Spring Chinook & Sturgeon Commercial/Sport Allocation Hearing,THURS 5th, 6pm Vancvr

[garyk]

Unfortunately the Oregon Legislature took a pass on resolving this bitter fight. Making this meeting the kick-off in the annual struggle for sports anglers to receive a fair and equitable share of these fisheries while promoting conservation.

This week’s meeting is tommorow, Thursday Nov 5 in Vancouver.

This IS the process that determines how much fishing you'll do next year. If you want a say in how the seasons are structured, or are concerned about future of sturgeon/salmon it's good time to speak up.

Here’s the ODFW press release:

SALEM, Ore. – Fishery managers will seek public comments on issues affecting future fisheries for Columbia River white sturgeon and spring chinook salmon at meetings scheduled next month in Vancouver, Wash., and Astoria, Ore.

The two meetings, sponsored by the fish and wildlife departments in both states, are designed to share information on developments that will affect management of those fisheries starting next year.
The meetings are scheduled at the following times and locations:
Vancouver: 6-9 p.m. Nov. 5, Water Resource Education Center, 4600 S.E. Columbia Way, sponsored by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).

Astoria: 6-9 p.m. Nov. 10, The Loft at the Red Building, 20 Basin St., Suite F, sponsored by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW).
WDFW and ODFW scheduled the public meetings as part of their joint efforts to develop plans for white sturgeon and spring chinook fisheries. Final decisions, including catch guidelines for sport and commercial fisheries, are expected early next year.

"One of the key reasons for having these meetings is so the staff working on these issues can hear from the public," said Steve Williams, ODFW administrator for the Columbia River and Marine Resources Program.

Fishery managers for both states say new catch guidelines for sturgeon will likely reflect recent declines in the lower Columbia River sturgeon population. For spring chinook fisheries, new catch guidelines must account for a recent agreement to allow enough fish to pass upriver to meet treaty obligations established by the U.S. v. Oregon court decision.

"We have met with our Columbia River advisory groups about these issues, and we’d like to get additional input from the public," said Cindy LeFleur, WDFW Columbia River policy coordinator.

[wayout]

We were ORGANIZED a year ago. Now it's happening tomorrow and I'm not prepared. Gotta get busy. See you there!

[Natester]

Gary,

Thanks for posting this. We need to show up and have a voice to preserve our future fishing opportunities.

Nathan aka Natester

[garyk]

A bump up for the lunchtime crowd...

I expect there to be a lot of discussion about potential changes to sturgeon management (that's just my guess...).

[rowmanholiday]

ttt

Less than two hours, now!

[wayout]

Reports???

[smalldog]

No spring chinook at all this year?

[Farfish]

There is an article in the CBB today about it.

It says the sturgeon guideline could be reduced by 35%.

And because of a new agreement with the tribes, "The ODFW's Tony Nigro said that the bottom line is that, under the new U.S. v Oregon guidelines, the early lower river catch would be about 20 percent less than it would be under ESA-only restrictions."

[pearl]

Fishery Managers Say Harvest Rules Must Allow More Spring Chinook Above Bonneville Dam
Posted on Friday, November 06, 2009 (PST)
A roomful of, mostly, anglers and sport fishing guides grumbled Thursday night at the news that lower Columbia River spring chinook fisheries will be held in check early next year to allow more fish to pass through and assure an equal share of the harvest for upriver fishers.

And the allowed catch of white sturgeon in the lower river (from Bonneville Dam down to the mouth of the river) could be reduced by as much as 35 percent from recent years' levels, Oregon and Washington department of fish and wildlife officials said during the meeting in Vancouver, Wash. (For more on sturgeon see story below: "New Catch Guidelines For White Sturgeon Likely To Reflect Recent Population Declines" at http://www.cbbulletin.com/364175.aspx)

The meeting was called to share information on developments that will affect management of those fisheries starting next year and gather input on how management needs might be met.

For spring chinook fisheries, new catch guidelines must account for a recent agreement to allow enough fish to pass upriver to meet treaty obligations established by the U.S. v. Oregon court decision.

A second meeting is scheduled from 6 to 9 p.m. Tuesday at The Loft at the Red Building, 20 Basin St., Astoria, Ore. The WDFW and ODFW scheduled the public meetings as part of their joint efforts to develop plans for white sturgeon and spring chinook fisheries.

Final decisions, including catch guidelines for sport and commercial fisheries, are expected from the states' fish and wildlife commissions in February.

