Who wants 10 more salmon/steelhead this year?

[birdhunter]

It's not a done deal yet, but it looks like the legislature might pass a law enabling anglers to purchase an additional harvest card for 10 hatchery salmon/steelhead. Here's the info. Though some of you might get excited by that. I'm excited about it. Should be a good thing. Anyone else have any ideas/comments?
http://www.oregonlive.com/outdoors/i...12fish18.frame

I'd like 10 more fishing trips...that's all I want.

[OR Coast Range]

I'd be happy if I could just hook into my first steehead! Its been a long winter season for me, but I'm still out there most weekends

[Myfish]

Yes Simon you would think that they would figure that one out, But as we all are starting to figure out its all about dollars in the end. Now don't get me wrong I will buy a tag for 10 more fish. Here is my deliema. I wonder if I can use that tag first. Being that all the springers and steelhead I'll catch are going to be fin clipped and or most of the fall Chinook that I will catch will not be clipped ?

[Fishin Magician]

My feeling is that it would be ok on the Columbia river if the runs were as they predict, providing these fish are predominatly hatchery fish. I will say that I hope it will not include the coastal rivers, the runs there are not as strong as they used to be and I am finding it a lot easier to just release fish than killing them. Bottom Line I would rather see fish in numbers to catch than be able to kill all we catch. My .03 cents worth

[lippee]

Why be GREEDY

[Simon Peter]

I think this is a good idea. It really helps close the loop of temptation to "loose" your tag when you hit the 18 or 19 fish bracket. I know this is not too big a problem for most, but for those hitting the river all year long it can be. At least they give you an honest way to keep fishing.

[Kwiky]

I'm not sure what is greedy about keeping 10 extra hatchery fish?? It's not as if I'm going to use them as fertilizer or anything; they will end up on my table, feeding myself and my family. What am I missing? For example, should we feel obligated to release springers in the South Santiam so they can make it to the hatchery and get bonked? I'd rather they made it into someone's freezer! Sensitive runs need protection, but not-so-sensitive runs of ALL hatchery fish such as South Santiam springers and summer steelies are for us, aren't they? If not for us, the sports fisherperson, then who?

[This message has been edited by Kwiky (edited 02-20-2001).]

[Myfish]

I have to agree with Kwiky. I or you paid for that hatchery fish and I don't have any problem with killing them. As for the coastal rivers I know that with a little law enforcment on the upper end of those rivers would help. Back to the Point I have no Problem with taking a bright unclipped fall Chinook at all. I will give you this, I do have a problem with people who tag a dark fall Chinook and or a snaged fall Chinook that isn't a hatchery fish. There is some places I think that at some point it should be anyway you can hook them you can take them.(Middle fork of the Willamette) is a good place to start. The hatchery takes what they need and or sell then the rest sit there and may spawn and die. I'd rather see people who want those fish get them anyway they can rather than see the fish go to waste, besides, they paid for them.

[willierower]

I want the old 40 fish tag back. Axe the halibut. Who in there right mind would go after them of our coast anyways? Including sturgeon and halibut on one tag was just a pitiful way coverig up a decrease in bag limits and an increase in fees. I know I may sound greedy, But there have been years when Ive filld my 40 fish tag. I dont see anything wrong with taking a couple dozen hatchery steelhead. And you guys cant tell me when you land a nice big fat fall chinook hen, You are not gonna bonk it.
ODF&W is whining about not having enough money to continue operating hatcheries. My solution to thos is. Cut some fat. Get rid of some management, Cut some nongame pojects and get down to buisness of getting more people buying licenses. To get more people buying licenses, They need to give them more oppurtunity at fish. To do this they need to raise more fish. Its real easy to do without hurting existing wild runs. Just take a look at the Siletz and south fork Coquille broodstock prodjects.

[Phish_on]

I WISH this was an issue for me !!!

[Hoosier Daddy]

Just a point willierower, those two projects you mentioned DO cost money. No fish = no money and no money = no fish, how do you expect them to get out of that rut??

[willierower]

Get rid of projects that are not game fish or game animal related. Cut back staffing. And get more volunteers.When I was in High School I was involved in the STEP program. The chapter president had a small salmon hatchery on his property. We would net salmon from the river and spawn them. The fish we used for brood stock were taken right in front of the hatchery or in the same stream. We could raise a fish from egg to about 2 inches in length for about 1/2 cent apiece. Last I heard it costs the state 20 some dollars a fish to raise it to releases size. The state pretty much eliminated the private hatcheries and hatchboxes. For everything we did we had a State biologist we us.
That was in southern Oregon on the Coquille system. That river system still has big runs of salmon.
I would still volunteer my time if I knew what I was doing would actually have a positive impact on the fishery.
It doesnt take a bunch of money to raise fish. It doesnt take a bunch of educated idiots to tell us how it should be done. You dont have to do expensive studies before anything is done.
I know somebody is going to say something about saving the wild fish. Thats a fairly easy one to tackle. Just read pages 26 and 28 in the Oct.- Nov. Salmon Trout Steelhead magazine. Frank Amato says it all.
STREAM NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT.
Those three words are the key to increasing wild fish numbers and in some cases saving some runs from extinction.
I guess I kinda got off the subject, But anyways. What I was trying to say is. The ODF&W is screwed up. They waste alot of money.

Check out this report
http://tidepool.org/salmon.depend.html






[This message has been edited by willierower (edited 02-21-2001).]

[Mike H]

willierower - I've got a problem with you're "solution." Get rid of some management? I do not see how getting rid of any management will help anything. Care to explain o' wise one?

Cut nongame projects?! It's obvious that you don't care about shore birds or amphibians or other nongame species but there's more to fish and wildlife than the meat swimming up rivers to the hatcheries. All critters, regardless of "gaminess", are part of the ecosystem. If we help the nongame species, I bet we will be helping the game species. Think about it.

