Nehalem closure?? - Page 2 - www.ifish.net
The Oregonian's Bill Monroe!

Go Back   www.ifish.net > Ifish Fishing and Hunting > Ifish Community

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-30-2012, 09:58 AM   #61
CptCatchem
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Salem Oregon
Posts: 151
Default Re: Nehalem closure??

I am Deral Jones and being one the regular "Nehalem Jaws" fishermen" I am pretty passionate about this topic..

Some additional information...

At the April 25th meeting ODFW showed us the staff proposal for the upcoming 2012 season and in a nutshell it was...

Fall chinook season to open July 1st with a limit of 2 unclipped per day and an annual limit of 10 in aggregate from all rivers north of the alsea and south of the columbia. No closure of the lower river from the State Park to the jetty tips.

An unclipped coho fishery opening Sept 15 with a 1 fish per day 2 per season limit on the Nehalem.

There was a good showing of support for the ODFW recommendations at this meeting however the final 2012 rules will not be made until the ODFW meeting in June.

It is my understanding that last years original staff recommendations were for the lower river to be open also but the delayed opening of the lower river was due to a good showing of the "close the lower river permanently crowd" at the June meeting.

PLEASE SUPPORT our ODFW staff recommendations by sending them an email telling them so at:

ODFW.commission@state.or.us

Public comment is being gathered through May 22nd.

May 17th there will be another meeting in Tillamook on a 4 year conservation plan beginning in 2013. This is the meeting where you will find the proposal to permanently close the jaws to chinook fishing sponsored by the mayor of Manzanita to be presented. ( the proposal shown further up this thread )

__________________
CptCatchem
CptCatchem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2012, 02:53 PM   #62
CptCatchem
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Salem Oregon
Posts: 151
Default Re: Nehalem closure??




Sometimes you just have to get involved.

After seeing last years ODFW 's Nehalem Basin proposal I saw no need to attend the public opinion meeting because things looked fine to me. HOWEVER things changed when a group protested at the meeting and succeeded in delaying the lower river opening until Sept 15th.

This year when I was notified that another push was underway to permanently close the lower river to Chinook fishing I jumped in with both feet. I hung out at the boat launch in Garibaldi and visited business' in Garibaldi and Rockaway to gather signatures in support of keeping the lower river open to sport fishing. After collecting over 300 of the 1100 signatures we gathered I can say virtually everyone I talked to agreed that if it wasn't a conservation issue being addressed by ODFW then it should be open. The one question most people asked was: “Why do they want to shut it down?” I normally tried to avoid answering that one by saying you would have to ask Gary Bullard that question.

Here’s some things to consider about the proposal to close the jaws however..

Along with the 2 page proposal you see on this thread there were also 2 pages of introduction for this proposal. In those 4 pages you will find no less than 12 references to guides/professional fishermen ( of which I am neither ) ranging from the amount of fish they catch, how many rods they fish, where they can fish, what agency controls them , etc., etc. My question is if this is an issue with guides why don’t you address that?

They lay blame on the collapse of the Chinook run in 2009 on overfishing at the jaws. But also in 2009 there were emergency regulations for the Siletz, Yaquina, Yachats, Alsea, Tillamook, Nestucca, Salmon and Necanicum rivers. Some or most of those rivers see very little fishing pressure at the "jaws"

The introductory letter states "the estuary is compact and the river is relatively short and narrow" when in actuality the Nehalem is the longest of Oregon coast range rivers at 119 miles.


They say they have the support of the businesses and marina’s?

I sure got a lot of petition signatures from area businesses here in Rockaway and Garibaldi to keep it open. Also there are 3 marinas on the Nehalem and only one of the three marina’s support the closure.

Here’s another statement taken from the proposal.. “Policy should not be determined just in terms of benefit to those who can afford the expense of guides or the cost of big and powerful boats.” This sounds more of that social issue than anything remotely resembling a conservation issue.

Does that mean that although no matter how much I’d love to go out and catch a tuna, because I don’t feel my equipment is capable of doing that in a safe and comfortable manner, that I should lobby to have the tuna seasons shut? Or take it another step and what if I am a bank angler without a boat at all, should I lobby to close fishing to anyone that can afford a boat?
PLEASE GET INVOLVED and save our fishing by contacting ODFW.commission@state.or.us


Thank you for your time. I’ll keep you posted on meetings and results and please attend the May 17 meeting in Tillamook if you can.
Deral Jones
__________________
CptCatchem
CptCatchem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2012, 03:47 PM   #63
reel em in
Fry
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10
Default Re: Nehalem closure??

