How much would you pay for a fishing license?

[Jennie@ifish]

If they were to put hatcheries on EVERY river how much would you pay for a license?
I'd pay 100, at least.
Bill say 500.00
Jen

[Pete]

I'd pay more if habitat were restored to support healthy runs in every river than I would for hatcheries in every river.

[Grant Scheele]

I agree with you Pete. That makes more sense since so many billions of dollars have been put into hatcheries and we still haven't come close to replacing the old runs. Go Habitat!!

[Flathead]

I agree. Habitat over hatcheries anyday!

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Jennie

Please explain how having a hatchery on every river will make fishing better?
Do they create more fish?

Please explain, using salmonid lifecycle examples, how hatcheries have historically increased the total number of returning salmon to our streams?

How can more hatcheries be good? Are there a lot of unemployed ODFW hatchery workers?


*** Clerk

[birdhunter]

Hey ***, don't pick on Jennie. You didn't take long to jump on this one. I think we've had this debate plenty, but.......

I'd actually agree that if it came down to it I'd rather have the money go toward habitat than hatcheries. Still I'd pay a lot more for my license if that meant improvement of our habitat and hatcheries.

You can have a sport fishery for hatchery fish while restoring wild runs. Gasp! Just needs to be well managed and funded. Hmmmmmm, maybe that's the problem.

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: birdhunter ]</p>

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Ben

Jennie can easily take care of herself, please give her more credit than that.
I think she could kick both our backsides if riled…

*** Clerk

[Jennie@ifish]

:smile:
I just read a very depressing article.
It was about no matter how hard we try... we aren't going to restore our natural resource.
Someone help me out here... What was it? Anyone else read this, or where???
It was written by a biologist who was hired to do a survey on how our fisheries sit, our habitat forecast. It was not good nor hopeful.
The DFW said, "Hey, this is not good! This is not what we are doing our job for! This gives us no hope!"
The biologist replied, "You did not pay me for a research paper on hope. You wanted the facts."
Thus, I am sadly aware, or cautious....
Do our rivers hold the hope of ever returning to healthy run status?
Can we undo what we have done?
Damn... I wish that I had more hope, but after reading what I have read, and believing most of it.... sadly, I think hatcheries may be the only answer that might put us back onto the fish.
PLEASE! I want to hear differently, so if you can disprove this, or offer hope higher than what I read, share it with me and others.
Jen

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Jennie@ifish ]</p>

[Thumper]

I know nothing about the biology of all this, but I'll take our hatchery runs of Wind River springers, North Fork Lewis summer steelhead and silvers any day. Yahoo!

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Thumper ]</p>

[invader]

if they have a separate license or fee for the extint( as i have not caught one in ten years- salmon and steelhead).. then i would pay about30 or 40 dollars to catch my my sturgeon and trout and some kokanee

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: invader ]</p>

[Jennie@ifish]

This is not a black or white issue.
Habitat restoration is our key to the rebuilding of naturally reproducing runs.
What man has done the past 150 years can never be fully repaired, nor do I think that you or I would be willing to sacrifice what would be necessary to accomplish this even if it could be done.
Our goals should be to restore our natural fisheries to the best of our ability, while at the same time, providing a sport fishery that sustains human interest in the entire issue of our resource.
I do not believe that given our current population and projected population growth, that it is even reasonable to expect that we could restore our wild runs to numbers that would sustain any harvestable fishery.
It seems important that we utilize hatchery systems; not only to assist in the recovery of wild strains of fish, but to provide a harvestable resource without putting our wild runs in jeopardy.
I'd be happy to spend more license money for both habitat restoration and production of hatchery fish for sporting pleasure.
But.... I don't think my money is going to buy me an untouched earth.
Jen

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Jennie@ifish ]</p>

[rob allen]

I'll be honest 75 bucks as a non resident in Oregon is as much as I am willing to pay no matter where the Money went. Any higher prices would simply nake fishing in Oregon too expencive for me. After all there are only 2 rivers in Oregon I have fished with any regularity anyway. The North Umpqua and the Deschutes

[Pete]

Hatchery fish may provide the numbers of fish necessary to support sport and commercial fisheries, but if the underlying stocks are lost, the hatcheries won't have the genetic resources to maintain healthy stocks. We don't know enough biology about salmon to know what affects the traits that are important. When we start mixing things up by breeding fish in hatcheries, we adapt the fish to the hatcheries ... and in doing so may harm stocks that are surviving in the rivers where those hatchery fish are released. We may have no idea what characteristics we are losing, what timing issues we are changing, what hunting or food competition characteristics are being lost ... Hatcheries will certainly play a role in providing fishable numbers ... there is no way we can restore all the habitat necessary to support historic runs of fish. The concern in my mind is the history of hatcheries focusing on production in ways that can harm indigenous fishes.

