Oregon Coastal Chinook Spawner Graph Update

[Born to be Wild]

Here’s the old graph 1986-2001



And the new updated one 1986-2003



What's up with the Tillamook/Nestucca basins?
Still showing a significant declining trend.

Maybe some of those that are planning on participating in the upcoming S.T. E. P. Conference can make a copy of this graph and ask the “experts” there what’s up! :whazzup:

Dave Plawman the local habitat bio will be there and maybe ask him if it might be a major habitat problem.
Shouldn’t be for there is better habitat in Tillamook than to the south where the private forest has been butchered by the likes of GP and so forth and they are experiencing record Chinook returns.

If you don’t get the right answers or a bunch of side stepping maybe ask the “experts” there why is it that all those hatchery springer’s and fall chinook they continue to dump into those systems aren’t improving the wild runs. [img]graemlins/idea.gif[/img]

You’ll notice that the Siusalaw is off the charts and believed to be at historical highs.
The Alsea and Siletz are at record levels and I don’t know if this incorporates the Yaquina River but it is up there also.
These rivers have no hatchery fall Chinook or spring Chinook.

So ya see Jerry your post last night about closing up hatcheries and taking up golf was maybe politically correct in the Tillamook area amongst some of the local guides and sporting goods stores but it just so happens where the hatchery fish aren’t, the record numbers are.

So keep on clippin’! Appears to be doing wonders.

Dano

[Lund]

All those rivers that have good numbers of spawners are BIG rivers that have little pressure compared to their size. The Tillamook streams get OVERFISHED. PERIOD.

[Straydog]

Looks like the Oregon Plan for Salmon and the related Knowles Creek restoration is paying off for the Siuslaw in a big way!!

[Cowlitz Kidd]

Show me something on Washington chinook. Like the Cowlitz thats in your backyard.Oregon as we all know has very good spring and fall chinook fishiers.So how about that cow is dead yet.

[finclipped]

Anyone know how many Tillamook fish are caught every year and what impact it has on the spawnwers/mile?

[willierower]

Danno,

Your anti Hatchery propaganda is getting a little annoying! Im sure you mean well. But come on dude! Where are you getting your information? I see lots of stuff that totally conflicts with the stuff you put up! Ive seen numerous studies that have proven hatchery fish have no effect on wild fish! And Ive seen studies that show if a wild fish even gets close to a fish raised in a hatchery it will just roll over and die. .

Now for my 2 cents on that graph. Tillamook has by far more anglers then any other Salmon fishery in Oregon. Salmon in the Tillamook System are targeted from September through December 31st. With the other rivers in the graph the angling pressure is a lot lighter and for a shorter period of time.

And for your views on the Broodstock programs. You dont have a leg to stand on in that argument! You dont fish, you are not out there seeing benefits of the prgrams. You just know what here from some bio. In my opinion most fishery bio's are just educated idiots! Most of them only know what they have been taught in a classroom. They really dont have a clue on whats going on in the field. I can give you some prime examples if you want!

Until we get people to stop fishing, We will need hatcheries and and broodstock programs. Thats the bottom line!

[willametteriveroutlaw]

Originally posted by Born to be Wild:
Here’s the old graph 1986-2001



Dave Plawman the local habitat bio will be there and maybe ask him if it might be a major habitat problem.
Shouldn’t be for there is better habitat in Tillamook than to the south where the private forest has been butchered by the likes of GP and so forth and they are experiencing record Chinook returns.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">A major factor besides the much higher fishing pressure might be the fact that in the lower stretches of those rivers there is no shade.. Farm fields right to the rivers edge with large amounts of dairy and agricultural run off. Huh all possibilites or is it the attack of those darned hatchery fish again.
Also factor in the pressure, Much more pressure on the t-bay streams than any of the others you mentioned.
Any more name dropping from "experts" who just have alot of opinions and your going to lose any last shred of credibility you have.
Willierower,
[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[ 03-04-2004, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: willametteriveroutlaw ]

[garyk]

Dan, regarding the Tillamook line on the graph.

