Oversized Sturgeon call for help

[Biteme]

The Battle lines are drawn. Washington has already adopted its rules for moving the deadline down and in effect shutting down the oversized fishery. The Oregon commission saw through the smoke and mirrors and recognized that the data did not support this decision. If you value this fishery it is time to make your voice heard. If you dont like this fishery it is also time to speak up. I have put a couple of letters up on my site for you to copy and email or print and mail as well as the addresses to send them to. It is time that oregon stands up for oregon and sticks to the commission's policies and time to stop letting washington dictate in the decision making process. go here to send your letters Lets make a difference.

Guess we are "environmental terrorists" Dennis.

My whole two or three a year we catch and release for someone who has never done it, is surely worse than killing all the fish in the keeper slot size, who are in fact dead (not maybe will die) and will never breed. Gimme' a break. [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img]

Speak up or shut up I guess. :blush: :depressed:

[King Fisher]

Done-Thanks Dennis.

[GOT2FISH]

Saw your boat on Chemawa the other day NICE [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[Pete]

Dennis, thanks for your diligence on this. Phone calls, letters and e-mails to the Oregon Commission and the ODFW director will help ensure that the regulations adopted by the compact will be within the scope of authority delegated by the Oregon Commission. The Commission was clear that Option 4 was what they would accept. Only the voices of all of us who care will ensure that the final regulation adopted doesn't ignore the Commissions direction to staff.

[Phishin Phool]

Letters Sent- Thanks Dennis!

--PP

[RiverRogue]

Thanks and I sent mine last week. Called Rep Dalto's office. Was told he would call me back. Never happened.

[FishFreak]

my letters are on their way. Thanks for your effort

[Biteme]

bump keep them coming

[Smj]

Question ******...."Two or three a year you catch" I don't really think you hooking and fighting two or three a year does much harm, but the Columbia is being written up in mags for the huge sturgeon fishing all over the country.

How many guides catch how many of the same (spawning age) fish how many times, on a weekly or biweekly basis?

My vote is to err on the side of caution.

How many people here would support a huge fishery for near spawning salmon? I'm sure you could get people to pay guides to fish them on their redds.

Smj

[FROGGY]

Letter will be sent. Thanks for all your hard work Dennis
Ive gone fishing with Dennis several times, and his involvement and knowledge in our fisheries is pretty impressive.

[fishncliff]

I don't believe we need to put economics ahead of fish survuival anymore.
I support closing down the fishery because it does a great deal of harm to the fish and it only benefits a FEW.
All sportsmen should support this act.Fishing guides too.

Dennis. [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

Done.

Rick

[Biteme]

In response to people that would opt for the cautious approach. The research conducted by oregon and washington shows that the numbers of keeper fish are on a increasing trend over the last several years. The number of oversized fish handled each year is at a stable or declinining level. This fishery is currently being managed for an escapement to the breeding population of 2500 fish annually which shakes out to 25000 fish in the next ten years. They have no data on spawning success - its not even studied. The population estimates were based on surveys from only one of the three ramps in the area so the numbers they used for this are way low.
The spawning area is currently already closed during the spawning season and the only ones fishing on the spawning grounds have been the bank anglers. They are going to close that now which is the way it should have been all along.
I ask what is the difference between this fishery and the other world class giant sturgeon fisheries on the snake and frazier rivers - the only difference is that they dont have a charter boat fleet and commercial interests lower in the river that wants all the fish for their kill fishery. The Snake and Frazier rivers have no concerns about catching and releasing these big sturgeon - they even have them named on the snake.
I would also like to point out that many of the same people that are against this fishery think that fishing for wild winter steelhead which are ready to spawn is Ok. What's up with that. Sturgeon are far more resiliant than any salmon or steelhead.
All I and the other guides are saying is that these decisions are being made based on very incomplete data. If we have a good spawning success rate and are recruiting plenty of fish into the broodstock we do not have a problem. They are going to begin studying the spawning success this year. If that data shows that we have a problem then shut it down. If it doesnt leave it alone and focus on more recruitment to the broodstock which is the real issue here and where the focus should be.
Another point is that if they shut this down it will shift the pressure downriver to the estuarys kill fishery and reduce the length of that season as well. Catching and releasing is always a better option than catching and killing.