At this point I defer to the works of better minds like Jim Lichatowich.

[Backlash2]

Biology aside, I would easily pay $100 or $150 bucks for a license if it would get some of the toothless wonders off of the river. :grin:

However, I seriously doubt most of these nimrods are packin' punchcards, anyway :whazzup:

As far as the biological aspect, it would only be a matter of time before the funding got diverted somewhere else. And we all know that the government never LOWERS the cost of anything.

So....in a perfect world, I would be all for it. But, in case some of you haven't looked around lately, this world is not perfect.

[hustlerrjim]

hey jen pretty good thinking (for a woman)
can a stream recover by hatchery production????
all we have to do is look at the no. fork nehalem.
in 1966 when the hatchery was built there were no coho in the river,the hatchery got the starter eggs from big creek hatchery, and we now have a 5000 fish surplus i dont' call this a failure,
next on the list is steelhead in 1966 the only had 16 steelhead at the hatchery we now enjoy one of the best steelhead fisheries on the coast I wont mention the chinook runs.
you said we can have both wild and hatchery fish on the same river,I agree with you 100% if we have proper management of the fishery.
living on the river I have seen some of the craziest things one can imagine carried out by the department of fish and wild life ,the latest is the weirs on the n.and s. forks of the nehalems
If the fishery can with stand the atocristies o.d.f.w. has put on them over the past 10 years they can survive any thing on this river.

[STGRule]

What I think about habitat restoration:
1.) Excellent Idea.
2.) Starting in the ocean, no more dumping garbage (that includes your portapottie and over-the-sides).
No industrial, agricultural, city or town runoff.
3.) No fertilizing your lawn, changing your oil in your driveway, no insecticide for the bugs in or outside of your house, no phosphorus soaps, no toxic chemicals of any kind down the drain.
4.) Move every human from the flood plains (Astoria, Portland, Salem, Vancouver, The Dalles, Umatilla, etc.)and of course all of the small bergs.
5.) Remove every stream and river channelization product. And I do mean all of them.
6.) Take out all the dams and pay more for your electricity.
7.) Stop all logging and human activity (including roads and vehicles) from some amount of distance from ALL steamsides. I'm thinking miles, not feet. And I mean seasonal as well as year-round waters. This includes all lakes that feed streams and rivers.

The list can go on as long as you want. Before anybody jumps on me, I believe I could live with about 80% of this very short list.
Habitat restoration only means what you define it as. It's a great idea and we need to do as much as possible to improve it. What are you willing to give up to accomplish it?

I believe we can and should restore what we can (even when it hurts) and suppliment SOME of it with hatcheries. Just remember, we will never do it as well as nature. :smile:

[Jim]

I would pay $250.00 in each state. That said I would want the current funding to stay where they are at the hatcheries. I want my money to go strictly to getting all commercial nets out of the water. No commercial harvest and we could give our Biologists the numbers of fish they need to really manage something. As of now, the majority of their time is spent on harvest issues not building strong runs. Harvest issues that force every fish to be accounted for. This may be more of a Washington issue then an Oregon one...but it has its place in Oregon as well. Thats my .02

Jim

[Straydog]

I would put my money on habitat replacement and restoration for the long haul.

It is interesting that Jen mentions it is not a black and white picture, which it certainly is not. Yet, then it seems she lumps all streams into one when saying we can't get to the point of harvestable levels of naturally produced fish.

Just as this complex issue is not black and white, the lumping of all waterways to the level of hatchery or non-hatchery fish is much too simple.

There are some basins so degraded and overly developed that no, we probably will never be succesful in bringing them back to harvestable levels of naturally produced fish. On the other hand, there are some that we can. The Illinois, in southern Oregon is one, in my opinion that this could happen on.

