IFish Fishing Forum banner

what in the world is odfw thinking?

5K views 44 replies 23 participants last post by  freespool 
#1 Ā·
I got around to thumbing thru the 2009 regs for the willamette zone and to my suprise I see that the upper willamette is open year around to catching non fin clipped steelhead.


my god what are they trying to do kill off the last few remaining wild winter steelhead coming up the willamette?

I just cant believe with all the protection afforded wild steelhead that its open to the killing of them on the willamette.

I wonder what kind of science told them there were enough wild fish in the willamette to be able to offer and catch and kill fisherie on them?





Quasi

.
 
#2 Ā·
I wonder what kind of science told them there were enough wild fish in the willamette to be able to offer and catch and kill fisherie on them?
It is a great question. So ask them. :flowered:

ODFW personnel work on your behalf. You should get an answer in a reasonable amount of time. You may not agree with the answer, but you should get one. :wink:

And let the rest of us know the response you get. :)

And then we can have a long debate over the position the agency has taken on this particular issue. :meme:
Because if iFishers are good at anything, its debating a subject. :applause:

I certainly am not very good at the Fish portion of iFish. :D
 
#3 Ā·
I believe the agency position is that wild winter steelhead are not native to the Upper Willamette basin. The theory is that the Calapooia was the upper most run of wild steelhead in the Willamette.

They want to remove all naturally reproducing steelhead from the basin above the Calapooia. Their view is that they will compete with native and endangered spring chinook in the basin above the Calapooia. (Wild in the Mckenzie and F-1 hatchery in the Willamette) Long term the plan is to use the "genetic legacy" of the Middle Fork stock (the hatchery fish) to jump start natural reproduction above Lookout and Hills Creek. As you may also note, wild steelhead may also be harvested in the Mckenzie River now as well--24 inch minimum to protect large redsides from harvest. I think the same goes for Fall Creek except 20 inch is the size.
 
#13 Ā·
Quasi,
did you see the regs on the Santiams??? July 1st to Aug 31st? same deal.

B

yes I seen that looks like they are still protecting the winter steelhead runs on the santiams but not on the willamette, fall creek or the mckenzie.

the mckenzie is no biggy because it doesnt get any but there is a small run of winters that do spawn below dexter dam. I have fished for them in past years but the run is so small now that its just a shame to bother them at all.



Quasi
 
#7 Ā·
This is all part of the Bi-Op and RPA as part of the consultation process for continued operation of the Corps "Willamette Project", the thirteen high head dams operated on tribs of the Willamette. (Actually there are 17 authorized but "only" 13 were built.)

Because the operation of those dams was found to jepardize the continued existence UWR Chinook and UWR steelhead changes have to be made in order to avoid that "jeopardy" under the ESA. Some of those changes include temperature controils, flow changes, upstream passage facility upgrades, harvest regime changes and most importantly downstream passage improvements.

Anyway, the agency believes that summer steelhead are not native at all to the Willamette basin above the Falls as such the harvest allowance for wild summer fish makes sense in that context. The same reasoning applies, that summer fish in the Santiam compete with native spring chinook and native winter steelhead in that watershed.
 
#14 Ā·
.

Anyway, the agency believes that summer steelhead are not native at all to the Willamette basin above the Falls as such the harvest allowance for wild summer fish makes sense in that context. The same reasoning applies, that summer fish in the Santiam compete with native spring chinook and native winter steelhead in that watershed.

if thats the case then why dont they allow us to kill non fin clipped spring chinook below dexter dam.

ODFW admitted the run was extinct years ago when the dams were put up thats why they didnt have any fish ladders installed.


with that line of reasoning they should also kill off all the non clipped springers that make it to the bottom of dexter. it is a well known fact that most of the high finners are just the unclipped excess salmon smolts they dump into salt creek to get rid of, they seem to be able to make it thru the turbines and complete their journey to the sea and return as a supposed wild chinook.




Quasi
 
#8 Ā·
#12 Ā·
Anyway, the agency believes that summer steelhead are not native at all to the Willamette basin above the Falls as such the harvest allowance for wild summer fish makes sense in that context. The same reasoning applies, that summer fish in the Santiam compete with native spring chinook and native winter steelhead in that watershed.[/quote]


This might be a not so bright question but here it goes. How do steelhead "compete" with chinook? I have three major points of issue with this:
#1-- Chinook don't feed after being aclamated, They bite but not swallow, they dont need food
#2-- The eggs (of the spawning chinook) that don't get buried in the gravel, feed trout or some other fish as well.
#3--at the moment there is not even enough "native steelhead" to make any difference right now.
any input would be appreciated
 
#18 Ā·
Anyway, the agency believes that summer steelhead are not native at all to the Willamette basin above the Falls as such the harvest allowance for wild summer fish makes sense in that context. The same reasoning applies, that summer fish in the Santiam compete with native spring chinook and native winter steelhead in that watershed.