Great post Darel. Was in Nehalem today and looks like the locals are having quiet time. I think they really believed that the closure proposal was to get rid of the guides. At the meeting Bullard said if there are fish we could fish on them but his proposal said nothing about that. sounds like backstepping to me. I agree we need to get to the May 17 meeting.
Lets go fishin
reel em in is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2012, 06:38 PM   #64
Trouble854
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: PDX
Posts: 231
Default Re: Nehalem closure??

Thanks to everyone who is stepping up on this, I love fishing the Nehalem.
Trouble854 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2012, 02:46 PM   #65
driftboat eric
Fry
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1
Default Re: Nehalem closure??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trouble854 View Post
Thanks to everyone who is stepping up on this, I love fishing the Nehalem.
Doesn't sound like conservation is the issue here at all. Sound's more like they want all the business for themselves, up river.
driftboat eric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2012, 06:42 PM   #66
reel em in
Fry
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10
Default Re: Nehalem closure??

Quote:
Originally Posted by driftboat eric View Post
Doesn't sound like conservation is the issue here at all. Sound's more like they want all the business for themselves, up river.
thanks for all your support Eric. we all made a difference together. Looking towards the 2013 proposals the meeting is on May 17th. need all our support then. will see you in the fall!!
reel em in is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2012, 06:48 PM   #67
reel em in
Fry
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 10
Default Re: Nehalem closure??

Quote:
Originally Posted by reel em in View Post
thanks for all your support Eric. we all made a difference together. Looking towards the 2013 proposals the meeting is on May 17th. need all our support then. will see you in the fall!!
JDARR when do we get to see that article you wrote? are you going to post it here?
reel em in is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2012, 07:08 PM   #68
nooklegend
Coho
 
nooklegend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Sisters
Posts: 75
Default Re: Nehalem closure??

Thanks for all your information regarding the Nehalem Deral. I appreciate everyone's involvement by attending meetings and contacting ODFW to keep this fishery open. I now live in Central Oregon and look forward to a couple annual trips to the Nehalem fishing the jaws and upriver. The proposal from ODFW sounds reasonable. I will contact them with my support. Thanks again!
nooklegend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2012, 11:58 AM   #69
Leadball
Cutthroat
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 34
Default Re: Nehalem closure??

A quick check of the ODFW public meeting announcement shows nothing about any jaws closure proposal. Nothing. Looks to me like the mayor's proposal didn't make it past ODFW staff, and died. Good riddance. Anyone know different?
Leadball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 05:14 AM   #70
CptCatchem
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Salem Oregon
Posts: 151
Default Re: Nehalem closure??

Its important to make sure this issue is buried DEEP. Even if you don't fish the Nehalem its important to squash this now. Don't allow a precedent like this to worm its way into your rivers !!!!

Please show your support for the ODFW staff proposals by emails to

ODFW.commission@state.or.us

Thank you
.
__________________
CptCatchem
CptCatchem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2012, 06:51 AM   #71
JDarr
 
JDarr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Clackamas, OR
Posts: 3,768
Default Re: Nehalem closure??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trouble854 View Post
JDarr,
Great article, I was out with Russ the day the article came out, lots of thumbs up, but the mayor was also on the water that day, and he seemed none to please. Glad you wrote it, keep up the good work.
Thanks man! I wasn't really into the article for any kind of person reason other than needed some good content for the newspaper. All I really knew is I felt like there was an injustice being done and I didn't like it. Honestly, I can't take my driftboat out in the jaws so there was really no personal gain from the piece. I just feel like because I occasionally get things published, I need use that for the good of the fish and fishermen. Like Spiderman says, with great power comes great responsibility

JD
__________________
"World Class Boats for World Class Rivers, Worldwide"
JDarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2012, 09:18 AM   #72
CptCatchem
Steelhead
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Salem Oregon
Posts: 151
Default Re: Nehalem closure??

Reminder..... Meeting tonight in Tillamook at the forestry Dept 7pm Discussing the 4 year conservation plan on North Coast Rivers Lets keep them open Please attend if you can

Thanks
__________________
CptCatchem
CptCatchem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2012, 10:12 AM   #73
JDarr
 
JDarr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Clackamas, OR
Posts: 3,768
Default Re: Nehalem closure??

Quote:
Originally Posted by CptCatchem View Post
Reminder..... Meeting tonight in Tillamook at the forestry Dept 7pm Discussing the 4 year conservation plan on North Coast Rivers Lets keep them open Please attend if you can

Thanks
Thanks for the heads up. I would have forgotten.