We should be putting our efforts into restoration and protection of habitat and bettering our system of hatcheries while not losing sight of the fact that hatcheries were established to supplement wild fish, not replace them.

Once we succumb to the urge to accept hatcheries as our only source of this valuable resource, we then throw all of our faith to the mercy of the budget cutters and the folly of human error.

This scares me more than any thoughts of $100.00 fishing licenses!

[Jennie@ifish]

stg YOU DO RULE!
I like it!

[Hookset]

I've always been a supporter of hatchery fish. It wasn't all that many years ago when hatchery fish and native fish survived in good numbers along the entire west coast. The runs were predictabel, you could set your clocks to the timing of these runs. Hatchery fish started returning around Thanksgiving and lasting into February. The native fish started showing in late December and lasting into March. For years we had hatchery fish and for years we had native fish, both survived equally well. And in all those years, we logged, commercial fished, built roads, polluted waterways, dumped waste products into bays and rivers and still the fish survied despite the problems we created. I just don't buy the explanation that the habitat is totally at fault. The word is now that there are multiple problems. I can agree with that. The poor ocean conditions being one of them, created a number of problems with lack of available food. This year is a testament on how much the ocean conditons plays a role in the returning salmonoids. We've seen some excellent salmon fishing this year. The biggest single factor has got to be improved ocean forage. What else has changed?

Let's go back several years to an area I know best, winter Steelhead fishing on the Alsea. I grew up on this river, caught my first Steelhead here. I've seen the different mood swings
and the cyclically swings in fish numbers. The lows were never to bad and the highs were great. In fact, some of the record runs occurred during the early 80's, hatchery returns over 8,000 fish. I don't remember the exact year, 84' or 85', the returns were still good at apx. 4,000 fish, very good fishing. Then the next year, everyone had high hopes on another record run. Never happened. It's like the fish forgot where home was. Like the lights were turned off, someone forgot to turn them back on. Day after day the river was in excellent shape and my clock said the steelhead were here. Only problem was, no one could find the fish. They never showed. So what changed? How could you go from good to excellent runs to alomost nothing? That year the entire run size was just over 1,000 fish, the next year was worse at apx. 800, the following year just a little below that. People stopped fishing, many sold drift boats. Steelhead fishing looked like something of the past. What changed?

I really believe I know. Ask anyone who fished for Steelhead back then. It wasn't habitat or poor ocean conditions (that happened later with El Nino). And it certainly wasn't competition between hatchery and native fish as many people would have you believe. With the few fish we caught in the years just after what's now considered my glory days, each fish displayed some highly irregular markings. And I mean EVERY fish had these markings. They look like net marks. Some scars were healed, others looked fresher with visible gashes. Cuts, abrasion rubs....these fish survied an ordeal to return, an un-natural ordeal. They survived the drift net fleet. Miles and miles of drift nets. The foreign
fleet found the elsuive steelhead and learned to target these fish. For years the various fishery departments along the coast had virtually no understanding of the migratory patterns of Steelhead once they arrived in the Ocean. The commercial salmon fleet caught very few. This always remained a mystery. That was until the drift net fleet found these vulnerable high seas migratory fish. With one boat able to spread a 20 mile path of destruction, it doesn't take long. Combine that with fleets of boats and the runs became history.

Now, 15 years later, we don't hear to much about the drift net fleets. It's taken that long to shift blame in different directions. I do believe there was a chain of events that took place. However, the problem did not start with our habitat. The problem started hundreds of miles out on the high seas. The next hurdle was how to recover and rebuild. That's when the habitat and ocean conditons became a bigger issue. In fact the ocean conditions probably lead to the down fall of salmon and extended the steelhead recovery. I also believe that most of what happened was political, something you'll never read in the paper or in print.

So what does this all mean. The problems are real, and they are varied and complex. No simple answers, it goes deeper then hatchery versus native fish.

I still believe that hatchery and native fish can co-exist, provided the smolt seeding and location is timed to reduce the impact to native fish.

Well, think I said a mouth full. Maybe I'm full of cow manure without a leg to stand on. I looked at 1 and 1 is 2 then went from there.

Regarding Jennie's question. Sure, I'd spend more for a license to help our hatchery program out. And I'd also support legislation (with enforcement)to protect and restore habitat.