"This is the first opportunity for you to be thinking about the same kind of issues we're thinking about," the WDFW's Bill Tweit told the audience. Possible fishing strategies will be discussed in the coming months at sport and commercial advisory group meetings and at state commission meetings.

Lower Columbia spring chinook fisheries will be guided by Endangered Species Act considerations as well as the need to strike an equitable "catch balance" in the harvest of upriver fish with above-Bonneville Dam interests that include four treaty tribes and the state of Idaho, all parties to U.S. v Oregon.

These parties, the states of Oregon and Washington and the federal government in May 2008 all signed on to a 10-year Columbia-Snake river management agreement that establishes harvest shares.

If a look back shows that "catch balance expectations are widely divergent," the agreement requires that the parties to the lawsuit meet and discuss modifications to the upriver spring chinook catch guidelines.

"The non-Indian catch of upriver chinook was considerably greater" in both 2008 and 2009 than the level of harvest called for in the agreement, the WDFW's Cindy LeFleur said.

The combined non-Indian sport and commercial harvest in 2008 also exceeded allowed ESA "impacts" – the mortality of endangered wild Upper Columbia and threatened Snake River spring chinook stocks.

The harvest management agreement, which was also approved by NOAA Fisheries as ESA-compliant, establishes harvest levels and impact limits based on the predicted size of the upriver spring chinook run. Bigger harvests and impacts are allowed in years with higher anticipated returns.

During meetings this year held to set lower river sport and commercial fisheries, tribal members urged state officials to take a conservative approach. Likewise, Idaho's fish and game commission expressed concern about lower river fisheries harvesting too large of a share of early-timed chinook returns bound for Idaho hatcheries.

Troublesome for Oregon and Washington managers was the fact that in both 2008 and 2009 the spring chinook arrived later and in much smaller numbers than had been forecast in the preseason. As a result, March and early to mid-April harvests in the lower Columbia quickly ate up harvests allowances and impacts. Run forecast updates can't be done until the very end of April or early May when, typically, about 50 percent of the upriver spring chinook will have been counted passing over Bonneville Dam.

Since a catch balance was not achieved in the first two years of the agreement, the U.S. v Oregon parties came back to the table as required to develop new guidelines for 2010-2012.

The states decided that, until an updated forecast is in hand, it will manage the lower river fisheries in 2010 for a run size that is at least 30 percent less than the preseason forecast.

As an example, if the preseason forecast was for an upriver return of 300,000 fish, a 2.2 percent ESA impact limit would be in place for non-tribal fisheries and the allowed harvest would be up to 32,400 spring chinook. But under the new guideline, early season fishing in the lower river would be managed as if the run forecast was 210,000 upriver spring chinook and the impact limit was 1.9 percent with an estimated harvest of only 19,100 fish.

That means lower river fisheries could well be ended earlier than desired to await the date of the run-size forecast update. If the update brings good news, fisheries could be reopened.

The ODFW's Tony Nigro said that the bottom line is that, under the new U.S. v Oregon guidelines, the early lower river catch would be about 20 percent less than it would be under ESA-only restrictions.

Anglers and guides attending Thursday's meeting said that much of their lower river opportunity would be lost because most of the run will have moved upriver by early May and the fish would be harder to catch because the river becomes higher and murkier with the spring runoff.

Some suggested that the treaty tribes bring their nets to the lower river early in the season so that they are assured of catching their fair share. The harvest agreement now calls for most of the mainstem tribal fishing to be conducted in reservoirs above Bonneville.

Others said that the non-tribal commercial fishers should be restricted to so-called select areas early in the season to avoid incurring ESA impacts and only be allowed mainstem opportunities later in the season when their gill-nets would be more efficient than hooks and lines at catching the tail of the spring chinook run.

"I don't get to put a gill-net in the river and run it in muddy water," one angler told the state fishery managers.

The new guidelines as proposed by the states "will be shifting the recreational opportunity considerably upriver," another angler said. A large percentage of the spring chinook sport catch has been in the lower river, which includes the human-population center of Portland-Vancouver. In 2008 the sport catch was 23,172 fish from Bonneville Dam down to the mouth of the river. The non-Indian sport catch was 2,436 fish in the reservoirs between Bonneville and McNary Dam and 647 fish above McNary on the upper Columbia and lower Snake rivers

[Todd]

Man...it's gonna be even better fishing when we have to pass more fish for treaty obligations, and the commercial fleet gets more "access to hatchery fish" when they start using purse seines, if it works out...