I am going to go get my flame proof suit now.

[slabhunter]

If the states are so concerned about the spawners than why didn't they reduce the top of the bracket size limit??? Instead they chose to increase the minimum size.

[Pete]

I have to admit, I'm a little confused after reading Monroe's article this morning. I thought the Columbia River Compact was responsible for the ultimate regulation. But Monroe writes that Oregon and Washington have not adopted the same regulations out of the Compact. The process is that the Commissions recommend an option based on staff presentations. The staff then take the recommendation back to the Compact to come up with a regulation which then goes back to the Commissions for rulemaking. Last Friday the ODFW Commission preferred a new option, not the one suggested by staff. My understanding was that staff would take that recommendation forward to the Compact and the Compact would still come back to the Commission with a final agreement for ratification and rulemaking.

Based on Monroe's article, it sounds like Washington skipped a step and adopted a rule without the Compact's involvement. Monroe writes that the river will be split along the state line with different regulations on either side.

Exasperating!

[Joe Schwab]

Pete, I believe the compact only applies to commercial fisheries, not sport. For years Washington and Oregon have had differing regulations on the river and are separated by the state line. For instance Washington allowed fishing for Sturgeon at night, Oregon did not.

Recently they have made a concerted effort to standardize regulations on the river so as not to confuse or trap unwary anglers.

[Biteme]

Washington did skip a step and again they are trying to shove this down oregons throat. That is why that whether or not you are in favor of the oversized fishery - I hope you are in favor of Oregon standing up for Oregon and not giving into washington. This could be the start of something big and just maybe will lead to a truly joint managed Lower Columbia river instead of Washington always dictating to Oregon on policy decisions.

[TundraIII]

If the Sturgeon fishery is so healthy, why the reduction in yearly limits? Why the heavier restriction of keeper size limits? If no one has all the answers and not enough research has been done, would it not be prudent to err on the side of conservancy until such information is collected? With the increasing popularity of Sturgeon fishing on the rise, it seems appropriate to me that conservative measures be taken to ensure the fishery is available for my children and grandchildren. Just my .02

[Ragnar]

Yeah,
They thought that we'd never run out of buffalo to shoot from the trains either. Oops! What do ya know?!

Welcome to the "Last Buffalo Hunt" folks!

So. Let's see the data in regard to this.
I don't care to read a newspaper article (no offense Bill Monroe) "based on fact." Much like those that are in STS magazine (boiled down with speculation and bias, but based on fact).
This aint the Old West anymore people.
If the data is incomplete? Let's get some unbiased data that is complete.

Regardless... How do you like it when someone disturbs your breeding by hooking you in the face and then hits you with a nice photo opportunity?
I can tell you from persoanl experience, it's no "happy-fun-time" people!
:shocked: :shocked:
Now if I could just get them to stop giggling and pointing...
Geez talk about a complex....
Ragnar

[LIV2FISH]

Done!! Good Job!!

[Hoosier Daddy]

Originally posted by Biteme:
They have no data on spawning success - its not even studied......Sturgeon are far more resiliant than any salmon or steelhead.
...decisions are being made based on very incomplete data. If we have a good spawning success rate and are recruiting plenty of fish into the broodstock we do not have a problem.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">If these issues are not studied, we don't know if we have a problem or not.

I do understand your point. But, do you see where the argument for conservative measures could be drawn from the lack of information as well?

