Ever wonder what SAFE areas offer you and I?

[Fishbulb]

How many wonder what type of value is produced from the SAFE areas for recreational fisheries? Are you under the assumption that these production areas are for CR commercial fisherman alone?

Think again. They are for everyone. You and I the same as them. The recreational fishery obtains tremendous benefit form the fish produced in these areas. Fish produced here add immensely to our opportunity to harvest.

Does the commercial fleet produce most of the harvest here? Of course. Except for the Rogue Fall Chinook stock produced here all fisheries are managed for the goal of 100% harvest. No broodstock are collected. The released juveniles are transferred in from other hatcheries.

Check out the Youngs Bay net pen coho releases for the brood year 1998. This brood year produced harvestable adult coho in 2001. Remember the incredible coho fishing that year in the ocean and B10? The net pens in Youngs Bay produced whole bunch of those fish.

Remember the tag recovery table linked below only represents the tagged release groups and the corresponding adults the tagged fish produced. The bulk of the production was not tagged and represents a huge no coded wire tag adult harvest for both fisheries. Since the tag groups only represent about 10% or less of the total Youngs Bay net pen production you can imagine the power this program projects for all fisheries. For you and I just like the commercial fisherman.

http://www.rmpc.org/reports/TS1-Run22505.txt

We took huge benefits form this project before the commercial fishery began harvest. If you look at the tag recoveries you, I and all other recreational participants harvested around 30% of all the adult production.



Here is the recovery table from the 1998 Rogue stock fall Chinook. They were released from the Youngs Bay net pens and produced harvestable adults in 2001, 2002 and 2003. These Chinook give us tremendous harvest opportunity in the ocean but their true power for the recreational fleet has more recently been demonstrated in the B10 fishery as target recreational effort in front of Youngs Bay seems to grow every year. This is a high quality bright fall Chinook. For this particular brood year recreational harvest is near 15% of all adults produced from the tagged groups.

http://www.rmpc.org/reports/TS1-Run25488.txt

Recreational harvest of spring Chinook in the SAFE areas is lacking. Not because of lack of access however. These areas are open all spring.

Since the adult spring Chinook returns really strengthened in 2001 the recreational fleet’s interest as been intensely focused on the mainstem CR as that fishery opened again after a very long hiatus. Recreational access has only been restricted in the SAFE areas one year in the last decade.

These areas are ours too. On strong run years springers can be taken until the end of May even if you find yourself scheduling outings around commercial openers.

http://www.rmpc.org/reports/TS1-Run27268.txt

[cosmo]

Originally Posted by Fishbulb

The recreational fishery obtains tremendous benefit form the fish produced in these areas. Fish produced here add immensely to our opportunity to harvest.

The recreational fishery had immense opportunity to harvest these fish when they were released in the tributaries instead of the SAFE areas.

Where do you think those spring chinook came from? SAFE production? No, the Willamette releases.

Where will more coho come from? The Cowlitz? The Clackamas? SAFE areas have killed more sport opportunity than they've created. You get a better smolt-to-adult ratio in some instances due to the low release point, but you remove whole sport fisheries.

Of course you know more than I do on this subject, given your employer and your position.

[Clamman]

Interesting information Fishbulb.

Cosmo,

My question is did the smolts from the other hatcheries that are used in the SAFE areas actually reduce the amount of smolts released from the hatcheries or were these extra production to be used in this fashion? Which tributary fisheries were jeopardized due to the SAFE releases?

I know at one point in time the STEP program released lots of fry/smolts into streams but once it went defunct did those produced fish then get transfered over to the SAFE areas?

Seems that hatchery production has not seen a significant increase or decrease in most facilities so I am curious as to your statements.


And "no" neither my employer (me) or my position (waiting for the crown) can help me get this information.


Thanks,

Clam

[cosmo]

Clam,

I'll certainly try to access and reassemble the information. I don't have the direct access to it.

Perhaps Fishbulb can help fill in some details.

At face value, I don't believe there's any "extra production" at hatcheries. Per their hatchery plans they have ceilings to their production as a function of budgeting. In the past, they'd overrun the production goals, feed those extra fish and end up way over budget. Lindsey Ball is credited with getting hatchery production and budgeting controlled.

I'll see what I can find...

[cosmo]

Couple of questions in regards to this topic. What are Sandy River coho releases today? What were they 10 years ago? Where did the difference go?

[Trick]

Originally Posted by Fishbulb

How many wonder what type of value is produced from the SAFE areas for recreational fisheries? Are you under the assumption that these production areas are for CR commercial fisherman alone?

You cannot be for real....stop already!

I was raised in the Knappa area in the 70's and 80's long before a single netpen had been installed on a Columbia Trib. I was involved with the hatchbox programs through FFA and the ODFW. For the first time I witnessed Coho actually return to Fertile Valley Creek, Little Creek, Rock Creek and other feeder streams that ran into the Blind Slough SAFE area. This was all during the mid to later 80's. Once those programs ceased I never witnessed anymore returning salmon to those areas.