Was any methodology provided by which these numbers were arrived at?

Any mention of which rivers were surveyed or how many river stretches in total were surveyed?

Or what the statistical confidence interval is?

[Born to be Wild]

Any more name dropping from "experts" who just have alot of opinions and your going to lose any last shred of credibility you have.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I don't understand your question or point here Outlaw.

I used "experts" because Jerry Dove mentioned once or twice that there would be "experts" there at the "round tables". :grin:

Well I don't know who he is considering "experts" or how biased or unbiased they will be but it still might be worth seeking answers why the north coast isn't measuring up with the central coast.
I do know that there will be a couple good out of the area bio's there!

There is defiantely something going wrong in the north coast and it isn't just the Tillamook basin.
You can add the Nehalem and Nestucca to that declining trend also.

I'll agree with you Outlaw (did I really say that?) that low lands habitat is a problem in Tilamook as is the most of the coast but probably more severe in the Tillamook area.
That could be part of the problem but I doubt it is the largest factor.

Hatchery fish programs are proven to cause declines in wild fish populations and productivity so I hope you aren't ruling out an obvious problem.

So there has been three posible culprits mentioned on this thread.
I'll stick with hatchery fish as being number 1 until I see any reports stating otherwise.

Quasi,
After thinking about it a little more I have my doubts as to whether the Knowles Creek made much of a difference or any at all to the chinook populations.
If I remember correctly the Knowles Creek restoration was done in habitat above chinook spawning habitat and no doubt helped the coho.
I believe the estimated numbers for wild coho in the Siusalaw basin in 2002 was around 55,000!
Not too shabby!
Haven't heard any individual stream numbers yet for 2003, just the overall coastal numbers which were out standing once again.

Interesting that over harvest by sport fishermen or intense sport harvest has come up so many times on this thread but the bio's both on the north and central coast I have spoken with don't seem to think that would be a factor.

Dan

[Born to be Wild]

Gary K,

Here would be the person to ask that question:

Steve Jacobs

Leader, Coastal Salmonid Inventory Project

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

28655 Highway 34

Corvallis, Or 97333

(541) 757-4263 x261

jacobss@fsl.orst.edu

[garyk]

Thanks, I'll contact him and see if I can get a reply to my questions that I can share here.

[Ty]

Born to be wild:

So show me how those graphs show that "wild" chinook in Tillimook are sustaining the elevated harvest rates?&gt;

Is this your example of wild chinook harvest working?

These increases are almost exclusively due to five years in a row of exceptional ocean conditions...

[Born to be Wild]

Is this your example of wild chinook harvest working?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Oh you mean the record and historical levels of wild chinook on the Siletz, Yaquina, Alsea Siusalaw and some of their trib's where there is both freshwater and salt water sport harvest and saltwater commercial harvest?

Maybe a good question to ask would be has there been declining lowlands habitat to coinside with the declining north coast runs durring the same time period?

Or has the harvest and pressure (elevated harvest I believe you called it) in Tillamook/Nestucca increased significantly during the same time frame that the spawner counts have declined?
Actually it would be interesting to revisit the harvest numbers for the north coast once again and see if they have increased during that time period.
I don’t believe they did but it has been a long time since I looked them up.
Some have suggested a reduced bag limit (1 chinook a day) up north where there already is a reduced annual bag limit (10 per year) or at least was.
If it is sport pressure then that probably isn’t a bad idea.

I don't feel it is sport fishing pressure but I could be wrong.
The north and central coast chinook stocks are both targeted by the same commercial fishermen in the salt.

Are you implying once again that we shouldn't have harvest on wild fish Ty?

That I don't believe will be popular with north coast or the south coast fishermen where they have exceptionally healthy stocks.

Someone emailed me and said they didn’t think that the Nehalem River had hatchery Chinook so if that be the case the Nehalem River wouldn’t fit the trend.

Dan

[Ty]

First u say I say that I endorse whatever my guide friends would say.....