Fish on...

Todd

[RiverMan]

As bad as this sounds for those who focus below Bonny I wonder if even this will be enough. Haven't some of the predictions been off by more than 30%? They should be managing harvest below Bonny on a 50% buffer.

RM

[Splash]

Maybe we all should budget an extra tank of gas and head east this spring and support some upriver businesses.

Todd this thread is about giving upriver fisheries a better chance at an equitable harvest which they are surely entitled to. It is not about SAFE or selective harvest methods. Please stay on topic.

[Todd]

If it involves catch sharing, then the amount of fish that the tribal fisheries, the upstream fisheries, and the LCR commercial fisheries, relative to our rapidly diminishing share of the pie as sportsmen, is absolutely on topic.

Don't have to like it, just get used to it...and when it happens, I don't want anyone to say "wow, didn't see that one coming"...because they did, and pretended it wouldn't happen.

Fish on...

Todd

[wayout]

Todd's on topic - more fish for Indian netters + more fish for down-river commercials if they switch to gear that causes fewer ESA mortalities = less fish for all sportfishers below Bonneville.

What do you think they'll do? Start the fishery later? Allow fewer days for fishing? Both?

[Gun Rod Bow]

Originally Posted by wayout

What do you think they'll do? Start the fishery later? Allow fewer days for fishing? Both?

The real question is what number do you think they will guess?

We know what the jack counts were for the past few years and can look backwards and try to guess the "new formula" for the run size estimate, or just take a wild guess at the number and hope for the best.

With how far off the run estimates have been, seems a buffer is a reasonable response.

[finclipped]

Originally Posted by wayout

Todd's on topic - more fish for Indian netters + more fish for down-river commercials if they switch to gear that causes fewer ESA mortalities = less fish for all sportfishers below Bonneville.

What do you think they'll do? Start the fishery later? Allow fewer days for fishing? Both?

I don't see it this way. What happened when sportsfishing went selective? Fewer ESA impacts were needed by sportsanglers, more hatchery fish were bonked and everyones pie go larger (ESA impacts used by tribes.) Same thing would happen if tribal or non tribal commercial were lowering impacts through selective harvest. Same or less ESA impacts, more hatchery fish killed and taken off spawning grounds, everyone's pie gets larger...

[Splash]

I suppose they could keep it open through March (like they used to not so long ago before ad clip fisheries) and close it in April until the run size update.

[freespool]

Originally Posted by finclipped

I don't see it this way. What happened when sportsfishing went selective? Fewer ESA impacts were needed by sportsanglers, more hatchery fish were bonked and everyones pie go larger (ESA impacts used by tribes.) Same thing would happen if tribal or non tribal commercial were lowering impacts through selective harvest. Same or less ESA impacts, more hatchery fish killed and taken off spawning grounds, everyone's pie gets larger...

With the 2% mortality index currently used to determine seasons the exact same number of wild fish will die, 2% is 2%, no matter how you slice the pie.
I find it inconceivable why any sport angler would favor a plan that gives the commercials a bigger slice of the fish pie.
Commercials win, sports lose, same amount of wild fish die.
Win, lose, draw.

[thedesertdrifter]

The real question is what number do you think they will guess?

We know what the jack counts were for the past few years and can look backwards and try to guess the "new formula" for the run size estimate, or just take a wild guess at the number and hope for the best.

With how far off the run estimates have been, seems a buffer is a reasonable response.

__________________
They will take a wild guess and be way off again. its almost funny to see them do it year after year with springers. I am beginning to think they have no idea. We could get 800,000 or 200,000

[Flatfish]

Originally Posted by thedesertdrifter

__________________
They will take a wild guess and be way off again. its almost funny to see them do it year after year with springers. I am beginning to think they have no idea. We could get 800,000 or 200,000

Yep.

I may go back to fishing the Willy.

[finclipped]

Originally Posted by freespool

With the 2% mortality index currently used to determine seasons the exact same number of wild fish will die, 2% is 2%, no matter how you slice the pie.
I find it inconceivable why any sport angler would favor a plan that gives the commercials a bigger slice of the fish pie.
Commercials win, sports lose, same amount of wild fish die.

Its all about the fish right? Keeping it on topic of spring chinook removing hatchery fish that compete with wild fish is a good thing.