Gregg

[Thick-N-Thin]

Wow...Hookset you make some very good points!

I'd pay more for license!

[FM2]

Restoring habitat to what is was even 25-30 years ago will most likely not happen. There are far to many special interest land use groups that want to decide what is best for their property and these groups are well supported. Combine that with Judge Hogan's ruling and this gives the land owners the freedom to do what they wish to not want to restore habitat for salmon recovery.

I am a realist in terms of looking at the picture and addressing the obvious problems, I don't cater to special interest groups nor to what is politically correct. Can anyone truly say "habitat is getting better" or ocean conditions are "getting better". I doubt it. Why is this? Nature and Man is at work. I believe too many folks want to voice the problems and far to many want to really do the footwork to make a difference. I know I am touching buttons, but how many people do you know that will address a specific issue and maybe even research and discover obvious problems then just voice opinions and not do anything about it!! I have spent many hours on boards (actual committies) to hear a few bring up issues, but rarely have I seen large groups get involved on these type of issues and band together to voice a concern that many share. Our society today is filled with many complainers, but not many doers. I hope this riles up some feathers with folks to want to do something then maybe we can discuss the positive issues of topics rather than negatives.

There are many, many intelligent people on this board that could have an impact on a given topic, whether it be snagging, preserving wild runs of fish, hatcheries, habitat and other related issues. Rise up folks, don't leave all the work to a few, the many have the most to offer!!

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

See Birdhunter, Jennie can take care of herself…

It is this type of thread that separates sportsmen from all other resource users. You could probably bet that if a discussion of forest health arose between timber interests or ecosystem impact was discussed at a mining website the people involved in those discussions would not be so introspective as to how they impact their resource as we fishermen. We truly are the original environmentalists.

It is important that we remember it is called sport fishing and not sport harvesting.

STGRule,
I have always enjoyed your posts, as they have never failed to bring a smile to my face. You present the classical ODFW rhetoric in classical form. Please keep posting

As to the original topic of this thread I would be willing to see increased license fees, however I believe it would be best if the extra funds were controlled by Sportsmen and not by timber or commercial fishing interests as we have now in our Game Commission. I also feel that it should be a graduated pay scale that increases fees as you make larger impacts on this resource. In a different BB, I put forth the concept of leaving the price of the angling license the same but adding two slots on the license for tagging two salmon. That way everyone who buys a license can go salmon fishing (and buy salmon gear, poles lures, bait). But once you fill your two slots and wish to fish further for salmon you would be required to buy an additional salmon tag, good for 5 fish and priced at 20 dollars. When that tag is full you could purchase an additional tag good for an additional 5 fish for 30 dollars… and so on and so on… This type of pricing schedule would get the most dollars from the people who take home the most fish yet still allow occasional anglers the chance to take their kids fishing without gouging them price-wise.
I also feel that we should charge commercial harvesters the same way, the more you catch, the more you pay for you commercial license. This year commercial harvesters caught more than twice the fish they did last year did they pay more? Did they have to buy a “hatchery tag” for additional fish?
Somehow I do not think they did…

*** Clerk

[smilesforu]

As much as I love to fish the hordes of hatchery fish.....I would pay more :smile: .
With the latest judges ruling on classifing all the fish together (wild and hatchery). I sure hope the latest hatchery reforms continue and the positive results continue with them.
Many of the smaller native sub fisheries in our area have become exstinct with out even a whimper from the fisheries management. Blantant disregard to run timing of fish.....GOD DAM NETS AND GREED.
But there are lots of hatchery fish to catch now...who cares that there use to be 20# steelhead caught regularly from the system.

It isn't habitat and it isn't the fishermen...cause the later runs have survived and thrived. Its the 7 day a week netting that choked off the early native runs in exchange for hatchery brats.... Ya I am ****** but its true!!

[FEAR NO FISH!]

License? We don't need no stinkin
license. I am a native from the
Tri-City slapaho tribe. (no
disrespect to Indians) well a little. I paid $400.00 for 5 months on private lakes to fish for Walleye. I'd pay $1000.00 just to keep slamming the Steelhead and Salmon!