Now u are saying that reduceing pressure on wild populations because there are declining would not be popular so..... I shouldn't say that.....

You said that wild steelhead populations could take the impact of spart harvest and here in Tillimook is a glaring example of a partial sport harvest that my be keeping Timmimook fish from coming back... These fiah have not faired welle since the regime shift in 1997 and floods may have reduced spawning success....

BTW... Dave johnoson is very knowledgeable in fisheries and is as educated as most fisheries biologist and stands by his biological background...

[Straydog]

Yea, you guys are right about Knowles Creek.. I was thinking of Trib. spawners rather than Chinook.

I suppose the improvements up there have helped the overall water quality down stream but I wouldn't expect that to account for a spike in fish like that.

[Quasimodo the fish killer]

I am not sure where you got that 55,000 number from born to be wild I dont think it is correct.

although there is a healthy population of cohos I wouldnt have guessed over 5000 I do know at times its pretty hard to keep the cohos off your herring during the troll season in the bay.

I am just guessing here but I think that maybe the cohos rebound may be in part to the fact that the siuslaw has sort of a crappy bar it is shallow for quite a ways out there.most people go out of newport or winchester. I did go out across the suislaw bar 3 or 4 times last year and I never seen more then 4 or 5 boats out there at one time also we do not have charter boats running out of the port.
I think maybe the coho and chinook get a break from the pressure and thats why returns have climed so well while others have declined or remained at the same level.

Quasi

.

[freespool]

I'm fairly sure one of my bio friends told me Tillimook fish swing North,the other southern tribs swing South. Can you shed any light on that subject Ty?


salmon hugger

[Quasimodo the fish killer]

opps forgot something and I dont know how to edit my last post [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img]

knowels creek actually dumps straight into tide water about 4 miles below the head of tidewater on the suislaw so it is in effect a small river unto itself that is why I said I did not think it effected what happened up in the main river.

there is also sweet creek and the north fork of the siuslaw that dump straight into tide water it would be interesting to see if those 2 were having the same increased levels of coho and chinook that the siuslaw is. maybe I will try and run into the bio when I am out fishing this weekend and see if he can shed some light on them.

I know they have done lots of stream enhancment up the north fork but I do not think that sweet creek has had any done on it at all. sweet and the north fork are about the same size but sweet creek has always been pretty log choked as far back as I can remember. maybe it doesnt need enhanced because it was done naturally thru the years.

anyway thats about all I know about the north fork and sweet creek other then neither one gets hatchery steelhead plants.

Quasi.

.

[Born to be Wild]

Ty, I didn’t say that you endorse everything your guide friends say.

I asked on a different thread why you always attempt to shoot down every scientific report that I post up or what I have learned from other biologist which is many.
You suggested (again on a different thread) that I should have an open mind and ignore the science or at least take it with a grain of salt.
But the science is overwhelming and report after report says that hatchery fish caused a decline in wild fish.
The reports don’t say that sport harvest has caused a decline in wild fish.

So I stated; It appears to me that you are avoiding or ignoring the science.
And if that be the case, could that be because you are satisfied with bonking hatchery fish and playing C&R with the nates?
I also stated that you have been posting pic’s of fishing adventures with some guides lately and most guides don’t want to hear negative reports and science on hatchery fish.
Just asking why you are so dead set against acknowledging the current reports on hatchery/wild interactions.
These are possibly your future Colleagues?

You made the comment prior to me asking you for an answer; "I am not taking one side or advocating one thing or another.....just trying to interject how to interpret and best utilize "good" science... ”.

So it appears to me that you are taking a neutral stance for whatever reason and attempting to discount me and the reports I post.
I think I can interpret the reports just fine from what the experts say whether it be the summary or discussions, thanks.
I just came across the Clackamas report today by Kathryn Kostow and you attempted to shoot holes in that one also!
I just don’t get it!

Regarding a “regime shift in 1997 and floods”, I think these fish have not faired well, well before the ’96 flood by looking at the graph.