The fishing was great, we didn't have to contend with this ultra aggresive netting schedule and we had plenty of fish from the Big Creek and Gnat Creek hatcheries and the hatchbox programs.

So what was the value to me as a sportfisherman when the net pens came out. The statement I heard was "Get out and find a new place to fish."

This was a ploy by the netters and hydro interests to justify the sad state of our wild salmon and steelehead. But, to say it made things better for the sportfisherman.....that is nothing but a crock, I was there!

[Fishbulb]

Originally Posted by cosmo

The recreational fishery had immense opportunity to harvest these fish when they were released in the tributaries instead of the SAFE areas.

Where do you think those spring chinook came from? SAFE production? No, the Willamette releases.

Where will more coho come from? The Cowlitz? The Clackamas? SAFE areas have killed more sport opportunity than they've created. You get a better smolt-to-adult ratio in some instances due to the low release point, but you remove whole sport fisheries.

Of course you know more than I do on this subject, given your employer and your position.

The SAFE areas did not thieve salmon production from other areas.

In the early and mid 1990s the ESA began to really tighten down on all aspects of the salmonid like cycle within the CR basin. One key component to all this was that smolt release areas began to have very limiting caps placed on them. They were no longer allowed to pump out the production salmon in the quantities they were known for so well in the 1970s and 1980s.

Hatchery production within the CR basin was being moth balled in rapid fashion. Rather than watch this production capacity completely evaporate some component of what was no longer allowed to be produced and released in other locations was then slated for production rearing and transfer to SAFE areas.

It takes very few adult spawners to produce a bumper crop of salmon smolts so there is no drain on releases in other tributary locations. The SAFE areas actually saved hatchery production components that otherwise would have been lost to the ESA and time. It did so for you and I too. Not just commercial fisherman.


I have written before that I have little faith in credentials. Throughout history many a scoundrel has been adorned with shiny metals and big long bureaucratic titles. My writings are my own personal thoughts. These thoughts put into text are not associated with any other person or organization beyond me. Judgement and criticism about my thoughts should be reserved for my writings here on Ifish.

I am as fallible as any one else. I do not claim to never be in error or make mistakes. I have a long list of mistakes in my life just like most other regular human beings do. I am extremely fascinated with the biological, cultural and social implications of PNW salmon. I have constantly attempted to expand my understanding of these relationships and as long as Jen allows me to write my thoughts here I will do so. I am not mean to other members and do not send threatening PMs when I feel slighted. If you don’t like what I write you can simply not read what I write or set your personal settings to ignore my moniker.

[Fishbulb]

Originally Posted by Trick

You cannot be for real....stop already!

I was raised in the Knappa area in the 70's and 80's long before a single netpen had been installed on a Columbia Trib. I was involved with the hatchbox programs through FFA and the ODFW. For the first time I witnessed Coho actually return to Fertile Valley Creek, Little Creek, Rock Creek and other feeder streams that ran into the Blind Slough SAFE area. This was all during the mid to later 80's. Once those programs ceased I never witnessed anymore returning salmon to those areas.

In the 1970s and 1980s all tribs were the recipients of huge stray numbers from other hatchery production facilities. The reason is that those hatcheries were producing smolts for release and generating adults in unbelievable quantity. All with no ad-clip. It was the end of that type of production that changed the number of adults entering tribs like you describe not the fact that the hatchbox programs ended.

Increases and decreases in adults entering tribs near hatchery production centers correlate through history with this production phenomenon and ocean productivity cycles. Coded wire tags in recent decades seem to back this up.

[drano100]

Bulb where do the fish that go into the nets come from? Are they for the most part from Oregon and Washington state fish hatcheries? Do the netters pay for these fish or does it come out of F & W budgets. Could it be that the sport side is picking up a lot of the cost on those smolt? Clam say's this is a pretty tight place to fish not a lot of room how do you put 150 sports boats and 50 gill-net boats in Youngs bay at the same time?

[Fish'nDude]

Please define "SAFE areas" for us newbies to the issues.
Thanks.

[Trick]

Originally Posted by drano100

Bulb where do the fish that go into the nets come from? Are they for the most part from Oregon and Washington state fish hatcheries? Do the netters pay for these fish or does it come out of F & W budgets. Could it be that the sport side is picking up a lot of the cost on those smolt? Clam say's this is a pretty tight place to fish not a lot of room how do you put 150 sports boats and 50 gill-net boats in Youngs bay at the same time?

Today, most commercial and sport fish caught in the select areas are produced by the Fisheries Project and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's Klaskanine, Gnat Creek, Cascade, Sandy and Big Creek hatcheries.


In 2006, the project released 1.6 million Coho, 925,000 Spring Chinook and 1.1 million bright fall Chinook smolts.

The Fisheries Project is operated by the Clatsop County Community Development Department. Funding comes from Bonneville Power Administration through its Select Areas Fisheries Enhancement Project and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Commercial gillnetters also help fund the project by contributing a 5-percent voluntary assessment on the value of their catch, which is matched by the fish processors.

Far as I'm concerned that 5-percent shouldn't be voluntary.


