Saving our Salmon Season: Actions / Solutions Only

[Mark Mc]

OK the other post on the Klamath salmon disaster degenerated into politics & kool-aid comments. I am starting a new post, to only focus on solutions.

I see two pieces to this:

(1) short / near-term actions, to salvage our salmon season (and perhaps the next year or two also).

(2) long term actions, that focus on fixing the Klamath river issues.

Right now, at this moment, I think it's fair to say that we should do something around #1. The season is going to be set very soon, so if we are going to take any action, it needs to be now.

Rather than try to start from scratch, I am looking at what some other sportfishing leaders are probably going to do. There is a provision in the law to allow an emergency action that would bypass the mandatory shut-down of the fishery. It appears that the Coastside Fishing Club in northern CA, in conjunction with PFMC sportfishing rep Darrell Ticehurst, are formulating a proposal, along with a letter-writing campaign to support it. The proposal is about to be mailed to Coastside members. Darrell just posted this note, which is a preview of the proposal. Here is his note, copied from the Coastside website:
--------------------------------------------------

Proposal for the PFMC
#278866 - Fri Feb 24 2006 08:06 AM

I have been working with Roger Thomas and others to come up with a solution that makes sense. After much discussion with everyone here is what I would like to propose in Seattle next week at the PFMC meeting.

I am going to propose an emergency action similar to the proposal that I made one year ago.

I will propose to suspend the 35,000 natural spawner "floor" in the Klamath for 18 months and to establish a season similar to that of last year for both recreational and commercial fishing. I will propose to refer the issue of the "floor" to the appropriate committees to reevlauate and analyze its relevance in the light of the latest scientific information and the deteriorated condition of the river.

My rationale for doing so is the economic disaster associated with the draconian steps we would have to make in our fishery management season for salmon this year. In addition to the economic impact however, is the fact that the latest science calls into question the rationale for protection of natural spawners. Further, the health of the river has changed the management equation and until the river is returned to health and has adequate flows the old management rules are not pertinent.

When I last proposed a similar floor motion it failed 7 to 6 and the swing vote was the vote against by California Fish and Game. I will need the public's support in convincing F&G to revisit their position, which I think they should do in light of the latest science and the economic consequences to California.

Darrell

----------------------------------------------------------

(back to ifish discussion)
I am hoping that Frank Warrens will weigh in on this. If this proposal from Darrell and Roger Thomas (also on the PFMC) is desireable from our (Oregon) standpoint, then we could get behind it with a letter-writing campaing of our own.

Stay tuned....... Mark

[Orca]

Thanks Mark. Tuned in.

[skein]

In addition to the economic impact however, is the fact that the latest science...

This statement, while true, doesn't mean that "the latest science" is any more valid than the science used 50 years ago. What I mean is, we, as a nation, bought into the plan to "make the desert bloom." We bought into the plans to generate cheap hydro-electricity and create water reservoirs and control floods with dams. There was valid science to justify those endeavors. Etc, etc.

What I'm saying is that current, valid science may prove to be a fool's errand 50 years from now. Pointing backwards and saying "those are the villans" holds very little water (pun intended).

Let's take the best we know, apply common sense, and move forward. This is the hand we were dealt. How we play it will determine whether we (fishermen, fish, and non-fishers) win or lose.

Rant over.

Skein

[skein]

Wow, I didn't mean to shut the thread down, I just wanted us to move forward rather than pointing back.

I'll start - and add a concern.

The idea of lowering the floor on the salmon numbers throws up a red flag for me. I am in favor of counting on the game management biologists to provide me with direction and data, and simply don't know enough to suggest they do a turn-around simply because I want a salmon season. The CA fish and wildlife voted against lowering the established numbers, and I'd like to see the science before I work too hard to overturn their decision.

That's probably not what you wanted to hear, but if I'm going to support a scientific rather than a political approach, then I have to do it even when it's painful.

Skein

[garyk]

That's probably not what you wanted to hear, but if I'm going to support a scientific rather than a political approach, then I have to do it even when it's painful.

Indeed. It hurts, but to 'lower the floor' on the number of spawners would set a very bad political precedent. As we all know, fishing on a weak stock only aggravates the problem. There's the following season, and the one after that, etc, to keep in mind.

For a partial solution, would it be possible to shrink the closure area as the season progressed, and the Klamath fish became more concentrated in that vicinity?