Also I never said reducing the pressure on the wild Chinooks would be unpopular or a bad idea.
I said no wild harvest on Chinook on the coast would be very unpopular.
I would be dead set against it along with your guide friends I would think!
I would be for a reduced bag which I did mention but discussed prior on this board in the Tillamook Forest threads I don’t think the guides were to king on that one (no pun intended).

Also I’m glad that David Johnson is knowledgeable in fisheries and seems like a nice guy but I won’t pretend for one moment that he is as knowledgeable as most fisheries biologist that I have met and he is also a fishing guide which could subject his opinions as being biased.

Even the biologist that are in management have a difficult time with the anti-hatchery organizations pulling on them from one direction and the pro-hatchery groups from the other.
It’s a very political position and we can only hope that they make the right decision and not one that would be in the best interest of such a destructive group such as the Alsea Alliance for example.

This response by Jignfloat was very well said in my opinion:

THis would be in response to Ty,
I assume you intend to use your education.....by all means....If and when the time comes for you to be heard from by the general public, as in sportfishers...if a decision is to be made that may or may not be popular, try something new... like an explanation, not just a forced ram it down their throat approach. You may find yourself in position to influence fishing at sometime in the future. Within the state and federal governments there seems to be a lack of real people at this time. It doesnt appear as though politicians can make realistic or rational decisions...only influenced decisions.
I hope you are able to accomplish your goals regarding your education , and hope you recall how people like us feel about these issues we face today.
If fisheries is your direction, then get in there and do some good for all of us. It would be a welcome change.


Russ

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Dan

[Ty]

The Elk River on the South coast is generally known as the most southern North Mograting Stock of chinook... Hence there is a very importnat creel survey done down there by ODFW that is used by many fihseries agencies to help set commercial troll fisheries in Canada. So, it appears that all the other North migrating chinook stocks are haveing extremly big returns and Tillimook is suffering for reasons unknown... and will not pretent to know... Gary Susac out of the Corvallis research lab is where I would start with that office for further answers.

I never ignore current science....just approcah each study with a open mind and understand that what we learn is very dynamic and not static.. evolving over time and that immidate judgements and changes in management plans should be given careful consideration.

What I think and beleive is irrelevant to management in general in Oregon, hence I am not involved in it. However, I belive that the public... ie Ifish deserves to know the best current science and not just the highlights from one study or another study... but solid explainations of why the study results where affected by the project desing and or methods.

This is what I am talking about in careful consideration of science.... Not ignoring the results?

[ 03-04-2004, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: Ty ]

[Born to be Wild]

Freespool,

Which fish are you asking? Chinook?
If it is chinook you were asking about all the rivers mentioned migrate north up to B.C. and Alaska and encounter the same commercial fleets.

Quasi,

I have it on one of the threePC's I have been using but I do believe it was around 55,000 for the Siusalaw.
The little Yaquina River had estimated 25,000 if I recollect.

Don't think it would have anything to do with bar conditions there as these fish are C&R only in the ocean and they migrate and get intercepted by various user groups.
And that wouldn't explain the large return to the Yaquina River where their is a huge fleet.

Good ocean conditions, habitat restoration, lack of or reduced negative hatchery coho interactions, incidental mortality only (which is quite high) would be the major factors and not necessarrily in that order.

Dano

[ 03-05-2004, 07:59 AM: Message edited by: Born to be Wild ]

[Born to be Wild]

OK Quasi, I was off a slight bit.

Siusalaw 57,125 wild coho for 2002

Yaquina 25,039 wild coho for 2002

Some pretty impressive numbers and beeg enough for harvest.
Another year or two of those kind of numbers and many of us will be serving up wild coho for dinner once again.

I still haven't taken the time to look up the individual numbers for 2003 yet.

Dan

[Born to be Wild]

Just picked this up off the broodstock thread:

O.K. lets see how ODFW themselves are dealing with this same dilemma.