To answer your question....who pays? You do as a ratepayer (BPA) and a license buyer (ODFW). Your fees and electric bills aren't voluntary.

[Thumper]

Originally Posted by Fish'nDude

Please define "SAFE areas" for us newbies to the issues.
Thanks.

Time to learn the IFISH "search" feature. Just search "SAFE areas" or "select areas".

[Trick]

Originally Posted by Fishbulb

In the 1970s and 1980s all tribs were the recipients of huge stray numbers from other hatchery production facilities. The reason is that those hatcheries were producing smolts for release and generating adults in unbelievable quantity. All with no ad-clip. It was the end of that type of production that changed the number of adults entering tribs like you describe not the fact that the hatchbox programs ended.

Increases and decreases in adults entering tribs near hatchery production centers correlate through history with this production phenomenon and ocean productivity cycles. Coded wire tags in recent decades seem to back this up.

Yeah....your right....it was all a coincidence.

Production in SAFE areas

1977, first year of release:
50,000 coho


2006
1.6 million coho
925,000 spring chinook
1.1 million bright fall chinook smolts

For most of these years between 1977-2006 SAFE area fish were not marked either. I believe the clipping started in 2002 for net pens? Fish still stray....I don't remember a springer in Big Creek or Gnat Creek before the net pens. Funny how they are in those streams now. Wouldn't it be safe to assume that the coho production would still cause strays into these other SAFE area tribs? They stopped after the ODFW would no longer supply eggs to our boxes. Within 2-3 years the fish vanished.

We were able turn small streams into production areas that had virtually no remaining runs of Coho. How was this a huge differance between what the net pens do now and what we did then?

Like I said before, it was a ploy to gain market share and divert attention away from the real problem...Gillnets.

[Thumper]

Wow Trick!!!

I hope you are going to the Feb. 8 ODFW meeting.

[Trick]

Originally Posted by Fish'nDude

Please define "SAFE areas" for us newbies to the issues.
Thanks.

This is how the Fisheries Project defines it:

Select Area Fishery

A select area fishery is a fishery located in a select area that has known salmon stocks that have been produced specifically for that area, so that sport and commercial fishing can occur without impact on threatened or endangered stocks. The select areas target 100% harvest, because there is no need for escapement for egg taking since the eggs for future production are taken at other hatchery sites for rearing and release at the select area sites.


For what's worth these areas still have runs of ESA steelhead. As a matter of fact the low returns of Tule Chinook did actually impact the netting schedules in these SAFE areas last year. They may target 100% of the netpen stock, but as we all know the "wall of death" doesn't discriminate and other stocks are present in these areas at the same time as the target stock.

[cosmo]

Originally Posted by Fishbulb

The SAFE areas did not thieve salmon production from other areas.

Certainly not theived, but it's still pretty disingenuous to state up front what wonderful opportunities SAFE areas have created for sport anglers. They didn't create anything. They use transferred production from other areas that was otherwise available to sports over a wider geographical range.

If someones salary was docked $100/month, then at a later date that person was given a $50 raise, it's disingenuous to look at them and tell them they should be happy for the raise they got when it's less than they made before.

The SAFE areas have provided a crutch for ODFW. Instead of addressing real issues in watersheds, they've opted to just transfer the production out. Consider the Clackamas for a moment as an exercise. It's problematic that not enough coho are harvested in the river. So hey, let's transfer that production to the terminal areas. But wait a minute, nobody stops to ask the critical questions: why has harvest gone down on the Clack? The fish used to bite well, they don't now. What has changed in flow and temps over the last 15 years? Instead of fixing the problem, sports could simply stand to lose the fishery. To add insult to injury, people step out and say look what terminal areas have done for you.

Thanks?

During last year's compact calls in regards to springer fisheries there was considerable strife from the commercial component over their Willamette allocation. "We're going to have to revisit that" was a theme. Given how things tend to go, no department personnel reminded them that their terminal area spring chinook, came from Willamette stocking.

I remember when Frank Amato testified to the Commission that if terminal areas were truly for the benefit of sports and commercial, that perhaps the commercial spring chinook netting schedules should be backed up just a short period to offer true sport opportunity when the fish were actually there. He was emphatically rebuffed. "They are for everyone," didn't go very far.

[Splash]

Don't forget the gillnet taxman also wants half of your $50 raise.

In essence they have taken your $100 dollars for SAFE and want $25 of your $50 from the mainstem.

[Thumper]

Originally Posted by Splash

Don't forget the gillnet taxman also wants half of your $50 raise.

In essence they have taken your $100 dollars for SAFE and want $25 of your $50 from the mainstem.

Or as my old daddy used to say --- "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable".

[Gun Rod Bow]

Hardly sounds like "Salmon For All" does it?