[woodboy]

So if what I have read about the Klamath basin water subsidy is true. Then one possible long term solution is to change the cost of the irrigation water to the farmer. If water is being sold to them at 1900s prices then it should be 12 times more expensive than they are paying currently. No one else gets 100 year old prices why should they? At the very least they would have to conserve water, and some wouldn’t be competitive anymore no matter what they do. Uncompetitive businesses go under all the time, it’s part of the economic cycle. Often times in business one seemingly small thing can have a large impact.
On the short term solution that has been proposed on lowering the spawning floor for the next two harvest seasons it seems problematic. If there is larger impact on the spawning numbers this year, what will happen in three years when even less return. It sounds like the water situation hasn’t changed greatly in the last three years. This years run is only one fish kill away from serious trouble, with a 5 in 7 chance that it will be a fish kill year it appears that they need to be left alone. At what level will they hit ESA listing?
I believe there needs to be a way to selectively harvest the salmon. If there were some way to mark most of the fish, say with a chemical signature of sorts, then harvest would be much easier. There has to be unique signatures to each fish run, after all that’s how the seem to find there way home. It’s just a matter of finding out how to read it.

[Threemuch]

Jim-
I don't think you shut the thread down, I just think that fishermen are realizing what fisheries managers already know, we are in big trouble, and there isn't a nice way out of this mess. I think this season is going to sting pretty bad.

I wish I had good suggestions to add to this thread. Darrel's proposal above is a tough sell. The way I interpret it, it basically says, "let us fish anyway, the economic ramifications of closure are too severe, and the science being used is probably suspect." If I sat on the PFMC, it would get my vote, but I would be pretty conflicted. The only thing I could add to what Darrel said is "Plus I really like fishing, and I want an ocean salmon season." But that would only weaken the argument by pointing out my bias.

[bait boy]

So, let me know if what Im hearing is correct.. The conditions in the Klamath are so poor that we shouldnt worry about their numbers because they are just going to die once the river gets low and hot? So lets just fish anyway...

Im not one to suggest things like this but, how about give the fish enough cold water to live?

How about Hatchery chinook from a certain boundary north and south from the Klamath, or is this an unclipped run?

[Threemuch]

Right on RICK! If hatchery chinook were clipped, we could have a selective fishery for hatchery fish regardless of what happens with the native fish, and this goes for any river system on the west coast of this continent. Alas, I believe the hatchery fall chinook are not clipped. Certainly something that could get started today! I would pay an extra fee on my license to see fall hatchery chinook clipped.

The Coastside Fishing Club, which has a big bulliten board like this one (do a search, look it up), has many, many actions listed, most centered around rallying support for the Ticehurst plan. Letters, letters, letters. If you want to fish chinook this summer, this is probably your only hope. Even the CR guys should be interested, if everything below falcon is closed, there will be lots more company when the CR fishery opens, and that means it won't be open long.

[garyk]

Pretty interesting fact from PMFC:

The first objective is that no more than two-thirds of the would be natural area spawners should be harvested in any given year. The second objective is that no fewer than 35,000 adults should be allowed to spawn in natural areas in any given year.

So that 'floor' is based on an allowable harvest rate of 66%.

That would seem to be a pretty aggressive rate of exploitation. Particularly after the spawner fishkills of 2002.

[Snakebite]

OK, my two cents. If we proposed to "lower" the floor of 35,000 spawners, then we should not only propose but demand that there be some sort of significant spawning and juvenile habitat enhancement and protection. This includes gauranteed minimum flows, improved water quality measures, and other Klamath basin improvements. It's way past time to be allowing the use of one resource to the detriment of another. Improved water quality in the basin would improve spawning success and smolt production, and would then(if successful)facilitate the opportunity for fewer returning adults to achieve optimum smolt production. Let's not throw in the variablity of ocean conditions, we have no control over that. Anyway, if a Klamath adult manages to return to spawn, and finds a cesspool to do so in, there's not much point in surviving to that end.

So there you have it, and I didn't even commit a "name calling" violation.

[Mark Mc]

Couple updates. It is starting to appear that there are several very focused things we can do. If...and I say if....one has the opinion that the "floor" (of 35K) should be lowered, then a likely, effective course of action would include:

- Sending your message to Curt Melcher...he is the ODFW rep on the PFMC who would be voting on this. He is also the salmon expert, and his vote would be critical.