JD
__________________
"World Class Boats for World Class Rivers, Worldwide"
JDarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2012, 09:26 PM   #74
booter
Fry
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 12
Default Re: Nehalem closure??

Any chinook closure for that system is good for whatever reason. The fall run is a prime example of over fished chinook and coho that were protected. There's not too many rivers you can't fish freshwater for fall chinook, especially that big of a system. Those regs are there for a reason, the run sucks. The coho retention should be much higher and the chinook should be protected until that run recovers.
booter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2012, 09:40 PM   #75
freespool
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: woodstock
Posts: 14,763
Default Re: Nehalem closure??

Quote:
Originally Posted by booter View Post
Any chinook closure for eminant runs on the system is good for whatever reason. The fall run is a prime example of over fished chinook and coho that were protected. There's not too many rivers you can't fish freshwater for fall chinook, especially that big of a system. Those regs are there for a reason, the run sucks. The coho retention should be much higher and the chinook should be protected until that run recovers.
According to ODFW the reason for the remnant runs on the Nehalem is habitat degradation, which was caused by over logging, not over fishing.
__________________
salmon hugger





"A curious thing happens when fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the new ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust their expectations downward to match prevailing conditions." Kennedy Wame
freespool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2012, 08:24 PM   #76
booter
Fry
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 12
Default Re: Nehalem closure??

Quote:
Originally Posted by freespool View Post
According to ODFW the reason for the remnant runs on the Nehalem is habitat degradation, which was caused by over logging, not over fishing.
Coho and Steelhead are spawning just fine in the same habitat. The nehalem drainage is a healthy system. Logging isn't selective to chinook and is done much better than back in the day. If you leave a river alone for a bit it will fix itself, the run would come back and be great fishing again if its regulated correctly
booter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2012, 08:38 PM   #77
freespool
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: woodstock
Posts: 14,763
Default Re: Nehalem closure??

Quote:
Originally Posted by booter View Post
Coho and Steelhead are spawning just fine in the same habitat. The nehalem drainage is a healthy system. Logging isn't selective to chinook and is done much better than back in the day. If you leave a river alone for a bit it will fix itself, the run would come back and be great fishing again if its regulated correctly
Poor water quality

Poor stream complexity

Lack of large woody debris recruitment

These are all symptoms of poor logging practices, and they are the leading factors inhibiting recovery.
__________________
salmon hugger





"A curious thing happens when fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the new ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust their expectations downward to match prevailing conditions." Kennedy Wame
freespool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2012, 05:21 PM   #78
booter
Fry
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 12
Default Re: Nehalem closure??

Quote:
Originally Posted by freespool View Post
Poor water quality

Poor stream complexity

Lack of large woody debris recruitment

These are all symptoms of poor logging practices, and they are the leading factors inhibiting recovery.
So everything else like trout, crawdad, steelhead, and coho must prefer what you mentioned for thier success. I bet there were only spotted owls and chinook living in the system before logging.
booter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2012, 06:20 PM   #79
Bankbound
Tuna!
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canby
Posts: 1,055
Default Re: Nehalem closure??

It's my understanding that most of the nehalem fish spawned in the salmonberry, which is a desolate wasteland from what it used to be.

MH
__________________
What's a steelhead?
Bankbound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2012, 07:11 PM   #80
nehalemguy
Sturgeon
 
nehalemguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vernonia
Posts: 4,461
Default Re: Nehalem closure??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bankbound View Post
It's my understanding that most of the nehalem fish spawned in the salmonberry, which is a desolate wasteland from what it used to be.

MH
The Salmonberry took a hard hit in 2007, but even before that, most salmonids did not spawn in the Berry.

E
nehalemguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2012, 08:03 AM   #81
Jerry Dove
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: tillamook or
Posts: 4,540
Default Re: Nehalem closure??

Quote:
Originally Posted by freespool View Post
Poor water quality

Poor stream complexity

Lack of large woody debris recruitment

These are all symptoms of poor logging practices, and they are the leading factors inhibiting recovery.
Freespool, sounds to me like you must be on some ones payroll. PETA, Wild Salmon Center, U.S. Humane Society etc.?? You seem to have a one track mind and you sure do like hi jacking post!
Jerry Dove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2012, 08:38 AM   #82
freespool
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: woodstock
Posts: 14,763
Default Re: Nehalem closure??