[SHLEPROCK]

This shows info on those areas

http://www.cbfwa.org/solicitation/co...cfm?PropID=442

[Trick]

$2,383,201 (2008FY Est. Budget)

Wow....Real I opener. These fish aren't cheap. But look at the brightside, the commercial interest is willing to pitch in 50k. A whole 2%! Pay close attention to the ODFW portion ($276,701...almost 12%) and remember where your license fees end up.

http://ftp.dfw.state.or.us/agency/bu...20document.pdf Page 13 for pie graph

The second largest source of ODFW funds are license and tag sales (26%). Commercial fees comprise only 2% of the ODFW funding. Seems kinda' lopsided huh?

[????_bio]

Many hatcheries and net pens have Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans (HGMPs) and these have a wealth of information about things like brood sources, release numbers, operation costs, funding sources. I find myself looking at these all the time. Below are links to ODFW and WDFW HGMPs.

ODFW:
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/HGMP/final.asp

WDFW:
http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hat/hgmp/

USFWS hatchery reviews:
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/Fisheries...w/reports.html

[Fishbulb]

Originally Posted by drano100

Bulb where do the fish that go into the nets come from? Are they for the most part from Oregon and Washington state fish hatcheries? Do the netters pay for these fish or does it come out of F & W budgets. Could it be that the sport side is picking up a lot of the cost on those smolt? Clam say's this is a pretty tight place to fish not a lot of room how do you put 150 sports boats and 50 gill-net boats in Youngs bay at the same time?

Over the course of the program funding has been overwhelmingly from BPA. Without BPA, the U.S. Department of Commerce and other Fed agencies you could kiss all fishing fishery opportunity on the CR goodbye.

Originally Posted by Trick

Yeah....your right....it was all a coincidence.

Not coincidence at all. It was the direct result of the massive hatchery production occurring during that era. In the late 1970s the combined species hatchery smolt releases were approaching 220 million for the CR basin. Of course that is just the recorded releases and there most likely was some amount in addition to this that went unrecorded or has been lost through the passage of time.

The area you cite has a large Oregon hatchery facility located there. During this bygone era they were producing over 12 million Tule stock fall Chinook and over 800K coho smolts. Corresponding with the incredible juvenile releases during the era Big Creek had huge runs of Tule fall Chinook and coho into it. Tributaries near Big Creek like Bear, Little and Gnat ended up with considerable Tule and coho runs in the form of massive stray events.

Then the ESA really took hold and hatchery production was drastically cut. In contrast to this hatchery production zenith today's hatcheries within the CR basin are running about 1/3 of that late 1970 number. Big Creek produces half or less of it’s historic hatchery Tule production and only about 1/3 of it’s historic coho production. In almost seamless concert with this hatchery production elimination at the end of the 1980s the huge adult runs into the surrounding tributaries evaporated.

Coincidence. No. Direct cause and effect. Pull the hatchery production smolt release plug and say goodbye to the fish.

In the early part of this decade when ocean conditions surged to stellar proportions our relatively meager smolt release numbers where trumped. Huge amounts of adults were generated off CR hatchery production. During these years these tribs you cite once again experienced very large returns of Tule fall Chinook and coho that ultimately were simply members of the Big Creek hatchery populations.

Originally Posted by cosmo

Certainly not theived, but it's still pretty disingenuous to state up front what wonderful opportunities SAFE areas have created for sport anglers. They didn't create anything. They use transferred production from other areas that was otherwise available to sports over a wider geographical range.

Since 1970s and 1980s style hatchery production was in death throws when the SAFE program really began in the form we see today it did and still does create. It makes salmon. Salmon that that for the most part would have been cut off the hatchery chopping block decades ago. Without this production we would have a net loss of recreational fishing opportunities unless we could get the CR basin hatchery production caps removed.

[Fishbulb]

Originally Posted by cosmo

The fish used to bite well,

Maybe those that design and produce the fishing lures we are so accustomed to using should take a new approach. Maybe the fish are just tired of seeing the same old thing over and over again.

[drano100]

So FB do you really want to know you said yourself you have read the Select Area Fishery Evaluation Project Economic Analysis Study was it the Final Draft Revision 4: Nov 10 2006? Did you read section III? Did you look at figure III.3,4,and 5?

Contribution share of SAFE Spring Chinook to Regional Fisheries
Recreational total: ocean, select area and in river 3.5%
Escapement 8.8%
Commercial total: ocean, select area and in river 87.7%

Contribution share of SAFE Coho to Regional Fisheries
Recreational total: ocean, select area and in river 19.8%
Escapement 4.2%
Commercial total: ocean, select area and in river 76%

Contribution share of SAFE Bright Fall Chinook to Regional Fisheries
Recreational total: ocean, select area and in river 17%
Escapement 8.3%
Commercial total: ocean, select area and in river 74.7 %

It sure looks like we are getting what we paid for, ODFW ponies up $276,701(where do they get their money from) for hatchery cost that’s almost 12% of the total SAFE area budget(this number will be close to $350,00 for 2008 and over $400,000 for 2009) while the netting interest (fishermen and processors) put up 50K which is 2% every year thru 2009. Wow I feel better now I thought this was just another example of the sport side being taken advantage of thanks for pointing that out for us Fishbulb

[Fishbulb]

Originally Posted by drano100

It sure looks like we are getting what we paid for,

You, I and all other recreational participants don't pay for it. Everybody pays for it and we collectively constitute very few within this pool of payers.