<Melcher, Curt curt.melcher@state.or.us (503) 947-6208>

- Sending your message to the governor, and to your state reps, since they can put some pressure on the ODFW rep and others.

- Being very clear in your message....that the key concern is the ECONOMIC damage that would be done to all who depend on the salmon fisheries. You must stress the economic damage, because the only provision in the MS act that would allow a deviation (from the floor in this case) is based on economic / social hardship....NOT OUR PERSONAL DESIRES TO FISH FOR "FUN". We are speaking on behalf of those who depend on fish for their livelihoods. You could talk about how much you SPEND to sportfish, and how you would stop / reduce spending if there is little to fish for.

- Now, if you have the extra time to send your letter to even more people, then you could include the California governor & Cal F & G director. This was suggested in a post on the community board, by a newcomer to our site from the Coastside Fishing Club in CA:

click here

I have since let Mike know that we might be more effective by sending the same message, but to our key Oregon reps as suggested above.

Now one last thing...there have been many thoughtful posts showing care & concern about the fish....that if the Klamath run depends on us leaving the ocean fish alone, why would we want to lower the escapement number? There are many possible answers, but the one that says it best has to do with the fact that....it is the Klamath river that is "sick"...and no matter how many fish you send back to the river, that will not fix the problem.

Stay tuned for more.....

[Splash]

This topic is sure getting some mileage. The thread on the Salty Dogs pretty much gave a no vote for support due to the multiple issues and users involved. The other thread on this page also met heavy resistance. Mostly because the fish need to be saved, not harvested. But hey who knows, 3rd times a charm right?

Sorry my stance is still fish over harvest. Lowering the floor is a license to kill. How far will the floor eventually go, 1 spawner? That's going to work now isn't it. Leave the depressed stocks alone and find alternative ways to harvest the healthy stocks.

Best of luck to you.

[Thumper]

I don't believe it. You folks really are talking about catching the last fish from the Klamath. How sad. :whazzup:

You really ought to take a fishing trip on the Rhine. Or the Elba. Or any of thousands of rivers in Europe. Rivers that had anadromous fish runs in the past. Rivers that now are basically sterile.

So conditions on the Klamath are terrible. And that allows you the right to catch the potential spawners that might, just maybe, give enough time to get things fixed. Amazing.

[wak'm&stak'm]

Thumper...I must have miss something, I saw no references to catching the last fish. Their cough/ choke/ gag estimates are 29,000. I have yet to see any of their estimates very accurate. I would also venture to say... that given the green light, the sportsman would 100% finance and operate hatcheries that would plug that river with fish.
But we are at the mercy of a political rollercoaster that is responcible for mismanaging about every spieces in trouble today. The commercials caught exactly what they were told to catch. The stripers are about toast in the smith thanks to hybrid releases, did the commercial herring harvest cause the herring decling in the yaguina., Orauqua release about wipeed out silvers hear because of poor genetics spawning with wild fish, I could go on and on for week on MIS-MANAGEMENT....*&^$%#@!




I vote for starting up all the mothballed hatcheries WITH good stocks.
The Cole River Rogue springers are the #1 salmon out there.

Honestly I think no one really needs to worry about it. If you check out the commercial boat sales in the paper, coupled with the growing number of disgruntled sport fisherman that have just had enough...I think it is just a matter of time before the fish have little pressure from us anyway.

If The Honorable Ted and Jessica Hamilton has his and her way, it won't really matter will it.

I would like to know how the boat count out of Oregon ports today compares to the count in the 70s. I would venture to guess it is 50%.

[Straydog]

, what Thumper said......

I would much rather sacrafice the income I will lose this year than to lower the bar and lower the chances that my kids's kids might some day get to experience what was once a magnificant Klamath fishery.

[wak'm&stak'm]

The indians netted the crap out of that river for years....where was the protests then.

WHOS INCOME DO YOU SACRIFICE? Yours or someone elses.???
What I would like to know, or have polled is this question....How many of us commenting on this stubject will have their annual families income reduced by these restrictions?

I personally, don't see destroying a century old fishing industry for a GUESSTIMATED 6000 fish short fall. There isn't a river on the coast that hasn't had its ups and downs. The Klamath is not dead.