[STGRule]

***: It has to be genetic. I have always thought the "classical ODFW rhetoric" even before I went to work for the department. I think it's left over from my hippy days. You know, love mother earth, think globaly act localy. I'll probably be a real embarrassment to my grandkids when they are old enough to realize it.

There is never going to be one thing to fix. The problems are caused by many things at different times. The only obvious things will be the proverbial straw that broke the camels back. Every one has a favorite piece of straw that was responsible for the poor broken camel and tend to ignore the other million pieces.
And the best (or worse) part is that everybody IS right. Each one of these concerns did have an impact. And all together it forms the problems we have today, the poor broken camel.
:depressed:

[dawhunt]

I feel like we pay enough now.I also feel that the companies that logged off the grounds around the streams and rivers and the companies that developed the grounds should be forced to go in and restore the habitat as well as anyone else thats responsable or has damaged it,after all they made BIG BUCKS off it.Includeing the states that allowed the destruction of the habitat.There are government agency's that are resposnable to prevent this and didn't do there jobs.We shouldn't have to pay for what they did,they should be held accountable.I know we'll never get back where we were even as little as 30 yrs ago and I don't really belive that more hatcherys are the answer.I can show you examples of logging to the waters edge on the washougal river and even offerd to take the guy in the fishery dept responsable to make sure that this never happens
his answer was it didn't happen,i said lets go he wouldn't go !!.Far as I'm concerned he(they) sold us out to the logging companies.Kind of like the state allowing the gillnetters to net every fish they can get into there nets.Maybe that would be a good deal too,get them out of our rivers.I"m sure that would help some if not a lot !!.

Bob

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: dawhunt ]</p>

[Jennie@ifish]

The whole thought of this brings ugly thoughts of only the rich being able to fish like in other countries. Yish.
And kids?
It was just a thought though... just a random thought.

[Pilar]

FM2, do you really believe that a return to normal summer upwelling and nominal temperatures in the Pacific ocean is not a huge improvement over the El-Nino years? Maybe you should go out there and see it first hand.

During the worst El-Nino had to offer the ocean off Tillamook hit 72 degrees F(22 above normal) and catches of mackeral were common. Mackeral prey on small fish like salmon smolts. Somewhat less common were catches of striped marlin out of Westport, Wa or Mahi Mahi at Bandon. The water was crystal clear, indicating little or no plankton, the base of the food chain.

Gregg, I have seen 'marked' fish too and always assumed it was our local netters at work. Is the drift net target area in our 200 or even 12 mile coastal domain?

Pay more for a license? Want to or not you will. The price goes up every year.

One thing not said so far .... There are alot of fishers now, more than ever before. This brings more pressure on a limited resource.

How about making the 'fishing license' something you have to study for and pass a test?

The one idea I saw above was that of buying out the gillnetters. I'd pay alot to do that. In the years that fish are rare, they get $$ for their catch. The economic incentive for fishing the run when it is most vulnerable is there. Pretty ironic that in bonus years the price of fish is so low that they are discouraged from netting.

[blackdog]

Jen - I think the article you refered to was in the latest issue of STS. It was taken from a longer article written by a fisheries biologist and discussed the realistic hope of ever getting back the salmon and steelhead runs of the 'good ol' days'. I won't try and summarize too much of it, but it did state that with the dramatic increase in population the entire Pacific Northwest is more than likely going to see over the next few decades, the obstacles are high. It is well worth the time to read what was written.

[garyk]

A few quick points:

1. Don't fool yourself thinking fishing licenses pay for hatcheries. They don't. The bulk of hatchery funding comes from US taxpayers funneled through the Federal government agencies and, sometimes, paid to the state and other times directly to Federal operated hatcheries. It is a confusing mix. If hatcheries were paid for strictly by licenses, no one could afford to fish. You'd pay more for licenses than mortgages. Us fisherman should be more appreciative of the subsidy we receive.

2. We, as fisherman and a society, refuse to invest in natural hatcheries -- healthy rivers. Thus, every dollar spent on hatcheries is a dollar not spent on many strategies that would maintain or restore watershed health.

From a gambling viewpoint, we're betting double-down on hatcheries over rivers.