In 1999 ODFW began a STEP program on the Nestucca called the Rhoades Pond Program. This is a wild broodstock program for Fall Chinook. As part of their continuing re-assessment of STEP programs (and HB 2606) ODFW looked at the way this program was being done as well as the scientific reasons for having the program in the first place.

Rhoads Pond Review:
http://home.comcast.net/~lway3/Memorandum.doc

The same arguments that we are having here are taking place within ODFW. Each side will look at this review and see what they want. I see that ODFW themselves are trying to come to grips with just what a Wild broodstock is and when and where it should be used. :smile:

Regards
*** Clerk

(P.S. I did not hack or steal this memo, however it was only obtained after months of requests and was finally provided by the Oregon Attorney Generals Office) :grin:

[Born to be Wild]

Where are you getting your information? I see lots of stuff that totally conflicts with the stuff you put up! Ive seen numerous studies that have proven hatchery fish have no effect on wild fish! And Ive seen studies that show if a wild fish even gets close to a fish raised in a hatchery it will just roll over and die.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Willierower,

The information I am getting comes from scientific reports and graphs within ODFW, WDFW, and B.C. mostly.
There are no reports that prove hatchery fish have no effect on wild fish!
Quite the contrary, they all have shown declines in wild fish whether it was coho, chinook or steelhead.

This chart I posted is just another of many showing the trends of rivers with hatchery fish.
Some of you think it might have something to do with intense sports fishing.
Most bio's don't because the fish don't bite that well in the bays or rivers and most just slide on through.
Sure Tillamook is the pinnacle of sports fihing pressure and is "over crowded" in my opinion, but it does have 5 chinook rivers that empty in that bay also.

Yea it gets a little frustrating to me when I or someone else post a scientific report that states that hatchery steelhead caused the decline of the wild steelhead and guys like yourself say hogwash and ignore the science.
We've corrected some of our hatchery messes such as the Oregon coastal hatchery coho programs and eliminated the hatchery chinook programs we had on the central coast and are seeing the benefits from those actions, not the "sky falling" scenario that you or Jerry or some others would have us believe.

So if you see some scientific reports that totally conflict what I put up feel free to do so!

If you don't think the coinsidental hatchery programs in the Tillamook area and including the Nestucca and Nehalem are not causing the declines in the wild stocks, then show these charts to the "experts" and see what they can figure out!

Also Willerower, does it make much sense to you to keep dumping these spring and fall chinook into these basins where it is evedent that it isn't working?
Another example of counter productiveness?

Straydog, I was kind of wondering why the Siusalaw is doing so exceptionally well and considered at historical highs.
The thought crossed my mind whether the Knowles Creek restoration had anything to do with it or not or perhaps other factors.

Dano

[Quasimodo the fish killer]

I do not think that the knowels creek work has had much to do with the siuslaw stock fish other then some of the enhancment projects have been done on the suislaw in the upper stretches also. this could account for the increase in spawning habitat.

I have fished the siuslaw since I was a little kid and have talked with a few of the locals that were born on the river most will say that the suislaw used tro have a huge steelhead and coho run a small springer run with a very small fall chinook run .

I know the springer run is lmost non existant and the coho and steelhead runs have shrank year after year yet the fall chinook run keeps increasing in size.

I an not sure why that has happened it is most likely caused by the logging and the higher water temps in the summer time because of lack of shade. if I understand right chinook smolts blow right into the estuary where as coho and steelhead smolts hang in the river so the water temps could be causing the decrease with those 2 stocks. I can also see the higher temps causing the decline of spring salmon.

the logging in the area has moved away from the river and the shade trees are growing like mad hoepfully the other stocks that have declined will rebound soon also.

I personaly dont think that the increased chinooks or the recent rebound of the coho population has anything to do with the fact that they arent suplimented by hatchery fish. I think it has to do with the enhancment on the river and streams and on the fact that the river valley was butchered many years ago and is now back to a point where it provides shade for the river and keeps the water temp down to a survivable level.