[Biteme]

The increase in pressure in the kill fisheries is what is driving the reductions in limits and seasons - not because of damage to the broodstock. The numbers they used for coming up with keeper populations were flawed and they have since fixed them. They are managing the keeper fishery for growth now and are setting the quotas conservatively. I do support any restrictions that are driven by good data. I do not support changes based purely on concerns and emotions. To get a copy of the official reports contact ODFW or WDFW. It is about 27 pages of stuff. The numbers I quoted came directly from those reports.

[Bill Monroe]

No offense taken...
Pete, that is indeed the conundrum. Washington has either dug in or (perhaps more plausible) their commission acted assuming Oregon would do the same. That often happens when both meet on the same day over the same issue. They usually depend on their reps to take care of it, but not this time. Directors in both states have their commissions' authority to enact emergency rules to make changes and delegate that authority (usually, but not always) to their Compact reps...Joe, I believe the Compact also decides sport regs...So that gives both sides another couple of months to negotiate some more and it could still go either way.
I am, by the way, also on the side of erring for conservation until we know more...haven't said that strongly, though...yet. Limited entry may help some of the guides, but that's sure a lot of pressure on those fish.

[ 02-12-2004, 08:47 AM: Message edited by: Bill Monroe ]

[bassin]

I have to side with Tundra and Ragnar on this one. I have fished for these guys for for more years than some of you have been alive. Sorry Rick I know your a ole fart too.
The days of 3 fish limits all being over 48" are gone. And that used to be the rule, not the exception. Now you don't catch a keeper per trip. At least I don't. If your going to error, error on the side of conservation. Just MHO

[Biteme]

ttt

[Whalerman]

First year we caught o'size on purpose was about '93'. It was cool to use whole shad and heavy tackle and let the Big One beat you up. Gave it up about 3 years later when it was obvious how much pressure was put upon the brood stock by guys like me. I remember well how the last fish had 2 other big hooks in the mouth beside mine.

As it is every year we hook up with 2 or 3 o'size in the estuary without targeting them. Lets do as suggested, error on the side of the fish. Yes, I hate to see $$ slip out of a guides pocket, but the average sporter is already subjected to the fallout of tighter restrictions, I used to be allowed 15 keeepers, now 5. Used to be no quota's, now see how the game is played. Next will be tags for specific areas only, like above/below Wauna power lines.

Irregardless of how restrictive it gets I am for being conservative. In my opinion these new restrictions on fishing for o'size are a no brainer.

[chummer]

Biteme, I have the same questions as TundraIII, and if as you say, they used flawed numbers in the kill fishery and fixed them, They have yet to fix the seasons or size limits, Just the numbers? I opt for a conservative approach on this, and I'm from orygun and usually where theres smoke, a fire ain't far behind and I don't wanna get burned!!

[Pickles]

As Ragnar said:

Yeah,
They thought that we'd never run out of buffalo to shoot from the trains either. Oops! What do ya know?!

Welcome to the "Last Buffalo Hunt" folks!

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I see nothing wrong with using a little caution.

[Mojo]

How many dead 10 footers have you seen floating down the river below Bonny, during the O-Size season?

I have been working with Idaho Power and IDF&G for 3 years VOLUNTEERING (yup paying my own way) to help research sturgeon populations on the Snake River in Idaho. I'd estimate the number of fish killed by being caught from my boat at 0. You handle the fish properly, resuscitate them, and minimize the handling, NEVER use a tail rope, and be careful, they will be o.k. I'm not saying you will never kill a fish, (fishing is a blood sport...)but Bonking each and every keeper caught by all the sport boats and all the guides definitely puts a bigger hurt on the population than C&R fishing for big fish.

There's my 2 cents...

[Lwagg2]

Oregon and Washington may have separate sturgeon angling regulations on the Columbia River this spring for the first time in more than a decade.



Fish and wildlife commissions in each state adopted different versions of tighter fishing rules governing the catch and release of oversized spawning fish in the Columbia River Gorge.