3. I'm optimistic about maintaining healthy wild runs in watersheds that are still largely intact. The Tillamook forest will be the cornerstone for maintaining northwest coast salmon. It will take time, but I foresee the Tillamook Forest being managed for watershed health and all the benefits that accrue from that -- as opposed to the Dept. of Forestry's plan to maximize logging to the legal limit, and everything else be damned.

[Phish_on]

Why should I pay for hatcheries? Did I build dams? Did I clearcut forests? Did I build subdivisions?

I'll pay about $17 for a license, we know that much.

[birdhunter]

On the flip side. Do you benefit from these activities? Do you use electricity? Is your house made of wood? Do you live in a subdivision?

STGRule makes a great point. What are you prepared to give up to accomplish habitat restoration?

[Pete]

Here's the article, in full ....

Defending Reality

...and another thoughtful article ...

Restoring Wild Salmon ... chasing an illusion

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: Pete ]</p>

[Dogfish]

I would pay more for licenses, but like Jen, I worry about the issue surrounding low income families and kids. Would they be able to afford the licenses? I guess, though, that if they are a user group, they still need to pay their fair share. I would certainly pay more for licenses if I knew that those dollars were being used to buy back gillnetter's permits.

Some folks have this feeling of entitlement. They don't directly abuse the resource, but they benefit from the abuses. (Dams, logging, etc) They feel as though they have no need to pay for them. Well these folks are wrong, just as wrong as the senior citizens who feel that they shouldn't have to pay for new schools, etc., because they already raised their kids.

I am a firm believer in paying for what I use, and benefit from. This year I paid over $175 in license fees for hunting. Fishing licenses cost me an additional $39.42, and all of these were IN STATE FEES. I would have even paid more, gladly, but as you can see it did cost me over $200 for the priveledge of being able to harvest just about any fish or game animal in our state. There are also the P/R taxes that I paid on ammo, camping gear, but I don't have a figure on that.

If you use it, pay for it. If you benefit from it, pay for it. If you want your sons and daughters to be able to do it in the future, pay for it. If you want to leave a lasting legacy for anyone in the future, pay for it.

If you don't want to pay for it, (you're not going to like this), YOU ARE THE BIGGEST PROBLEM OF ALL.

Pay up suckers, or lose it all together.

Andy

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: Dogfish ]

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: Dogfish ]</p>

[RipDatLip]

I already had to pay over $100 dollars for all my licenses (Fishing, Hunting, Etc.) If I had more money it wouldn't be an issue, but it is. If the prices ever got to high I would probably go fishing anyways, honest. I love fishing that much.

Matt

[hustlerrjim]

habitat habitat ,thats all I hear from the barstool biologist,as iv'e said before you have to live here to see whats going on ,and has gone on over the years,
the so. fork nehalem systems were part of the great tillamook burn and it has recovered in fact it never dropped in production with a gill net fishery in tide water in the years following the fires.
more recently the no. fork nehalem has been logged extensivly since 1970 and has kept it's production up in spite of the mismanagement by the dept.
how can I say this??I live here and I take a very personal intrest in the river.
One of the latest projects was getting a count of out going juveniles on the no.fork nehalem.this is one of the most fantastic projects i've seen and feel quite proud of the fact I had a lot to do with getting this project instituted,how many of you people even know of it's existince, or the result it produced,this simple little project showed the habitat is in exellent shape and producing at the carrying cap of the stream this was quite a surprise.why isn't this imfo made more avalable???this is also quite simple,the money would dry up if people knew the habitat was'nt the problem.
Until the so called biologist get off their bar stools and go out in the feild we will have the usual b.s. pumped into us by the various fund raising groups to further there cause.
there are a lot of causes for the decline of our fishery but habitat isn't one of them here.
why does the dept.ignore the fact 66% of the out going radio tagged smolts disapear in front of the seal herd,quite a mystery to me,this brings me to the conclusion the salmons worst enemy is the dept. of fish and wildlife

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

hustlerrjim...