Rewriting the ESA catch agreement with the tribes, while respecting the catch share agreement with the tribes resulted in impacts heavily weighted toward tribes and a bigger piece of the pie for non tribal and tribes. What happens if we move the ESA needle towards culling out hatchery and reducing impacts? Do the tribes and non tribal commercial still need all there impacts to respect the catch sharing agreement? What would happen if tribes and non tribal gillnets fished for more fish and less impact?

[freespool]

Originally Posted by finclipped

Its all about the fish right? Keeping it on topic of spring chinook removing hatchery fish that compete with wild fish is a good thing.

Rewriting the ESA catch agreement with the tribes, while respecting the catch share agreement with the tribes resulted in impacts heavily weighted toward tribes and a bigger piece of the pie for non tribal and tribes. What happens if we move the ESA needle towards culling out hatchery and reducing impacts? Do the tribes and non tribal commercial still need all there impacts to respect the catch sharing agreement? What would happen if tribes and non tribal gillnets fished for more fish and less impact?

The only way LCR harvesters could help wild fish is to lower the 2% mortality number.
How could we do that?
The simple solution, and by far the cheapest, is to remove the commercials from the mainstem and relegate them to the SAFE areas and transfer their impacts to the sports, who could in turn reduce their impacts to less than 2%, that would in fact help wild fish.
This we can accomplish with little or no effort, however changing anything the Tribes do in regard to harvest techniques, will be a far harder nut to crack.
The other solution is to reduce the number of hatchery fish released in basins where straying is a factor in wild stock recovery.

[finclipped]

Originally Posted by freespool

The only way LCR harvesters could help wild fish is to lower the 2% mortality number.
How could we do that?
The simple solution, and by far the cheapest, is to remove the commercials from the mainstem and relegate them to the SAFE areas and transfer their impacts to the sports, who could in turn reduce their impacts to less than 2%, that would in fact help wild fish.
This we can accomplish with little or no effort, however changing anything the Tribes do in regard to harvest techniques, will be a far harder nut to crack.
The other solution is to reduce the number of hatchery fish released in basins where straying is a factor in wild stock recovery.

We tried that. I lobbied my congressman for that. It was viewed as a "land grab" and ultimately failed. I personally am not opposed to more hatchery fish being removed. Moving the needle just a little will help sports more than hurt.

I support efforts that enhance sportfishing, but there are too many differences in opinion among us. Ego's and greed get in the way. Tired of it and willing to show my hand if it means an improvement for fish and/or gives me a little more time on the water.

[adobe wall]

I don't think 30% is going to be enough buffer, and if the prediction is significantly optimistic again this year we will be even worse off in 2011. If the fish are holding down here then let the tribes in the water here with the commercials on their days. That may allow the tribes to get the early fish they need for their first foods ceremonies and settle them down a bit.

The only real complaint I have about dragging my boat east is that we can't fish in most of the Bonneville pool. If the entire lower river group heads upriver there won't be much room to fish. If we could fish the entire Bonneville pool things would be a bit different.

jmho,
aw

[garyk]

Originally Posted by finclipped

Its all about the fish right?

Rewriting the ESA catch agreement with the tribes, while respecting the catch share agreement with the tribes resulted in impacts heavily weighted toward tribes and a bigger piece of the pie for non tribal and tribes.

What you're referring to is the re-negotiated US-v-Oregon management agreement.

There was no significant change in the allowed ESA impacts. (Those ESA impacts are overseen by the Feds at NOAA)

IF this process was 'about the fish', this negotiation was the place for it to happen, either through:

A. Across the board reduction in ESA impacts.

B. Making the ESA impacts go further through selective harvest. Since the Treaty Tribes are fishing on a 14% impact rate; and all other fisheries are sharing 2%, obviously the treaty tribe fishery has the most opportunity.

The catch-balancing provisions are not about conservation whatsoever.

At this point, all that is being decided in this process with regards to Spring Chinook is 'where' and 'when' the non-tribal fisheries will occur.

[garyk]

Originally Posted by adobe wall

I don't think 30% is going to be enough buffer, and if the prediction is significantly optimistic again this year we will be even worse off in 2011.

You might be right.

The state's laid out their rationale for the 30% buffer through the run update seemed pretty solid and was based on the degree of error in recent years.

Keep in mind, last season's smaller buffer (20%) actually DID succeed in preventing us from going over the maximum allowed 1.9% ESA rate.