[Straydog]

I sacrafice my income as a distributor salesman of outdoor recreation equipment, much of which is fishing tackle.

I witness the sacrafice of hundreds of businesses that depend on the commercial and sportfishermen to support their businesses. This would entail business people from chip makers and sellers to boat builders, boat sellers, motels, campgrounds, restaurants, bars, gas stations, etc. etc. etc.

The tribal agreements made decades ago are not agreements I feel we can succesfully alter. Nor do I feel we can go back and undo the harm that has likely come from years if tribal netting.

My feeling is that our energies are best spent directed towards that which we can possibly change.

I am a fiscal conservative and there-for believe conserving now, in order to sustain fish runs in later years, makes econmic sense in the long term.

No need to shout.

[jacksalmon]

I would be all in favor of suspending any floor, only if it makes biological sense. That is a decision that should only be made by biologists who are not slaves of any interests but those of the fish. We already can't trust our federal government biologists because their final opinions are twisted by their superiors to fit the needs of those who own the administration. However, the state biologists seem to be a pretty neutral bunch. I appreciate the concern over economic losses to people, but the fish come first. If biologists can say that the floor can be suspended or the predictions for return numbers are faulty and should be revised upward, that would be great. But, if they can't do that in the interest of the fish, then maybe it is best that there be a little suffering to wake people up to the need to reform practices to protect, sustain and nurture fish. You guys need to realize that there is a war going on over fish and that only if they are protected will they survive. The fish come first over our seasons. When we change our overall policies toward the fish, then we will have fish and seasons. But, in the meantime, if we can legitimately save the season with a letter writing campaign based on economic necessity, I am all for it, but only if it can be done with a true belief that the fish will somehow be aided by it. Otherwise, we should shut it down, change our policies and hope they will recover.
On the other hand, it would seem to make some sense that a fishery can exist away from the Klamath. For example, the proposals I have read about seem to draw the line at Cape Falcon. How can those drawing the line, be so sure that it needs to be drawn there? Why not at Cape Blanco? Maybe there is a timing factor that would allow fishing through a certain date and when more Klamath fish are present, then shut it down. It may be that such a blanket closure is not necessary, but can be fit more precisely as to location and timing. But, I don't have that info, so perhaps someone more knowledgeable can give us some info that might aid a letter writing campaign. But, again, I will only participate if I believe that it is good for the fish in the long run.

[wak'm&stak'm]

Sorry Straydog...I didn't mean to shout. I am glad you are one of a few with a dog in the fight.

I sure get tired of those city dweller ( not all but those) who continually tell us how to manage our backyard.
I have never once told them not to build another mall or overpass, or which books not to read.
Everyweek there is just more and more bad news...
Red fish recovery - inaccurate data here.
Marine sanctuary- 100% political and extreme enviromental backing
Reduce tuna limits - we are not the problem
it just goes on and on and on....

I wish I had the same faith as you in our state fishery and game managers...don't get me wrong, it is not personal, I think they are wonderful people. Very nice indeed.
BUT....they are given a right of authority that I do not believe their track record supports.
They are very much controlled by politics and budgets.
The federal boys dictate most of their decisions...with federal cap limits.

Another example of how they are handicapped are those stupid seals in the Columbia fish ladders. I am sure they would love to just shoot the darn things...I know I do. But there is no way in hell that they can do anything....but play orca music and build bars.

There are to many chiefs playing with our resources. I also think...they worry about their incomes also...if their was no issues...then they wouldn't be working.

Hey Mark is your thread on track....sorry... my solution is replace the whole management system. and don't let Portlanites have a opinion unless it is countered by something that effects their lives.

[Straydog]

wak'm,

No worries. This is a very passionate issue and I appreciate anyone that is willing to get involved.

I don't think we are really too far apart in our beliefs.

I've had a dog in the fight for over 30 years, and the fight never ends. (we were fighting to prevent Lost Creek Dam on the Rogue, when I first started in the business. We lost that battle......)

Unfortunatly, I have quite a few years left before I can retire and am one that prefers to error on the side of the fish, if error is to be made, which it will.

I got into the business because I love to fish, not the other way around. Hopefully, with a little luck and a lot of effort, there will still be fish around to chase when I do get to retire and have more time to do more of what I love!!