Washington's version is tighter than Oregon's and leaves Oregon anglers limited to fishing on their own side of a two-mile stretch of the Columbia May through July.

All other seasons, bags and size limits remain the same along the rest of the Columbia and Willamette rivers.

Both commissions were asked by biologists to extend a May 1-July 15 boat-angling closure below Bonneville Dam downriver from Beacon Rock to navigation marker No. 85, about two miles.

The zone of swift spring and early summer runoff below Bonneville is the prime spawning area for sturgeon from seven to 10 feet and more.

It also attracts anglers from around the world who want to catch an ancient behemoth.

Biologists are concerned about increased fishing pressure and the deaths of sturgeon repeatedly hooked and released.

They originally suggested extending the closure area to a point a few miles farther downriver, opposite Multnomah Falls, but said Friday even the two-mile addition would add enough protection for the fish.

Washington approved and adopted the seasonally closed zone as part of that state's annual angling regulations.

Oregon, however, balked at increasing the zone and left the Oregon side of the river open to fishing up to Beacon Rock.

Fishing guides argued the closure wasn't necessary and would hurt their business.

"When regulations are non-concurrent, the state line becomes the boundary," said Steve King, Columbia River program manager for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

King said the boundary, as well as the shipping lanes for passing barges, runs down the middle of the river in that area.

"Our anglers will simply have to stay close to their side," he said.

Bank anglers, meanwhile, will have to stop fishing in the closed areas during the spring closure. They had been allowed to fish during the boat closure above Beacon Rock.

It's possible, King said, that both states could meet before May and review the issue, then either could change it's mind to make regulations more simple.

On tap for next year is a potential rule change allowing only one single, barbless hook for all sturgeon fishing. The hook would be brass or some other corrosive metal.

The states have matched their sturgeon rules since 1992, when there was a temporary split over the maximum size of keeper sturgeon.

"It's the fishermen who get caught in the middle," King said.

[ 02-12-2004, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: lwagg2 ]

[Joe Schwab]

Bill, Look up "Columbia River Compact". It states very plainly that the Compact regulates commercial fishing on the river. It also states that sport fishing is managed by each state individually.

That's the way it was when I was employed there unless things have changed recently.

[ 02-12-2004, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: Capt. Hook ]

[fishncliff]

It is important for all concerned to focus on what we are protecting here.
It isn't just the brood stock, but the future stock.
In those papers, it talked about the o/s fish they sampled by taking tissue samples and residue samples. Those tests revealed some of those fish were spawners that absorbed their eggs from being stressed. Those fish had hook marks in their mouths, some with several.
We don't have to wait until they get more data. The science they have now is telling us that we are on the verge of something big an dpossibly disastrus.
All this blah-blah-blah about incomplete data is a weak attempt to maintain the status quo.

[Bill Monroe]

Joe,
I'll make the call tomorrow and find out for sure, then report it here...I can tell you that when they set spring salmon seasons last week in Oregon City, there was a menu of sport actions approved at the same time as the commercial...they were in the column last Sunday.

[fishncliff]

Hmmmmmm well gee lookee here;

NEWS RELEASE
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

First hatchery sturgeon arrive from Canada
Feb. 18 for upper Columbia River recovery

MOSES LAKE - Washington's first effort to recover the largest and oldest freshwater fish in the upper Columbia River will get under way Feb.18, when 2,000 white sturgeon are transported from Canada to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Columbia Basin Fish Hatchery in Moses Lake.

The transplants are part of a joint effort by the two countries to ensure the long-term viability of naturally-reproducing sturgeon populations in the upper Columbia River.

"Hatchery-rearing intervention is necessary to preserve the diversity of the remaining sturgeon population," said John Whalen, WDFW regional fish program policy manager. "Without natural recruitment of young fish into the population, it will collapse."

Biologists estimate the current adult sturgeon population in the U.S. and Canadian portions of the upper Columbia River system at approximately 3,000 to 4,000 fish, Whalen said. Although no historical numbers exist for comparative purposes, biologists know the species is declining because surveys in recent years have found very few sturgeon under 20 years of age.

