OCN’s and Hatchery Coho 2003 & 2004

[Born to be Wild]

The numbers are in for the Oregon Coastal wild coho for 2003.
Another banner year.

The numbers for 2003 are:

ESCAPEMENT
Coastal Rivers 213,000 wild coho
Coastal Lakes 25,000 (Siltcoos, Talkenitch and Tenmile)
Total OCN’s 238,000

With estimated mortality figured in you come up with approximately 279,000 wild coho ABUNDANCE.

Most folks that have a clue what is taking place out there in the ocean with the sport and commercial fishermen would have to think that the mortality is higher than the 15% or so used in the ODFW model.

I would have to believe that the ocean abundance is considerably higher than 279,000.
There is a lot of work to be done yet on educating fishermen on proper methods on handling wild coho on the ocean while releasing them.
Many fishermen need to realize how important it is to be a responsible fisherman when handling these wild fish.
I am presently working with ODFW and NOAA in an attempt to educate fishermen on how and why you need to be responsible when handling wild coho in the salt.

Preseason forecast for hatchery coho last year was 688,000 and they came in at 700,000.
As I have posted many times, ODFW and WDFW are normally very accurate in their preseason predictors for hatchery coho.
Wild coho on the other hand are much more difficult to predict.

The preseason forecast for hatchery coho for this year (2004) is only 500,000. :depressed:
Down approx. a third from last year. [img]graemlins/1zhelp.gif[/img]
What’s up with these domestic brats’s?
While they are being stagnant, their wild cousins are putting on a pretty impressive show!

Too early to do much speculating on the ocean quota’s for this summer, but I have heard rumors that might center around 60,000 for the Falcon to Humbug.
Possibly in the range of 40,000 to 70,000 but no doubt will be less than the 88,000 quota of 2003.
There will be the annual Ocean Salmon Industry meeting soon and the numbers will be flirted with.

So not great news for the hatchery buff’s but very exciting and encouraging news for wild fish advocates like myself.

This years returning wild coho is of the parent year 2001 which took a big leap and there was an estimated 169,000 spawners that returned in 2001.
Will be real interesting to get a feel for how many wild coho are roaming around out there this summer and could possibly get ugly if we have a larger return of the OCN’s mixed in with the depressed hatchery stocks.
Why are these hatchery fish getting so depressed?
Maybe we should start feeding them Prozac. :grin:

For the river fishermen that like to catch the brat’s like me, the Cowlitz got a return of 8,000 late strain hatchery jacks and should have a very good number of adult coho return this fall/winter.
Possibly around 60,000?

The total OPI hatchery jack counts for last year was only a dismal 30,000.
8,000 of that 30,000 were Cowlitz jacks!
Bet you can guess where I will be spending some time this fall!

Dano

[BUGLEMAN]

Sounds like we would get a better hatchery bang for out buck if we switched all coho hatchery programs to broodstock. Now is an excellent time to do this with such good native abundance.

What are they doing so well on the Cowlitz? Sounds like other managers could learn a few things from that operation.

[Ty]

Hatchery wild coho broodstocks are a great idea, they workd quite well in Fall Cr before that program was shut down.

There lower hatchery numbers of coho is good news for the there wild cousins that they directly compete with.

Salt water survivals of all salmon in Ocean phase are very poor accross the board, cutting the line and no handling is the best option for these fish, although doesn't make for a very good revival if they are too tired and can't keep upright and drown.

[ 02-09-2004, 10:12 PM: Message edited by: Ty ]

[Born to be Wild]

Ty, Ty, Ty!

Dude, where are you getting your information from?
I hope it's not the National Enquirer! :grin:
The Alsea Alliance Cafe'? :grin:

Dude, those were some very domesticated out-of-basin hatchery mutt's if I have ever seen any!
And they performed 'bout as good as Rosanne Barr singing the National Anthem.

Guess you missed me and my friend UG a couple weeks ago debating each other regarding broodstock and I brought up Jim Lannan and his court appearance.