I have not fished the tillimook rivers and I have only been to the area once in my life so I have no idea of how the area is logged. I do know that it has much more fishing pressure then the rivers down here do. the siuslaw isnt a large river I do not think it could handle the pressure the tilly area rivers get with out the bottom falling out of the runs. where the siuslaw differes from tilly streams is the fact that its basically a tide water fisherie; the fish are generally black and non edible by the time they get up the river unless we have lots of early rain. maybe that is one of the contributing factors to the increase of run size when the northern rivers are decreasing.

Quasi.

.

[Quasimodo the fish killer]

I never would have guessed the number to be that high.

I know it had a good run of fish I remember back when we could fish for them having a few 30 fish days playing catch and release in the river but man that is a heck of a lot of fish.

I would love to see them open it up one day but since all the other rivers along the coast arent doing as well I fear if they do the pressure will be overwhelming and the run will be over fished so hopefully they will keep protecting it.

also I could be wrong but seems like last fall when I was down on the elk river the hatchery board said the fish went south to feed instead of north along with the chetco and sixes rivers fish like I said I could be wrong and I am not trying discount tye I just always thought those 3 rivers fish migrated south. I also think that the elk and sixes rivers numbers are climbing in part because they are like the umpqua and have good escapement because of high water days compared to fishable days.

I believe there are many factors why some rivers are rebounding and others arent , water conditions of the river , fishing pressure are a couple I think that alot of the rivers get fished when they should be closed because of low water conditions the siuslaw is one of them. anglers line up at the head of tide water and fish the siuslaw hard 99% of the fish up there are black as coal and have no table value at all but people still catch and kill them. I know most coastal rivers are the same way. it sickens me to see the egg hunters out there stripping the row and pitching the fish in the brush beside the boat ramp. I honestly think that if ODFW would make closure lines at the upper ends of tide water untill the rivers reached a decent fishable height that would help out a lot.

I know they have something in place on the chetco and on the yachats to protect the fish on low water years. fishing for tar babies that are kegged up at the head of tide water should be a no no state wide.

Quasi

.

[ChinookSlayer]

Originally posted by Born to be Wild:

We've corrected some of our hatchery messes such as the Oregon coastal hatchery coho programs and eliminated the hatchery chinook programs we had on the central [/QB]

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Programs were eliminated not for scientific reasons to increase wild runs, it was purely financial. Money speaks. That is the only thing goverment understands. If you believe otherwise, then why is there still such a debate on the Columbia?
:whazzup:

[rob allen]

looks like long term decline for the tillimook and nestucca areas.. which are also the most heavily fished.. hmmmm maybe it's time for a reduction in limits on thoes streams and in the bay

[Ty]

Again.... Elk River is the most southern river on the coast of northern migrating chinook......

Again.... Elk River is the most southern river on the coast of northern migrating chinook......

[Chilly one]

I AGREE with Quasi regarding the taking of the fall Chinook in low water conditions that we have EVERYfall! It's predictable and only makes sense to allow these fish to be able to be UNHARRASSED while they are laying in the tide sections and turning color. They have traveled downriver as a fry/smolt into the Ocean and dodged their deaths there and have proven their strength to "come home" to spawn and that's when they should be left alone and be rewarded their life cycle of SPAWNING! Come on ODFW!

Keep the Chrome!


"Happiness is a Bent Rod!"

Chillyone

[WillFish]

Ty-

I'm curious. Where did you get the info on the Elk being the southernmost river of north-migrating chinook? I thought I remembered the split being either the Umpqua or the Siuslaw.

[Born to be Wild]

Wrong answer ChinookSlayer!

The coastal hatchery coho programs were cut from approx. 1 million smolt per river per year to 200,000/100,000 back in the 90’s when the OCN’s were headed for the ESA. Fall Creek was completely closed with the Alsea basin wild coho stocks only numbering around a couple hundred fish.
It was around that time approx. 6-8 years ago when I started looking for answers from ODFW as I realized most fishermen didn’t have a clue as to what they were talking about.