The upper Columbia River watershed above Chief Joseph Dam, including Lake Roosevelt, is closed to all sturgeon fishing to protect current populations.

I believe mother nature has spoken. Are we listening?

[Eric Linde]

Fishncliff,
I'm a bit of a lurker on here but you guys have called me out on this one. I've been involved in these sturgeon issues for 6 or 7 years with the ODFW and the WDFW. First as a member of the sturgeon taskforce and then when that was disbanded as a concerned citizen and a guide who helped collect that blah blah blah incomplete data that you refer to. My self other, guides and sportfisherman would handoff fish we had caught to Molly Webb and Brad Kaeding who were conducting gonad biopsys(sp) and taking certain samples to determine sex,age,reproductive maturity, and the "evil" stress level.They then would tag the fish and release it. Without going into it to far the simple point is that without catching these tagged fish again there is no way to see the affect of the first stress on the fish. Of over 400 oversize fish caught and tagged only 2 ripe females have been caught. There have been no tests showing a definitive reabsorbtion of eggs. They have shown higher cortesol levels but as of they don' know what that means. We have a 4.5 mile sanctuary in the gorge now. I have always been told there were two things that were never on the table as far as a management tool for these fish. 1. The slot limit. 2. Economic or revenue generating pressures to manage a fishery. Well by raising the lower slot in the estuary you turn a derby fishery into a "trophy derby" fishery. I wonder who that would benefit? If you were really concerned about a broodstock problem you'd think that you would lower the top limit and pass all those fish through to broodstock. Plus you'd probably have more fish to fish on. Just a few points I thought I might add. There's alot more to this complex issue but I can't type very fast so I'll end here. Eric

[Mojo]

If the fishery is in trouble, do away with catch and keep. Make the whole darned river C&R and you will increase the population.

I doubt all the sub-keeper sized fish that are realeased (way bigger numbers than the number of oversized caught) have close to the mortality of those bigger (and tougher) fish. O.k. maybe I am being sarcastic, but I think the bigger fish can take a little tussle with little ol' me better than a 30 inch fish having it's guts yanked up off the bottom.

I might be wrong here. STG Rule, whadda you think? You know a ton more than all of us amatures.

[fishncliff]

Still hearing blah-blah-blah.
All the "experts" have ignored studies done in the past by the native americans, and other fishery scientists.
All the data to date points to an excuse to keep fishing a fishery that is the only way of replenishing the species, in the only area known to accomplish this act.
Sturgeon less than 6 ft are not old enough to spawn.They can recover, without extreme exhaustion, far better than the larger, older fish.They are not pulled from great depths that cause them to expell their guts like bottom fish in the ocean.
Now before you get your hackles up, these studies I mentioned took place long before Oregon or Washington fish and game "experts" realized this supply of beloved fish is not inexhaustable.
While I respect the work you and others have done, ya'll are about 10-20 years behind, but seem to have the audacity to say that not enough is known, so there is no need for alarm.
The native american, california, and Russian fisheries scientists know more about this fish than any "expert" here and continually are ignored and dismissed.
I was taught the feeding habits,migration patterns,and biologic information from elder scientists,game wardens,and fishermen years before Oregon found out that the sturgeon of the Columbia system migrate to San francisco.This caught them totally by surprise by the way and they even admmitted this fact in the Oregonian about 3-5 yrs ago.They said more studies needed to be done on this "mystery fish".
It is long overdue that we are closing this fishery.
Blah-blah-blah from "experts" today are dooming this fish and the fishery as a whole and leading to the depletion of a species and ending an economic benefit to our communities because of sheer egomania.

[STGRule]

All the "experts" have ignored studies done in the past by the native americans, and other fishery scientists.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I'd be interested to know what tribal studies you are referring to. Are these Oregon or Washington studies? The only specific sturgeon work that I know of of is from the Klamath fishery.