This might be a not so bright question but here it goes. How do steelhead "compete" with chinook? I have three major points of issue with this:
#1-- Chinook don't feed after being aclamated, They bite but not swallow, they dont need food
#2-- The eggs (of the spawning chinook) that don't get buried in the gravel, feed trout or some other fish as well.
#3--at the moment there is not even enough "native steelhead" to make any difference right now.
any input would be appreciated[/quote]

You have only mentioned adults returning. What about smolts? They eat.
I am definately not the person to talk to about fish biology. But I think you missed the beginning and went straight to the end.

Can someone qualified please elaborate for me? :flowered:
 
#15 Ā·
I think there was always a winter run up the Middle Fork. I have seen many winters caught below Dexter, Leaburg and even at the old Wendling Park up out of Marcola. The first one I saw caught was at least 30 years ago. If they aren't native wild fish then how did they get there? I can't belive that we going open season on a WIld Run of Steelhead. To belive they just stopped at the Calapooia is insane.
 
#19 Ā·
Well, I am glad this was brought up. Quasi is absolutely right on the button on this one.

The ODFW has long protected these fish and has gone to great measures in doing so. The upper river basin was "said" to be rid of any wild Chinook long ago - or I should say "Native". Quasi's assessment is correct again - under this reasoning we should be able to fish for any wild fish below Dexter or any one of it's tributaries.

They (The ODFW) keeps talking about sustainability - not enough nutrients in the water to maintain a specific level of life, or not enough food for all the fish to survive. Do they not understand the cycle in which these fish thrive? Have they never been to Alaska to witness 6 million fish - 7 different species - survive in a river half the size of the Willamette?

I will be meeting with ODFW about this "Wild" issue and will post the answers as soon as I get them. I have a feeling that regardless of what they say, none of us are going to agree - and that includes myself.

Hate to say it but there's no better time to get involved - no matter what organization it is...as long as we do nothing we are all guilty.

I'll be back......
 
#20 Ā· (Edited)
hey while your there ask them why lane county and the upper valley is treated like second class citizens when it comes to fish and funding.

out of 9 winter steelhead rivers they used to stock there are 3 left.

the upper valley is the one thts going to lose the smolts to supply to the gill netters.

actually another good question would be how come they just dont give the netters the excess smolts they dump into salt creek to die instead of raiding what they release from dexter.



Quasi

.
 
#21 Ā·
Like someone said earlier, ask them and they will tell you why they are doing what they do . . . it is probably more effective than calling them stupid on the internet.

Regarding wild fish and Dexter, the high fins are not as Quasi alleges, "excess smolts" that they dump in Salt Creek. Given their budget constraints, and desire to create additional angler opportunities, why would they even create extra smolts and then if they did, why would they just dump them. It makes no sense. If that is happening, please supply the evidence. Even if they are putting smolts in salt creek there is a reason, it wouldn't be just to use Salt Creek as a dumping ground. Hell, it'd be easier and more cost effective to use them as fish food.

The high fins beneath Dexter are either fish that survive trips through the turbines and are the offspring of fish planted higher in the system for nutrient enrichment purposes, or they are the offspring of hatchery fish that spawn beneath Dexter, or they are strays most likely from Fall Creek. It is that simple.

Regarding the issue of no wild salmon in the Middle Fork Willamette and their extirpation, the agencies treat F1 hatchery as wild for the purposes of managing that system. The reason, I believe is because despite their origin from hatchery fish they are considered a DPU and ESU under the Endangered Species Act. In a typical year, there are approximately 100 non-fin clipped that show at Dexter. I get this straight from the Corps fish biologist for the district.

Doubt the wisdom of treating F1 as "wild" if you will but if there are no salmon considered or managed as native in that basin, there would be no reason to even attempt to address passage issues in the basin, no need to improve conditions at the dams, no need to improve water quality in the Middle Fork, effecting not only the fish in the Middle Fork but the entire Willamette basin and beyond. ... none of the improvements that are planned to revive natural fish production in the Middle Fork Willamette would happen as we would lose the only hammer we have, the Endangered Species Act. Unless it was to protect the steelhead that you but none of the agencies bleieve are native above the Calapooia, so I guess that wouldn't happen.