You know we could easily take more of these fish if we converted method and fished for the same amount of time.



While you are at it go ahead and tell all those recreational folks that those SAFE fish they or their son or daughter harvested really had no value.

[Trick]

Originally Posted by Fishbulb

You, I and all other recreational participants don't pay for it. Everybody pays for it and we collectively constitute very few within this pool of payers.

You know we could easily take more of these fish if we converted method and fished for the same amount of time.



While you are at it go ahead and tell all those recreational folks that those SAFE fish they or their son or daughter harvested really had no value.

Yes, we do pay for it. A oregon taxpaying, sport license buying, electricity user pays a higher percentage of the funding (per person) then any other group. This is a commercial interest, not a sport interest. This fishery was designed by commercials for commercials....they need to pay for it and it shouldn't be voluntary.

Nobody said the fish don't have value, but your still assuming that these areas are productive for the sport interest. They are not worth the effort when the nets are in, which are in the peak times. I've tried it a few times and it isn't good. Of course, you could drag your sons and daughters down there and show them the fish laying in the nets. I'm sure that'll teach them conservation.

I assume that you sport fish FB? Do you really fish in the S.A.F.E. areas and did you prior to the netpens? Your trying to sell this idea to people that have lived it....I cannot buy your conviction on this issue.

[drano100]

Oh they have value never said they didn't, but I would not hold up these numbers and say ever wonder what the select areas offer you and I, like it was something great. The numbers show its a commercial fishery only, less then 2% of all the sport share was caught inside the select areas. As far as it costing all of us that is true we all pay into BPA, but the $276,000 that comes from OF&W is from their budget 26%(sports input) of $276,000 is around $70,000 that is coming from Oregon licensees and tag purchasers. That’s more then what the netters and processors put into the deal($50,000), interesting sports fishermen having to pay mitigation to the net fleet what’s next.

[1bigfish]

Originally Posted by Fishbulb

Over the course of the program funding has been overwhelmingly from BPA. Without BPA, the U.S. Department of Commerce and other Fed agencies you could kiss all fishing fishery opportunity on the CR goodbye.

FB,

Forgive me I am dyslexic so sometimes I have trouble understanding what I am reading. What did you mean by the above statement?
Is your point that BPA contributes the most funding?
Are you saying that without BPA funding there would be no fishing on the CR?
Or are you saying that without BPA funding there would be no commercial fishing on the CR?
Or are you saying something totally different and am I just not understanding?

I’m not trying to twist your word I am just trying to understand what you said.

[wayout]

I didn't have time to read all this, not being a full-time computer fisher, but there might be a springer tip from Fishbulb in here. Where's the best launch to fish Youngs Bay? Blind Slough? Sounds like it might be worth a try on the days the nets aren't in.

[PISCES]

Originally Posted by cosmo

Certainly not theived, but it's still pretty disingenuous to state up front what wonderful opportunities SAFE areas have created for sport anglers. They didn't create anything. They use transferred production from other areas that was otherwise available to sports over a wider geographical range.

http://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/def...6&end=10/31/06
WOW! Check out the link if you want to see some SAFE contribution. This is from ODFW's marine program website! What does this table show you? Of all the chinook sampled during the B10 fishery in 2006, 6 of 15 total snouts taken from the fish checkers were SAFE fish. Is that enough contribution for you. I'm not sure how you could expnd this for non CWT fish but still

[PISCES]

Switch the search from Chinook to Coho and 8 of the 65 snouts taken were from the SAFE project. Plenty more than other columbia river basin hatcheries. Just keep telling yourself not to catch a SAFE fish while fishing B10 and chances are you'll still catch one.

[Blue Tip Spinner]

Originally Posted by PISCES

http://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/def...6&end=10/31/06
WOW! Check out the link if you want to see some SAFE contribution. This is from ODFW's marine program website! What does this table show you? Of all the chinook sampled during the B10 fishery in 2006, 6 of 15 total snouts taken from the fish checkers were SAFE fish. Is that enough contribution for you. I'm not sure how you could expnd this for non CWT fish but still

hmm, i only saw 4????? which were you counting? i counted the ones from youngs bay NET PENS.

[Thumper]

Hey, that is so cool that SAFE fish are being caught by sporties! That means that they are being counted in our CR catch and allocation statistics too.

So now we can add the SAFE commercial catch to the CR gillnet catch and allocation statistics as well!

[Splash]

Originally Posted by Thumper

Hey, that is so cool that SAFE fish are being caught by sporties! That means that they are being counted in our CR catch and allocation statistics too.

So now we can add the SAFE commercial catch to the CR gillnet catch and allocation statistics as well!

Seems only fair.

15 snouts from 1 port in the B-10 area is a pretty tiny sample and can hardly be representative.

[AuntyM]

Did you guys PLAN that?

[PISCES]

Originally Posted by Blue Tip Spinner

hmm, i only saw 4????? which were you counting? i counted the ones from youngs bay NET PENS.