Found at:
http://web.pdx.edu/~maserj/project/project1/9.htm

“Historically, coho were the most abundant species in the Nehalem Drainage. Fisheries catch during the 1920's and 1930's show an average of over 50,000 coho caught annually from the Nehalem drainage (ODFW, 1993). A severe decline has occurred since 1950. Surveys show that wild coho are either extirpated or extremely depressed on the lower mainstem. The mid and upper reaches of the drainage still contain wild coho in most areas, but are severely depressed.
Habitat loss is blamed for much of the coho salmon decline (Kostow, 1995). The natural occurrence of large woody debris has declined due logging and the loss of conifers from riparian areas, which would have provided long-lasting instream structure when they fell into streams. Sediment from logging roads, road failures, loss of ground cover, along with reduction of water
filtering and shade due to removal of riparian vegetation, has reduced egg and juvenile survival. Also, historically, log drives stripped spawning gravel and logs from the river bottoms”

And by the way the term is “arm chair biologists”

*** Clerk

[STGRule]

I'm pretty sure that if I wasn't for the fact that I'm sitting here having a beer, reading the forum, I might think you were talking to me with the "bar stool biologist" comment. (Except I don't have a bar stool, just a comfy 'puter chair). This is very true as I haven't been in the field for a few weeks.

[ssteelheadsteve]

There are NO Successfull hatchery programs for Salmon or Steelhead any where in the World.Every where hatcheries have been built the fishing has DECLINED. Perfect habitat supporting the maximum number of fish per mile can not come close to providing a catch & Kill fishery for all fishers in the Pacific Northwest.If you think this statement is false please bring ALL your money and be prepared to lose it.I can spend it faster than you can lose it.
Cost of a fishing license ? At least $20 per punch.

[birdhunter]

ssteelheadsteve,

You sure you want to make that blanket statement about hatcheries? Nowhere in the entire world? Perhaps you should either clarify or rescind.

[Snapset]

I would pay more ($200)for an adult license if there was only a token cost for kids and old-timers licenses.

[Hoosier Daddy]

Jim-
I'm trying to sit back and not say too much, but can't hold it much longer.
Yes, we ALL know about the N.F. project. Did you forget there is a link to it on Ifish itself? Something about a "shining star"....
So I guess we should all thank you and only you for the fish available in the Nehalem? Seems like a certain state agency had a hand in building the hatcheries in that system. And how is it salmon and seals survived together for millenia and can't get along now?

And if you were running things it would all be just fine? How, YOU GONNA THROW SOME MORE BARBED WIRE IN IT?

hustlerrjim
Chromer
Member # 455
posted 10-02-2001 08:15 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.......What have we done to protect "our river"?
first off you find the holes that this horrible practice practice called snagging
is taking place,every body seemed to know of one or two,then you look around, some farmers
back yard and you can find miles of coiled up barbed wire and netting fencing material laying around,string that out in the bottom of your favorite holes people snag in.for starters- the hospital hole, two bit hole piling hole ,trailerhouse hole on the trask,this usualy covers the bottom three feet and puts a halt to the double corky method.and buzz bombs, by the way the n.f. is well seeded this year.
thanks again for the jollies,I haven't had this much fun since the wife obedince shows loretta and i did a few years back.


What a great solution, and so much more well thought out than anything ODFW has ever done.
:whazzup:

[Phish_on]

birdhunter,

I saw that one coming even as I clicked the "reply" button. Yes I live in a wood house and use electricity in a subdivision.

So I would expect to support fish "mitigation" through my power bill and the price of my home. I don't think anglers should be subsidizing the profits of timber and development businesses. On the other hand, Reality is - if you want fish, you have to pay for them.

Hatcheries have their place, but I don't believe they should be a long-term solution to our destruction of our environment (same environment as the salmon's - we're all here together)

[Mr. Fisherman]

Be CAREFUL!

I would not want to see the rich and famous take over and declare that only the wealthy and privelaged afford the "right" to enjoy the "luxury" of fishing. That is how it is in Europe.

I was raised by a single parent on a shoe string budget. We had difficulty just putting food on the table let alone go fishing. But I had such a passion to fish that we redoubled our efforts and went without so I could go fish once or twice a month.

I remember how much this meant to me and would not want to make this privelaage any more difficult for common folks to obtain than it is already.

Bust open a few of the government pork barrels out there and quit placing the burden on the backs of the common people in this great nation.

Remember stories about fighting against taxation without representation? About the men who sacrificed everything they owned so that we all had the RIGHT to the persuit of happiness?

Throwing money at the problem is not going to fix it. There is more than enough money flowing, in my opinion. It's the path the money is manipulated down and the altered destination that concerns me.