Dano

[ 02-09-2004, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Born to be Wild ]

[Ty]

Well,

I was workin w/ a step biologist in 90' and I saw side-byside the raceways full of healthy brood stock fish that parents came from Cascade Creek and the other old hatchery stock looked horrible. It was very striking to me then that there was such a physiological difference in the two stocks....

The Alsea Allinace was below the belt...

I hardly think u have much to teach me btw....

[ 02-09-2004, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: Ty ]

[crabbait]

Let's keep this civil gentlemen.

[Born to be Wild]

Ty, I was only joking around with you and just having fun with it since I was in such a good mood being finished with an exaustive week at the show.

But seriously if you look into the Fall Creek hatchery coho you will find that that stock had been comprised of many out-of-basin eggs through the years including some from the Big Creek stocks in the lower Columbia.

As GSA has posted in the past, they performed very poorly.

I'm not sure but I don't think there is any broodstock coho in Oregon.

There is a broodstock chinook program in Yaquina Bay (old Oreaqua facilities) and possibly other areas and many broodstock steelhead programs including the latest Nestucca program.

I just had to correct you because the information you posted was incorrect and very misleading.

I think the best approach in managing coho rivers when possible is what we are doing on the Oregon coast and leave the wild ones alone by reducing and eliminating the hatchery coho programs.
You can't argue that with two years in a row the OCN's are at 50 year highs, we are doing something right.
Show me some other wild stocks that are making that same unbelievable recovery.

I think we can all learn from each other.

Even the very experienced biologist that have been working with these and studying them all there life don't have all the answers.
But one thing that is very obvious and not even questionable any longer, is that big hatchery programs suppress wild production.
The data is realy piling up.

Dano

[Ty]

No arguement there Born to be wild on hatchery production of coho harming wild coho, although that goes for all the other salmonids too.

However, there was broodstock program in Fall Creek and the original stock was crap. The broodstock program was short lived thing before everything else fell apart.

The broodstock came from Cascade Creek a tributary of Five Rivers on the lower Alsea.

I stand corrected.... I guess...

As far as what weare doing right?..... Whatever.....

The only thing that has changed is lower ocean sport and commercial harvest combined with great oceanconditions that lead to the increased numbers of wild Coho.

Habitat is not improving as is nothin else.

Mixed stock fisheries with generous quota's and poor ocean survival's and conditions due to offshore flow let to the crash of wild coastal coho stocks.

Hatchery practices are still very primitive in the NW at best and overfishing and habitat loss continues to occur.

So what do we have to congraulate ourselves on other than the fact that the fish are kicking a.. on there own?

[CATCH AND EAT]

Originally posted by Ty:
The only thing that has changed is lower ocean sport and commercial harvest combined with great ocean conditions that lead to the increased numbers of wild Coho.

Mixed stock fisheries with generous quota's and poor ocean survival's and conditions due to offshore flow led to the crash of wild coastal coho stocks.

So what do we have to congraulate ourselves on other than the fact that the fish are kicking a.. on there own?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Intermixed with a few rants TY I can argee with you on the points above. However there have been some improvements that man has actually accomplished to promote escapment of both hatchery and wild fish. Of course improvements cost many millions of dollars such as the turbine replacements on Columbia River dams but every little bit helps and will protect the runs in future generations.

I am very happy that the ocean has provided for and instagated the partial recovery of Coho to our waters. Just remember that we do have bad years from time to time and sometimes those years are consequetive and may last 10 years depending on El nino and river conditions.

500,000 is still a lot of fish Dano. I'll be there looking for those little bullets you can count on that. My guess is that we will end up with around 600,000 if you revisted the history of run predictions for the past five years. But then again I'm no biologist. Just an ignorant guy that loves the ocean.

[ 02-10-2004, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: CATCH AND EAT ]

[TGFwriter]

Dano-
Got any numbers of OCN's for the 2004 season. I am guessing they will be down- affecting our ocean coho quota's along with the downturn in hatchery coho numbers. Got info?