I should would hate it if there were naturally reproducing salmon in the Middle Fork at a much higher level that what currently exists. Wouldn't you? (That's irony, btw)

So fellas, I'd suggest you be careful what you wish for.
 
#26 Ā·
Like someone said earlier, ask them and they will tell you why they are doing what they do . . . it is probably more effective than calling them stupid on the internet.

Regarding wild fish and Dexter, the high fins are not as Quasi alleges, "excess smolts" that they dump in Salt Creek. Given their budget constraints, and desire to create additional angler opportunities, why would they even create extra smolts and then if they did, why would they just dump them. It makes no sense. If that is happening, please supply the evidence. Even if they are putting smolts in salt creek there is a reason, it wouldn't be just to use Salt Creek as a dumping ground. Hell, it'd be easier and more cost effective to use them as fish food.

The high fins beneath Dexter are either fish that survive trips through the turbines and are the offspring of fish planted higher in the system for nutrient enrichment purposes, or they are the offspring of hatchery fish that spawn beneath Dexter, or they are strays most likely from Fall Creek. It is that simple.

Regarding the issue of no wild salmon in the Middle Fork Willamette and their extirpation, the agencies treat F1 hatchery as wild for the purposes of managing that system. The reason, I believe is because despite their origin from hatchery fish they are considered a DPU and ESU under the Endangered Species Act. In a typical year, there are approximately 100 non-fin clipped that show at Dexter. I get this straight from the Corps fish biologist for the district.

Doubt the wisdom of treating F1 as "wild" if you will but if there are no salmon considered or managed as native in that basin, there would be no reason to even attempt to address passage issues in the basin, no need to improve conditions at the dams, no need to improve water quality in the Middle Fork, effecting not only the fish in the Middle Fork but the entire Willamette basin and beyond. ... none of the improvements that are planned to revive natural fish production in the Middle Fork Willamette would happen as we would lose the only hammer we have, the Endangered Species Act. Unless it was to protect the steelhead that you but none of the agencies bleieve are native above the Calapooia, so I guess that wouldn't happen.

I should would hate it if there were naturally reproducing salmon in the Middle Fork at a much higher level that what currently exists. Wouldn't you? (That's irony, btw)

So fellas, I'd suggest you be careful what you wish for.

you sould check into info a little better they make sure they have 2 million smolts to be released with die off and what not that means they have to raise over and above 2 million smolts to ensure they have the 2 million smolts in the end. once they have reached their goal number excess smolts above the number they need to transfer to the dexter holding facility are dumped into salt creek to be gotten rid of. cheap alternative to paying for disposal of them.

they also feel those smolts will migrate down into look out point res and provide fishing opprotunities for anglers. several years back they discovered that some of those smolts actually continue to migrate down stream thru the turbines and were surviving. ODFW is aware of this fact and have admitted that it is occurring.

maybe you can call and ask zeller about it he will give you the straight scoop.

as for the steelhead there are wild breeding winter and summer steelhead below dexter dam. I have caught summers and winters both and I can assure you they do not look even close to what the hatchery steelhead up there do they are totally gorgeous fish. picture a 10 inch redside but 30 inches long a lot thicker and more stocky then normal summer fish they look almost like a winter fish as far as size and girth go. there is no mistaking them for a hatchery fish you can clearly see when the fish is still in the water that they are not the same as the hatchery strain of fish.



Quasi

.
 
#24 Ā·
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.
 
#29 Ā·
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....
 
#30 Ā·
I did call Ziller, Quasi. That is how I know they don't dump smolts in Salt Creek.

You should do the same. 726-3515 extension 26. After that, post what he tells you.


I mistated its not salt creek its salmon creek the creek the hatchery is on so yes he would say they do not dump smolts into salt creek.

and I have talked with ziller before I actually used him in a technical report writing class where I had to interview someone.

I also have a 3 inch thick report on willamette river springers and the operations of the dexter hatchery system I recieved that from the old hatchery manager Dewey before his retirement.

Dewey was a fisherman it was a regualr occurance to see Dewey fishing the river 2 or 3 evenings a week he was very open about how things work up there and what they do and why.



Quasi
 
#32 Ā·
FYI, many rivers of the PNW are nutrient poor where nitrogen is the limiting resource. In many cases the rivers are actually heterotrophic systems where in situ respiration exceeds in situ primary production. Salmon may provide >80% of the nitrogen used by subsequent salmonid generations. Therefore, reductions in populations result in a negative feedback loop where nitrogen and other nutrients become increasingly limited. Hence, nutrient seeding with carcasses along rivers.