Sturgeon less than 6 ft are not old enough to spawn.They can recover, without extreme exhaustion, far better than the larger, older fish.They are not pulled from great depths that cause them to expell their guts like bottom fish in the ocean.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Sturgeon that are not in the midst of spawning are probably able to recover better than fish that are. It depends on the length of time they are on the hook, how healthy they are, water temperature, and any other mitigating environmental factors. Sturgeon don't have a closed swim bladder like more evolved fishes. They are able to "burp" out expanded air from their swim bladders IF they handled gently.

Now before you get your hackles up, these studies I mentioned took place long before Oregon or Washington fish and game "experts" realized this supply of beloved fish is not inexhaustable.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Again, please share. I would like to know what studies you are referring to.

While I respect the work you and others have done, ya'll are about 10-20 years behind, but seem to have the audacity to say that not enough is known, so there is no need for alarm.
The native american, california, and Russian fisheries scientists know more about this fish than any "expert" here and continually are ignored and dismissed.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Which "experts" are you referring to? The historic data provided by sturgeon research worldwide is taken into consideration in every decision made by scientists. Not by politicians, but by scientists for sure.

I was taught the feeding habits,migration patterns,and biologic information from elder scientists,game wardens,and fishermen years before Oregon found out that the sturgeon of the Columbia system migrate to San francisco.This caught them totally by surprise by the way and they even admmitted this fact in the Oregonian about 3-5 yrs ago.They said more studies needed to be done on this "mystery fish".

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I would be thrilled to learn from whom you did. I am a little concerned about your reference about the 3-5 years ago thing though. We've known about the migration patterns (including the fact that they go to San Francisco from the Columbia system) for sturgeon for more than the 13 years that I have been involved with sturgeon research. While I applaud the mainstream media for reporting what we know, that data is a decade or more out of date.

The "mystery" of this fish is caused mostly by the fact that they live longer than most humans, they have only been of interest to us for the last few decades as an commercial and sport species, they have a complex life cycle that we only begin to understand and most importantly, we don't have the money to find out the answers that we need. There are limited amounts of money that can and will be spent. The "importance" of the species dictates the expenditure. That unfortunately is based on politics. In the mean time, we have to be on the crest of the wave and not try to play catch-up with a species that will take 50+ years to recover (if we don't screw it up too bad) when we just don't know enough to be confident. That's what I hope for. The knowledge to be confident. It just won't happen over-night.

[ 02-13-2004, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

[STGRule]

Mojo, the little guys can probably handle it better because they are only on the hook for a few minutes compared to an over-sized that takes a half an hour or more to bring in. Just as long as they are not squeezed, or kept out of the water too long and that the tackle is heavy enough that the hook doesn't get left in the fish because a little guy broke off.

[Steelie Steve]

Dennis - My letters are on the way. Thanks for the effort.

Steve

[ 02-12-2004, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: Steelie Steve ]

[Eric Linde]

Well said STGRule. Fishncliff you might want to check that only fish over 72" spawn. I have the eggs out of a 59" fish and know of other sub 60" fish caught that had eggs in them. Plus males can be ready to spawn well before 72". You might want to recheck your "research".

[Biteme]

Eric is right. The real answer is Lowering the maximum size which in effect put 3 year classes of fish directly into the broodstock. I proposed at a commission meeting on the keeper fishery that we should have a rotating slot limit so that we fish for 42 to 54 for a period of time then shift to 48 to 60 then back again. that way we arent hammering the same class of fish year after year. The real issue here is that this fishery is managed for maximum sustained harvest If it was to go all catch and release nobody would even be concerned about catching and releasing the oversized fish. If we opt for the cautious approach and find that it is unwarented we most likely will not be able to reverse it. Everything that is written refers to an increase in the fishing pressure on the oversized fish. To quote ODFW and WDFW's numbers this is not true. It did increase from 1992 to 1995 but from that time to the present it is actually on the decrease.