In terms of the Klamath issue, it is my opinion that we need to press our elected 'leaders' to bring about significant quantitative and qualitative improvement to the Klamath system via adjustments in water allocations and uses, from the Klamath, Scott and Trinity systems.

[Mark Mc]

Well this thread is certainly educational for all of us...so let's pause occasionally to appreciate it. <moment of silent appreciation>

Gary, thanks for the note you sent me. I don't know Gary but I think he has class.

Can we back way, way up for a moment? Big picture here....

We have two or more groups of federal agencies butting heads here....NOAA / PFMC / USFW (fisheries side)

vs

Bureau or Reclamation / Army Corps / Interior (water / agriculture side)

And it has pitted the economic interests against each other:

Farmers / agriculture & the economy that surrounds them

vs

Fishing industry, tourism, and the entire coastal economy that depends on it.

And the survival of fish are in the middle.

If I could play God here, I would indeed line up on the side of fish first, the health of the coastal economy second, and the agriculture interests / economy third. Yes it's kind of a "Sophie's Choice" thing. I feel for the farmers too.

If I could play God I would wave my magic wand (or hand, or staff)...I would move any people and homes out of the flood plains on the Klamath....For one season I would shut of all or most of the irrigation water and keep it in the river...I would open up Iron Gate dam.....and flood the river, scouring out most of the disease-harboring moss, fertilizer runoff, etc. I would have the government find the money to fairly compensate all the farmers & those who depend on them (gee we can find billions of dollars to help people outside our country).

Back to reality though, it will take darned near an act of God to get throgh all the politics & govenment in-fighting to start fixing that river. It needs to be done though. So we need to figure out what small things we can do on that front...letters...

In the meantime, some choices have to be made. To some extent (I don't believe as bad as some say) it is choosing between fish and people. Here is part of the note I sent to Gary:
----------------------------

This issue is so huge, and so far-reaching. It seems to be a matter of....choosing the lesser of multiple evils.

The way I am looking at this one though....is from the perspective of people....the people on the coast especially. You must know how economically depressed most coastal towns already are. And the related social problems...alcoholism, child abuse, drugs, hunger. We (salty dogs) just donated about $1300 to the Linclon Co Food Share. The stats they showed me just about made me cry. Like the number of meals they provide to poor seniors, and children. 40% of their meals go to children.

So when they eliminate the ocean commercial & sport salmon fisheries in Oregon, it will drive a final nail....no...a railroad spike....into the coffin of the coastal economy. Just wait and see.

After this closure, and all the bankrupcies & foreclosures & lost jobs, is that foodshare director going to tell me that their request for food boxes has doubled? That now 60% of it is going to kids? Is the child abuse rate going to jump? Is the crime rate going to jump?

Yes I live in nice, safe, hoity-toity Corvallis. But the coast is my second home. I can't bear to see that happen.

p.s. let's do what we can to put water back in the Klamath (the root cause of this mess)
--------------------------------------

BTW Gary, I like your thinking regarding partial seasons, the farther you get from the Klamath zone, and the later it gets. The problem is that....before they can even negotiate any options, they have to pass the emergency exception to lower the floor. And the way the MS act reads, it has to be based on "economic and social damage."

[jacksalmon]

Mark: As usual, you make a lot of sense. But, remember we are fishers first and we must put fish at the head of the line for help. People can always be helped with money. Fish can't. Fish need healthy streams.
First, there must be a determination based on a "real" biological assessment that seasons must be curtailed to "save" the Klamath fish. We must insist that that is done. If it is needed, then we have to live with it and do what we can to change the long range, big picture policies. If something needs to be done, then we should insist that the impact be as small as possible, such as making the closures for as small an area as possible and for as little time as possible. The blanket closure from Baja to Cape Falcon seems a little extreme to me. But, again, if it is truly necessary, then so be it.
I have been to a zillion of these meetings pleading for protection for fish. I even got kicked out of one for asserting that NMFS stood for the National Mission to F----up Salmon. So, I don't have a very high opinion of the federal agencies. Their biologists have their hands tied by powers that don't care about fish, so the long term solution is to get rid of administrations that don't care about fish. The short term solution is to have the impact of what they did to the Klamath fish be as small as possible so we can get some fishing in. There are many fall chinook runs on the Oregon coast that are in good shape and we should be able to target them. There must be a way to avoid a major impact on Klamath fish and still get some fishing in. I would like to get more info on that approach because it might be easier than getting these people to waive the floor. While that gets us some fishing, it may hurt the fish in the long run. Or, we can get some economic aid for the people hurt by any closures. If these people can waste all that money on Iraq, they can cough up a little for the people of the Oregon coast, until the bigger picture is fixed.