I was dissapointed about loosing some of our hatchery coho programs and went looking for answers.
I was directed to Kevin Goodson and Bob Buckman ODFW South Beach near where I lived.
Through these two bio’s I learned that the wild coho stocks were in dire straights and given some protection, alleviating the negative influences brought on by hatchery coho stocks and given some time these very resilient fish and would rebound.
Of course they were rebounding rather slowly during the El ‘Nino years but they were rebounding.
The Yaquina River stocks had rebounded from just a few hundred to some 5,000 in ’96 just in time for the devastating flood of that same year to start us all over again.

I preached this upon deaf ears for several years in Depoe Bay and Newport and was laughed at, mocked, scorned.
“Oh we’ll never see an ocean coho season again in our life time”, said some of the charters.
“There isn’t no such thing as a wild fish”, said the charters.
And of course you know who the general public believed!

But in early 2003 the numbers of the OCN’s from 2002 were released and at approx. 300,000 (ocean abundance) they were the highest in 50 years or so which predated the big massive hatchery mistake of the 70’s and 80’s!
I had the last laugh. And it felt good!

Brad,
Actually there isn’t a link as far as I know for the second updated graph, I just called Steve Jacobs and asked if there was an updated version and he emailed it to me at my request.

posted 03-04-2004 01:39 PM


Gary K,

Here would be the person to ask that question:

Steve Jacobs

Leader, Coastal Salmonid Inventory Project

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

28655 Highway 34

Corvallis, Or 97333

(541) 757-4263 x261

jacobss@fsl.orst.edu

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The first graph is the same one I have posted a couple times in the last year including a year ago when some of the guides were in denial about the Chinook runs on the Tillamook Forest thread.
It is located here on page 25.

http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/ODFW/spa...al%20draft.pdf

3) The person who did the study is afraid of the guides and sporting goods stores kidnapping and torturing his wife and kids.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">ooh, good one UG! :grin:

By the way Bradly, you still haven’t found anything contradictory that shows that hatchery fish are not a negative influence on wild fish, broodstock or otherwise.

You and Outlaw tried to convince the ifish readers that those were not wild hatchery broodstock fish in Chilcote’s report which we proved you two were wrong.
I just got off the phone with Mark Chilcote.
Nice guy and a real pleasure to talk to. Very informative and doesn’t have all the answers especially what mechanism is causing the wild broodstock fish to be so different than wild fish.
He not only verified that the report used wild broodstock but most of the fish studied were not the domestic hatchery fish.
As the report stated hatchery broodstock fish have the same negative effects on wild fish as do the domestic stocks.
I sent him your supposed contradiction between him and Kathryn Kostow and he is going to take a look at it because he was familliar with her report and doesn't think there was anything contradictory there.

That reminds me, did you look at the ODFW memorandum that *** posted and I reposted?

Rhoads Pond Review:
http://home.comcast.net/~lway3/Memorandum.doc

What’s up with that?
100,000 smolt Chinook from 25 or less pairs of wild Chinook?
Now that’s really biologically sound!

“The implementation of a fisheries enhancement program using local broodstock could potentially impact wild populations in number of ways throughout the life cycle of the fall Chinook”.

“The addition of 100,000 hatchery-raised smolts has the potential to add to competition for food and space in critical habitat for fall Chinook. In addition, if hatchery raised smolts are significantly larger than naturally produced smolts the competitive advantage only increases”.

Kind of sounds like the same old things we have been attempting to inform you and Outlaw about on the broodstock thread, eh?

“Unfortunately with the proposed 50% mark rate using a maxillary clip”

50% proposed mark rate?

Good God, who’s running the show up there, ODFW or Tillamook Anglers? :shocked: :whazzup:



Dano

[ 03-05-2004, 07:54 PM: Message edited by: Born to be Wild ]

[Uglygreen]

So if you see some scientific reports that totally conflict what I put up feel free to do so!

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yeah Dan, I have done that - you will just say:

1) The person who did the study is an idiot and shouldn't be believed.

2) The person who did the study is politically motivated.