Bob

[Born to be Wild]

The only thing that has changed is lower ocean sport and commercial harvest combined with great oceanconditions that lead to the increased numbers of wild Coho.

Habitat is not improving as is nothin else.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">"The only thing that has changed"

Sorry Ty, but you are obviously a new comer and have much to learn.

Maybe you don't realize the fact that hatchery coho production was cut dramatically to help the OCN's rebound.
Get a clue Ty, this is why the coastal hatcheries were cut and Fall Creek eliminated!

So you are wrong once again and your batting average is going down hill once again.

If this is the way they are training new biologist, Lord, help us!

Dano

[TGFwriter]

Sure habitat has improved but water quality hasn't. And what good is habitat if it doesn't benefit water quality. Our Tillamook salmon are still dying in the hot water of the Wilson, Trask, Nestucca, Kilchis, Tillamook, Miami and Nehalem Rivers. Warm water kills fish and severely limits their ability to thrive in fresh water ecosystems. It will be a long time (if we get adequate riparian areas) until habitat positively impacts water quality. All 7 of Tillamook County's streams do not meet minimum requirements for salmonids for temperature and some for dissolved oxygen!

Bob

[Born to be Wild]

Dano-
Got any numbers of OCN's for the 2004 season. I am guessing they will be down- affecting our ocean coho quota's along with the downturn in hatchery coho numbers. Got info?

Bob

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yea Bob,

The preseason predictors for OCN's have been totally unpredictable.
If you saw my post earlier, I stated the 2001 parent year was 169,000 spawners and this year, well, could possibly be awesome!

I think it is time for us fishermen (private & business) to get together and work many of these issues out!

Bob, the science is in and we as sportsmen (non commercial) need to get together and accept science and unite and get this thing together and fix the problems of the past.

Let's start now!

Dano

[Born to be Wild]

Bob,

This is cool discussing the political alternatives of fish management, but let's ALL get together and have a blast and arrange a civil party and discuss/dispute these important issues.

Seriously, it needs to be done.

Jennie will buy the Pizza :grin:

[Ty]

You know Dano I don't think u and I communicate very effectivly.

Cause u totally miss the point of most of my posts.

I could care less to my batting average and certainly feel bad that u think this is some kind of competition.

So really,
Chill out, go fishing, or what ever it is that u do that will make u feel better about life.

I don't feel that your post warrants any further responce. I have alot of knowledge and training that could be useful to all on this board.

I have been following fisheries studies since the mid-80's when they really where starting to really become relavent.

The science band wagon is not one I suggest anyone jumps on.... One study is just that one short lived moment in time..... The scientific process also can give very skewed results... and should be view so with caution... You knwo a great example that every one can understand is all the medical field studies, one shows thing this way, ones shows things in another way, pretty soon nobody knows what do think cause every study days something defferent and the worste part is the people behind the studys have something to prove that totally negates the entire procees.

So, yippy, yep we are all glad that the days of mass releases of hatchery coho and all the other slmonids are gone, there only purpose was for ocean sprt and mainly commercial hatvest that ironically led to the demize of commercial fishing on the coast large mixed stock harvest of hatchery and wild coho.

Maybe, because we stopped releasing hatchery coho the wild ones came back... There is no way to prove that.... The things we can prove is that the huge harvest of the 80's crashed wild populations since they couldn't sustain the impact.

Really, have something to prove it isn't for me, I dought it is with the guys on this board, actually not sure what that really your point is?

Cause I am confused, u want to harvest wild fish, not fish unless u can kill any kind of fish that is in the water that u fish, not have hatchery fish cause they are bad?

There some irony in the conclutions u are trying to make?

So, explain to me what it is that u want to accomplish? If u want me to post all the literature I have read and I think that wouldn't be in the best interst of anyone.

It's too bad that because I have a biological background and a even stronger fisheries background that u feel u must dispove me?

Anyway, u have some good info that u are putting on Ifish. Not sure that your "real" intentions of are of putting this information up are?

