himself an angler, but those press clips are a long time gone. He led a lot of policy in his first two terms, but I don't believe the man has offered the results of those policies more than a casual view. These policies have bee destructive far in excess of any restorative qualities that were hoped from them. And yet, it appears in efforts like the Coastal Multi-Species Plan, his intention is to serve Oregonians more of the same.

Kitzhaber is responsible for much of the sitting Commission. His appointees have been anemic. The Commission in total has been anemic. They are the governor's voice in the process and they are completely and totally lackluster. If Governor Kitzhaber valued the sporting community that funds the agency, there are dozens of candidates that could lead ODFW out of the hole by focusing on the customer.

ODFW budget conversations are an opportunity for anglers and hunters to take a stand. This department is trending further and further away from those who fund its mission. They take your money, then run to other lovers. Governor Kitzhaber, the ODFW Commission and ODFW staff need to make a strong and renewed commitment to their core customers, or go get the money they need from those that make demands, while offering nothing.

I hope to see you at one of the Department's public meetings.

ODFW Budget Meetings Schedule

Monday, May 19
7 pm – 8:30 pm
Monarch Hotel
12566 Se 93rd Ave

La Grande
Tuesday, May 20

7 pm – 8:30 pm
Blue Mountain Conference Center
404 12th Street
La Grande

Wednesday, May 21

7 pm – 8:30 pm
Central Oregon Community College
Boyle Education Building, Room 155
2600 NW College Way

Thursday May 22nd

Tillamook Office of the Dept. of Forestry
Next door to the ODFW and next to the Tillamook County Fair Grounds on 3rd st
(info courtesy of Jerry Dove)

Thursday, May 22

7 pm – 8:30 pm
Hallmark Inn
744 SW Elizabeth Street

Coos Bay/North Bend
Tuesday, May 27

7 pm – 8:30 pm
North Bend Public Library
1800 Sherman Avenue
North Bend

Wednesday, May 28

7 pm – 8:30 pm
ODFW Office
4192 N Umpqua Hwy

Klamath Falls
Thursday, May 29

7 pm – 8:30 pm
Oregon Institute of Technology
College Union Bldg., Mt. Bailey Room
3201 Campus Drive
Klamath Falls

You must login to post a comment.

User Name

Need an account? Register here!

All information and pictures on ifish.net are © www.ifish.net
Terms of Service
All Coast Media Network 2 Cool Fishing Noreast.com Stripers247.com All Coast Ifish.net