I understand that a very large portion of ODFW's budget comes from license sales but I know plenty of people who will buy licenses (including myself) to fish catch & release for almost everything. So if these hatcheries do go or people can't keep as many fish per year, the world isn't going to come to an end.

Oh, and another thing. ODFW isn't the whining about not having enough money for hatcheries. YOU are the one whining about not having enough hatcheries.

Here's my solution. Close MORE hatcheries to free up some money for restoration work. If we can improve WILD salmon and steelhead runs to sustainable levels, we won't need any hatcheries. Salmon and steelhead spawn in the wild for free.

Mike H

[Kwiky]

Mike H, I agree with most of your post, except one statement in particular: "Close MORE hatcheries to free up some money for restoration work." Do you honestly believe that, a) if more hatcheries are closed, the money obtained by the ODFW in license and tag revenue, etc, will remain constant, and b) the money saved by closing hatcheries would go to restoration work? In an ideal world we could answer "yes' to both questions. Most tend to favor the opinion that this ain't no ideal world..........

[This message has been edited by Kwiky (edited 02-21-2001).]

[Mike H]

Willierower – First of all, check your spelling. I’m having trouble making out your scribble. Secondly, you made some pretty bold statements in that post above. Care if I pick them apart?

Regarding the nongame species thing…. See my post above. I know you’re out there for the meat but there’s a lot of us who enjoy the other critters as well.

That little bit you had regarding the “educated idiots.” Oh yeah, real intelligent comment. Obviously you had very little education (I am surprised you mentioned you went to high school). These biologists have studied long and worked hard to get to where they are now. Sure there are a few that I think are idiots but most are smart and they mean well.

I’m not sure why the state eliminated the hatchboxes but I think it was a wise choice. If hatchboxes were still allowed you’d have a bunch of rednecks out there pumping our streams full of fish. Billy Bob would think (with his un-educated mind) “Gee golly, if I plant more little fish, I’ll get more big fish.” Well, that’s true to a certain extent but when you have a bunch of rednecks planting 9,423,248,760,135,874 smolts every season in a little creek, you’re going to have some problems. Eliminating hatchboxes was a way to have an accurate count of how many smolts are being planted per year.

So you say saving wild fish is an “easy one to tackle.” Well, I guess it’s not easy enough for these “educated idiots” to figure out. We should have you running the show. Ha ha! I’d have to say that I’m fairly disappointed with Frank Amato. He means well by promoting the stream nutrient enrichment program but there’s a lot more than that. His focus is too narrow. He shouldn’t be writing that every problem could be fixed by dumping a bunch of carcasses in the streams. Sure, it would help but there’s more to be done.

Willierower, if you’re so convinced that to save wild fish we need more stream nutrients, go out and volunteer. I know that STEP programs are currently placing carcasses in streams and that would be a good way for you to help out. That is, if you can stand volunteering with the awful ODFW !

Kwiky – To answer you’re 2 questions. a) No, if ODFW were to close more hatcheries the money obtained from license sales would not remain constant. It would drop. However with the money saved from closing more hatcheries, I think it would be enough to support the costs of restoration work. What I’m trying to say is that ODFW could get by with lower license sales because their expenses would be lower.

b) With the money saved from closing hatcheries, I am pretty sure it would go to restoration work. It’s obvious that ODFW’s focus is on salmonids. If they don’t have to spend the money on hatcheries to supplement the runs, they would probably spend it on restoration to help the runs. That’s just my opinion though. They could put it all into nongame species. Oh no !

Mike H

[This message has been edited by Mike H (edited 02-21-2001).]

[willierower]

MIke H.
Yes you can pick apart what I had posted. Critism is good. But there was no need to slam me. I have as much right to my opinion as anyone. I may disagree with some people opinions but I dont get personal, I feel that is childish.
And yes I do care about nongame species. I enjoy seeing all the different critters on the river, Thats one thing about fishing I really like. Im just saying they need to funnel more funds towards fish.
Keeping hatcheries open and producing more fish would increase fishing oportunities. In turn would increase license sales. Wich would increase revenue for operations. It makes sense to me if you get more people out on the water you will get more people concerned about the state of the fisheries. This seems like a win win situation to me.
As for stream nutrient enrichment. It makes perfect sense to me. If you read the article, It should make sense to you.
And by the way, I am not a meat fisherman. I was taught at a young age to only take what I could use. I have great respect for fish and wildlife of all sorts.
My comment about educated idiots holds true. Its true that those people worked and studied hard to get where they are at. My point is, Most of what they know came from books and classrooms. They need to get out in the field to really gain some real usable knowledge.
Thats just my opinions on this subject.
Mikw H. If you would like to sit down over a cup of coffe and have a discussion about all that Im trying to say. Im game, How about you? Im very open minded to anyones views and opinions.
Paul

chnookie.
The South Fork Coquille Steelhead Program is mostly done with volunteers.
Im not sure about the Siletz program. I do know that G.P. has one of their biologists working with the state. I am pretty sure there is a lot of volunteer work involved.
Both projects are doing very well. I know wild broodstock programs are being expanded around the state. This should be the way of the future in raising keepable fish. Im fairly certain tthe costs of raising these fish is considerably less than raising fish at a hatchery.

[This message has been edited by willierower (edited 02-21-2001).]

[NW_rvrbank_Babe]

I agree with you willierower. We are paying more and getting less.

[Myfish]

I kinda like where this has gone. Mike H has a few good points but I have to agree more with willierower. I will say this to once you give it up most likely you will never get it back , that includes the money supporting that program. I do want my 40 fish back also and by the way fall hens go in the fish box not back in the water.