ODFW has wanted to get out of the hatchery bussiness for a long time. No supprise that hatchries have a negative impact, they arn't set up to be biologically sound. There are no long term sustainability goals at all involved with hatcheries..

So really Dano, what is your point?

[ 02-11-2004, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: Ty ]

[Salmonator]

Doesn't spelling come in to play somewhere during the course of a college education??

[Born to be Wild]

The science band wagon is not one I suggest anyone jumps on.... One study is just that one short lived moment in time..... The scientific process also can give very skewed results... and should be view so with caution... You knwo a great example that every one can understand is all the medical field studies, one shows thing this way, ones shows things in another way, pretty soon nobody knows what do think cause every study days something defferent and the worste part is the people behind the studys have something to prove that totally negates the entire procees.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Good point Ty.
It’s like the one between margarine and butter.
From one moment to the next… You don’t kno which one to eat.

However, the science on the detrimental effects that hatchery fish have on wild fish isn’t even arguable any longer and cannot be ignored for the sake of folks that believe you gotta have hatchery fish to be fishing.

Maybe, because we stopped releasing hatchery coho the wild ones came back... There is no way to prove that.... The things we can prove is that the huge harvest of the 80's crashed wild populations since they couldn't sustain the impact.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Well Ty, maybe there isn’t a way to prove that but look at the trends.
Large hatchery programs = unimpressive wild production.
Oregon coastal hatchery coho production reduced = 50 year highs in wild OCN production.
Lower Columbia River wild coho are headed for ESA listing as ENDANGERED at the same time thanks to the help of the massive LCR hatchery coho programs.
I’ll ask you again Ty as I have asked many, show me rebounding like that going on with wild fish that are hampered with hatchery fish.

Cause I am confused, u want to harvest wild fish, not fish unless u can kill any kind of fish that is in the water that u fish, not have hatchery fish cause they are bad?

So, explain to me what it is that u want to accomplish?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Ty, I have no (zero) interest in harassing any fish whether it be a lingcod, seabass, salmon, trout or steelhead just to harass it or I mean fight it.
To each there own.
Go chase a blacktail deer around the woods day after day and make like miserable for the deer if you think it is fun.
Go to Iraq and enjoy the chase.
But I have other priorities and will pass as many others do!

Hatchery fish are unarguably bad if you are up to date with science Ty.
Hatchery fish are useful and beneficial in places where habitat has been replaced by dams, etc.
In places where hatchery fish are not needed, they can be counter-productive as was the case on the Oregon coast with hatchery coho.

So there you have it TY.

It's too bad that because I have a biological background and a even stronger fisheries background that u feel u must dispove me?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">No Ty, I’m not out to disprove you but if I notice any inaccurate info posted by any individual and I know the correct info, I am going to speak out.
This is why barbershop biology is so prevalent amongst fishermen and especially on the Oregon coast.
Folks pass on some inaccurate info and others except it as Gospel.

Anyway, u have some good info that u are putting on Ifish. Not sure that your "real" intentions of are of putting this information up are?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">My intentions are to pass on current studies and their results to open up the eyes of some of the misinformed or uninformed so as they can understand the options in managing fisheries.
I could write a book on all the “café science” I have encountered in the last 15 years I have lived in the Pacific Northwest.

Fishing was fun for me until I moved here and constantly heard the whining of fishermen.
So I started looking for answers because it was obvious that the fishermen disagreed with each other and someone had to be wrong.
In most cases it was the fishermen that were wrong and the biologist suspicions and facts were correct.

ODFW has wanted to get out of the hatchery bussiness for a long time. No supprise that hatchries have a negative impact, they arn't set up to be biologically sound. There are no long term sustainability goals at all involved with hatcheries..

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Very well said!

It would be in the best interest for all if we could have fisheries on wild fish without the negative expense and influence of hatcheries.

Now let’s look at it from a different angle.

Let’s say we start dumping in a bunch of hatchery Chinook in the Siletz, Yaquina, Alsea and Siusalaw where they are not needed.
Why not?
Some of these rivers are believed to be at historic levels.
Why not suppress the wild Chinook there as we are doing in the Tillamook and Nestucca basins just so we can have those hatchery fish that some believe are necessary to have consumptive fisheries?