3) The person who did the study is afraid of the guides and sporting goods stores kidnapping and torturing his wife and kids.

UG

[Uglygreen]

Also - where did you get your graphs? Please provide link.

Thanks,

Brad

[willametteriveroutlaw]

Proved me wrong??? hardly.. One 6 year section on one stream that was not delinieated from the rest of the nearly 25 year study on several different river systems, nor were the outcomes from that section noted differently instead lumped in with 25 years of data..Dan how can you get off protraying yourself as a the leader on these issue because you have no biological background and are basically just an average joe with too much time on his hands. Oh yeah and a telephone to call the "experts" who couldn't possibly be biased either in their own way.
The basic problem is that you don't spend enough time on the river to understand the consequences of your "great ideas" like native steelhead retention on the nestucca. Or the fact that their are way more native steelhead on the siletz than there were pre broodstock. As for the nestucca idea, It would be a disaster.. There would be a major overharvest. just beacuse you don't like C & R fishing doesn't mean that a large group of us don't. It would spoil a great fishery by making it a hillbilly meat fest. (I know this is a little off topic but it is a response to your stance as a whole)

[ 03-06-2004, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: willametteriveroutlaw ]

[Born to be Wild]

Outlaw, where you were wrong is you tried to deny or decieve, whichever, that the broodstock in the report were not broodstock. Several times!

You were wrong!
They were Broodstock!

Try and weasel your way out once again but it will fail!

Dano

[Salmonator]

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

[Born to be Wild]

Yea right Salmonator, base your science and future on a WRO and guides instead of sound science and applaud them!

Go ahead and clap some more as your fisheries for the most part have been on a decline and problematic and will continue to do so if we choose your barstool biological methods.

If you haven't happened to notice your fisheries have been very problematic since the hatchery adventure!

Maybe you haven't taken the time to figure that one out?

Joe Blow

[Salmonator]

Hmmm, looks like a nerve got touched! And in the meantime, I will still fish my favorite river full of big mean broodstock steelhead with a healthy serving of nates thrown in! [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[Ty]

Dano...

Even with out fisheries....... Fisheries recovery would still have a long and rocky journey to recovery.......

[willametteriveroutlaw]

I am sorry, I misquoted 1.6% (6/354) of the study (which btw wasn't even referenced in a seperate part of the chilcote study). If only 1.6% of the study dealed with true broodstocks does that make it a viable source of information? Even if there was no seperate study to delineate the broodstock portion of the study?
Dan you are right on a techincality, (print this off and put it on your fridgerator and count it as a win if you want [img]graemlins/program.gif[/img] ) but a rather insignificant one because it isn't noted or studied as seperate data. Its like saying that 6 people got law degrees out of a group of 354 highschool graduates, but were still gonna count how those 6 do with the rest of them when figuring out their average income. (hint in that big of a group its not going to make a significant shift in the results) ..

[willametteriveroutlaw]

Originally posted by Born to be Wild:

Go ahead and clap some more as your fisheries for the most part have been on a decline and problematic and will continue to do so if we choose your barstool biological methods.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Well ain't that the pot calling the kettle black.. Dano List off your "qualifications and schooling" in this matter that makes your opinion so much more valid than anyone elses?

[Pete]

I think we can all take a step back, refocus on the issues and the data and leave the personal side of it by the wayside, OK?

[Salmonator]

whoa, deja vu

[ 03-06-2004, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Salmonator ]

[6horsekicker]

It seems to me that all the rivers seem to rise during the same periods and decline in the same periods together. I think that the Oceans conditions have a much greater impact on returning fish then the hatcheries.

I agree that brood stock programs would be the best, but since about 10 percent of all fish from every river stray, you never know what you’re getting anyway. Even wild fish end up coming back into hatcheries. The whole coastline has been diluted for years.

I believe that if the Ocean conditions continue to be as productive for the bait fish as they have been for the last 2-3 years, that your continue to see record levels of returns in all the rivers with or without a hatchery, that is as long as we still continue to keep the streams clean.

-6horse.