[Biteme]

One other note. If they move this deadline down it is in effect also a block closure on keepers. This means no fishing is allowed at all in that area. Washingtons original plan would have shut down the entire area in the popular Horsetail falls, butlers eddy, beacon rock and so on. That for all fishing not just oversized.

[STGRule]

Biteme, I don't agree that if we found out we were wrong we wouldn't re-open. You just stated that the fishery is managed for maximum sustained harvest, yet you say we wouldn't re-open. And to tell you the truth, I would much rather be wrong and open a part of a fishery than to be wrong and lose the whole thing. The species is too important to mess with how convenient or inconvenient it is for a few people.

I also am not sure about the year-class information you stated. Fish at the start of the slot limit can be between 10 to about 29 years old. Fish at the top of the slot are generally between 15 and well over 29 years old. You can find the latest aging data here . It is a PDF file.

[STGRule]

Eric, It is generally understood that fish over 6 feet are our spawners. Smaller fish do spawn but they are the exception rather than the rule. Small fish are also not as efficient at spawning as the older, larger fish are. You get the most actual recruitment from the largest fish.

[Hoosier Daddy]

Originally posted by Mojo:
How many dead 10 footers have you seen floating down the river below Bonny, during the O-Size season?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Maybe Dennis can answer this from information presented at the meetings? It's more than 1, I know that.

[Mojo]

STG Rule,
Thanks for the info...

Hoosier Daddy,
I don't disagree with you. I realize some fish are going to die any time we fish(C&R doesn't mean no kill it means limited kill). No matter how hard we try we will kill some fish. The key is to minimize the damage done by handling the fish properly, using heavy gear, and getting them released quickly. It really sucks seeing a dead stugeon floating by.

like I said, if the fishery is in trouble, then close it down. If it's still viable, continue fishing. Seems pretty simple really. Maybe it's time for Oregon and Washington to step up the research on sturgeon (before it's too late). I bet STG Rule could use more funding, and more help. I know the more information available, the better the decisions will be as far as how to manage the species.

Maybe it's time for volunteer population studies (tagging etc.). I bet all the ifish stugeon fishers would jump at the opportunity to give a little back to the fishery we all enjoy.

[ 02-13-2004, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: Mojo ]

[fishncliff]

The information I refered to has been restated and picked apart by wdfw and odfw people for years, with pressure from commercial and sports fisherman( guides), only to maintain economic values.The information is historic and well known by many.

To say you need a specific quote before you believe, and without that it is unreliable, is an unintelligent position to take.Historically we keep taking the same position on all things we have wiped out.

The fish under 6 ft do develope eggs after they are approx. 10 yrs old.But they aren't ready to spawn.To lower the upper limit means you are still fishing the same fish.To raise the lower limit is not worthwhile because you have over 1 million known fish in this size range and if the big girls are allowed to do their thing, this number will increase, again you are fishing the same fish.To keep on pressuring the source of the future of the resource is not uncommon but it has always been the wrong thing to do.

This is one time that all users of the resource need to swallow hard and get on board. I know since the 80's it is the norm to think with your wallet but we need to pull our heads out of our bottom line and avoid the history of the salmon runs.

[STGRule]

To say you need a specific quote before you believe, and without that it is unreliable, is an unintelligent position to take.Historically we keep taking the same position on all things we have wiped out.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I didn't say I don't believe it. I just asked for the references. That's what we do. Find out what others know, find the data gaps, and then fill those gaps in with new research. That's what I do, the research. It's just silly to waste money re-doing something that is already done. And asking you for the references is not an unintelligent thing to do. Quite the opposite it gives your stand credence. It shows you know what you are talking about and not just stating an opinion. And it gives other facts to base their opinions on too. The more informed the opinion, the better the results.