[coconutdan]

I'am going to get killed for this but theres actually no reason to fish salmon in the ocean. They can be selectively harvested in the healthy river systems at their peak weights with the least amount fuel, I think Alaska has managed there largest salmon fisheries this way for years. Again if there is a coast wide closing the sports industry will come out the huge winners as they have the coastal rivers. Sound familiar

[Mark Mc]

Thanks Jack. Hehe...NMFS = @(*&%$#(@&^

Yes I too have tought that there ought to be a way...to carve up the coast into smaller zones than the present scheme...and the futher away from the KMZ, and the later in the season you get, the more opportunity there could be. Right now Sept 1st is the magic date....by then it is assumed that the returning Klamath fish are already in the river, or staging at the mouth. That is why a closure would go until Sept 1st, then allow fishing to open up.

The legal predicament though...as I understand it...is that the PFMC FIRST has to create the exemption (i.e. vote to lower the floor) before they can even begin to discuss options for a season. They usually present 3 options for each season. Right now, the 3 options are all the same: so fishing.

One thing that I am trying to find out...to no avail is....even if the PFMC declares "action must be taken to improve the Klamath"....what kind of power do they (or NOAA or NMFS or USFW) have over the Bureau of Reclamation, or the ARmy Corps? The fisheries agencies HAVE been saying for years that fixes need to happen, to very little avail.

[lingslayer]

Uhh, hey there God?!? While you're waving your wand there, be sure to include the Shasta/Trinity/Scott systems in your flood and restoration plan.

Without the cooler, higher quality water from that/those systems, you'll be back to warm, low O2 water in no time.

All that decaying organic matter in the Klamath marshes you know. :blush:

[Flush Release]

[TheRogue]

Mark, cool and realistic head as always!!

To clobber an economic engine already reeling from bottomfish restrictiions any further is a horrible thought. Most of the talk about water releases and habitat restoration is right on the money.....but it's long-term. It's NOT going to have any affect on this year, or maybe even the next few years.

The Southern Oregon/North California coast has been stripped of it's timber economy, and told to rely on tourism. Now, another piece of the tourism pie is being threatened, what do they rely on next?

Lower the escapement floor, with very direct language about being a one-year basis. Keep the ocean fishery open as much as possible. Keep people employed as long as possible.

My .02

TR

[Mark Mc]

Lingslayer, since you are a Goddess...

------------------------------
Member # 3612
Name lingslayer
Title Steelhead
Total Posts 460
Homepage
Occupation Domestic Goddess
-------------------------------

....and behind every good God there is an even better Goddess.....we should just pass the staff.....and have you wave it at all those other areas that need fixing. Deal ??

[Sweepy]

Mark,
Thanks for starting something proactive on bringing the fish runs back. It's good to see someone "step up". Trying to get people to work together is the start of the answer. Including all user groups is another step. Lobbying with American Indians, commercial, processors, and all groups interested in the well being of healthy fish runs will bring the fish back........Mike

Kind hearted generous people help make this world a better place.

[Flush Release]

long term actions, that focus on fixing the Klamath river issues.

The only real solution to this stinky issue is one that nobody but the Salmon that need the Klamath would like.

#1 10 year moratorium on fishing for Klamath River Salmon in addition the areas where they intermix with other system fish stocks. INCLUDING the Native subsistance/market fishing in stream.

#2 RADICAL and aggressive restoration of the Klamath watershed which includes removal of all dams and man made obstructions.

#3 Relocate ALL communities that infringe on the watershed.

#4 Reduce the number of Seal Lions to pre 1972 levels.

#5 Intensive modern method restocking of the Klamath strain of Salmon.

#6 Retrain yet again the populations of people in the communities that these actions would effect or better off just relocate them also.

#7 Restore the Klamath basin to pre-settlement condition.

#8 Remove instream predation by killing off the Otters, Eagle's and anything else that may eat one smolt while they are instream.

I really don't believe what I have posted BUT it is the only real long term solution to restore these Fish stocks to pre-whiteman levels.