I haven't actually seen the data but I imagine some waterways in the willamette system may actually be eutrophied (too much nitrogen) which presents whole new problems for the endemic salmonids. There is also a large amount of pesticide and insecticide contamination in many of the water ways so comparing the willamatte system. These problem in combination with all the other habitat conundrums in the willamette system makes this a very sick sytem. To compare the willamette to alaskan rivers and then blame ODFW is really an "unfortunate" line of reasoning.
 
#34 Ā·
I hope all understand when I am making the comparison between rivers I am simply saying that it is possible to get back to those prehistoric runs. A simple "can't do" by the ODFW will no longer be accepted. And yes, I absolutely agree that the Willamette system is still very sick. There are a lot of factors that contribute to the health of the Willamette and we need to address them instead of waiting for someone else to make the effort.

There are times that I honestly believe that too much science is getting in the way. I am not saying science is a "bad" thing...just the opposite. But when we sit here and continually disect cause and effect - and do nothing, well...not much gets accomplished.

The AF&G is very proactive in their efforts. It seems as though they are not afraid to get down and dirty. Doing a five year study and then writing a 100 page summary on the five year study, just to come to the conclusion that the ODFW didn't do enough studying....see where I'm going with this. This "scenario" came right out of the mouth of a high up in the ODFW....a little frustrating was his conclusion....and I actually believe him when he said that the efforts by the front lines are continually thwarted by those in "office" - The Alaskan Fish & Game addresses problems a lot faster then we do down here...why, I couldn't tell you. Maybe less red tape...

I do know things will have to change and continue to change if we ever hope to reclaim these rivers for all fish involved.

Wait a minute, oh...I just thought I heard the Willamette cough...
 
#36 Ā·
I think the suggestion to call ODFW and ask why they are doing what they are doing is a great idea.
Because anglers making outrageous statements about something they obviously know little or nothing about, is counter productive.
Not only does it show just how out of touch most anglers are when it comes to fisheries management, it also shows a general disrespect toward those that are tasked to manage these fisheries.
Making broad brush statements about dept. decisions, without doing any research, does absolutely nothing but make the poster sound foolish and uninformed.
 
#37 Ā·
Steelheader:

When I mentioned flooding it was in reference to the entire North Coast and not limited to the Willamette and tributaries.

Each watershed has it's own natural fertility level. Two streams side by side can have dramatically different levels of naural fertility. An example of this is the Trask and the Wilson. Being similar in geographic location but entirely different in natural fertility. The native salmon runs in these two streams reflect this and they have adapted differently to compensate.

The Willamette system is no more than a memory of what was. Dams now block what once was traditional spawning and rearing habitat and relegated that duty to the more undesireable/unsuited sections of the tributaries and the main stream its self. There is but one solution to recovery of traditional runs and that solution will never happen. Hatcheries cannot compensate for the loss of natural spawning and rearing habitat.
 
#39 Ā·
Steelheader:

When I mentioned flooding it was in reference to the entire North Coast and not limited to the Willamette and tributaries.

Each watershed has it's own natural fertility level. Two streams side by side can have dramatically different levels of naural fertility. An example of this is the Trask and the Wilson. Being similar in geographic location but entirely different in natural fertility. The native salmon runs in these two streams reflect this and they have adapted differently to compensate.

The Willamette system is no more than a memory of what was. Dams now block what once was traditional spawning and rearing habitat and relegated that duty to the more undesireable/unsuited sections of the tributaries and the main stream its self. There is but one solution to recovery of traditional runs and that solution will never happen. Hatcheries cannot compensate for the loss of natural spawning and rearing habitat.
Something to consider when talkin about nutrients... Resevoirs tend in enrich nutrients into the stream... Hence the trout fisheries below those dams..

As far as the Kenai... This is one of a few of the most nutrient rich systems in Alaska... This is due to monster sockeye and pink runs that absolutly chage the system and the lakes which can store this energy so it is not all washed out. The limiting factor as far as nutrients in the Kenai system is acturally water turbiditity from glacial run off and low temperatures.

Other systems in AK that are really productive as far as nutrients are typically all systems associated w/ lakes, sockeye, and other very strong pink and chum runs that continually charge these systems w/ nutrients. Not supprisingly many of these systems also have trophy trout fisheries.
 
#38 Ā·
Fish passage on all major dams on the Willamette could provide a means to produce fish naturally.
The excess springer spawners placed above the dams have proven that the ancient spawning beds are still viable, the fish just need a way to access them.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top