[Bill Monroe]

Well, I'm now better informed...
Joe...apologies. You're quite right. The Compact only sets commercial seasons.
However, as happened at last Thursday's meeting, they tend to agree on sport decisions each will take...that makes it a bit of an ipso-facto decision process, but technically not official. I'm still a little unclear on how that washes with the sturgeon stuff, but I'm working on it.

[Laserman]

Alot being said on this thread. First. I have been going to compact meetings for 3 years and the "Compact" does set seasons and alocations for both the Sport and Commercial,(compact addresses more of the commercial side of things)but they do not have to be inagreement with one another. Another words, each state can set separate rules for their side of the river. It sounds like that is what is happening in this case.
Inregards to the oversize fishiery, as long as any oversize is being caught, their is no way to tell how much damage is being done by the sport fleet and commercial fleet without a proper study. Lets give both fleets tags and training (on how to attach the tags) to be put on the released oversize.With the right kind of study using part of the commercial fleet and maybe the guides that fish on the over size, maybe real data can be gathered on what are the main mortality resons. There is a lot going on and all factors should be looked at such as water temp,oxygen levels,water flow,chemicals,polution,plankton blooms,pre spawn,postspawn,location,ect.
Only proper data can help here. At present time neither State is basing their decisions on real date,just theories. Force the states to do real time studies and not use the excuss that no money is avaliable. I would myself purchase what was needed out of my own pocket if only they would DO PROPER STUDIES!

[Biteme]

Laserman, You got it right. that is the problem we may or may not have a problem but nobody knows the data is hogwash and the guides would be happy to help. I think we have a infringement on kingdoms issue here.

[Laserman]

Amendment to previous post.

The "Compact" doesn't acually set the seasons all by them selves but their decisions directly effect the sportstmans season. This is most eveident during the "Columbia River Spring Chinook" season.

[fishncliff]

Well I am not shocked or amazed by the responses I see.
I am researching the data I referred to before. Have to do some traveling so I ask you to be patient.
While i am away can you answer a simple question?
While we "study"( catch and release, tag, and catch and release some more), to see if there is a problem,Is it necessary to repeat this?:

NEWS RELEASE
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

First hatchery sturgeon arrive from Canada
Feb. 18 for upper Columbia River recovery.

Hatchery-rearing intervention is necessary to preserve the diversity of the remaining sturgeon population," said John Whalen, WDFW regional fish program policy manager. "Without natural recruitment of young fish into the population, it will collapse."
The upper Columbia River watershed above Chief Joseph Dam, including Lake Roosevelt, is closed to all sturgeon fishing to protect current populations.
Disn't Washington state impose a 2yr moratorium on wild steelhead recently and we are still" not sure what data is correct so we need more studies."

[fishncliff]

While I am gone I will leave you some info a freind from the Native American fisheries left me.

http://www.sturgeonfortomorrow.org/h...earchinfo.html
please select the Columbia river tab.
also

http://www.efw.bpa.gov/Environment/E...99/8806400.pdf

As STGRule stated " It's just silly to waste money re-doing something that is already done."

[Bill Monroe]

Didn't see a Columbia tab on the sturgeon for tomorrow link...looks all Michigan.

[Biteme]

fishncliff,
We are talking below bonneville dam here. these are migratory fish that are not trapped by dams. Also I am not saying to redo everything, all I am saying is to gather the data on spawning success first.

Wouldn't it be better to say "Oops we could have fished more" rather than "Where did the sturgeon all go"?

I am completely clueless to this fishery.

[RiverRogue]

AS per the aforementioned article,
QUOTE
"It appears that the decline is not a result of overharvest, but attributable to a decrease in recruitment to the legal-sized population and a mass emigration from the Columbia River system."

SO...Apparently those fish went somewhere else? This study is from April of 1999. What are the current Columbia River estimates? Have any of those fish since returned? After all, they are migratory, I suspect many have returned or will.