Quote:
Originally Posted by booter View Post
So everything else like trout, crawdad, steelhead, and coho must prefer what you mentioned for thier success. I bet there were only spotted owls and chinook living in the system before logging.
Compared to historic levels, they are still a small fraction of what was here originally.
__________________
salmon hugger





"A curious thing happens when fish stocks decline: People who aren't aware of the old levels accept the new ones as normal. Over generations, societies adjust their expectations downward to match prevailing conditions." Kennedy Wame
freespool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2012, 09:22 AM   #83
JDarr
 
JDarr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Clackamas, OR
Posts: 3,768
Default Re: Nehalem closure??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Dove View Post
Freespool, sounds to me like you must be on some ones payroll. PETA, Wild Salmon Center, U.S. Humane Society etc.?? You seem to have a one track mind and you sure do like hi jacking post!
Easy there Jerry! He's not wrong. Logging hurts habitat. It doesn't matter what agency you're representing, it doesn't change the facts. It may not be the leading factor like Freespool stated because there are too many other limiting factors to count. But, I think jumping on someone for stating a real fact that doesn't fit with your agenda is pretty short sighted.

JD
__________________
"World Class Boats for World Class Rivers, Worldwide"
JDarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2012, 10:49 AM   #84
nehalemguy
Sturgeon
 
nehalemguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vernonia
Posts: 4,461
Default Re: Nehalem closure??

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDarr View Post
Easy there Jerry! He's not wrong. Logging hurts habitat. It doesn't matter what agency you're representing, it doesn't change the facts. It may not be the leading factor like Freespool stated because there are too many other limiting factors to count. But, I think jumping on someone for stating a real fact that doesn't fit with your agenda is pretty short sighted.

JD
Freespool is correct with his listing of limiting factors. But to lay the current situation entirely at the feet of logging practices is not accurate.

Here is a section of a Limiting Factors Analysis that we had performed on Rock Creek (Nehalem basin) a couple years ago that addresses LWD recruitment in the sub basin.

"Each massive winter flood event since the wildfires of 1933 – 1945 has continued to reduce the aquatic and riparian supply of this fire legacy downed wood. The 1964 flood event caused flooding and massive slope failures whose legacy can still be observed on steep hillslopes by the torrent tracks recolonized by mature alder. This event recruited to the stream channel, massive quantities of old growth coniferous wood from upslope locations that had burned or been left as a byproduct of the rail logging that occurred in Rock Cr. This harvest byproduct was either an unmarketable species or diameter and they persisted on the forest floor until they were recruited to the stream through slope failure or debris flow. This material was a major bonus for the Rock Cr aquatic corridor. The presence of this woody debris in the stream channel that was recruited from a single storm event 47 years ago could have held Rock Cr together without fail for 5 decades to the present. However, in the late 1960’s and well into the 1970’s state and federal agencies in charge of managing fishery resources determined that the massive wood jams recruited to the Oregon Coast Range stream channels were having a deleterious effect on anadromous fish populations by denying them access to their historical range for spawning and rearing.

The practice was initiated of removing log jams in coastal streams to enhance access for salmonids that lasted nearly a decade and succeeded in initiating a process that resulted in the unraveling of the system functions required for Coast Range streams to produce large volumes of salmonid smolts of all species."


So there you have it. Our fisheries managers at work again.

E
nehalemguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2012, 11:09 AM   #85
Jerry Dove
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: tillamook or
Posts: 4,540
Default Re: Nehalem closure??

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDarr View Post
Easy there Jerry! He's not wrong. Logging hurts habitat. It doesn't matter what agency you're representing, it doesn't change the facts. It may not be the leading factor like Freespool stated because there are too many other limiting factors to count. But, I think jumping on someone for stating a real fact that doesn't fit with your agenda is pretty short sighted.

JD
JD, check all of his post, not just logging. Also this is Dairy,timber and fishing country.
Jerry Dove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2012, 11:32 AM   #86
garyk
King Salmon
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: On the BIG River, Columbia Co.
Posts: 12,740
Default Re: Nehalem closure??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Dove View Post
Also this is Dairy,timber and fishing country.
And gillnetting.

Fortunately, times change and we learn to do things better. Unless one's mindset forever locks them into making the same mistake over and over and over....
__________________
Columbia Springers 1980 / 161,000
Columbia Springers 2011 / 324,000
Welcome, to the days you've made.
IFisher 234

"We want excellence from wildlife managers, but don't want to help. We are very good at one thing - complaining."
Teeb, 11.19.13
garyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Cast to



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:02 PM.

Terms of Service
Page generated in 0.57990 seconds with 47 queries