Then perhaps the Siletz, Yaquina, Alsea and Siusalaw can be charted on that same downward trend as the Tillamook area rivers.

Hey why not?
I’m sure we can find some volunteer fin clipper’s! :grin:

We have been screwing up many basins with hatchery fish for a long time, so why not continue the same status quo? :whazzup:

Now I am sure those statements will raise the fur on some of you, but this is just a debate or exchange of personal opinions.

So fire away if you’d like but I would fish with any of you and I don’t have a “hatred” for hatchery fish which is evidenced by my Oregon & Washington tag’s.

As a matter of fact out of the hundreds of ifisher’s I saw again and some that I met for the first time at the Puyallup & Portland Sportsman’s shows, there wasn’t a single one of them that I wouldn’t fish with or give the time of day unless I later found out that they were snagger’s. :smile:

Back to work, [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

Dano

[ 02-11-2004, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: Born to be Wild ]

[Ty]

Born to be wild,

By your calculations the record run of fall chinook on the Alsea river of 200 fish per mile (50 fish per mile is average) must have been because they stopped raising hatchery chinook.

Oh wait, do u see the connection. I am trying help u understand where your judgemnt is clouded.

U don't want to have a discussion, u want everyone to agree with u.

[ 02-11-2004, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: Ty ]

[Born to be Wild]

Born to be wild,

By your calculations the record run of fall chinook on the Alsea river of 200 fish per mile (50 fish per mile is average) must have been because they stopped raising hatchery chinook.

Oh wait, do u see the connection. I am trying help u understand where your judgemnt is clouded.

U don't want to have a discussion, u want everyone to agree with u.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Oh you mean a river with 100% wild chinook had a record year?

Thanks TY, I didn't realize that!
Seriously!
Does that surprise me?
No.

"Clouded"? :whazzup:

With good to great ocean conditions and no hatchery fish, that doesn't surprise me; Dettmann et. al.
(not a sp error, just thought I would jump in the limelight for a minute)! :grin:

And then you might figure in a great biologist named Bob or Robert Buckman that is a very level headed down to earth guy with fishermen's long-term sustainability as a priority.

You can see the results of guy’s like Bob, Kevin Goodson and many other great biologist that go the distance and don’t “fold” into the political pressure but stick to the right biologically sound decisions the best that they can based on the most current science.

I have had the opportunity to get to know a few of these guys and they are the kind of guys that you would want to work with if you were in trouble and needed help.

Truth is, they are real people and they care.
Not folks just collecting a salary!
Buckman, Goodson, Curt Melcher (ODFW), and Lance Kruzick (NOAA); you’re talking about guy’s you should be thankful to have working for you!

Give those guys a call and ask questions or thank them for a stressful job well done!

No Ty,

I'll never get "everybody" to agree with me and some will call me names.
So what!
I could care less to some extent.

As I have stated previously I am here to express my point-of-views and correct any wrong doing that I observe.
Nothing else!
I have lost a lot of money in the time I have spent on this site instead of taking care of business elsewhere, but it has been very rewarding to me promoting the truth and correcting some of the "special interest groups" and the ill & uninformed.

That's all folks!

Want me to dig into the "archives" showing Lutz and Trout Unlimited 3-6 months ago telling you that we would have a 50-62% drop in our OCN's (Oregon coastal wild coho) to promote their agenda?

I spent hours/days showing them that their deceptive tactics were a “crock” and even threatened to prove them wrong come January/February 2004.

It is all documented on ifish and I could look it up and rub it in that these “cults” or “special interest groups” were purposely deceiving the many ifish.net readers with deceitful inaccurate info to promote their special interest!

Sorry, this really irritates me to no end that a Mr. &lt;Grin&gt; could get away with such misinformation and decietfulness!

Well, here we are with another 50 year high on wild coho and a somewhat disappointing hatchery year.
What’s up with that Hustler Jim?

Dano