Would any of us like to see this happen?

I THINK NOT!

IF there where real concern other than "I can't go fishing this year" then these actions would be taken.

And while we are at it we can reduce the population of the world by 3 or 4 billion also!

[lingslayer]

Dang Mark, thanks for reminding me!!! I went back to work full time+ and therefore lost that "domestic Goddess" :smile: classification. DARN!

[freespool]

I'am going to get killed for this but theres actually no reason to fish salmon in the ocean. They can be selectively harvested in the healthy river systems at their peak weights with the least amount fuel,

You mean like selective gillnet harvesting?
Other than using dynamite, I can't think of a more nonselective way to fish, that has the greatest negitive effect on nonselected spceies.



salmon hugger

[Reelentless]

I'am going to get killed for this but theres actually no reason to fish salmon in the ocean.

The reason most of us fish the ocean is to get away from all the BS in the rivers. I will give up fishing altogether before I fish the rivers again. Is that a good enough reason to please you?

[wak'm&stak'm]

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'am going to get killed for this but ...............

I like coconutdans ideas, and approach. Now theres thinking outside the box, and I really like his fearless approach.."go ahead and kill me but....".
The sad thing is he has a valid point.

Gods outline of the multiple government agencies is a fine example of to many chiefs. I still don't understand why our state level ODFW publicly protrays themselves as have the authority of their domain.

Good points from everyone...very logical, I wish you were all in charge.

[garyk]

even if the PFMC declares "action must be taken to improve the Klamath"....what kind of power do they (or NOAA or NMFS or USFW) have over the Bureau of Reclamation, or the ARmy Corps? The fisheries agencies HAVE been saying for years that fixes need to happen, to very little avail.

I don't want to derail this thread from the subject of Klamath salmon management, but the above statement touches on a very fundamental problem -- the conflict between agencies, and their missions, all of whom have a role in salmon recovery.

I'm guessing that this MAY be the focus of the upcoming Jim Lichatowich lecture at PSU (there's a thread on the main board some pages down - use 'search' feature). And while his talk will be about Columbia salmon, the same inter-agency gridlock is symptomatic of salmon management across the region.

Back to the Klamath.....

[Flush Release]

I'am going to get killed for this but theres actually no reason to fish salmon in the ocean. They can be selectively harvested in the healthy river systems at their peak weights with the least amount fuel, I think Alaska has managed there largest salmon fisheries this way for years. Again if there is a coast wide closing the sports industry will come out the huge winners as they have the coastal rivers. Sound familiar

Wrong about Alaska, they have in some selected areas what are called terminal fisheries, they release smolts in MASSIVE quanities and harvest when they return to the pens where they were born. Most have to do with Dog Salmon.

As far as instream Salmon harvest how about I go out and kill my flock of chickens just to extract a few eggs

My say's that when these fish hit the estuaries they be left alone to do what they are there for, this includes catch and release also. Something about procreation comes to mind. If this was practiced there may be a whole lot more Salmon swimming in the Ocean.

[coconutdan]

and what exactly are the troll fisheries targeting?hatchery clipped fish if I rememember right. Terminal sites are just release points for hatchery fish, the closer you fish to these sites the less chance of catching a fish from another watershed. I not trying to put the troll fishery out of buisness, thats someone elses dept, but I'll tell you the oregon troll fishery can't support 1200 vessels. Guys I have fished in both fisheries I speak from experence how about you.....

[Flush Release]

I had worked with S.A.R.A and the S.E. Trollers assn. extensivley as a member of the board of directors of the Ketchikan Sports and Wildlife Club for over 15 years.

http://www.ssraa.org/

The SE Troll Fishery is Ocean and Inland passage way based.

There are a few, very few areas in and around Ketckikan where Chinook are fished in terminal fisheries by Trollers. Don't know much about in and around Los Anchorge though

[coconutdan]

Ok we will use SE as an example, good mix of Seine, troll, setnet and gillnet and large sport as you can attest to. My perfect scenario would be around 250-300 Oregon trollers, 100 CR netters with more terminal area's and couple hundred guides max. Let the lead fly!



http://www.cf.adfg.state.ak.us/regio..._hvst_gear.php

[Flush Release]

If you are talking about a terminal fishery here in Oregon for raised and released fish I am all for it as long as it does not bother the ones going into the river systems.