According to the SAFE project report, the Klaskanine hatchery is part of the project as well.

[PISCES]

Originally Posted by Thumper

Hey, that is so cool that SAFE fish are being caught by sporties! That means that they are being counted in our CR catch and allocation statistics too.

So now we can add the SAFE commercial catch to the CR gillnet catch and allocation statistics as well!

Dear Mr Thumper,

With regards to your comment above you must not be aware of how the Fall Chinook alocation/ impacts are designed. So I will hopefully educate or enlighten you a little.

1. Fall Chinook allocation is based on URB impacts. Up River Brights destined above Bonneville, not LRH's known as Lower River Hatchery.

2. In some instances like last year, Big Cr tules as well as Lewis River wilds were a constraint on the B10 fishery.

3. SAFE project fish are for harvest, they are a bonus, not a constraint, nor are they counted against us.

THE TRIGGER FOR RECREATIONAL FISHERY CLOSURES ARE URB'S AND SOMETIMES TULES.

[PISCES]

Originally Posted by Splash

Seems only fair.

15 snouts from 1 port in the B-10 area is a pretty tiny sample and can hardly be representative.

At the bottom of the link is Eric's phone number, give him a call and ask him if the data is representative. I'm curious to know what he tells you. Granted this is only the Oregon side's data.

[drano100]

Pisces the numbers I showed were from a Nov 2007 economic report using latest info out, they are up to date. This report was done with the hope of showing the value of this fishery it has done so. Pretty interesting that when it came to a sports dollar amount ($21,000,000)for the CR fishery they did not do the same independent study but used an old number BPA had.

[Trick]

Originally Posted by PISCES

3. SAFE project fish are for harvest, they are a bonus, not a constraint, nor are they counted against us.

If this is your logic, did why did you feel the need to throw the post up in the first place?

[Trick]

Maybe someone can enlighten me?

CWT fish are tagged at what percentage? Do hatcheries tag at a different percentage then net pens? Do all hatcheries tag? How about tribal hatcheries?

I know that I've been checked at least fifty times over the last couple decades for wire tagged fish and have yet to produce one myself. I did have a buddy loose the top snout of his springer one year near Rainer, so I know there are a few out there.

Really until I know at what percentage net pen fish are tagged versus general hatchery stock.....it is unfair to draw a conclusion on the few fish (S.A.F.E.) that showed up in the sport catch.

[Capt. Hook]

Originally Posted by Trick

If this is your logic, did why did you feel the need to throw the post up in the first place?

He needed to throw it up becaue it was a secret prior to the Vancouver meeting. Then it got out how many more fish were taken by the *******. Then it became necessary to show that there were some sports take in the SAFE areas. The bottom line is these fish are entered on the punch card of the sports just like any other Columbia river fish. There is no special area designation. So in the long run they count as any other fish caught in the big river. -------unless they are caught in a net!

[freespool]

If the safe areas were conceived to remove the gillnets from the mainstem, why are they so underutilized? BPA has put a sizable amount of taxpayers money into this project, why are our fish managers not taking more advantage of this unique opportunity?
Is it management for maximum harvest, or is it management for recovery?
You can't have it both ways, please attend the Feb. 8 meeting in Salem, your questions could be directed to the Commission.

[Trick]

Really until I know at what percentage net pen fish are tagged versus general hatchery stock.....it is unfair to draw a conclusion on the few fish (S.A.F.E.) that showed up in the sport catch. Besides, that was 15 tagged fish and six were S.A.F.E. area fish. Every single net pen and hatchery (state/federal/tribal) on the CR would have to tag at the same percentage. Survival rates would also have to be similiar in all instances for us to be able to make any assumption.

Net-pens are located at or near the estuary....it is logical to assume fish would survive at a higher percentage then rearing facilities located above the dams.

[flyin chrome]

How are they certain these are net pen fish? DO CWT tag fish actually tray up the Deschutes in large numbers cause I've had the snout cut off of MOST of the springers Ive caught at Shears falls.

[Trick]

Originally Posted by flyin chrome

How are they certain these are net pen fish? DO CWT tag fish actually tray up the Deschutes in large numbers cause I've had the snout cut off of MOST of the springers Ive caught at Shears falls.

They can be certain they are not net pen fish once they scan the tags. All salmonoids have a certain percentage of strays. It might be a built in survival instinct or just random errors??? But, since there are no net pens up in your neck of the woods, it would be highly unlikely that those are net pen fish. Hatcheries also tag fish and as long as your fish has a tag they will take it (the snout)for record.

[hawg boss]

Originally Posted by Fishbulb

How many wonder what type of value is produced from the SAFE areas for recreational fisheries? Are you under the assumption that these production areas are for CR commercial fisherman alone?