Take a kid fishing and let your elected officials know what is important to you. And VOTE!
If you don't you really have sacrificed your right to complain.

Sorry Jen, struck a nerve. I think sometines we need to look back and understand just how fortunate we are. I don't have to wory much about where my next meal is coming from anymore. But my mother went to her grave before she had it that good. As it is I can't afford to get out anywhere near as much as I would like to. I would hate to see fishing priced out of reach for the common people in this country.

I'd also like to thank you again for making this forum available. Many of my dreams have become reality by people that I have met on this BB like Pilar and Capin Dan!.

Just my $.02

Ray

When fishing is outlawed only outlaws will fish...

[Straydog]

Right on Phish-on.

I do not live in a subdivision but I do live in a wood house and use electricity.

However, I didn't build a 5,000 square ft. house for my wife and I.

No, I built a 1975 square foot home for a four person family.

Look at the mansions being built around us and tell me that is the responsible use of our limited wood products.

Also, I attempt to use my electricity responsibly. Had it not made me want to throw up, I would have laughed last fall when, in the same edition of the Oregonian I read two articles that concerned themselves with electricity.

One was an urgent cry from the Governor to please conserve energy to avert a horrible energy crisis and to save some salmon from the BPA.

In the same edition was an article praising and promoting the Ronald McDonald house for putting up some 400,000 Christmas lights on their Portland home for kids.

Go figger.....

[Hoosier Daddy]

Christmas lights.....nice...very nice

[birdhunter]

Phish-on - Excellent points. I was throwing that up there more for arguments sake. I too live in a wooden house w/ electricity in a subdivision, so you got me there. Well, it didn't used to be a subdivision, but that's another matter. #$%@* urban growth. Staydog is also right on about our use. It's the excess and irresponsible use of our natural resources that's more of a threat. Everyone is going to have an impact on the natural world. Just try to keep it to a minimum (Hmmm, I'm starting to sound really Green).

Mr. F - "When fishing is outlawed, only outlaws will fish". I love it. You make a very good point. Hunting and fishing in the USA is a far cry from what it is in Europe. I don't want to see fishing an aristocratic past-time any more than I want to see river trash snagging salmon. There has to be a balance somewhere, but don't ask me what it is.

I think it's easy for most of us on ifish to forget about those who aren't as fortunate. At the risk of making a blanket statement, everyone here has internet access and apparently enough free time to talk about fishing. Most of us have enough free time to fish for our silver friends instead of working. Seems to me like that implies you're living comfortably to say the least. I spent over $200 just on licenses, tags and stamps this last year. Doesn't even begin to cover ammo, gear, gas, etc. I know a lot of people who wouldn't be able to afford all of that. I wouldn't want to deny them the right to fish anymore than I'd deny them from voting. Doesn't mean you shouldn't have to contribute to the system. Just means we shouldn't use money to prevent the "lower classes" from fishing alongside us. Thanks for bringing that point up.

[Trick]

I could research this more before I speculate on it. I tend to agree with everything that happens after a fish enters the estuary on and into the ocean playing a larger role in overall run size. Huge flocks of caspian terns, rebounding heron populations, explosions in the size of seal and sealion herds, el-nino', high-sea driftnets, etc...having a larger impact on our overall runs then the degradetion of stream health.

I tend to agree with Hookset and his observation on the markings of steelhead. I noticed it too and I'm not seeing it as much as I used to. Why? My guess lies in the super cheap rearing of farmed salmon worlwide destroying the cost-effectiveness of running large netters around the ocean looking for fish.

I look at the wholesale prices for salmon collapsing for local netters and imagine that the market must be similiar for our Asian fleet to the east. Good or bad? There are more salmon available to consumers now then there ever has been I'd assume. This has to be having some impact on overall pressures being reduced on our local runs.

Anybody been clam digging lately? Have you noticed the dozens of baby clams coming to the surface when you go down on a hole? I've never seen anything like it, something has to be improving.

[Mofish]

Put it this way. I would gladly pay more if I could be sure that 99cent out of every dollar would go to the fish improvement plan what every it would be and not to the pockets of ODWF or the FEDS. :whazzup:

[Uncle Roman]

Everyone has .made excellent points, I think. But man, is this depressing..... WELCOME TO OREGON, INC.