The Steelheader:
You didn't read your own post.... ODFW stated there aren't enough nutrients in the water to sustain high fish numbers. Your comparison of the Willamette to Alaskan rivers where high nutrient levels exist is flawed. Size of the stream has little significance.
Kind of a catch 22 thing. The fertility of a watershed can be significantly improved with the addition of dead fish. The more dead fish, the more live fish. Those Alsakan streams would lose their fertility if all the dead spawners were removed before they decomposed. As run sizes decrease, so does stream fertility.
Stream dynamics:
Our streams on the West Coast are notoriously unfertile. It has to do with our rainfall and the slope of the stream. Any existing nutrients are constantly flushed back to the ocean because the water flows from such a high altitude and in such large volumes. If the elevation loss were much more gradual, the water would spend more time in the stream bed where any existing nutrients could be utilized by the inhabitants. Many of the Alaskan rivers are long, slow, meandering streams that retain their nutrients over a longer period of time.
Constant flooding of our costal streams leads directly to loss of stream fertility.
Dogzilla, good response but please lend me your knowledge cap - I could always use the help.
The Willamette Basin is obviously controlled by dams, I believe 13 in all (give or take a few, can't recall the exact number) Flooding in the Willamette basin does not happen like it did 30 to 40 years ago - when the fishing was far more productive then it is today. In fact, I can only recall one major flood since I've been here (1972). There's been high water but not constant flooding that you stated on our coastal rivers. The Umpqua probably has a higher CFS then any other river south of the Columbia but yet yields one of the best fisheries in the state.......
I understand the dynamics of the rivers in Alaska - most that are not dammed up - free flowing. The Kenai, early on, has one of the strongest currents I believe in the US if not the world (that's what I have been told and have read it as well) - thus creating a steady flow of down river nutrients, kind of "flushing them out". They do not remove fish from the river and I believe it hosts nearly 6 million plus fish a year. Comparing the river size is very reasonable - The Kenai, like the Willamette I believe has the same (or close) degree of slope - The Willamette is very comparable due to the dams that are in place - making the downward flow pretty much the same. I will do some research to further support my theory.
Talking with an old "biologist" from around this area - the depletion of our species has created this void of nutrients in our river (along with other variables). I've said this before and you did too in your post. The local trout population, Redside, and every other species has been dramatically impacted by the loss of our Salmon. We are currently under way of dumping carcasses into several of the local tributaries of the Willamette - this project was created by our local CCA group and was not planned by the ODFW until we volunteered to do so. In fact, dumping carcasses were against the law on the Mckenzie and the Willamette for a very long period of time - just a small oversight by qualified personnel.
I don't believe my statement is all that flawed. Removing Salmon out of our Rivers has been one of the biggest blunders they have made. In fact, there have been studies done that prove when Salmon runs, along with other returning fish (Coho, Steelhead, etc) actually alter many facets of a system. Temperature, flow, nutrient beds, etc. Fish First has really uncovered a startling arrray of data while rehabilitating Cedar Creek.
One last thing - you have to remember when you are talking with ODFW officials. I do know Jeff Ziller and really do like him as a person - but he is very good at not "directly" answering questions - just stating policies and procedures. Most that are in his position do the same and that's one of the major problems that we continue to face day in and day out - the extreme lack of communication between a state agency and the people who literally pays for most of the funding.
The ODFW was created to protect and enhance our fisheries....I personally don't think that most of us feel they have done either of them, at least not very well. But hey, that's just my opinion.
I do appreciate your response because it does make me stop and think - and reread my post again.
Which I did again - several times. Put the nutrients back in the water and our rivers could sustain life at the levels found in other parts of this world - including BC and Alaska. Just like our rivers did many years ago.
Just a thought....