Think again. They are for everyone. You and I the same as them. The recreational fishery obtains tremendous benefit form the fish produced in these areas. http://www.rmpc.org/reports/TS1-Run27268.txt

I am sure all of the people who live in Lincoln city and the surrounding area are grateful that ODFW now releases their Coho from the Salmon river hatchery into Youngs bay instead of the Salmon river. That allows them to take a 6 hour round trip sight seeing expedition to catch fish that were previously available in their local fishery. I am sure that you will get more thank you's after next year when most of the anglers realize why hatchery Coho no longer return to the salmon river despite all of the juveniles that are raised in the ponds at the Salmon river hatchery.

[Fishbulb]

Originally Posted by 1bigfish

FB,

Forgive me I am dyslexic so sometimes I have trouble understanding what I am reading. What did you mean by the above statement?
Is your point that BPA contributes the most funding?
Are you saying that without BPA funding there would be no fishing on the CR?
Or are you saying that without BPA funding there would be no commercial fishing on the CR?
Or are you saying something totally different and am I just not understanding?

I’m not trying to twist your word I am just trying to understand what you said.

Feel free to twist away.

BPA in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Commerce funds the overwhelming amount of CR related fishery projects. This includes everything from basic research to adult harvest management on through restoration endeavors. BPA along with other private companies and local PUDs that operate hydro projects in the basin also fund nearly all the hatchery production facilities that make salmon in order to support recreational and commercial adult harvest fisheries produced from the basin. With the exception of the Hanford Reach and Lewis River bright fall Chinook our natural spawn/natural origin stocks are simply too weary to produce adults in the quantities we need in order to enjoy fishing fisheries. In fact some aren’t producing enough adults long term to simply replace themselves at a rate of 1 adult produced from 1 spawner even absent all harvest.

Other funding sources within the basin include state general funds and license and tag fees but these mechanisms would fall horribly short in the event that they were the only muscle left to do the work.

The contracts with the various hydro interests within the CR basin began to take effect nearly 100 years ago. The people that came before us forced these interests to pay them and us in the form of a perpetual mitigation obligation. This obligation fuels our fishing fisheries still today. We have changed salmon so much within the CR basin through our collective alterations to the natural environment and by making them for so long in selective breeding hatchery facilities that if we stop making these interests service their debt, well, we can kiss all our fishing fisheries goodbye.

[Gun Rod Bow]

One main difference from 100 years ago is there was no "Sportfishing" for salmon then.

Only harvest for commercial exploitation.

In today's world, commercial exploitation has taken a back seat to conservation and esthetics in most arenas, now it is time for salmon.

Rather than spend these million$ to make it easy for gillnetters, too bad we can't apply those same $$$$ to mitigate the native salmon and fish available for the sportifishing public to benefit more of the citizens of the NW and the resource.

[Fishbulb]

Originally Posted by hawg boss

I am sure all of the people who live in Lincoln city and the surrounding area are grateful that ODFW now releases their Coho from the Salmon river hatchery into Youngs bay instead of the Salmon river.

HB,

The Salmon River is not having it’s coho taken away by the SAFE program.

The 2007 conservation plan reduced the entire North Coast coho ESU hatchery smolt releases by 500K.

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/agency/co...%20summary.pdf

The lost coho production/release capacity due to the new plan will be utilized to the extent that 2/5 of that total capacity will be used for rearing SAFE coho.

My understanding is that Big Creek Hatchery will be producing the stock. This stock will be sent to the Salmon River for rearing until they are ready to be acclimated at the release site within the SAFE program.

Coastal hatcheries up and down the Oregon Coast have had some raceways sitting in mothballs for years anyway. Might give them a chance to make sure all the plumbing still works.

[Fishbulb]

Originally Posted by Trick

Maybe someone can enlighten me?

CWT fish are tagged at what percentage? Do hatcheries tag at a different percentage then net pens? Do all hatcheries tag? How about tribal hatcheries?

Large production hatcheries (and the basin CR basin in general) typically tag upwards of 10% of all releases for adult harvest management.

Here is the Lewis River Hatchery table that shows their coho tag rates (and ad-clip rates) since 1995.

http://www.rmpc.org/reports/AS12196.txt

If a release group/stock is particularly small or if it is a new stock and there is little baseline data to support it's spatial and temporal occurrence through time the entire group may be coded wire tagged.

With huge release groups the fact that relatively few are coded wire tagged is trumped by the fact that so many are released to begin with. Tag recovery representation will be strong accross the board becasue of it's shear mass.

[Trick]

Originally Posted by Fishbulb

Large production hatcheries (and the basin CR basin in general) typically tag upwards of 10% of all releases for adult harvest management.

Here is the Lewis River Hatchery table that shows their coho tag rates (and ad-clip rates) since 1995.

http://www.rmpc.org/reports/AS12196.txt

If a release group/stock is particularly small or if it is a new stock and there is little baseline data to support it's spatial and temporal occurrence through time the entire group may be coded wire tagged.

With huge release groups the fact that relatively few are coded wire tagged is trumped by the fact that so many are released to begin with. Tag recovery representation will be strong accross the board becasue of it's shear mass.

In 2004 the Lewis River Hatchery did 140,677 CWT with a ad-clip. They also ad clipped 1,438,986 with no CWT. About 9.7% Is this the same rate that net-pen fish are tagged? Does this % run the same along all CR hatcheries (Fed/Tribal/State)?