[coconutdan]

THere's already five in the lower river, they have very little impact on ESA or upriver fish. Problem is they are expensive to set up and maintain and a large percentage of the fish is intercepted in the ocean. But they do prove that hatchery fish can be harvested very selectively, just comes back to that old economic arguement I see over and over again.

[crabbait]

I sure get tired of those city dweller ( not all but those) who continually tell us how to manage our backyard.

... my solution is replace the whole management system. and don't let Portlanites have a opinion unless it is countered by something that effects their lives.

And I sure get tired of people who have made a livelihood out of resources that belong to all of us who then complain when they are finally required to be responsible with that resource.

Wak, your attitude is exactly why we all need to be involved.

[garyk]

My perfect scenario would be around 250-300 Oregon trollers, 100 CR netters with more terminal area's and couple hundred guides max. Let the lead fly!

No argument here.

I would add though, that you would also have to reduce the size of the BC and SE AK. commercial troll fleets too; to reduce their impact on Columbia River stocks.

I'm beginning to wonder if the days are numbered for the high seas troll fleets? The ocean commercial interception rates documented for ESA listed and other sensitive stocks, argues against these mixed-stock fisheries. Dispite Ted Stevens, I believe there will be some changes demanded at the Federal level.

Harvesting the salmon closer to their natal rivers would improve management, allowing a greater harvest on abundant stocks and lessening impacts on the weak ones.

It would also more clearly highlight the rivers that need help - like the Klamath, and eliminate the argument that "the river is producing plenty of fish, they're just being caught off-shore, so it's pointless to do anything."

[skein]

Whew, what a read.

I've been gone all day and haven't been around to play in this little Maytag washing machine. That's not a totally bad thing.

But... let me introduce one more little item that simply hasn't been mentioned yet.

Look at the hills. See the snow? We're probably going to have good to excellent river flows this year, going a long way toward flushing smolts and cleaning out the river. If that happens there will be plenty of water for the returning spawners, at which time many of the arguments and perspectives will simply not count any more.

Until the cycle repeats itself....

Mother Nature may not be a Domestic Goddess, but don't discount her power.

Now back to the regularly scheduled mayhem. :grin:

Skein

[Reelentless]

Ahh, a voice of reason.

[Jeff P]

One thing that I am trying to find out...to no avail is....even if the PFMC declares "action must be taken to improve the Klamath"....what kind of power do they (or NOAA or NMFS or USFW) have over the Bureau of Reclamation, or the ARmy Corps? The fisheries agencies HAVE been saying for years that fixes need to happen, to very little avail.

It's been my observation that government agencies make significant changes when, and only when, confronted with crisis.

[ron m]

This is a tough problem, we need to remember people and families are going to be affected as well as the fish being affected. I'm not one of the people that will be economically affected, buy my lack of fishing opportunities will increase slightly the economic impact. Collectively our lack of fishing opportunitiy will have a fairly substantial negative economic impact on the coastal economy. The commercial fishermen and coastal tourist economy will be the hardest hit and maybe the agricultural interests in the K basin will also be seriously affected.

For the short term, I think Skein is right, this year's water may provide a decent year for water in the K river system. A respite we need to make sure gets used to help the water situation in the river. We need to get the appropriate agencies and politicians involved in finding and implementing a long range solution to water quality in the rivers in the K system.

Changing the closed areas as the fish move up or down the coast is a good idea as long as the fish managers have a good idea of when the fish are in particular zones. Lowering the floor may be a good idea, but before supporting it I want to know more about what the fish biologists say regarding this topic. If the conditions in the river are so terrible that a given percentage, say 40%, of the returning fish die before being able to reproduce, then that's an argument for making sure more fish return to the river and therefore and argument for not lowering the floor. Having sufficient numbers of fish return and actually spawn is a goal everyone can support.

The feds encouraged farming in the K basin and having the govt stop encouraging additional farming would be a first step. Having a program for buying farms (and water rights) from those who WANT to sell and restoring wetlands would be a relatively easy first step. Removing dams may be more difficult politically, but finding ways and money to make the dams less damaging to fish should be a possibility.

I also think we need to remember that politicians will be very involved in getting solutions implemented. That's part of the reason we need to be contacting them with our concern re: the situation.

ron m