Event though the upriver sport fisheries were allocated a full one-quarter of the sport ESA impacts, they did bear the brunt however when their fisheries were shortened or didn't happen in response to the run being over-estimated.

With the 2010's 30% buffer being larger by half that ought to keep us within the allowed 2%.

[RiverMan]

I'm also concerned by the 30% buffer, it's too small. The last several adult return estimates haven't even been close to what eventually showed up. If they over-estimate the adult return, we could very easily end up in a situation just like we had last year and the year before in which nearly all the sport allowed harvest occurrs below Bonneville.

We either need a better way of estimating adult return to mouth of the Columbia, larger buffers, or harvest based on actual return over Bonneville.

RM

[garyk]

Originally Posted by RiverMan

If they over-estimate the adult return, we could very easily end up in a situation just like we had last year and the year before in which nearly all the sport allowed harvest occurrs below Bonneville.

Keep in mind they have not made the estimate for 2010, and based on the past couple years, my take was the estimate will be on the conservative side.

Combine a conservative estimate, with a 30% buffer on the run size AND 25% of the sport ESA impacts allocated to above Bonneville fisheries, and you gotta think the upriver fisheries are getting a better assurance than they ever have.

[RiverMan]

I hope you are right Gary but keep in mind that we had the same 25% allocation for upriver fisheries in 2009, the same over-estimated adult return situation in 2008 (which should have made the estimates more conservative), and yet nearly all of the harvest still occurred below Bonny. I don't want "assurance", I want guarantee. All other user groups get a "guarantee" (Tribes, non-indian commerical, sport below bonny) so why don't sport fisherman above Bonneville get their quota? If there are any over-estimates, the first group to lose their season will be the sporties above Bonny.

I just don't have any confidence in adult return estimates for springers..........

RM

[garyk]

Originally Posted by RiverMan

I just don't have any confidence in adult return estimates for springers..........RM

I completely understand the frustration, especially since these CR upriver springers are originating from your neck of the woods.

A further step the states can take is to hold back on the mainstem commercial season until AFTER the May 12 run update, when there is more certainty of the run size. Prior to the update, the commercial fisheries should be held only in the SAFE areas, which in recent years has been producing the bulk of their harvest. The gillnetters can still fish effectively in the CR's May high waters.

Along with ensuring your upriver opportunity, this would also maximize the economics generated by this fishery. With the region's high unemployment rates this boost -- The Salmon Stimulus - is desperately needed

[RiverMan]

I will remain cautiously optimistic that upstream anglers will finally get a full season in 2010 and an opportunity to catch their quota of spring chinook. I hope the run comes in at or well above the forecast.

RM

[Splash]

If the compact does decide to have only partial week fisheries for sports in the lower CR then I would like to see it go every other day rather than 3-4 day blocks like last year. Some folks didn't get a chance to fish springers at all under that schedule.

[GorgeCaster]

What is the difference the states always close the river before the fishing gets hot and reopens it after the fish have mostly gone. Let the fish above Bonneville, open the Bonneville Pool, kick the gillnetters out, and let the Tribes take the last Salmon, sell your boat, buy bass boat, catch Walleye and Bass, PRICELESS!

[CATCH AND EAT]

another world class fishery shreaded like wet toilet paper.

Time to unpack the golf clubs and join up. Might even take up bowling and maybe gardening.

Looks like I will take the big boat down to Ilwaco earlier this year and do some bottom fishing instead.

[adobe wall]

Originally Posted by garyk

You might be right.

The state's laid out their rationale for the 30% buffer through the run update seemed pretty solid and was based on the degree of error in recent years.

Keep in mind, last season's smaller buffer (20%) actually DID succeed in preventing us from going over the maximum allowed 1.9% ESA rate.

Event though the upriver sport fisheries were allocated a full one-quarter of the sport ESA impacts, they did bear the brunt however when their fisheries were shortened or didn't happen in response to the run being over-estimated.

With the 2010's 30% buffer being larger by half that ought to keep us within the allowed 2%.

It did, but barely, and cost the upriver folks their season. We also have nearly 80k fish that won't be returning this year because they returned last year as jacks.

aw

[Bill Monroe]

Seems to me the states were pretty adamant Thursday that upriver gets a full quarter of the early allocation from below Bonneville.
So below Bonneville sport anglers first take the 30 percent buffer and then another 25 percent reduction from THAT figure...until the run update.

http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/bill_monroe/