I see almost the same amount (141,296) were CWT with no ad-clip. Obviously, this has to be a component that the hatchery needs to get back to determine survival percentages. But, why do they have 8,424 with no CWT or ad-clip? What possible advantage is it to have returning hatchery fish without any identifying marks to determine origin?

I still doubt with all these variables, that you could make any assumptions on the CWT fish in a sports catch as a determining factor of harvest rates. Only if all CWT were equal in all CR situations, could you build a correlation and that would only be true with nearly equal survival rates.

It's no wonder why confusion runs rampant. I'm sure all the answers are out there, but finding them, putting them all together and analyzing them to build a substantial conclusion is going to take some work.

Going to take my Tylenol now.

[Chrome Bumper]

Fishbulb is lighting ifish up, it must be slow at igillnet.com and fishforall.org.

[fyshndad]

Bulb
Thanks for working so hard to help us non scientific guys get a better understanding of how it all works

Some times you come on a lil strong but I find your facts to not be one sided and very informative

I hope for the sake of the fish that you continue to provide valid info to us

[Trick]

It does provoke thought and discussion.

But, I still feel that SAFE areas provide little to the sports interest in comparison to the commercial interest.

[freespool]

The safe areas hold the greatest potential for non selective harvester longevity.

[Fishbulb]

Originally Posted by Trick

In 2004 the Lewis River Hatchery did 140,677 CWT with a ad-clip. They also ad clipped 1,438,986 with no CWT. About 9.7% Is this the same rate that net-pen fish are tagged? Does this % run the same along all CR hatcheries (Fed/Tribal/State)?

I see almost the same amount (141,296) were CWT with no ad-clip. Obviously, this has to be a component that the hatchery needs to get back to determine survival percentages. But, why do they have 8,424 with no CWT or ad-clip? What possible advantage is it to have returning hatchery fish without any identifying marks to determine origin?

I still doubt with all these variables, that you could make any assumptions on the CWT fish in a sports catch as a determining factor of harvest rates. Only if all CWT were equal in all CR situations, could you build a correlation and that would only be true with nearly equal survival rates.

It's no wonder why confusion runs rampant. I'm sure all the answers are out there, but finding them, putting them all together and analyzing them to build a substantial conclusion is going to take some work.

Going to take my Tylenol now.

About 5% CWT tagged when you look at the CEDC Youngs Bay project.

http://www.rmpc.org/reports/AS129999.txt

-Yes. For the most part coho within the CR basin are tagged from about 5-10% of the total release. As I wrote above some individual small realease groups may be 50-100% tagged because the release is so small that without tagging most or all of them you would have such a little chance of actually getting any recoveries by sampling the catch in fisheries.

-The CWT/no ad-clip has a unique purpose and it is not to get fish back to the hatchery.

When ad-clip selection began with coho back in the 1990's adult harvest management had a key component of exploitation evaluation taken out of the tool box. Before ad-clip selection (during catch and kill fisheries) the wild fish and hatchery fish were being exploited in an identical fashion and one could logically assume that whatever exploitation rate was being felt by the tagged fish was also being felt by the no tag hatchery fish and the wild fish.

But when you convert to ad-clip selection fisheries you immediately begin to exploit wild fish at a differential rate relative to the hatchery fish. So the CWT/no ad-clip column is a big group of fish whose mission is to represent how wild fish are being exploited as they move through ad-clip selective adult harvest fisheries.

-8,424 no CWT/no ad-clip is simple human error. Ad-clips to date have been overwhelmingly done by humans (although a new ad-clip machine is starting to replace them). Smolt adipose fins are very small and some percentage of the release doesn't get clipped because the ad-clip scissors failed to get inside the 10 ring.

As you scan backwards through time on these tables you will see (especially on the Lewis) huge components (or all the released coho period) of the release groups with no CWT/no ad-clip. This is all due to lack of funding resources to get the fish clipped. The way you see them released is simply the highest level of ad-clipping they could attain at that time.

Originally Posted by freespool

The safe areas hold the greatest potential for non selective harvester longevity.

That argument may just get us in those types of areas only too.

[Trick]

Originally Posted by Fishbulb

The way you see them released is simply the highest level of ad-clipping they could attain at that time.

That exactly makes my point. We currently do not have equal CWT through all human production. Compounded with varying survival rates of specific groups. We cannot make a certain statement about the explotation rate of SAFE fish by the sport interest.

Again, that's not to say sport fisherman don't intercept SAFE fish. Pisces CWT data doesn't include all these other factors, so it's not the smoking gun proving that we are taking some huge percentage compared to commercials.

[Capt. Hook]

"That argument may just get us in those types of areas only too."


Fishbulb, When that time comes, most anglers I have talked to are willing to do what it takes to save the resource. Fishing with nets and refusing to accept any change should be the catalyst that moves them into the SAFE aeas. Anglers have done more than enough to ensure minimum take. Gillnetters have already assumed that wild fish are going to go extinct. That's the problem!